Acknowledgment Disclaimer

Acknowledgment
Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Virginia Department of Rail and Public
Transportation, and the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Disclaimer
The contents of this report reflect the views of the Richmond Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization. The Richmond Regional Planning District Commission is responsible for the facts
and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official
views or policies of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA), the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT), the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) or the Richmond Regional Planning District
Commission. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
The FHWA, FTA, VDRPT, or VDOT acceptance of this report as evidence of fulfillment
of the objectives of this planning study does not constitute endorsement/approval of the need for
any recommended improvements nor does it constitute approval of their location and design or a
commitment to fund any such improvements. Additional project level environmental impact
assessments and/or studies of alternatives may be necessary.
As each of the projects in the LRTP is implemented, coordination, agreement and
independent approval of the participating local jurisdiction is required. No part of this LRTP is
to be interpreted as to diminish the authority of local jurisdictions in the area of land use and
transportation improvements.
II

MPO Page
III

Table of Contents
Chapter I- Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3
Purpose........................................................................................................................................ 3
Background................................................................................................................................. 4
The Richmond Area Metropolitan Planning Organization......................................................... 5
MPO Study Area......................................................................................................................... 7
Public Participation................................................................................................................... 10
Chapter II- Planning Framework and Requirements .................................................................... 13
Purpose...................................................................................................................................... 13
The Planning Factors ................................................................................................................ 14
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century ................................................................. 16
Transportation Improvement Program.................................................................................. 17
Funding ................................................................................................................................. 18
The Clean Air Act Amendments............................................................................................... 21
Conformity............................................................................................................................ 22
Transportation Control Measures ......................................................................................... 23
Highway Funding Sanctioning ............................................................................................. 23
The National Energy Policy...................................................................................................... 24
Alternative Fuels................................................................................................................... 24
Fleet Requirements ............................................................................................................... 24
Americans with Disabilities Act ............................................................................................... 25
Title I – Employment............................................................................................................ 25
Title II – Public Services....................................................................................................... 25
Title III – Public Accommodations and Services Operated by Private Entities................... 26
Title IV – Telecommunications Relay Services ................................................................... 26
Title V – Miscellaneous Provisions ...................................................................................... 26
Chapter III- Socioeconomic Characteristics ................................................................................. 28
Purpose...................................................................................................................................... 28
Population & Households ......................................................................................................... 29
Economy ................................................................................................................................... 39
Jobs Created in the Planning District by Type & Percentage: 1970 – 1998............................. 39
Land Use Characteristics .......................................................................................................... 46
Environmental Justice............................................................................................................... 49
Chapter IV- Public Input............................................................................................................... 56
Introduction............................................................................................................................... 56
Citizen Participation.................................................................................................................. 56
MPO Committee and Task Force Review ................................................................................ 57
Survey Results .......................................................................................................................... 57
Survey Responses: Chesterfield Meeting ............................................................................ 57
Survey Responses: Henrico County..................................................................................... 60
Survey Responses: Richmond.............................................................................................. 62
Survey Responses: CTAC.................................................................................................... 67
Survey Responses: Non-Profit Organizations ..................................................................... 69
Chapter V- Highway Element- Data Collection ........................................................................... 75
IV

Introduction............................................................................................................................... 75
Travel Demand Forecasting...................................................................................................... 75
Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 75
V/C Ratios............................................................................................................................. 76
Vehicle Occupancy Rates ..................................................................................................... 77
Travel-time and Speed Runs................................................................................................. 80
Data Analysis............................................................................................................................ 83
V/C Analysis......................................................................................................................... 83
VOR Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 83
Travel-Time and Speed Analysis.......................................................................................... 83
Highway Improvements............................................................................................................ 84
Projects List .......................................................................................................................... 84
ITS Projects........................................................................................................................... 84
Air Quality Conformity............................................................................................................. 85
Chapter VI- Existing Conditions and Data Analysis: Public Transportation .............................. 87
Introduction............................................................................................................................... 87
Fixed Route System Analysis ................................................................................................... 88
City of Richmond...................................................................................................................... 88
Chesterfield County .................................................................................................................. 89
Hanover County........................................................................................................................ 93
Henrico County......................................................................................................................... 93
Transfer Centers........................................................................................................................ 94
Paratransit Service .................................................................................................................... 94
New Technologies and Service Techniques ............................................................................. 95
Public Transportation Services in Rural Counties.................................................................... 95
Charles City County.................................................................................................................. 96
New Kent County ..................................................................................................................... 97
Goochland County .................................................................................................................... 97
Powhatan County...................................................................................................................... 97
Chapter VII- Existing Conditions and Data Analysis: Transportation Demand Management.. 100
Introduction............................................................................................................................. 100
Carpool Programs ................................................................................................................... 100
Description of Strategy ....................................................................................................... 100
Implementation Issues ........................................................................................................ 101
Vanpool Programs .................................................................................................................. 102
Description of Strategy ....................................................................................................... 102
Implementation Issues ........................................................................................................ 105
Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities and Site Improvements............................................................. 105
Description of Strategy ....................................................................................................... 105
Implementation Issues ........................................................................................................ 106
Bicycle Planning in the Richmond Region............................................................................. 109
Employer Complementary Support Measures........................................................................ 114
Description of Strategy ....................................................................................................... 114
Preferential HOV Treatments ................................................................................................. 117
Description of Strategy ....................................................................................................... 117
Implementation Issues ........................................................................................................ 118
V

Economic Incentives............................................................................................................... 119
Description of Strategy ....................................................................................................... 119
Implementation Issues ........................................................................................................ 122
Parking Supply and Pricing Management............................................................................... 124
Description of Strategy ....................................................................................................... 124
Implementation Issues ........................................................................................................ 127
Variable Work Hours/Compressed Work Weeks................................................................... 131
Description of Strategy ....................................................................................................... 131
Implementation Issues ........................................................................................................ 132
Teleworking ............................................................................................................................ 133
Description of Strategy ....................................................................................................... 133
Implementation Issues ........................................................................................................ 134
Chapter VIII- Existing Conditions and Data Analysis: Intermodal........................................... 137
Introduction............................................................................................................................. 137
Rail Facilities .......................................................................................................................... 137
Truck Movements ................................................................................................................... 138
Inland Port Facilities............................................................................................................... 139
Regional Transfer Facilities.................................................................................................... 142
Freight Flow In the Richmond Petersburg Area..................................................................... 143
Airports ................................................................................................................................... 146
Richmond International Airport.......................................................................................... 146
Chesterfield County Airport ............................................................................................... 147
Hanover County Airport ..................................................................................................... 147
New Kent County Airport................................................................................................... 148
Chapter IX- Richmond Area MPO Long-Range Transportation Plan Goals and Objectives .... 151
Chapter X- Richmond Area Highway Network Element ........................................................... 156
Items Beyond MPO Control That, If Addressed, Could Enhance Plan Success .................... 156
Introduction............................................................................................................................. 156
Highway Element Plan Components ...................................................................................... 157
Considerations for Local Governments .................................................................................. 160
Chapter XI- Richmond Area Transit Element ............................................................................ 163
Items Beyond MPO Control That, If Addressed, Could Enhance Plan Success .................... 163
Introduction............................................................................................................................. 163
Public Transportation Element Plan Components .................................................................. 164
Considerations For Local Governments ................................................................................. 170
Chapter XII- Richmond Area Transportation Demand Management Element .......................... 173
Items Beyond MPO Control That, If Addressed, Could Enhance Plan Success .................... 173
Introduction............................................................................................................................. 173
Plan Component- Transportation Demand Management ....................................................... 175
Considerations For Local Governments ................................................................................. 181
Chapter XIII- Richmond Area Intermodal Element ................................................................... 184
Items Beyond MPO Control That, If Addressed, Could Enhance Plan Success .................... 184
Introduction............................................................................................................................. 184
Intermodal Element Plan Components ................................................................................... 185
Considerations for Local Governments .................................................................................. 189
Chapter XIV- Congestion Management System (CMS) Element .............................................. 191
VI

Purpose.................................................................................................................................... 191
Background............................................................................................................................. 191
Area of Application................................................................................................................. 192
CMS Network ......................................................................................................................... 192
Highway Network............................................................................................................... 192
Regional Transit Network................................................................................................... 193
Other Regional Modes ........................................................................................................ 193
Performance Measures............................................................................................................ 193
Data Collection and Monitoring Plan ..................................................................................... 194
CMS Strategies ....................................................................................................................... 194
Implementation of Strategies .................................................................................................. 195
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Implemented Strategies ................................................... 195
Recommendations for Future CMS ........................................................................................ 196
Chapter XV- Financial Element.................................................................................................. 199
Purpose.................................................................................................................................... 199
Background............................................................................................................................. 199
Funding Projections/ Cost Estimates ...................................................................................... 199
Financial Summary ................................................................................................................. 200
Chapter XVI- Appendices........................................................................................................... 204
Appendix A – Final Draft LRTP Public Review Process Documentation ............................. 205
Overview............................................................................................................................. 205
Long-Range Transportation Plan Task Force..................................................................... 206
Citizen Comments on Draft Long Range Transportation Plan........................................... 207
Comments by CTAC Members on Draft Long Range Transportation Plan....................... 216
Comments Received From the Southern Environmental Law Center................................ 223
Appendix B: Chesterfield County Private and Local Funds Justification ............................. 233
Staff Analysis...................................................................................................................... 234
Appendix C – Air Quality Conformity Analysis Results ....................................................... 253
VII

List of Figures
Figure I-1: Membership Organizations........................................................................................... 6
Map I-2: Richmond MPO Study Area............................................................................................ 9
Table III-2: Population and Households...................................................................................... 30
Map III-3: 1998 Population Density Map III-4: 2023 Population Density ................................ 31
Map III-4: 2023 Population Density............................................................................................ 32
Map III-5: Change in Population Density 1998-2023 ................................................................. 33
Map III-6: 1998 Household Density............................................................................................ 34
Map III-7: 2023 Household Density............................................................................................ 35
Map III-8: Change in Household Density 1998-2023 ................................................................. 36
Figure III-9: Population in 1998 .................................................................................................. 37
Figure III-10: Households in 1998............................................................................................... 37
Figure III-11: Population in 2023 ................................................................................................ 37
Figure III-11: Population in 2023 ................................................................................................ 38
Figure III-12: 2023 Households................................................................................................... 38
Table III-13: Jobs Created in Richmond Area.............................................................................. 39
Table III-14: Regional Employment Composition ...................................................................... 40
Figure III-15: Change in Employment 1998-2023 ...................................................................... 40
Table III-16: Employment By Jurisdiction.................................................................................. 41
Figure III-17: 1998 Richmond Area Employment By Jurisdiction ............................................. 42
Figure III-18: 2023 Richmond Area Employment By Jurisdiction ............................................. 42
Map III-19: 1998 Employment Density....................................................................................... 43
Map III-20: 2023 Employment Density....................................................................................... 44
Map III-21: Change in Employment Density 1998-2023............................................................ 45
Map III-22: Future Land Use and Constrained Projects.............................................................. 47
Map III-23: 1990 Minority Population ........................................................................................ 51
Map III-24: 1990 Poverty Population.......................................................................................... 52
Table V-1: Descriptions of V/C Ratios....................................................................................... 76
Figure V-2: Vehicle Occupancy Survey Locations ..................................................................... 78
Figure V-3a: Morning Peak Period (6:30 AM - 9:00 AM)........................................................... 79
Figure V-3b: Evening Peak Period (3:00 PM - 6:00 PM)............................................................. 79
Figure V-4: Vehicle Distribution for the Year 2000..................................................................... 80
Table V-5: Classification Counts for Combined Morning and Evening Periods ........................ 80
Table V-6: Travel-Time and Speed Data..................................................................................... 81
Table VI-1: Existing GRTCS Bus Routes ................................................................................... 90
Map VI-2: Existing Bus Routes................................................................................................... 92
Map VII-1: Ridefinders Scatter Plot.......................................................................................... 103
Map VII-2: Existing State Bicycle Routes................................................................................. 112
Map VII-3: Existing and Planned Bike Routes.......................................................................... 113
Map VII-3: Existing and Planned Bike Routes.......................................................................... 113
Map VII-3: Park and Ride Lots ................................................................................................. 130
Map VIII-1: Existing Intermodal Facilities ............................................................................... 141
Figure VIII-2: Total Freight Flows in Richmond Region.......................................................... 144
Figure X-1: Maps and Charts of Proposed Highway Projects by Jurisdiction .......................... 161
Figure XI-1: Map and Lists of Proposed Transit Improvements............................................... 171
VIII

Table XV-1: Estimated Available Funds for Richmond Area Transportation Projects ............ 201
Table XV-2: Projected Cost Versus Projected Allocations ....................................................... 202
Map B-1: Chesterfield County Thoroughfares .......................................................................... 252
Figure C-1: Results of Air Quality Conformity Analysis.......................................................... 254
IX

FREQUENTLY USED MPO TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
MPO
NAAQS
SIP
Study Area
"3-C" Process
TCM
TDM
TIP
Metropolitan Planning Organization. The Richmond Area MPO's membership includes the
following local governments and agencies: Ashland, Charles City, Chesterfield, Goochland,
Hanover, Henrico, New Kent, Powhatan, Richmond, CRAC, GRTC, RMA, RRPDC, VDOT,
Ridefinders, FHWA, FTA, and VDA; serves as the forum for cooperative transportation
decision making in the Richmond area.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards; defined by EPA.
State Implementation Plan; identifies control measures and process for achieving and
maintaining NAAQS; eligible for CMAQ funding.
The area projected to become urbanized within the next 20 years; defines the area for MPO
plans, programs, and studies.
("Continuing, Cooperative and Comprehensive”) Language from federal legislation
establishing MPOs and used in reference to the regional transportation planning and
programming process.
Transportation Control Measures (for Air Quality Control); eligible for CMAQ funding.
Traffic Demand Management; various traffic control strategies and measures used in
managing highway demand.
Transportation Improvement Program; a staged, multiyear, intermodal program of
transportation projects that is consistent with the transportation plan.
Transportation Plan
The MPO's adopted Long-Range Transportation Plan; serves as the
initial step and framework in developing a regionally based network of transportation
facilities and services that meets travel needs in the most efficient and effective manner
possible.
TAZ (Transportation or Traffic Analysis Zone)
Generally defined as areas of homogeneous activity served by one or
two major highways. TAZs serve as the base unit for socioeconomic data characteristics used
in various plans and studies.
Urbanized Area
UWP
VOC
Term used by the U.S. Census Bureau to designate urban areas. These areas generally contain
population densities of at least 1,000 persons per square mile in a continuously built-up area
of at least 50,000 persons. Factors such as commercial and industrial development, and other
types and forms of urban activity centers are also considered.
Unified Work Program; MPO's program of work activities noting planning priorities, assigned
staffs, work products, budgets, and funding sources.
Volatile Organic Compounds; emissions from cars, power plants, etc; when VOCs react with
oxides of nitrogen (Nox) in the presence of heat and sunlight to produce ground level ozone
or smog.
X

MPO STANDING COMMITTEES
CTAC
EDAC
TAC
Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee
Elderly and Disabled Advisory Committee
Technical Advisory Committee
FEDERAL STATE AND REGIONAL AGENCIES
CRAC
EPA
FAA
FHWA
FRA
FTA
GRTC
MRAQC
Ridefinders
MARAD
RMA
RRPDC
USDOT
VDA
VDEQ
VDOT
VDRPT
VTRC
Capital Region Airport Commission
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Aviation Administrators
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Greater Richmond Transit Company
Metropolitan Richmond Air Quality Committee
A public, nonprofit corporation that provides carpool/vanpool
matching and other commuter and transportation services.
Maritime Administration
Richmond Metropolitan Authority
Richmond Regional Planning District Commission
United States Department of Transportation
Virginia Department of Aviation
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Virginia Department of Transportation
Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation
Virginia Transportation Research Council
FEDERAL LEGISLATION
ADA of 1990
CAAA of 1990
Americans With Disabilities Act
Clean Air Act Amendments
XI

TEA-21
Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century; signed into law on June 9, 1998. Authorizes
federal funds for highway, highway safety, transit, and other surface transportation programs
for the next six years. Builds on and continues many of the initiatives established in the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991.
FUNDING PROGRAMS
SPR
Local Match
PL
CMAQ
Section 5303
TEIF
State Planning and Research; funds allocated to VDOT in support of MPO program activities.
Funds required by recipients of PL and Section 5303 funds for matching federal and state
grant funds. Section 5303 and PL funds require a 10% match, with VDOT/VDRPT providing
10% and the remaining 80% provided by the federal source.
Planning funds available from FHWA for MPO program activities.
Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality funds also available for eligible planning activities leading
to project implementation.
Planning funds available from the FTA for MPO program activities.
Transportation Efficiency Improvement Fund; purpose of program is to reduce traffic
congestion by supporting transportation demand management programs designed to reduce
use of single occupant vehicles and increase use of high occupancy vehicle modes; operated
by the Commonwealth Transportation Board.
OTHER TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACG
ADT
CAO
CMS
COA
CTB
Address Coding Guide
Average Daily Traffic; used in conjunction with current and projected traffic volumes.
Chief Administrative Officer
Congestion Management System
Comprehensive Operational Analysis
Commonwealth Transportation Board
FY Fiscal Year (July 1 to June 30)
GIS
MSA
NHS
RFP
Geographic Information System
Metropolitan Statistical Area. The Richmond/Petersburg MSA includes the cities of Colonial
Heights, Hopewell, Petersburg, and Richmond; the counties of Charles City, Chesterfield,
Dinwiddie, Goochland, Hanover, Henrico, New Kent, Powhatan, and Prince George; and the
Town of Ashland.
National Highway System
Request for Proposals; process used for reviewing and selecting proposals for consultant
study activities (goods and non-professional services).
XII

RFQ
SOV
Request for Quotes (Consultant Services).
Single Occupant Vehicles
CARE Community Assisted Ride Enterprise; program operated by GRTC providing
demand-response paratransit service for the elderly and disabled in the City of Richmond and
Henrico County.
STP
TDP
TMA
VMT
Surface Transportation Program
Transit Development Program
Transportation Management Area (i.e., MPO’s greater than 200,000 in population)
Vehicle Miles Traveled
XIII

2023 LRTP
Part 1
1

2023 LRTP
Chapter I
Introduction
2

Chapter I-Introduction
Purpose
The development of a sound transportation network is an important component of any
metropolitan area’s social, economic, and physical framework. Basic mobility needs of the local
population cannot be accomplished without a network of roadways, transit routes, pedestrian and
bicycle paths, paratransit services, transportation demand management options, and other
systems that enhance movement of people. Often these ways, routes, paths, services, options,
and systems can be contained on the same facility, providing local residents multi-modal options
to make all types of work, social, recreational, and educational trips. As the population and
composition of the Richmond region becomes more diverse, the transportation system must
diversify to ensure adequate access and multiple mobility choices for the residents of the region.
In addition to ensuring the efficient movement of people throughout the region, it is equally
important to provide for transportation choices for the movement of goods. The need for fast
and efficient connectivity of goods to roadways, air terminals, ports, and truck terminals must be
met to ensure a strong and vibrant local economy. The complexity of these connections
continues to evolve in the Richmond region. Often, the transportation network must
accommodate the transfer of goods from one mode to another. Thus the transportation system
must integrate intermodal connectivity into the framework of the Richmond region’s
transportation network.
A high-quality transportation network that can ensure the efficient movement of people and
goods cannot be accomplished without a well thought out long-range plan. The 2023 Long-
Range Transportation Plan for the Richmond region serves as the initial step and framework in
developing a regionally based network of transportation facilities and services that meets these
travel needs in the most efficient and effective manner possible. The plan is developed by a
Long-Range Transportation Task Force through a process of review, comment, and revision until
all local jurisdictions are satisfied that the plan best meets the needs of the region. Local
government comprehensive plans provide a starting point because they identify the location of
future growth and development. Local governments, major transportation user groups, and
transportation service providers then examine needs to determine how the transportation network
will accommodate this growth and development. The plan then seeks to identify transportation
facilities and services that will be needed to maintain safe and efficient mobility and access to
meet the needs of the future. Once a list of projects is compiled, the lists are submitted for public
review and comment. With lists and comments received, the Long-Range Transportation Task
Force then reviews the information, determines expected funding for the plan horizon, and
revises the list to meet air quality, financial constraint, and public input requirements.
3

Background
The 1990s brought major change to the way the nation and state and local jurisdictions addressed
transportation needs. The focus of the transportation network shifted away from a purely
highway construction program to one that sought a balanced transportation program that
provided multi-modal travel options. In addition, a direct cause and effect relationship was
established between transportation and deteriorating air quality in many metropolitan areas. As a
result, the United States Congress passed two far-reaching legislative packages to ensure that
transportation planning and attainment of air quality goals were explicitly linked. As a result,
transportation planning goals in the Richmond region must consider not only mobility, but
efficient movement of people and goods, intermodal travel opportunities, and improved air
quality as well.
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) are responsible for significantly restructuring the transportation
planning process in the Richmond region. Among the major changes are:
! The consolidation of dozens of formerly separate highway programs
! A substantial increase in authorized funding for transportation
! A strengthened role for local officials in planning, decision-making, and the use of
federal funds
! Stronger links required between local transportation investment and the environmental,
economic, and developmental consequences of those decisions, particularly in relation to
air quality
In order to receive federal funds, roadway construction or other roadway capacity enhancements
must show that the completed project will result in improved air quality. To achieve this, a
region must have as one of its goals a balanced transportation system that provides mobility
options across all potential travel modes. To achieve the precepts of ISTEA, the United States
Department of Transportation (USDOT) developed a set of 16 planning factors for metropolitan
areas to consider when devising long-range transportation plans. These planning factors will be
discussed later in this document.
In addition to these planning changes, ISTEA also established a new direction for transportation
programming across the country. For the first time, metropolitan areas were asked to develop a
seamless intermodal transportation network that improves air quality and is energy efficient.
These metropolitan programs would then be linked to state plans and ultimately a national
system that would provide a multi-modal transportation network for the entire country. As part
of this plan, ISTEA sought to improve public transportation options by providing new
opportunities for innovative and new transit programs and allowed highway program funds to be
shifted to mass transit projects. The strength of the new national system would include not only
roads but also an integrated set of transportation systems, facilities, and services that would form
an interconnected national transportation network.
Developing a national network whose progress was measured in terms of accessibility to and
between various high capacity, fuel-efficient and environmentally sensitive transportation modes
4

was a significant departure from a forty year era in which progress was measured by miles of
highway pavement. During that time, investments in highways and public transportation
occurred through independent and unrelated federal assistance programs. This meant that these
systems were designed independently of each other. As the lessons learned from oil embargoes,
gas crises, suburban development, and corporate relocation in the 1970s and 1980s were
absorbed, it became clear that the national transportation system needed to focus on additional
modes to ensure adequate mobility. With the CAAA and ISTEA legislation, Congress took the
important first steps to change that focus.
In 1998, Congress reiterated its stance that the nation needed a more balanced transportation
system when it adopted the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA-21). While
maintaining much of the structure of the landmark ISTEA legislation, TEA-21 reduced the
number of specified management systems required in large metropolitan areas; reduced the
number of planning factors from sixteen to seven; and strengthened the link between air quality
programs, growth management, and transportation systems. In addition, the new transportation
legislation continued the flexible funding allowance, modified the states’ funding formulas to
ensure minimum allocations per dollar provided, and increased transit and other alternative
funding provisions to better achieve the desired balanced transportation system.
Funding from TEA-21 spending provisions generally flow from the federal government to the
Commonwealth of Virginia. The Commonwealth then determines how the federal allocations
will be apportioned to each of its metropolitan areas and Virginia Department of Transportation
construction districts.
The Richmond Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Federal transportation funding is granted to metropolitan areas and the federal government has
mandated that transportation decision-making in these metropolitan areas be “continuing,
cooperative, and comprehensive” (also known as the “3C” planning process). Each state
designates a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) to develop transportation plans and
programs for each of its metropolitan areas receiving funds. Because many metropolitan areas
encompass several jurisdictions, each with their own comprehensive plans and transportation
programs, designating one community to serve as the MPO for an area can be problematic. To
ensure that each jurisdiction within the metropolitan area receives equal consideration in
transportation decision making, many states have designated a regional planning commission or
district to serve as the MPO.
The Richmond area MPO is made up of local elected officials and technical staff from each of
the region’s nine member jurisdictions. Membership in the MPO also includes state and federal
transportation agencies, area transportation service/system operators, and the Richmond
Regional Planning District Commission (RRPDC) (see Figure 1). The RRPDC serves as lead
staff providing administrative and technical services for the MPO. In addition, the Virginia
Department of Transportation and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation
provide additional technical support. The MPO serves as the forum for cooperative regional
decision-making. Collectively, it develops the region’s transportation plans and programs, which
is a prerequisite for the allocation of federal-aid highway and transit funds. The development of
5

an efficient and effective multi-modal transportation network is essential for the region if it is to
sustain a strong economy, clean environment, and high quality of life standards.
Figure I-1: Membership Organizations
Richmond Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Voting Members (Jurisdictions)
Voting Members (Agencies)
County of Charles City (1)* Capital Region Airport Commission (1)
County of Chesterfield (4) Greater Richmond Transit Company (1)
County of Goochland (2) Richmond Metropolitan Authority (1)
County of Hanover (3)
Richmond Regional Planning District
County of Henrico (4) Commission (1)
County of New Kent (2) Virginia Department of Transportation (1)
County of Powhatan (2)
City of Richmond (4)
Town of Ashland (1)
Non-Voting Members
Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee Chairman (1)
Federal Highway Administration (1)
Federal Transit Administration (1)
MPO Chairman’s Citizen Appointees (2)
Ridefinders, Inc. (1)
Virginia Department of Aviation (1)
(*Number of members noted in parenthesis)
The Richmond area MPO carries out the “3C” planning process through a regularly scheduled
series of meetings (“continuous”) for both the MPO and it’s standing committees (i.e. Citizens
Transportation Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee). Special purpose
committees, task forces, and sub-committees are also established as needed and include
membership from the MPO member organizations and various groups and organizations from
throughout the region. The participation of local elected officials on the MPO and technical staff
on the MPO and its various committees allows the member jurisdictions to consider the broad
implications of transportation decision-making at both the local and regional level. The process
is “cooperative” because all member jurisdictions participate and all decisions are made
collectively to best serve the Richmond region. The process is also “comprehensive” in that the
decisions made by the MPO are based on:
! Each jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan
! Consideration is given to the impacts and implications the decisions will have on the
entire region
! The improvement program is designed to maximize mobility for all member jurisdictions
6

MPO Study Area
Under federal requirements, the study area for the Richmond Area MPO must encompass both
the existing urbanized area and contiguous area expected to urbanize during the time period
covered by the Long-Range Transportation Plan (for this document the horizon year is 2023). It
must also cover areas designated as part of the non-attainment/maintenance area for ozone air
quality standards. To ensure that the plan covers all urbanized areas and all areas expected to
urbanize by 2023, the study area has been defined to include:
! Hanover County
! Henrico County
! The Town of Ashland
! The City of Richmond
! A portion of Charles City County
! A portion of Goochland County
! A portion of New Kent County
! A portion of Powhatan County
! A majority of Chesterfield County (The portion of Chesterfield County not included in
the Richmond Area MPO is contained in the Tri-Cities MPO study area. This includes
those areas of Chesterfield County near Hopewell, Colonial Heights, and Petersburg.)
The Richmond MPO study area and 1990 urbanized area boundary map is included as Map 1-1.
The area encompassed by the Richmond Area MPO is an important crossroads for the Mid-
Atlantic states. Interstate 95 passes through the Richmond region and is the major north-south
connector on the east coast. Interstate 64 passes through the region and intersects I-95 near
downtown Richmond. Interstate 64 is an important east-west connector that provides area
residents access to Hampton Roads as well as to points as far west as St. Louis. Important
highways within the region include Interstate 295 which forms a semi-circle bypass for the
northern and eastern portions of the region, connecting I-64 to I-95 near Ashland on the north
and to I-95 on the south side of Petersburg. Interstate 195 connects I-64 and I-95 to the Powhite
Parkway and the Downtown Expressway. In Chesterfield County the Powhite Parkway,
Chippenham Parkway, and Route 288 serve as major linkage highways connecting the county to
Richmond and to I-95. Several U.S. primary routes, including U.S. 1, U.S. 60, U.S. 301 and U.S
360, are an integral part of the region’s roadway network.
The Richmond region is served by a deepwater port that connects regional goods with markets in
ports as far away as Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America. Passenger and air cargo service is
offered through the Richmond International Airport in eastern Henrico. The airport has
undergone a series of recent expansions and has plans for new gates, aprons, and groundside
access improvements. Major rail facilities are owned and operated by CSX and Norfolk
Southern and radiate out in all directions connecting Richmond with major U.S. markets
including Washington, D.C. and other northeast corridor cities, as well as Charlotte and Atlanta.
Amtrak provides passenger train service to Washington, D.C. and points north to Boston, east to
Newport News, west to Chicago, and south to Florida. Higher speed rail service from Main
7

Street Station in downtown Richmond to Union Station in Washington, D.C. is currently under
development, with true high-speed rail service expected later in the plan’s horizon.
8

Map I-2
Richmond MPO Study Area
Hanover
Ashland
Goochland
Powhatan
Chesterfield
Richmond
City
Henrico
Charles City
New Kent
MPO Study Area
Jurisdiction Boundaries
N
W
E
5 0 5 10 15 20 Miles
S Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, December 2000

Public Participation
Begun under the mandate of ISTEA and strengthened in the provisions of TEA-21, public
participation in the MPO planning process is an integral part of regional transportation plans.
These mandates require that the MPO provide “citizens, affected public agencies, representatives
of transportation agency employees, private providers of transportation, and other interested
parties with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the Long-Range Transportation Plan.” In
addition, public involvement early in the plan development process must be documented, and
that plans be available for public review.
The primary mechanism for on-going public input to the development of the LRTP was through
a joint technical/citizens technical advisory committee, The LRTP Task Force (Membership list
included in Appendix A). The task force held 12 meetings over an 11 month period to review
staff progress, receive data, and develop the draft plan. There were also three public review
meetings held at the beginning of the plan development process where the initial list of proposed
projects were presented and direct citizen input obtained through a survey questionnaire. Further
information on these initial public meetings and survey results are provided in Chapter IV.
Documentation of the final public review meetings, including citizen comment and staff
response comments, are included in Appendix A.
In the Richmond region the public participation process includes the following measures for
citizen input:
! A series of public meetings in member jurisdictions at the Plan’s outset to identify local
transportation problems, concerns, and priorities.
! A survey mail-out to transportation providers and user groups soliciting their input.
! A Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) which advises the MPO on
issues, plans, studies, and other matters necessary and appropriate for citizen input.
Resolutions of the CTAC are forwarded to the MPO for comment and/or action.
! A Elderly and Disabled Advisory Committee (EDAC) which provides advice to the MPO
on issues, plans, and studies which may affect the region’s elderly and persons with
disabilities. This includes special efforts to plan public transportation facilities and
services that can be effectively utilized by the elderly and persons with disabilities.
Resolutions approved by EDAC are presented to the MPO.
! Meeting Notices – The MPO announces to the news media and interested citizens the
dates, times, and locations of all MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC, CTAC, and
EDAC) meetings. Copies of agendas are provided and are posted on the RRPDC’s web
site. All meetings are open to the public.
! Draft Document Review – The MPO distributes drafts of all major documents to area
libraries for citizen access and review. Public comment periods on these draft documents
are at least two weeks in duration.
! Web site (http://www.richmondregional.org) - The RRPDC maintains a web site that
includes important information pertaining to MPO business and planning activities. The
web site provides citizen access to major transportation documents, meeting notices,
newsletters, regional data including socio-economic data, as well as report summaries.
10

! Public Comment Periods – The public is afforded the opportunity to make comments
directly to the MPO, TAC, CTAC, and EDAC at the beginning of each regularly
scheduled meeting.
! Newsletter – The RRPDC periodically publishes and distributes a regional newsletter
with information on agency activities including the MPO and all its major committees.
The current mailing list contains over 2,000 names and represents major corporations,
transportation providers, transportation user groups, and the general public.
! Long-Range Transportation Plan Task Force – The task force is made up of
representatives of the TAC, and CTAC as well as major transportation provider and user
groups, environmental advocates, and representatives from the community at large. The
charge of the task force is to oversee the development of the Long-Range Transportation
Plan including the Congestion Management System.
! Local Public Meetings – In addition to the specially scheduled public input meetings
developed for Long-Range Plan input, MPO staff participate and provide information at
various public meetings organized by local jurisdictions, agencies, civic and community
organizations, and the Commonwealth.
11

2023 LRTP
Chapter II
Planning Framework
12

Chapter II-Planning Framework and Requirements
Purpose
In accordance with the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21 st Century (TEA-21), the
Richmond Area MPO must develop a transportation planning and programming process that
ensures all transportation plans, projects, and programs requiring federal approval or using
federal funds are reviewed on the basis of consistent and constant evaluation criteria. For this
plan, the Richmond Area MPO has selected goals and objectives and plan recommendations that
are quantifiable and will serve as the consistent and constant evaluation criteria. In developing
the plan, the MPO must consider seven planning factors as outlined in TEA-21. In addition,
TEA-21 increases intergovernmental/interagency coordination by requiring a number of actions
on the part of USDOT, VDOT, VDRPT, other regional transportation agencies, local
governments, and citizens.
Also, the MPO’s responsibilities have been expanded to bring in new participants to address
issues such as environmental concerns, privately funded transportation projects, freight services,
transit services, and strategies to increase efficiency and safety. Groups and advocates for each
of these issues must be part of the development process and the MPO has responded by
developing a Long-Range Plan Task Force that comprises transportation professionals, citizens,
environmental groups, intermodal facility operators, and transportation demand management
advocates. First introduced in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and
reiterated in TEA-21, is the need to financially constrain the plan and meet air quality conformity
goals. As the task force makes decisions on projects, plans, and priorities, financial constraint
and air quality conformity are two primary motivating factors in plan project selection and
recommendations. The need to collectively determine project and program priority on a regional
level takes on increased significance with this plan, especially given tighter financial and
pollutant emission constraints.
The transportation planning and programming process for the MPO provides a framework for
guiding the development of all transportation plans and projects that are federally funded within
the Richmond area. The four key elements of the transportation planning and programming
process are:
! The implementation of a process which considers the seven planning factors.
! The implementation of a process that integrates a citizen participation program providing full
access to the process and equal opportunity for citizen input during all phases of the planning
process.
! The implementation of a process that encourages increased participation of operators of
major modes of transportation, private transportation providers, and other interested parties
to ensure all transportation perspectives and modes are represented in the planning process.
! Conformity of the transportation plan with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
attainment of air quality goals.
13

Under TEA-21 requirements, this Plan will be the major document from which all other
programs and plans will be drawn. And, as was stated previously, the Plan must be financiallyconstrained
and pass an air quality conformity test.
The Planning Factors
The development and endorsement of long-range transportation goals are not new to the MPO.
On June 12, 1986, the MPO adopted goals and objectives addressing a number of transportation
issues. Additional requirements mandated by ISTEA resulted in updating those goals and
objectives. Today, TEA-21 requires that seven planning factors be considered in the
development and update of regional transportation plans. These factors and the way they are
addressed in the MPO process and 2023 Long-Range Transportation Plan are as follows:
Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global
competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency
The intermodal data collection and analysis section, as well as the intermodal plan
elements examine how the transportation network can be improved to facilitate the
movement of goods into, out of, and around the Richmond region. Other sections related
to highways and socio-economic data support the economic development and efficiency
of the region.
Increase the safety and security of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized
users
Many of the projects in the highway list are reconstruction projects and bridge
replacements to improve safety. Projects in Chesterfield, Enhancement funded projects,
and Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) projects are included to improve the
safety for non-motorized users of the transportation network. The transit element
includes provisions to improve security for transit patrons.
Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for freight
The environmental justice analysis section looks at improving accessibility and mobility
options for the region’s low income and minority populations. The TDM data collection
and plan elements examine what strategies could be useful in Richmond and provides
recommendations to improve their success. TDM strategies directly improve mobility
options and accessibility. Finally, this plan examines land use and transportation linkages
and makes recommendations on how land use planning in the future can be modified so
that transportation options that increase accessibility and mobility can develop in the
Richmond area.
14

Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve the
quality of life
Projects contained in this plan must meet air quality conformity standards which are
intended to enhance the environment. Transportation demand management programs
encourage ridesharing and non-motorized transportation which promote energy
conservation. TDM is an integral part of this plan. To improve the quality of life for all
residents in the Richmond region, this plan has taken a serious look at environmental
justice issues, land use and transportation linkages (which has been mandated by the
Environmental Protection Agency as a necessary part of transportation project
examinations), and has adopted goals and objectives which can quantify how well the
transportation network is improving the quality of life. Recommendations are also part of
the transit, highway, and TDM elements that promote energy and farm and forest land
preservation through improved land management activities. Collectively, that plan’s
major intent is to improve quality of life not just to develop a transportation network that
addresses congestion problems of today.
Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and
between modes, for people and freight
Plan elements related to transit, TDM, and intermodalism strive to not only enhance
integration and connectivity but make the connections seamless as well. In this plan,
more than any past Richmond Area MPO LRTP, great efforts have been made to not only
improve integration and connectivity of the transportation system, but the integration and
connectivity of the transportation network to the community as a whole. Sections on land
use and environmental justice have been added to ensure that the transportation system
connects people and freight to other people and freight throughout the Richmond area.
Promote efficient system management and operation
The Congestion Management System element and highway element look at ways to more
efficiently manage and operate the highway network through the use of intelligent
transportation systems and transportation system management techniques. A complete
element on transportation demand management also makes recommendations to improve
operational efficiency and better manage the transportation network. Finally,
recommendations in the intermodal element are intended to alleviate truck traffic on the
highway network by integrating intermodal movements through an intermodal facility
that can efficiently handle freight that arrives or passes through the Richmond area
whether by truck, boat, plane, or train.
Emphasize the preservation of the existing system
Projects contained in the constrained highway list attempt to preserve the existing
roadway network while enhancing safety. The transit element seeks to maintain existing
services and expand transit coverage to reach communities whose mobility options are
limited. The TDM element recommendations are intended to reduce the reliance on the
15

existing system so that the network is more readily preserved. Finally, the intermodal
element emphasizes the need to not let intermodal facilities decay; rather, it suggests
restoring them to the status they once held in the Richmond area.
The above planning factors are incorporated into the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st
Century (TEA-21). Other relevant sections of that Act are discussed below.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century
Following a delay in the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA), a new transportation program was signed into law on June 9, 1998, and technical
corrections added on July 22, 1998. The new law, The Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st
Century (TEA-21), not only provided funding for transportation programs across the country, it
also continued the integrated, multi-modal focus of ISTEA. In addition to revising the funding
formula for states to better reflect revenues generated by each state, TEA-21 reduced the number
of management systems required in the Richmond region, reduced the number of planning
factors from sixteen to seven, and streamlined the environmental requirements to match the
requirements associated with NEPA.
Like its predecessor, ISTEA, significant continuing provisions of TEA-21 are:
! Local officials, in cooperation with the state and transit operators, remain responsible for
determining the best mix of transportation investments to meet metropolitan
transportation needs and for meeting transportation-influenced environmental goals
! Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are responsible for adopting a long-range
plan and transportation improvement program (TIP) based on that plan
! A 20-year planning perspective for long-range plans that include air quality consistency,
financial constraint, and significant public involvement
! A Congestion Management System is required in metropolitan areas with a population in
excess of 200,000
! DOT certification of the planning process in metropolitan areas in excess of 200,000
! An emphasis on alternatives to capacity additions to accommodate the single occupant
vehicle in metropolitan areas which are non attainment for air quality.
For the Richmond region, the most significant of these provisions are the financial constraint,
public involvement, and emphasis on alternatives to the single occupant vehicle. Under TEA-21,
the long-range plan and TIP must demonstrate how they can be implemented under anticipated
available funding. The anticipated funds must be able to carry out the transportation projects
identified. With these financial constraints, MPOs are required to weigh all modal alternatives to
produce a transportation program that includes a transportation system that provides such
alternatives as public transit, passenger rail, bicycle, pedestrian, and other transportation demand
management and transportation system management options.
In addition to the modification of the applicable planning factors, the following modifications are
also important considerations for the Richmond region:
16

! General objectives of the metropolitan planning process are to include operation and
management of the existing transportation system
! Modifies transportation planning area boundary relationship to non-attainment area
boundaries
! Encourages coordination of non-emergency transportation services in metropolitan areas
for such programs as welfare-to-work
! Requires coordination across MPO boundaries where projects cross those boundaries
! Identifies and includes freight shippers and users of public transit as stakeholders to be
given opportunity to comment on plans and TIPs
! Requires MPOs, the state, and transit agencies to cooperate in the development of
financial estimates that support plan and TIP development
! Clarifies that project selection must be from a cooperatively developed TIP and Long-
Range plan
! Adds option of identifying additional projects for inclusion in TIPs and plans if
reasonable additional resources were available. Additional action by all jurisdictions is
required to advance such projects
! Requires publication of annual listing of projects for which federal funds have been
obligated in the preceding year
! Adds requirement for public involvement during certification review
! Modifies sanctions available to Secretary of DOT to withhold funds from areas not in
compliance with TEA-21 requirements
! Exempts MPO plans and programs as actions addressed by NEPA
! Replaces the stand alone Major Investment Study requirement of FHWA/FTA’s joint
planning regulation with a directive that, for federally funded highway and transit
projects, analysis under the planning provisions of the Act and NEPA shall be
coordinated
Transportation Improvement Program
TEA-21 requires that each MPO develop a transportation improvement program (TIP) at least
every two years. The Richmond area TIP is developed and updated annually as part of the
Richmond MPO’s transportation programming process. Preparation and maintenance of the TIP
is only one of several prerequisites necessary for the continued receipt of federal assistance for
transportation projects and programs. It must also include a priority list of projects to be carried
out within each three year period after initial adoption of the TIP.
A financial plan that demonstrates how the TIP can be implemented identifies both public and
private sources that are reasonably expected to be available to carry out near-term projects within
the Plan. The TIP may only include those projects, or specific phases of projects, for which full
funding is anticipated to be available within the time period contemplated for project completion.
The projects must also be listed in the Plan, or be consistent with Plan recommendations, and
demonstrate conformity with air quality goals and attainment levels.
The TIP is a document that serves as a combined single listing of all transportation projects to be
undertaken in the Richmond area. This would include all federally funded transportation
17

projects, including highway improvements as well as capital and operating assistance for transit
services, privately funded projects, and those projects that are state-funded. The TIP also lists
private, non-profit organizations that are programmed to receive Federal Transit Administration
capital funds for the transportation disadvantaged and organizations programmed to receive
enhancement funds.
The development of the TIP document for the Richmond area is the responsibility of the
Richmond Area MPO. The TIP is reviewed by the MPO’s TAC and CTAC, and is made
available in draft form for public review and comment. The MPO, as the decision-making body,
has the responsibility for final TIP development and adoption. Receipt of all federal aid
transportation funds for which the area is eligible is contingent upon a TIP consisting of
improvements recommended by the represented jurisdictions and endorsed by the MPO.
Funding
Most TEA-21 funding programs require that selected transportation projects have a 20 percent
(20%) match to the federal dollars provided for the project. This 80-20 split ensures that federal
funds expended on transportation projects are being used in ways that best enhance the region’s
transportation network. While TEA-21 has several distinct funding categories, there are a
handful that provide the vast majority of federal funds for transportation projects in the
Richmond area. These are the National Highway System funds, Surface Transportation Program
funds from which Safety and Enhancement funds are derived, Congestion Mitigation Air Quality
funds, and Transit Capital funds. Except for Transit Capital funds, which are intended to fund
capital improvement projects for transit systems, each of these funding categories will be
discussed in more detail. It should also be noted that while the federal government has
standardized these funding categories across all states, Virginia takes federal funds designated
under NHS and STP, combines them with state funds, and retains the old federal aid highway
designations. Thus, when reviewing the Long-Range Transportation Plan project list and TIP,
funding categories will be listed as Interstate, Primary, Secondary, and Urban.
The National Highway System
The National Highway System (NHS) funds are intended for an interconnected system of routes
which will serve major population centers, border crossings, ports, airports, public transportation
facilities, other intermodal transportation facilities, meet defense requirements, and serve
interstate and interregional travel. Federal participation is 80 (80%); unless funds are for
interstate projects (including HOV lane projects, but not any other lanes), the federal share is
90%
Eligible projects include:
! Construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration and rehabilitation of segments
identified as part of the NHS
! Operational improvements for segments of the NHS
! Construction and operational improvements for roads and transit projects not on the NHS
provided that the project is in the same corridor and in close proximity to the NHS route,
18

improves the level of service on the NHS route, and is more cost-effective than work on the
NHS route to provide the same benefits
! Safety improvements
! Transportation planning for the NHS
! Highway research and planning
! Highway related technology transfer activities
! Capital and operating costs for traffic monitoring, management, and control facilities and
programs
! Fringe and corridor parking facilities
! Carpool and vanpool projects
! Bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways
! Development and maintenance of management systems
! Natural habitat and wetlands mitigation efforts
! Publicly-owned bus terminals
! Infrastructure-based intelligent transportation system capital improvements
Surface Transportation Program
Surface Transportation Program funds (STP) is the largest and most flexible funding program
under TEA-21 and provides broad discretion for state and local governments to fund a variety of
activities. These include:
! Construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, restoration, and operational
improvements for roads and bridges, including any such construction or reconstruction
necessary to accommodate other transportation modes
! Capital costs for transit projects including vehicles and facilities
! Carpool projects, fringe and corridor parking facilities and programs, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities on any public road and the modification of sidewalks to comply with the Americans
With Disabilities Act
! Highway and transit safety infrastructure improvements and programs, hazard eliminations,
projects to mitigate hazards caused by wildlife, and railway-highway grade crossings
! Highway and transit research and development and technology transfer programs
! Capital and operating costs for traffic monitoring, management, and control facilities and
programs
! Surface transportation planning programs
! Transportation enhancement activities (see enhancement section)
! Transportation control measures (see Clean Air Act section)
! Development and establishment of management systems
! Habitat and wetland mitigation efforts
! Infrastructure-based intelligent transportation system capital improvements
! Environmental restoration and pollution abatement projects to address water pollution or
environmental degradation caused or contributed to by transportation facilities
19

Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)
The Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) is intended to develop
mitigation measures for transportation-related pollution measures. Federal participation is 80
percent (80%) unless used on interstate facilities in which case the federal share is 90 percent
(90%). The money is distributed to those metropolitan areas classified as non-attainment or
maintenance areas as defined in the Clean Air Act. Most of the Richmond area is currently
classified as a maintenance area for ozone and therefore, eligible for CMAQ funding.
Transportation control measures programmed in the SIP receive priority for CMAQ funds.
Projects are selected by the MPO to receive CMAQ funds. Eligible projects are:
! Transportation activities in an approved State Implementation Plan (SIP)
! Transportation control measures as defined in the Clean Air Act (see Clean Air Act section)
! Pedestrian and bicycle facilities
! TEA-21 management and monitoring systems
! Traffic management/monitoring/congestion relief strategies
! Transit expansion
! Alternative fuel projects
! Public/private partnerships
! Inspection and maintenance programs
! Intermodal freight
! Telecommunications travel demand management strategies
! Project development activities for new services or programs that have air quality benefits
! Public education and outreach activities
! Rideshare programs
! Establishing/contracting with transportation management associations/organizations
! Fare/fee subsidy programs
! Experimental pilot projects with air quality benefits
! Construction of projects which add new capacity for single-occupant vehicles ARE NOT
eligible
All projects requesting CMAQ funds must include an analysis of the air quality benefits.
Enhancement Funds
Enhancements funds are intended to integrate the transportation network with the community or
to mitigate visual or environmental impacts of the transportation facilities. Considered a special
set-aside from STP funds, the federal share is 80 percent (80%). Eligible projects include:
! Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles
! Provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists
! Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites
! Scenic or historic highway programs including tourist and welcome center facilities
! Landscaping and other scenic beautification
! Historic preservation
! Rehabilitation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities
20

! Preservation of abandoned rail corridors (including conversion for bicycle and pedestrian
facilities)
! Control and removal of outdoor advertising
! Archaeological planning and research
! Environmental mitigation to address water pollution due to highway run-off or reduce
vehicle-caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity
! Establishment of transportation museums
Other TEA-21 Funding Programs
The following funding programs also play a vital role in the development and provision of a safe
and efficient multi-modal transportation system.
! Interstate Maintenance Program
! Transit Capital Funding
! Transit Capital and Operating Assistance
! Safety Programs
! Bridge Repair and Replacement
The Clean Air Act Amendments
The Clear Air Act Amendments (CAAA) were signed into law on November 15, 1990. CAAA
provides for a comprehensive revision of the 1977 CAAA. It imposes major challenges for the
metropolitan transportation planning and programming process in the nation’s designated nonattainment
and maintenance areas. The Clean Air Act’s primary goals are the attainment and
maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and the prevention of
significant deterioration of air quality in areas cleaner than the NAAQS. The NAAQS
establishes the maximum limits of pollutants that are allowed in the outside ambient air.
EPA requires that each state submit a SIP, including any laws and regulations necessary to
enforce the plan that shows how the air pollution concentrations will be reduced to levels at or
below these standards. This achievement is referred to as “attainment.” Once pollution levels
are within the standards, the state must also show how it plans to keep these levels at the reduced
amounts, referred to as “maintenance.” The CAAA requires transportation plans to conform to
the SIP for attainment of set air quality standards. The air quality plans qualify pollution
reduction needs and commit to reduction strategies through the SIP, TCMs, and conformity
provisions for transportation planning.
For air quality conformity analyses, all of the City of Richmond, Hanover County, Henrico
County, Chesterfield County, and a small portion of Charles City County are part of the
Richmond maintenance area for ozone and air quality standards. EPA reclassified this area from
a moderate ozone non-attainment to a maintenance area on November 5, 1997. Conformity
requirements must continue under the maintenance designation. Other regulatory requirements
are being reviewed to determine their impact on the current planning process of the Richmond
Area MPO. Any significant changes that may affect the contents for this Plan will be addressed
in the Plan amendment process if deemed necessary.
21

Ozone is formed when precursor emissions-volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of
Nitrogen (NOx) react in the presence of heat and sunlight to form ozone or smog. VOCs are
organic petroleum-based emissions from mobile sources such as cars, trucks, and buses;
stationary sources such as power plants, printing, and dry cleaning operations; and area sources
which are individually insignificant but have a cumulative impact such as lawn mowers, outdoor
grills, and farm equipment.
The EPA has defined NAAQS for various pollutants such as ozone, carbon monoxide, and
particulate matter. Any area that fails to meet these standards by a certain deadline may get
reclassified to a higher-level designation with additional and more stringent compliance
requirements.
As a moderate non-attainment area for ozone NAAQS, the Richmond area was required to
implement several major control programs and implement a SIP that provides for a 15 percent
(15%) reduction in VOC emissions by November 15, 1996. The SIP had to identify needed
VOC reductions and describe how VOC emissions would be reduced by the November 1996
deadline. As a maintenance area, the SIP must include measures that will control VOC
emissions and identify actions that will take place in the event that VOC levels exceed specified
limits.
Conformity
Section 176 of the CAAA has been amended to provide for a detailed and specified conformity
determination process. These provisions define conformity as conforming to the implementation
plan’s purpose of eliminating and reducing the severity and number NAAQS violations and
achieving and maintaining attainment status. The MPO’s transportation plans and programs
must serve as part of the air quality improvement effort for the maintenance area.
The conformity process provides for the analyses of transportation related air quality issues on a
system wide basis and control through regional strategies in order to be effective. As a result,
projects within the MPO’s transportation plans and programs are to be evaluated in the aggregate
rather than on an individual basis. Therefore, transportation plans and programs, taken as a
whole, must conform to the SIP.
The MPO’s conformity determinations are to be made based on conformity criteria for
transportation plans, programs, and projects. Conformity determination is innovative in
overseeing the impact that the transportation system’s expansion has on air quality. The
conformity assessment among transportation plans, SIPs, and air quality plans must show that
transportation investments will not delay attaining the ozone standards or exacerbate air quality
violations above specified levels for maintenance areas. Specifically, transportation plans and
programs must maintain or reduce vehicle emissions.
22

Transportation Control Measures
The CAAA requires that non-attainment and maintenance areas for ozone, such as the Richmond
area, review TCMs for applicability in reducing or limiting mobile source emissions. At a
minimum, the CAAA specifies 16 measures, which are summarized as follows:
! Improved public transit
! Road or lane restrictions for high occupancy vehicles (HOVs)
! Employer-based transportation management plans
! Trip-reduction ordinances
! Traffic flow improvement programs
! Fringe and corridor parking facilities
! Vehicle use restrictions in downtowns or major activity centers
! Programs that provide for all forms of high-occupancy, shared ride services
! Programs to limit road use in certain areas to pedestrians and bicycles
! Bicycle lanes, storage facilities, and bike parking programs
! Programs to control extended vehicle idling
! Programs to reduce emissions under cold start conditions
! Employer sponsored flexible work scheduled programs
! Programs and ordinances to facilitate non-automobile travel
! Programs for the construction of bicycle and pedestrian paths
! Programs to encourage the voluntary removal of pre-1980 vehicles from the market place
Highway Funding Sanctioning
Under the 1977 CAAA, sanctions on highway funds were applied only for failing to submit or
making reasonable efforts to submit the SIP. Under the 1990 CAAA, the use of highway
sanctions has been significantly expanded as follows:
! If EPA determines that the state has failed to submit an implementation plan or any other
required submission, a response to a SIP call, or has submitted and incomplete or inadequate
plan or other submission
! If EPA disapproves a plan submission or other required documentation
! If EPA finds that an approved plan is not being implemented
Sanctions that EPA can impose fall under two categories:
! Highway funds withholding
! Stationary source emissions offsets of at least 2 to 1
The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) may exempt sanctions against certain federal
aid projects including highway safety and seven specific project types that emphasize moving
people versus vehicles (e.g., mass transit, ridesharing, traffic flow improvements, etc.). The
sanctions may be applied to any portion of the state that EPA determines reasonable and
appropriate, within certain limited restrictions. States are required to submit a SIP revision
23

within one year after notice of failure to attain. The plan revision must include any additional
measures prescribed by EPA.
The National Energy Policy
The 1992 National Energy Policy (NEPA) focuses on the use of alternative energy in the
transportation system. In the 1970s, it became apparent that the United States was too dependent
on oil and this legislation was intended to reduce that dependency by placing a greater emphasis
on alternative fuels as energy sources.
Alternative Fuels
NEPA states that alternative fuels to be considered are methanol, denature ethanol, and other
alcohol; mixtures containing 85 percent (85%) or more by volume of methanol, denatured
ethanol, and other alcohol with gasoline or other fuels; natural gas; liquefied petroleum gas;
hydrogen; coal derived liquid fuels; fuels derived from biological materials; electricity; and any
other fuel that is not substantially petroleum.
Fleet Requirements
Federal Acquisition – 25 percent (25%) of fleet by 1996, 33 percent (33%) by 1997, 50 percent
(50%) in 1998, and 75 percent (75%) in 1999 and thereafter.
State Acquisition – States must submit a plan containing cost implementation and acquisition of
a substantial number of alternative fuel vehicles by 2000. This process must include an outline
showing coordination with federal and local entities in this effort. At a minimum, the state must
acquire alternative fuel vehicles as follows: 10 percent (10%) in 1996, 15 percent (15%) in
1997, 25 percent (25%) in 1998, 50 percent (50%) in 1999, and 75 percent (75%) in 2000 and
thereafter.
Alternative Fuel Providers – Alternative fuel vehicles will be acquired as follows: 30 percent
(30%) in 1996, 15 percent (15%) in 1997, 25 percent (25%) in 1998, 50 percent (50%) in 1999,
and 75 percent (75%) in 2000 and thereafter.
Fleets other than Federal/State – Alternative fuel vehicles will be acquired as follows: 20
percent (20%) in 1999, 2000, and 2001; 30 percent (30%) in 2002; 40 percent (40%) in 2003; 50
percent (50%) in 2004; 60 percent (60%) in 2005; and 70 percent (70%) in 2006 and thereafter.
NEPA also programs and reports on the following issues:
! Electric Vehicles
! Coal
! Global Climate
! Oil Vulnerability
! Research and Development
24

Americans with Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted into law on July 6, 1990. The purpose
of this civil rights legislation was “to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the
elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” It is the national goal of
ADA to assure that persons with disabilities have equality of opportunity, have a chance to fully
participate in society, are able to live independently, and be economically self-sufficient.
Implementing ADA in the Richmond transportation sector is discussed in Chapter 6. There are
five Titles in the Act that are Summarized below.
Title I – Employment
Discrimination against qualified persons with disabilities is prohibited in all aspects of
employment. Reasonable accommodations must be made in regard to job site accessibility,
communication devices such as Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD), and modified
work schedules or other changes that would allow that person to fulfill his or her job duties.
Employers with 25 or more employees were required to comply with this law by July 26, 1992
and private businesses with 15 to 24 employees by July 1994.
Title II – Public Services
All services, programs, and activities provided by public entities or their agents are prohibited
from discriminating against persons with disabilities. In general, if a person with disabilities can
use the public transportation system, then the public entity may not deny the individual with
disabilities the opportunity to use public transportation. In addition, it prohibits public entities
from providing services that discriminate against individuals with disabilities. Specific
requirements include the following:
! New or leased vehicle for fixed route service and demand responsive service must be
accessible (unless equivalent service is provided to persons with disabilities)
! Public entities, which provide fixed route service, must also provide comparable paratransit
service
! Remanufactured vehicles (structural changes) must be accessible
! New facilities must be accessible and alterations to transit facilities must include accessible
features
! Rail systems must include a key station plan and be accessible
! Rapid and light rail systems must have one accessible car per train
25

Title III – Public Accommodations and Services Operated by Private Entities
Public accommodations must be accessible to persons with disabilities even if they are owned by
the private sector. Access must be provided in such public places as theaters, hotels, stores, and
public transit stations. Transportation provided for the public by private entities must also be
accessible.
Title IV – Telecommunications Relay Services
Telephone companies must provide telecommunication relay devices for those persons with
hearing or speech impairments. A TDD is a machine that employs graphic communication in the
transmission of coded signals through a wire or radio communication system. A person with
disabilities can use a TDD to call the operator who also has a TDD and communicates through a
third party.
Title V – Miscellaneous Provisions
Every public entity operating fixed route transit (except for commuter bus, commuter rail, or
intercity rail services) is required to submit a plan which includes and implementation schedule
with annual updates detailing how paratransit services will be implemented and will be in full
ADA compliance. There is a full public participation process throughout the entire planning
process.
The following six criteria have been developed to define “comparable paratransit service”:
! Operate in the same service areas as the fixed route system
! Response time that is comparable to the fixed route system
! Fares may not be more than two and a half times the fare of the fixed route system
! Hours and days of paratransit service must be comparable to that of the fixed route service
! Trip purpose may not be prioritized
! Service availability may not be limited because of capacity constraints.
26

2023 LRTP
Chapter III
Socioeconomic Data
27

Chapter III-Socioeconomic Characteristics
Purpose
“Population and employment largely determine future overall land use and community facility
needs from the social use viewpoint of those who will use the land. They also determine the
future levels of urban stress that will be put on environmental resources. Finally, population
and employment growth underlie the amount of development pressure and the pace of urban
development to be accommodated and addressed…” From Urban Land Use Planning (Kaiser,
Godschalk & Chapin p. 115).
Population, households, and employment patterns help to characterize an area--be it urban,
suburban, or rural. Where people live and work is a necessary element in the study of
transportation. The transportation network of an area must be able to accommodate changing
commuting patterns and habits of the population. The study area should be described through its
population, household, and employment patterns.
To better interpret the study area, the population, household, and employment densities will be
examined. The density patterns enable a more accurate representation of conditions within the
study area due to the varying sizes of the transportation analysis zones (TAZs). TAZs are
generally defined as areas of homogeneous activity served by one or two major roadways. TAZs
serve as the base unit for socioeconomic data characteristics used in various plans and studies.
The resulting maps of the study area show the emerging development patterns of population,
households, and employment: a ring with radiating spokes. An almost complete ring around the
City of Richmond has developed due to the I-295 bypass and Route 288 in Chesterfield County.
A north-south and east-west development pattern resulted from I-95 and Broad Street, which are
major transportation thoroughfares. The southeastern portion of the study area reveals a
noticeable departure from the concentric ring pattern. This area is also separated by a natural
boundary, the James River. Currently, no connection exists between the I-295 bypass and I-95 in
this southeastern area. However, construction has begun on a connecting road, I-895. This
construction will alter the development of this area; a complete circle will develop around the
City of Richmond. The construction of I-895 was factored into the 2023 forecast.
As with many other growing metropolitan areas across the U.S., the region has experienced a
shift of population, households, and employment toward suburban and rural areas. While the
majority of the population, households, and employment still exist in Richmond, Chesterfield,
and Henrico, the suburban and rural portions of the study area show the greatest percent increase
in these three categories.
28

Population & Households
One of the primary sources of population and household data is the decennial census conducted
by the United States Bureau of the Census. The census provides a complete enumeration of local
population at the beginning of each decade and serves as the basis for estimating local population
for the years between census enumeration dates. The population of any study area is generally a
reflection of the complexity of its economic and social structure. Fluctuations in rates of
increase or decrease and population numbers are two of the most sensitive indices of
fundamental physical and social change that have a significant impact on planning. The 1990
Census was utilized for establishing the plan base year (12/31/98) data by extrapolation and
adjustments using available VEC data. Additional adjustments are made in consideration of the
MPO study area boundary. Portions of Charles City, Chesterfield, Goochland, New Kent, and
Powhatan counties are outside the MPO study area; therefore, data does not reflect jurisdiction
totals for these localities.
In Figure III-1 and Table III-2, it becomes obvious that the growth rate for the suburban and rural
localities have increased dramatically. This follows a trend throughout the nation: movement to
the farther reaches of the suburban area. The pie charts (Figures III-8 – III-11) show evidence of
this trend as well: the percentages for three of the rural counties and the counties of Chesterfield
and Hanover show an increase from 1998 to 2023. In 1998, Henrico County had the highest
population base followed by the City of Richmond, but by 2023 Chesterfield County is expected
to surpass both Henrico County and the City of Richmond.
Figure III-1: Changes in Population and Households
Percent Change in Population & Households
1998-2023
180%
160%
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
Ashland Chesterfield Hanover New Kent Richmond
Localities Within the MPO Study Area
Households
Population
The accompanying maps for population and households by TAZ (Map III-3 – Map III-8) help to
explain graphically the dynamics of the area. With the exception of the center of downtown
Richmond and a few TAZs in the south and west, the change in population density is less than
29

zero for the City of Richmond and its adjacent traffic zones. The areas with the greatest amount
of change for the study area are at the outskirts of the I-295 and Route 288 Bypasses. This
provides a strong case that the growth of the region is toward the suburban and rural localities.
Table III-2: Population and Households
Population & Households for the MPO Study Area
1998 2023 Percent Change
Jurisdictions Population Households Population Households Population Households
Ashland 7,334 2,085 11,390 3,815 55.31% 82.96%
Charles City 6,065 2,060 7,571 2,571 24.84% 24.84%
Chesterfield 229,217 80,769 355,322 124,365 55.02% 53.98%
Goochland 7,430 2,702 14,533 4,970 95.59% 83.92%
Hanover 78,632 29,197 136,286 49,733 73.32% 70.33%
Henrico 254,194 102,973 316,008 131,360 24.32% 27.57%
New Kent 6,065 2,147 16,039 5,522 164.46% 157.16%
Powhatan 12,197 4,347 26,550 9,364 117.68% 115.43%
Richmond 200,582 85,329 197,309 85,706 -1.63% 0.44%
TOTALS 801,716 311,609 1,081,008 417,406 34.84% 33.95%
The MPO study area is 67.5 percent (65%) of the entire land area of the Richmond Regional
Planning District (RRPDC), which comprises the entire area of each jurisdiction of the MPO. It
is interesting to note that the current and projected population of the study area accounts for over
97 percent (97%) of the population for the RRPDC.
30

1998 Population Density by Traffic Zone
Richmond Regional MPO Area
Downtown Richmond 0 1 2 3 Miles
People per Square Mile
0 - 499
500 - 999
1000 - 2499
2500 & Over
N
W
S
E
5 0 5 10 15 20 Miles
Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, December 2000
Map III-3

2023 Population Density by Traffic Zone
Richmond Regional MPO Area
Downtown Richmond 0 1 2 3 Miles
People per Square Mile
0 - 499
500 - 999
1000 - 2499
2500 & Over
N
W
S
E
5 0 5 10 15 20 Miles
Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, December 2000
Map III-4

Change in Population Density by Traffic Zone
Richmond Regional MPO Area
Downtown Richmond 0 1 2 3 Miles
1998 - 2023 Change
People per Square Mile
Less than Zero
0 - 499
500 - 999
1000 & Over
W
N
S
E
5 0 5 10 15 20 Miles
Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, December 2000
Map III-5

1998 Household Density by Traffic Zone
Richmond Regional MPO Area
Downtown Richmond 0 1 2 3 Miles
Households per Square Mile
0 - 499
500 - 999
1000 - 4999
5000 & Over
N
W
S
E
5 0 5 10 15 20 Miles
Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, December 2000
Map III-6

2023 Household Density by Traffic Zone
Richmond Regional MPO Area
Downtown Richmond 0 1 2 3 Miles
Households per Square Mile
0 - 499
500 - 999
1000 - 4999
5000 & Over
N
W
S
E
5 0 5 10 15 20 Miles
Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, December 2000
Map III-7

Change in Household Density by Traffic Zone
Richmond Regional MPO Area
Downtown Richmond 0 1 2 3 Miles
2023 - 1998 Change
Households per Square Mile
Less than Zero
0 - 249
250 - 499
500 & Over
W
N
S
E
5 0 5 10 15 20 Miles
Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, December 2000
Map III-8

Figure III-9: Population in 1998
Population in 1998
Richmond Regional MPO Study Area
801,716 Persons
Richmond
25.02%
Ashland
0.91%
Charles City
0.76%
Chesterfield
28.59%
Powhatan
1.52%
New Kent
0.76%
Henrico
31.71%
Hanover
9.81%
Goochland
0.93%
Figure III-10: Households in 1998
Households in 1998
Richmond Regional MPO Study Area
311,609 Households
Richmond
27.38%
Ashland
0.67%
Charles City
0.66%
Chesterfield
25.92%
Powhatan
1.39%
New Kent
0.69%
Henrico
33.05%
Goochland
0.87%
Hanover
9.37%
37

Figure III-11: Population in 2023
Estimated Population In 2023
Richmond Regional MPO Study Area
1,081,008
Ashland
1.05%
Powhatan
2.46%
New Kent
1.48%
Richmond
18.25%
Charles City
0.70%
Chesterfield
32.87%
Henrico
29.23%
Hanover
12.61%
Goochland
1.34%
Figure III-12: 2023 Households
Estimated Households in 2023
Richmond Regional MPO Study Area
417,406 Households
Ashland
0.91%
Powhatan
2.24%
Richmond
20.53%
Charles City
0.62%
Chesterfield
29.79%
New Kent
1.32%
Goochland
1.19%
Henrico
31.47%
Hanover
11.91%
38

Economy
Employment growth in the study area has generally followed the regional and state pattern and
the cyclic nature of the national economy. The recession of the early 1990s drove the
employment growth in the RRPDC to less than 2 percent (2%) annually until an economic
turnaround began in 1993. While never reaching the 1973 peak increase (6.8%), employment in
the RRPDC grew at more than 2 percent (2%) annually until 1998 when the cycle turned
downward.
The state of Virginia produced approximately 1.5 million new jobs during the last two decades.
During that same time, the RRPDC saw an increase of more than 199,000 new jobs accounting
for 13 percent (13%) of the state total. During the past 20 years, the RRPDC share of new job
creation has ranged from a high of 19.1 percent (19.1%) in 1994 to a low of -0.6 percent (-0.6%)
in 1992. Table IV-2 outlines the types of new jobs that have been created in the RRPDC since
1970 and the corresponding percentage of that new job market that the category represents.
Table III-13: Jobs Created in Richmond Area
Jobs Created in the Planning District by Type & Percentage: 1970 – 1998
New Regional Employment Type Percentage of Total New Employment
Services 38.67%
Retail Trade 17.56%
State & Local Government 12.94%
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 11.73%
Construction 6.94%
Wholesale Trade 5.13%
Transportation, Communication & Utilities 4.16%
Federal Civilian Governments 1.26%
Manufacturing 1.44%
Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries 0.32%
Mining 0.01%
Military -0.16%
Throughout the nation, a shift in the employment base has occurred. The service industry is
replacing traditional industries such as manufacturing and wholesale trade. The RRPDC is no
exception. In the following table (Table III-14), the change in employment composition is
apparent throughout the past 28 years. While most of the categories remained stagnant or
decreased, the service industry saw substantial growth, while manufacturing has experienced a
substantial reduction.
39

Table III-14: Regional Employment Composition
Regional Employment Composition by Percentage of Total Employment
Employment Type 1970 1980 1990 1995 1998
Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries 0.41% 0.40% 0.59% 0.48% 0.37%
Mining 0.11% 0.13% 0.19% 0.11% 0.06%
Construction 6.31% 6.27% 7.09% 6.31% 6.59%
Manufacturing 17.72% 14.45% 11.30% 10.26% 9.66%
Transportation, Communication & Utilities 6.21% 5.13% 4.92% 4.96% 5.17%
Wholesale Trade 6.30% 6.71% 5.78% 5.74% 5.70%
Retail Trade 15.03% 15.18% 15.32% 16.50% 16.21%
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 9.86% 10.84% 10.83% 10.12% 10.71%
Services 19.61% 21.38% 25.92% 27.74% 28.89%
Federal, State & Local Government 17.35% 18.80% 17.67% 17.05% 15.65%
As the composition of employment changes in the RRPDC, so too does the location of
employment. Again, the perimeter of the city sees employment growth along the major
transportation thoroughfares. Projections for the rural and suburban localities within the study
area contain the largest percentages of employment growth (Figure III-12). No longer does the
downtown attract all the employment opportunities. Instead, companies are moving toward the
suburbs of the study area, where land is more abundant and less expensive.
Figure III-15: Change in Employment 1998-2023
1800%
1600%
1400%
1200%
1000%
800%
600%
400%
200%
0%
-200%
Percent Change in Employment
From 1998-2023
Ashland Charles City Chesterfield Goochland Hanover Henrico New Kent Powhatan Richmond
Localities Within the MPO Study Area
40

Table III-16: Employment By Jurisdiction
Employment Totals for the MPO Study Area
Change
From 1998 -
Jurisdiction 1998 2023 2023
Ashland 9,663 12,760 3,097
Charles City 898 2,176 1,278
Chesterfield 114,147 176,343 62,196
Goochland 4,359 8,662 4,303
Hanover 36,265 47,890 11,625
Henrico 178,149 232,254 54,105
New Kent 902 16,363 15,461
Powhatan 2,862 5,951 3,089
Richmond 205,742 195,899 -9,843
MPO Area Total 552,987 698,298 145,311
Three major developments are influencing the employment pattern within the study area. The
Colonial Downs Racetrack in New Kent County substantially adds to the employment base.
This is Virginia’s first pari-mutuel horse racing facility; construction was completed in the fall of
1997. This large attraction will spur the economy and further increase employment opportunities
in the New Kent area.
The West Creek development in Goochland County also supplements the increased growth of
employment for the suburban and rural localities. This development currently includes major
offices for Heilig-Meyers and Farm Bureau, and is planning to include a new operations center
for Capitol One.
Finally, White Oak, a joint venture between the semiconductor division of Infineon AG and
Siemens AG, is planning to expand with a second wafer fabrication unit. The company, in
Sandston near Richmond International Airport, expects to employ an additional 500 to 1000
people in addition to the 1,600 people who currently work there.
As with population and households, the pie charts (Figures III-14 and III-15) depicting the
employment distribution within the study area display that, while some of the urban localities
show substantial growth, all of the rural localities show an increase in employment opportunities.
As depicted in the following maps (Figures III-16 – III-18), employment within the urban
localities continues to grow out toward the suburban and rural localities. In 1998, the City of
Richmond shows the greatest share of the employment base (37%) but in 2023 it declines to 28
percent (28%) and Henrico County becomes the location for employment opportunities (33% of
the total study area).
41

Figure III-17: 1998 Richmond Area Employment By Jurisdiction
Employment in 1998
Richmond Regional MPO Study Area
552,987 Jobs
Richmond
37.21%
Ashland
1.75%
Charles City
0.16%
Chesterfield
20.64%
Goochland
0.79%
Powhatan
0.52%
New Kent
0.16%
Henrico
32.22%
Hanover
6.56%
Figure III-18: 2023 Richmond Area Employment By Jurisdiction
Estimated Employment in 2023
Richmond Regional MPO Study Area
698,298 Jobs
Richmond
28.05%
Ashland
1.83%
Charles City
0.31%
Chesterfield
25.25%
Powhatan
0.85%
New Kent
2.34%
Henrico
33.26%
Goochland
1.24%
Hanover
6.86%
42

1998 Employment Density by Traffic Zone
Richmond Regional MPO Area
Downtown Richmond 0 1 2 3 Miles
Employment per Square Mile
0 - 499
500 - 999
1000 - 9999
10000 & Over
N
W
S
E
5 0 5 10 15 20 Miles
Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, December 2000

2023 Employment Density by Traffic Zone
Richmond Regional MPO Area
Downtown Richmond 0 1 2 3 Miles
Employment per Square Mile
0 - 499
500 - 999
1000 - 9999
10000 & Over
N
W
S
E
5 0 5 10 15 20 Miles
Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, December 2000

Change in Employment Density by Traffic Zone
Richmond Regional MPO Area
Downtown Richmond 0 1 2 3 Miles
2023 - 1998 Change
Employment per Square Mile
Less than Zero
0 - 249
250 - 499
1000 & Over
W
N
S
E
5 0 5 10 15 20 Miles
Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, December 2000

Land Use Characteristics
The renewed investment in highways and automobiles following World War II fostered the
notion that every family needs to have a single-family home on a large lot. This ideal is
perfectly valid for every citizen of this country, but the dream has evolved into something more
than many of us had imagined. Not only has this type of development become the standard for
most Americans, it has spread rapidly into agricultural and forested areas of our country. This
type of development pattern has been termed sprawl. The most recognized definition comes
from the Vermont Forum on Sprawl. It defines sprawl as: “dispersed development outside of
compact urban and village centers that occurs along highways and in what was rural countryside.
Noted transportation policy analyst Anthony Downs at a 1998 Transportation Research
Conference, identified ten “traits” associated with sprawl:
! Unlimited outward extension
! Low-density residential and commercial settlements
! Leapfrog development
! Fragmentation of powers over land use among many localities
! Dominance of transportation by private automotive vehicles
! No centralized planning or control over land uses
! Widespread strip commercial development
! Fiscal disparities among localities
! Segregation of types of land uses in different zones
! Reliance on trickle-down or filtering process or need for public housing to private living
quarters to low-income households
Sprawl is a topic of discussion in every major city in the United States, and Richmond is no
exception. In this analysis, comprehensive land use plans from each jurisdiction in the
Richmond region were used to map out the future land use snapshot for the entire region. It
should be noted that these plans have different horizon years and are not coordinated between
jurisdictions at this time.
Projects listed in the constrained portion of the 2023 Long-Range Transportation Plan were
shown in an overlay of the future land use classes. Once these two steps were complete, the land
use plans could be compared to the location of new transportation facilities and refurbishment of
existing facilities.
Common trends are evident when studying the resulting land use – transportation structure of the
Richmond region. Development of the region as a whole is spreading southwest at a more rapid
pace than any other area. Many new transportation facilities are planned for construction in the
Swift Creek area and west. The completion of Route 288 from Chesterfield to I-64 will open
new travel routes for commuters in the western half of the region, as well as provide new
opportunities for development along that facility. The West Creek office park has the potential,
when occupied, to be a major pull for new development to move west along I-64 toward
Charlottesville. The development of Short Pump as a major retail center and new housing
46

Future Land Use vs. 2023 LRTP Constrained
Transportation Projects
Transportation Projects
New Facility
Realignment
Widen
Reconstruction
Other Improvements
Key to Features
General Land Use Categories
Industrial
Regional Center
Institutional
Rural Conservation
Rural Residential
Mixed Use
Commercial
Open Space
Residential
N
W
S
E
*Please Note*
This map was created through reference to local jurisdiction comprehensive plans. These plans are not consistent with each other because of differing
horizon years and land use classifications, in addition to many other details.
For purposes of showing future growth from a regional standpoint, these plans were evaluated by RRPDC and land use classifications were generalized.
This action eases the ability to compare local land use ideals and direction.
Some of the future land use plans displayed have not yet been fully adopted by the locality.
Though this map shows land use from local comprehensive plans, it has not yet been approved by local jurisdictions and is for display purposes only.
10 0 10 20 30 Miles
Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, March 2001.
Data Sources: Virginia Department of Transportation
City of Richmond, Charles City County, Chesterfield County
Goochland County, Hanover County, Henrico County
New Kent County, Powhatan County, Town of Ashland

opportunities in Wyndham and other communities exemplifies the county’s commitment to
development of that area.
The new development in the West Creek Park draws concern for the housing needs of
employees. This is a concern for many new office parks of any significant size, but the West
Creek park is a good local example. Given the housing stock in Western Henrico, Eastern
Goochland, Powhatan, and western Chesterfield counties, there may not be enough available
housing stock near the place of employment when West Creek reaches full build-out. This
means that employees will have to travel from other places to work in West Creek.
From a transportation perspective, new development is occurring most frequently at the
perimeter of the urban area. The upcoming completion of Route 288 will connect commuters in
Chesterfield County to I-64 and Broad Street and in the bigger picture will complete an outer
loop of primary highway around the urban core.
Another observation from this analysis is the difference in future development styles between the
urban jurisdictions and the rural jurisdictions. The traditional development that has occurred in
the urban jurisdictions follows a linear pattern along major arterials (note: Broad Street,
Midlothian Turnpike, and Hull Street). Rural counties are aware that development can make or
break the quality of life and rural atmosphere of their jurisdictions, and have developed plans that
reflect that concern. The designation of development centers, or specific areas where
development will be directed, is apparent in the future land use plans of each of the four rural
jurisdictions in our region. Development in this pattern will not only push to conserve the rural
landscape, but also deter sprawling growth and reduce traffic congestion caused by frequent
stops and turns.
One of the most discussed topics of new development is the issue of density. It is proven in
many cities that higher population densities tend to foster use of mass transit and pedestrian
modes of transportation. Higher densities in turn lessen the rate of consumption of natural lands
by concentrating new development in more urban areas, most likely as infill development. The
Chesapeake 2000 Agreement (C2K) has incorporated a dedication to lessen the rate of
consumption of natural lands by the three states involved – Virginia, Maryland, and
Pennsylvania. The argument will always exist that people do not want to give up the large lot
and cul-de-sac lifestyle that they have chosen.
Another topic of discussion regarding new development is the jobs-housing balance. The idea of
people living closer to where they work is something that is not new to anyone, but it is an
important detail in planning for new development. If developers take into account the housing
needs of commercial and industrial businesses, long commutes and traffic congestion might be
cut in the future.
There are many aspects of growth that can be addressed by looking at the impacts of land use
and transportation on our region. This analysis only scratches the surface of the potential for
improvement that may be looked at in the near future. We can continue to study these trends and
incorporate land use/transportation factors into many different planning exercises.
48

Some types of new land use patterns that may need further consideration in the 20 year horizon
of this plan are:
! Neo-traditional development – Developments that aspire to return suburban communities to
the “traditional” form of neighborhood. Developments such as Kentlands in Maryland, have
successfully used this form of land use to achieve a community whose resale and property
values are slightly higher than neighboring suburban developments. Neo-traditional
developments typically have a well-defined center that includes commercial, office, and
residential uses at high densities. Multiple residential types from apartments and
condominiums to single family homes, though with smaller lots building setback maximums
as opposed to minimums, sidewalks, and most often front porches instead of rear decks.
Although residential lot yield and density are similar to neighboring communities, the
smaller lots allow for more open space and civic areas so that walking and biking can be an
effective and efficient alternative to the automobile.
! Transit Oriented Development – These developments have a well-defined central place
around a transit stop. The central place provides much of the retail needs of the average
commuter, other retail establishments, and some office space. High-density housing is
located within ¼ mile of the stop to encourage necessary densities to make them viable.
Lower density housing is further out. Transit oriented design places a high priority on
walkability, so urban design, sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and human scale are important
attributes of the development.
! Other Techniques – Some other residential techniques that could be explored by either the
RRPDC or local governments include rural design districts, cluster development where total
density remains the same as conventional suburban design but lots are smaller so the
remaining land is left as open space, and mixed residential development densities with an
affordable housing component. Commercial applications include commercial centers as
opposed to strip malls, shopping villages that create several smaller buildings instead of one
strip mall, and commercial–office mixtures. Localities can also place a premium on growth
management by focusing incentives on revitalization and infill development and creating
disincentives for growth where provisions of public services would be more costly.
Environmental Justice
The environmental justice regulatory framework started with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and
was reinforced by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Federal Aid Highway Act
of 1970, Executive Order 12898 of 1984, U.S. DOT Order 5610.2 to Address Environmental
Justice of 1997, and NPRM of May 25, 2000, 23 CFR Part 1410 & 1420. Under these
requirements each MPO receiving federal funds is expected to examine how well past and future
transportation plans address environmental justice issues. While this plan can make
recommendations on ways to meet environmental justice requirements in the future, the focus of
this section will be on identifying areas of concern and assess how well past long-range
transportation plans have addressed environmental justice requirements.
49

The purpose of environmental justice is to avoid, minimize or mitigate disproportionately high
and adverse effects on low income and minority populations, to ensure full and fair participation
of low income and minority populations, and to prevent the denial of benefits to low income and
minority populations. Environmental justice seeks to ensure equal access to transportation
systems and transportation planning process inputs for everyone regardless of race, color, creed,
or natural origin. In the past, minority and low-income populations have been identified as the
largest disenfranchised group, both in terms of equal access to transportation supply and citizen
input.
The accompanying maps for minority and poverty population by census tract (Maps III-23 – III-
24) help to show the distribution of the populations affected by Environmental Justice. The
highest concentrations of minority population occur in the City of Richmond. Most census tracts
that contain greater than 30 percent (30%) minority population are located in the City and its
adjacent census tracts, especially to the north and east. A significant portion of New Kent
County also contains greater than 30 percent (30%) minority population. Charles City County is
another area that contains a high minority population, with the entire portion within the MPO
study area containing greater than 50 percent (30%) minority population. New road capacity is
often classified as a negative impact, because of increased noise, air pollution, and reduced
safety for pedestrians. In New Kent and Charles City, road projects are primarily reconstruction,
not capacity expansions. Such projects do not tend to increase noise or pollution and add safety
to the facility. Therefore, projects in New Kent and Charles City are not considered to be in
violation of the environmental justice provisions. Projects in the areas of Richmond with high
minority populations focus on improved safety for pedestrians, linkages to transit, and transit
service improvements. Again, these projects are not considered in violation of environmental
justice provisions. (For a more detailed examination of transit provisions for minority and lowincome
populations, please see the transit data collection element.)
As with the minority population, the majority of the poverty population is located within the City
of Richmond. With the exception of the central downtown area, most census tracts, where
greater than 14 percent (14%) of the population have an income of less than $10,000, are located
in the center city area and its adjacent census tracts. The easternmost area of Charles City
County also shows a high concentration of poverty population. Again, for the reasons stated
above, the projects do not violate the environmental justice provisions.
The environmental justice provisions also ask MPOs to examine the transportation network as a
whole, interdependent system to determine impacts. It is not an analysis of processes, rather it
looks to analyze effects, to insure that there is equal benefit and no disproportionate harm.
Analysis is a critical component of environmental justice, although due to the uniqueness of each
case, there is no specific format for analysis.
During the long-range plan public input phase, the Richmond Area MPO designed an input
process that attempted to reach out to low-income and minority populations. This included
advertising all three public meetings in the Richmond Free-Press. A quarter page ad format was
used that included transportation graphics and asked simple questions about future transportation
options. Those who read the ad were encouraged to come to one of the three meetings and
50

1990 Minority Population by Census Tract
Richmond Area MPO
Downtown Richmond 0 1 2 3 Miles
Percent of Population
0% - 10%
10% - 30%
30% - 50%
50% - 80%
80% - 100%
W
N
S
E
5 0 5 10 15 20 Miles
Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, December 2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990

1990 Poverty Population by Census Tract
Richmond Area MPO
Downtown Richmond 0 1 2 3 Miles
Income under $10,000
0 %- 6%
6% - 14%
14 % - 24%
24 % - 44%
44% - 83%
W
N
S
E
5 0 5 10 15 20 Miles
Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, December 2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990

speak out for what they thought was important. In addition, approximately 150 surveys were
mailed to human service agencies throughout the Richmond area. These agencies were asked to
answer the survey question from their clients’ perspective so that areas of need could be
identified and addressed. Although turnout was better than expected, there was not a significant
turnout from low income and minority populations. It appears a more rigorous effort will be
needed to obtain input from low-income and minority populations.
Examination of environmental justice from the whole, interdependent perspective raises some
concerns. Both the current project lists and past transportation plans show a heavy emphasis on
roadway projects, including expansion and new facilities in outlying areas of urbanized counties.
Upon examination, these areas were identified as predominately white and upper and middleclass.
Transit programs included in plans show that areas with high percentages of low-income
and minorities were served if they were located near the urban core. As distance from the urban
core increased, transit service decreased. Many of the routes serving low-income and minority
areas had long headways and lacked adequate night and weekend service. Some outlying areas
with low-income and minority populations received little or no transit service at all.
In Atlanta, road and transit projects have been on hold for three years as the Atlanta region and
the advocates for low-income and minority populations have tried to reach a settlement. The
successful argument used in the Atlanta debate was that the focus of the long-range plan was on
expanding capacity in outlying areas where middle and upper income, predominately white
neighborhoods were located. The result of this program was an increase in regional air
pollutants. Because the improvements were designed to address traffic in white and upper and
middle income population centers but the negative impacts were dispersed over the entire region,
the low income and minority residents, clustered near the urban core where a heat island effect
took place, put a disproportionate burden on low income and minority residents. Even though
the Atlanta region has a 30 percent (30%) roadway, 70 percent (70%) alternative transportation
funding split, the two sides cannot reach an agreement. Low-income and minority advocates
want federal oversight because they fear federal dollars will be used on road construction first
and alternatives will get what is left over. Thus transit may not receive much money at all during
the first years of funding. As another response to the situation, Atlanta formed a regional
transportation commission and was granted authority over all regional land use decisions.
Neither party will budge on its position of federal oversight, so all transportation projects
continue to be on hold.
In Los Angeles, low-income and minority population advocates settled out of court with the Los
Angeles area transportation commission. The 1 billion dollar settlement is considered to be the
largest financial settlement over a civil rights issue. At the heart of the controversy was the use
of transit funds for light and commuter rail projects that served predominately white, middle, and
upper income commuters and little on upgrading transit service in low-income and minority
populations. The 1 billion dollars will go to replace old transit vehicles, and improve service in
low-income and minority areas. Both cases suggest that any perceived environmental justice
violation will result in lengthy and potentially costly legal battles.
Projecting what service is needed and how environmental justice provisions can be met is
difficult at this time. Information used to identify low-income and minority areas is limited to
53

the 1990 Census, which is now ten years old. When the next plan update is developed,
information from the 2000 Census will be available for comparison as well as projections for
need out to the twenty-year time horizon. Based on 1990 census information, it appears that
improving transit service by expanding into new areas and by considerably reducing headways
on existing routes in minority and low-income areas appears to be the best way to provide equal
access to the transportation network.
For this to occur, the 2023 Plan will have to recommend that the first steps to equal access be
taken through transit improvements. Until better projections can be made, some service
expansion will be necessary, and reducing headways on important routes will be necessary. This
may prove politically and financially difficult, since there currently is no long-term dedicated
funding source for transit operations.
54

2023 LRTP
Chapter IV
Public Input
55

Chapter IV-Public Input
Introduction
This section provides a summary of the processes and input obtained as a result of the public
input process. It is necessary to establish a free exchange of information and allow for public
input at all stages of the planning process. In order for the public input process to be effective, it
must be proactive, it must provide complete information to the public, there must be timely
public notices to ensure the public’s awareness of the opportunities, the public must be allowed
to provide input toward decisions, the process must begin early and be continuing, and the
process must involve a broad cross-section of the public.
Citizen Participation
! Developed open-ended survey to solicit citizen attitudes/preferences in the areas of
roadways, transit, alternative transportation and port and airport facilities
-Mailed out approximately 150 surveys to local non-profit and social service
organizations
-Survey also used at public meetings
-Could also be downloaded and returned via RRPDC web site
! Public review meetings requesting initial citizen input for the LRTP were advertised in
Richmond Times-Dispatch and Richmond Free-Press. Also advertised via WRVA radio.
The public meetings were a discussion topic on afternoon radio call-in show and ads were
purchased for morning and afternoon drive-time on Thursday and Friday March 23 & 24,
2000 and morning drive time on Monday, March 27, 2000.
! WRIC TV Channel 8 did a live broadcast feed from RRPDC offices on Monday, March 27,
2000 during the 6:00 A.M. and 6:30 A.M. morning news shows promoting the March 27-29
LRTP public review meetings.
! RRPDC web site maintained a separate area for the long-range plan update which included
meeting information, frequently asked questions, what to expect at the public meetings and a
downloadable survey form.
! Notices of LRTP public review meetings were sent to all MPO, CTAC, TAC, and EDAC
members, area news media, to interested parties on various MPO and MPO committee
mailing lists, and to approximately 150 non-profit and social service organizations.
! Public meetings were held in Chesterfield County on March 27, 2000, Henrico County on
March 28, 2000, and City of Richmond on March 29, 2000. Approximately 130 citizens
attended these meetings and 110 public input surveys were collected.
56

! Public meetings were held in March 2001 to review the entire Long-Range Transportation
Plan document. All public comments and staff response to comments were shared with the
MPO at their March 2001 meeting (see Appendix A).
MPO Committee and Task Force Review
The Long-Range Transportation Plan Task Force was comprised of members of the Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) and
representatives from environmental and transportation user groups. The task force met 12 times
in an 11 month period to analyze transportation data, develop goals and objectives and oversee
plan recommendations. Periodic updates were provided to both the TAC and CTAC. The TAC
approved the Long-Range Transportation Plan for public review.
Survey Results
A total of 125 surveys were collected from the three meetings and social service organization
mail outs. The results divided by jurisdictional meeting location, CTAC comments, and social
service agencies are listed below.
Survey Responses: Chesterfield Meeting
Roads
! Complete 288 North to I-295 (2).
! Accelerate reconstruction of Coalfield Road.
! No tolls on Powhite and Downtown Expressway.
! Four lane Huguenot Bridge (2).
! Add perimeter road to avoid Midlothian Turnpike.
! Repair Huguenot now!
! Cannot continue to expand roads until affordable public transportation is provided.
! Cut down congestion on all major highways. Improved public transportation would help a
few of these problems.
! Old Buckingham Road.
! Buford Road.
! Need to focus our attention on the transportation needs of those who are disabled and can’t
drive by spending more money on public transportation and special transportation services
and less on building roads.
! We need transportation to get to doctor, store, church and other places, but Chesterfield
doesn’t want to provide that transportation; they’d rather build roads.
! Improve I-95.
! I’m here as a consumer of Central Independent Living Center on Ironbridge and Irongate
Road. This is located in Chesterfield County.
! Improve area around Courthouse.
! Improve Old Hundred Road from Dry Bridge South to Otterdale. I will be dead and buried if
you don’t do this in the next five to ten years.
! More bicycle lanes along roadways.
57

! We don’t need any more roads. Maintain the ones we have now.
! Mass transportation and high-speed rail are more important than roads.
! Completion of the beltway is critical to growth. Selected intersection improvements such as
Parham/Patterson. Also, pay attention to what Maryland and D.C. are doing to fight
congestion, then do that here.
! The James River crossing of Rt. 288 should be put on hold for ten years. Powhatan project
25 (Huguenot Springs Rd reconstruction) should be dropped.
Mass Transit
! High-speed rail between Washington/Richmond/Virginia Beach.
! Light rail.
! Any means of readily available, timely mass transit to avoid car commuting.
! More trains to Washington and stopping at other points in the D.C. area besides Alexandria.
! Public transportation in Chesterfield County (2).
! Route on Broad Street from Downtown to Short Pump (2).
! Broad Street Connector in Henrico County to US 60 in Chesterfield County (2).
! Route from Cloverleaf Mall to Courthouse area (2).
! Route from City of Richmond to Route 10 in Chesterfield County (2).
! Having affordable public bus transportation to all areas of Richmond region (2).
! Are you aware that it costs between $50 and $60 round-trip for a person with a disability to
go to work, shopping, etc. Can you afford to pay this much every time you wanted to go
somewhere?
! We are overlooking the people in our community who need transportation but can’t afford
the high prices they must pay to get around. These people depend on their local government
tax dollars to come up with an affordable solution.
! The Chesterfield County Disability Services Board gets monetary support from the
Chesterfield Board of Supervisors. For the past three years, the Disabilities Board has
awarded its Rehabilitative Services Incentives to a private transportation company to offer
subsidized rides to Chesterfield County residents with disabilities. The amount given was
$41,520 and each and every year the money runs out long before the end of the fiscal year.
This year the money ran out March 6 th and all the people who used this service are now
sitting at home. Our county must bite the bullet. Affordable transportation is an absolute
necessity for everyone.
! Rail service.
! We need affordable public transportation to help all people get around and go places.
! I feel that if the local governments work together they would be able to provide public
transportation for those of us who have no other way to commute to jobs.
! I am a handicapped person who lives in Chesterfield. Lots of times I have no transportation
at all. I need affordable transportation to get to places I need to go to.
! Paratransit in Chesterfield for persons with disabilities to have transportation (4).
! No bus service improvements are possible in our area because Chesterfield does not have
service.
! Have needs for mass transit especially for disabled people. Expansion should be in different
direction- into Chesterfield County.
58

! Public transportation is so desperately needed in Chesterfield County because there are some
of us that don’t drive and therefore don’t have any means of transportation.
! Trains and new bus station in Chesterfield County.
! The tracks are already in place for train service from South Richmond to Bon Air to
Midlothian to Dry Bridge. Why don’t they give us this service?
! Handicap bus service all over Chesterfield and to Richmond and airport.
! Expand bus service into Chesterfield County (6).
! Use the present rails in place to provide train service from city to county.
! High-speed and light rail services-- any new mode of transportation other than trucks and
automobiles.
! Bus service throughout the suburbs into the city for commuters.
! Rail service from Midlothian to other areas of the region should be pushed.
Alternative Transportation
! Vanpools.
! Chesterfield County is growing and needs an expanded van service.
! Vanpool programs to get elderly to stores and dr. appointments.
! Paved bike paths next to main roads would also encourage walking.
! Paratransit service for persons with disabilities (3).
! Van service for handicap commuters.
! Train service.
! Keep the bicycles off Route 652 to Route 667.
! Vans/trailers to transport cyclists.
! Park and ride for both cars and bicycles.
! Have you tried riding a bicycle on the present roads in the city or county?
! Bicycle trails desperately needed.
! Bicycle lanes with an emphasis on commuting and shopping not on recreation.
Airport, Port of Richmond, and Freight Movement
! Lower air fares (3).
! More direct flights.
! More reasonably priced flights out of Richmond.
! The Richmond Airport airfares are so exorbitant that air travelers go to other airports (2).
! Better airport facility to welcome new arrivals.
! More development of the Port of Richmond.
Anything Else You Would Like To Add?
! Please remember public transportation for disabled and seniors.
! More bike trails in Chesterfield County.
! Many areas with public transportation need shuttle buses to go into subdivisions to pick up
people who cannot reach main roads.
! We taxpayers in Chesterfield County should not have to pay tolls to live in Chesterfield
County. Our roads should be paid for by all taxpayers.
59

! I’m satisfied with transportation system.
! Help people who can’t get to work because of transportation limitations so that they are not a
tax burden.
! All transportation providers should work together to provide transportation to all persons not
just those who can pay for it.
! Take the time to visit our area and see how difficult it is for us to get to where we need to go.
! It would be appreciated to provide transportation as soon as possible.
! Please think in terms of the disabled and seniors, they are the ones that need the
transportation the most.
! Need paratransit in Chesterfield now for disabled.
! Make transportation connections with all local towns for persons with disabilities.
! We never wanted 288 and still don’t.
! More regard for property owners.
! More attention to pollution.
! Pay attention and use common sense. The answer to congestion is not more roads.
! Study other cities for things that they have done.
! Read studies of bus transportation and do the math! Figures are wrong and misleading.
! Taxpayers should not subsidize bus service.
Survey Responses: Henrico County
Roads
! Widen Creighton Road, Nine Mile Road and Masonic Lane.
! Traffic light at Brittles and Gay.
! Instituting HOV lanes may be an option to consider to alleviate congestion.
! More attention on improving secondary roads in or near new subdivisions.
! Bickerstaff Road widening.
! Improvement and widening of I-95/I-64/Powhite interchange.
! Faster southwest corridor possibly parallel to Midlothian Trpk.
! Maintaining the interstates and other roads in good condition.
! Completion of I-895 corridor to the airport.
! Widening of Laburnum Avenue from fairgrounds to Williamsburg Road.
! Increase street lighting on bridges.
! More street handicap parking.
! Improvement of heavily traveled secondary roads.
! Bypass of Interstate 64 from the connection of I-95 into the City of Richmond.
! A major interstate around the area to reduce heavy truck traffic.
! Building the lanes to a minimum of three in each direction to allow traffic to flow smoothly.
Mass Transit
! It will be critical to expand bus service into the counties (Henrico and Chesterfield) because
many of the social service programs rely on vans that are not always dependable and it is not
guaranteed. The state will pay for the service.
! Light rail service for outlying areas.
60

! Rail transportation center in Richmond that could branch out to other areas.
! Expanded bus service into the counties.
! I would like to see commuter rail or other type of mass transit service between Richmond,
Northern Virginia, and Tidewater.
! High-speed rail between Richmond and Washington.
! Light rail to the malls.
! I would like to see improved CARE van service. I schedule CARE van service for about half
my clients. Although I appreciate the city providing this service the vans are often not
punctual sometimes as much as an hour late. There could be improvement in scheduling and
routing of these vans.
! High-speed and light rail services are needed, especially for those who are unable to drive or
cannot afford an automobile.
! Amtrak from D.C. to Richmond.
! Make Care van more responsive to ADA.
! Widen scope of disabled transportation to include nights and weekends and holidays.
! Light rail connecting West End, Chesterfield and Richmond.
! Bus transit to outlying counties (2).
! Extension of bus transportation to Parham – link to Lakeside.
! Expand availability of bus travel.
! Improve Care van service to Henrico area.
! Extend hours of service and distances of GRTCS bus services.
! Putting a transit system in place that is affordable.
! Extend bus service and hours into the counties especially service during peak hours.
! Van service for the elderly and handicapped should be available to the residents of all
localities in the region at an affordable cost (3).
! Some type of transit that can go through all counties at peak periods.
! Vans that are affordable.
Alternative Transportation
! More funding should be made available for van services like C-Van.
! Bicycle lanes along all major highways, especially Nine Mile Road.
! Because of the increasing need for flex-time, I do not feel carpooling has much of a future.
! Provide more bike lanes.
! Van or bus service to surrounding counties such as Powhatan/Goochland.
! More vanpool programs.
! More bike trails.
! Vanpooling should be encouraged.
! Carpooling programs will be necessary because of the rise in cost of living.
Airport, Port of Richmond and Freight Movement
! Widen Port of Richmond to facilitate larger ships.
! Larger and longer runways at airport.
! Mass transit to and from the airport from surrounding counties, possibly tying in to park and
ride facilities.
61

! Some form of mass transit to airport.
! Increased competition to bring down ticket prices at Richmond International Airport (RIA).
! Airlines need to lower fares if they want more business out of the RIA.
! Set-up a piggyback terminal or container terminal at RIA to promote intermodal freight
exchange.
! Increase airlines service to area and major carriers.
! Increase rail services bringing in other rail services besides Amtrak.
! Coordinate freight train services at RIA.
Anything Else You Would Like To Add?
! Use of higher grade concrete to fix roadways.
! Emphasis should be placed on improving quality of paratransit service.
! Reliable transportation for those without their own transportation.
Survey Responses: Richmond
Roads
! The greatest importance should be assigned to making a comprehensive system that relies far
less on fossil fuels and more on bike trails, light rail, even monorail and electric trolleys.
! Maintain existing roads rather than build new ones or widen existing ones.
! I fear the plan pushes everyone to need an automobile at the expense of a multi-modal system
plan that better protects the environment.
! Richmond area has plenty of roads. The plan presented is twenty years out-of-date in both
projects and thinking. The region needs a multi-modal plan that includes bike paths, light
rail, BETTER land use planning, bus service, etc.
! Must Richmond continue to operate in the dark ages of roadway expansion.
! Re-route Route 60 and 360 in the Eastern end of the City. East Broad cannot handle the
heavy truck traffic and the current configuration is detrimental to revitalization efforts in
Church Hill.
! A new road to Eastern Henrico.
! Reopen Franklin Street at Main Street Station.
! Route 5 into the City and Downtown should be expanded.
! The most important road project is the redesign and rebuild of I-95 Exit 78 (Boulevard) into a
Richmond Gateway.
! We need to rework the Boulevard between Broad and Westwood.
! It is extremely important that public transportation be available from Richmond into Henrico
County and Chesterfield County where jobs are.
! What will be important is the need to avoid over-building of roads and highways throughout
the Richmond area.
! I hope the funds used for roads will include money to plant trees and shrubs along them.
! Current proposal for roads and more roads will not pass a real air-quality test. Emphasis
should be on alternative transportation modes to provide real choices for commuters.
! Less dependence, not more, on regional roads and highways.
! Don’t widen and expand highways too much.
62

! Roads need sidewalks, especially Hull Street and Genito Road.
! All roads need to be addressed for bumpiness and excessive destruction to automobiles.
! Remove railroad tracks across roads in residential areas.
! The most important road projects will be to maintain street cleaning and construct better
signs so that pedestrians are able to see them.
! Complete ring road system.
! Open the highways and roads in surrounding counties to the rapid transit company.
! Roads and highways are fine as is.
! Better signage on roadways to prevent bottlenecks and assist drivers in merging at
appropriate distances.
! Cut down on highway projects.
! If we want regional transportation lets stop the jurisdictional road project mentality and
consider a comprehensive and cooperative program with emphasis on regional rapid transit.
! I-95 ramps improvement.
! Landscaping and neighborhood friendly-design for exits/entrances.
! Speed limit enforcement.
! Completion of the Rote 288 outer loop.
! Any alternative system to reduce air pollution.
! Maintain existing roads and highways in good condition.
! No further widening of highways as widening leads to more congestion and dangerous travel
conditions.
! Maintenance of existing highways only.
! I-95 from downtown to I-64 needs to be monitored and improved in order to carry the
anticipated increase in traffic in the near future.
! Widen Huguenot Road from River Road to Midlothian Turnpike including Bridge.
! I would like to see sidewalks as a requirement for all new roads in the counties, and wide
enough shoulders to accommodate bicycle riders.
! I am very concerned that Richmond is succumbing to suburban sprawl. You listed toll-free
roads as a possibility but I hope you will maintain the Powhite tolls and proceed with any
other toll projects. Commuters need to understand the consequences of their residential
location choices. The toll will assist in paying for the road and reminding commuters of the
tax they should pay by living far away from the Central City.
Mass Transit
! Rail transit should go to outlying areas like Ashland, Chester, etc. as they once did.
! Bike trails and buses, vans, trolleys, monorails should be part of integrated system.
! Several abandoned rail lines exist in the area-plans should be made immediately for
conversion to light rail.
! Light rail should not go down East Broad Street, it should go into the middle of Church Hill.
! GRTCS should be run by the RMA Authority.
! Construction of light rail line fro Main Street Station to Science Museum.
! Extend light rail from Main Street to loop thru Shockoe Slip, Shockoe Bottom, the CBD and
the canal turning basin.
! Light rail line from Maymont to Lewis Ginter Botanical Garden intersecting with Broad
Street line at Science Museum.
63

! Bus service into surrounding counties is extremely important because the jobs are relocating
to the counties.
! Certainly the proposals to improve rail between Richmond and Washington will be
important.
! I hope the MPO will work to improve rail service to from and within the Richmond area.
! Comprehensive light rail system connecting with Main Street Station (3).
! An integrated regional bus and rail system tied in at some point to out-of-state bus and rail
systems, initially at Main Street Station but not excluding interchanges elsewhere.
! Bus service improvements including signs indicating what bus route stops there.
! Reduced fares for all riders.
! Bike racks on buses (2).
! High speed rail to and from D.C. and Hampton Roads (5).
! Expand transit throughout Chesterfield County.
! CARE transportation should be available until 10 P.M. (4).
! CARE tickets should include 10 in a book for $13.50.
! Extend CARE services to all counties (4).
! Improve existing CARE services (4).
! Regional bus service (3).
! To have a bus system that allows city residents to go to any of the eight outlying areas to
reach jobs, shopping and medical care.
! To provide bus shelters and seats at all stops so that mothers and babies do not have to stand
or wait in bad weather.
! Improve weekend bus service.
! More express buses to malls from convention centers.
! Improve railroad beds for future rail is #1 priority.
! Extending bus service into outlying areas and increasing hours of service.
! A rail system that would extend from Richmond throughout the surrounding counties (2).
! The proposed paratransit system is an excellent concept however better scheduling for pickups
and extended service on weekends is necessary.
! A mass transit system to Chesterfield, Henrico and Ashland is needed.
! Smaller buses.
! Light rail.
! Regional cooperation with access to all counties.
! Bus or trolley link for all cultural attractions.
! Commuter rail service from Richmond to Western Henrico and Southern Chesterfield to
start. Eventually, a complete system that ties in Eastern Henrico and the rest of Chesterfield
as well as the airport.
! We need bus service improvements, high speed rail north-south-east and west, light rail
system and commuter rail.
! Social encouragement of mass transit use is very important.
! GRTCS expanding into Henrico and Chesterfield Counties.
! Bring back city trolleys.
! We need to give real trolleys a try.
! Improve C-Van.
64

! Increased public transportation will be important for connecting the region with the cities and
counties. We are already far behind other similar regions in providing adequate public
transportation.
! Bus service within Henrico County and between Henrico, Richmond, and Chesterfield.
Alternative Transportation
! Bike trails that people can use in daily commuting.
! Richmond is very pedestrian unfriendly. Every effort should be made to accommodate
pedestrians rather than autos.
! Do not have the main bus station at Main Street Station, leave it on the Boulevard.
! The refurbishment of the JRK Canal from Tredegar to the Pump House for both canal boats
and pedestrian access.
! Transportation for those who don’t have cars or who can’t drive to jobs is necessary.
Vanpools and carpools are helpful but some people are afraid to ride with us.
! I hope the MPO will do all that it can to support carpool and vanpool programs, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities throughout the region and maintain those programs over the time period
of the plan.
! Spend more transportation dollars on retrofitting communities to make them pedestrian
friendly. Extensive system of bikeways and showers and lockers at job sites would
encourage many to try other ways of getting to work.
! Car and vanpool programs are very helpful.
! Better law enforcement of vehicles would make bicycle transportation more attractive in
Richmond.
! There needs to be more bike lanes in the region.
! Bike racks throughout the city would encourage people to ride.
! Develop some pedestrian only streets.
! Bellevue Avenue retail area needs better sidewalks.
! Bike paths along major corridors to downtown.
! Biking paths.
! Pedestrian walkways and bicycle trails needed (2).
! Specialized bicycle lanes along major corridors.
! Better park and ride lots with better express services.
! Carpool and vanpool needs more publicity as alternative options.
! Improve sidewalks downtown.
! Better signs to alert pedestrians of turning vehicles and vice versa.
! We need to stimulate and educate the public about alternatives and the importance of cutting
down car traffic.
! Cut down urban sprawl through better land use planning between jurisdictions.
! Make streets more bicycle friendly and connect them to residential areas.
! Traffic calming to induce the use of arteries rather than cutting through residential areas.
! Any road project should include a bike lane.
! Conversion of abandoned rail corridors not to be used for rail service should be converted to
bike routes.
! People need a variety of options like carpools and vanpools, flex-time, etc to reduce their
dependence on the automobile.
65

! All alternative transportation projects should be encouraged and funded.
! Bring back city trolleys.
! Develop an HOV lane on I-64 from Short Pump to downtown Richmond.
! Bike trails are needed throughout the region.
! A system of bike trails that connects all the parks (existing and planned) in Henrico and
Chesterfield.
Airport, Port of Richmond and Freight Movement
! Bus or rail connection to the airport so that high-cost taxis can be avoided.
! Mass transit service from all over region to airport operating all hours of day and night.
! De-emphasize the airport since we can’t get reasonable fares and emphasize high speed rail
connections to airports east and north of Richmond.
! More emphasis on rail freight movement of goods to get trucks off roads.
! I expect that as high-speed rail develops there will be less need for RIA.
! Trains passed certain night hours should be prohibited.
! Upgrade airport.
! Provide bud access to downtown from airport.
! Lower air fares (3).
! Make Richmond a hub for one of the major airlines.
! Better and speedier rail freight transport lines.
! A system that helps the handicapped get to the airport in an economical manner.
! Courtesy transportation to airport for disabled and elderly.
! Satellite courtesy substations to transport elderly and disabled to airport.
! Encourage local businesses to use rail instead of trucks to move freight.
! Bus service to the airport from various locations would be wonderful.
Anything Else You Would Like To Add?
! This has been a wonderful opportunity to voice my opinions. My hope is that the people who
make the decisions on the plan listen to the people who came to these meetings instead of
disregarding our comments because they don’t agree with them. Its my tax dollars that are
going to these projects and if they don’t want to listen to the public lets get them out of
Richmond.
! This plan is antiquated-other similar-sized regions are moving forward with vision and
embracing multi-modal planning. The Richmond Plan is nothing more than a road
improvement program.
! Providing transportation to jobs is our #1 priority. Lets not let transportation increase the
divide between the wealthy and the poor.
! Ultimately, in-town shopping will revive if the mass transit system is there to support it and
as suburban roads clog making it difficult to reach the malls.
! Current paratransit system needs improvement in timeliness, in making their designated
destinations and to improve overall services (3).
! Improve CARE services (4).
! Why is light rail shown on Broad Street? Future growth is on Main Street, other corridors
within city limits.
66

! HOV is key to the future growth of Richmond.
! Education of the public to real need for planning for the future of the area that is cooperative
between jurisdictions.
! Remove or relocate the Meadow Street RMA toll booth.
! Relocate the GRTCS bus barn.
! Put trash cans at all bus stops and then empty them regularly.
! Remove the West Grace Street traffic diverter.
! With the increased pressure on car transport, it is obvious to me that paving our way out of
congestion is not the answer. Alternatives must be developed.
! Richmond is still a livable city traffic wise. Let’s learn from some of our other cities- don’t
build bigger and more highways and roads, people will only change to public and alternative
transportation when auto travel inconveniences them too much or when transit is competitive
with auto travel.
! Please maintain the quality of life for our citizens – stop building pavement and encourage
more efficient use of resources.
! Richmond is a good town, lets not ruin it with more traffic and roadways.
! The underclass is experiencing problems getting to work in surrounding counties.
! Keep moving toward multi-modal!!!
Survey Responses: CTAC
Roads
! Completion of Route 288 toll-free.
! Improvement of Bryan Park Interchange.
! Route thru traffic around Richmond rather than thru it.
! Repair or replace the Huguenot Bridge.
! Why such a focus on roads? I thought this was a transportation plan.
! When are you going to get serious about transportation? How many miles and $ for roads
are in this plan versus other transportation improvements or ideas?
! Patterson Avenue and Parham Road traffic needs to be further addressed beyond the
Parham/Patterson intersection.
! Maintaining existing network would be the best expenditure of funds.
! Plant seeds to get people to change commuting, travel plans. Richmond region must shift
over to more mass transit, bikes, carpooling, and trip chaining.
! Completion of Route 288 (2).
! Huguenot Bridge reconstruction.
! Extension of Powhite Parkway to 360 west.
! Four lane Rte. 711 from Route 147 to Route 522.
! I-64 widening from Richmond to Hampton Roads (2).
! All the bridges need rehabilitation in the City of Richmond.
! Require builders to submit plans and VDOT submit requirements of access roads before can
build.
! A moratorium on roads would not bother me. Concentrate on maintenance, safety, transit
accommodation (pull-out stops in suburbia w/ shelters).
! All corridor improvements should include lanes for bicycles and pedestrians.
67

Mass Transit
! High speed rail to Washington and Hampton Roads (4).
! Rail service to Roanoke.
! GRTCS expansion into Henrico, Chesterfield and Hanover.
! Bus service on the beltways and to downtown Richmond.
! I see the need for lots of mass transit improvements but I don’t see any serious effort on your
part to engage them.
! Extension of bus routes into the counties is urgent.
! A line on Gayton Road to help employees get to various nursing homes would be helpful.
! Extend bus service, have more flexible service and more express, commuter buses.
! Commuter rail.
! Expansion of public transportation to suburban areas.
! Development of multi-modal transfer center (i.e. Main Street Station).
! Completion of Main Street Station for regional and local rail service.
! We need bus service improvements, high speed rail, light rail, and commuter rail.
! Buses to run from West End locations to West End locations without having to go toward
town and transfer.
! More transit hubs in various areas of counties for transfers.
! Bus to full metro area with circumferential direct service with focus on such centers as
Innsbrook, Brandermill, White Oak, Philip Morris, etc.
! Light rail on Broad Street.
! Regional light rail system is essential in next twenty years. We need to begin the visioning
process now so development can adjust.
! Development and transportation are so intertwined that 20 more years of auto-oriented
development will make the transition to rail transit that much more to implement. Fuel price
increases and availability to pay for it need to be considered in current long-range plan.
Alternative Transportation
! This area needs to eliminate the independent government concept and set-up a regional
government to work in a cooperative effort to standardize public services, including
transportation, zoning and other things that have an impact on future development of the
area.
! We will need to expand commuter rail from Amelia to Richmond.
! We need more alternative transportation options, but I don’t see any serious effort on your
part to engage them.
! When new highways are constructed, park and ride lots should be included to encourage bus
and pooling ridership.
! Keep expanding rideshare, encourage more carpooling and disincentives for solo commuting
! New visionary bike plans for city and counties.
! New roads in subdivisions and servicing subdivisions should have bike lanes and pedestrian
paths.
! Yes to all alternative transportation programs.
! Park and ride from outlying areas with express service to multiple areas (downtown,
Innsbrook) including light rail service from these lots to various population centers.
68

! We need a regional emphasis on employer rideshare/transit incentives.
! If parking is offered, then free bus should be available as options for employees.
! We need proactive promotion of alternative transportation.
Airport, Port of Richmond and Freight Movement
! Improvements to bring RIC into the 21 st century including improved access.
! Secure lower cost carrier or find a way to reduce fares.
! Expand direct connections from airport to other cities not just hubs.
! A direct commuter rail connection to the airport.
! The Port of Richmond wants to dredge all the way to Hampton Roads. You should not
support this until a serious analysis of the environmental impacts is completed.
! Improving these areas is O.K. but our #1 priority should be improving local mass transit.
! Direct rail and Interstate access to RIA.
! A quality hub airport with reasonable fares is very important to the future of the Richmond
region.
! Access of commuter transportation from various areas of counties to airport.
! Connect RIC to downtown hub via rail service on regular basis.
! Connect Port of Richmond to rail freight system hub in Chesterfield/Petersburg.
! A regional intermodal freight facility is needed to intercept long-distance truck traffic.
Anything Else You Would Like To Add?
! This area needs more action to move ahead of projected needs rather than reacting by
building roads.
! The allocation of $ for roads versus everything else is seriously unbalanced. You need to
correct this.
! Rail, bus, bike, it should be our mantra.
! Develop coordinated traffic lights throughout city limits.
! Land use reform is desperately needed. Develop more and better residential/retail mixes, and
office park/residential/retail communities.
Survey Responses: Non-Profit Organizations
Roads
! Focus on roads that will allow people and goods to move quickly on direct routes from one
area to another.
! Complete the outer 295 loop (west and south).
! Four lanes for Route 33 in Hanover.
! Replace Huguenot Bridge with a four lane facility.
! Add two more lanes to Rt. 60 east of Bottoms Bridge.
! Extend 895 to Airport.
! Extend second lane at 64 East from I-95.
! Perimeter freeway.
69

! Just about every road in Richmond needs serious maintenance. Broad Street, Cary and Main
are in terrible shape from Shockoe Bottom to Thompson Street.
! A far west end bridge across the James River and access roads.
! Eliminate tolls.
! Widen major commuting routes.
! Route 288 and I-65 improvement.
! Need to repair roads and streets we have now that are torn up.
! Widen Staples Mill Rd. past I-295.
! Route 288.
! The Bryan Park Interchange needs improvement.
! Completion of Route 288 from I-64 to N95 (outer loop).
! Improve Richmond-Hampton Roads corridor.
! Expand Chippenham Parkway.
! Inner city road surfaces are very poor.
! Direct access from Goochland County and Charles City County to Route 301 and I-95.
! A new road to connect I-64 east of town to I-64 west of town. Shockoe Valley bridge and I-
95 always congested and accidents.
! Better access from Chesterfield to West End.
! Parham/Patterson interchange.
! Pump Road and Broad intersection.
! Western by-pass around Richmond.
! Improvement of congestion on Broad Street and Midlothian Turnpike.
! Reduction of tolls.
! Surveillance equipment to capture traffic signal violators.
! Completion of I-895 and Route 288 to have inner and outer beltway.
! Widen Hull Street to six lanes past Woodlake.
! Change the I-95 exits that currently direct traffic away from the City of Richmond.
! Complete 288 loop around Richmond.
! Completion of Route 288 and I-895.
! Construct airport connector road.
! Widen I-64 to Newport News.
! Amelia County should be included in future road plans.
! Bigger highways for less traffic congestion.
! Create overpasses on major roads at congested intersections.
! Improve commutes into and out of central city.
! Complete circumnavigation routes.
! I think it is critical to improve rail and bus systems rather than focus on highways.
! Toll all highways to discourage highway driving.
! Completion of route 288 to 95 project.
Mass Transit
! A light rail service that is more competitive with other modes of transportation.
! Greyhound service could use improvement (2).
! Better park and ride services from outer areas of Richmond to downtown with extended time
for service.
70

! Bus service to Chesterfield, Henrico and Hanover (2).
! Development of commuter rail service.
! Bus service in Chesterfield, to Short Pump and Ashland.
! High speed rail from Richmond to D.C. and Virginia Beach (9).
! Bus service throughout Chesterfield County (especially service to all schools).
! Expanded bus service throughout metro Richmond.
! Central access to train travel.
! Public transportation to Richmond Airport.
! Cost of public transportation should be addressed; $1.25 per ride is expensive for those on
fixed income.
! Improve rail service to D.C. (4).
! Bus service to far west end (Short Pump).
! Bus service to far south side (Chester).
! Something similar to Jobs Bus that can run a route to hospitals.
! Improved and updated bus and rail service.
! Need to extend bus routes farther out into Henrico County.
! Maybe before the 21 st Century is over we can have a monorail down Broad Street.
! More funding for vans for the elderly and disabled.
! Busses need to be run deep into Henrico and Chesterfield County (2).
! Bus service hours need expanding.
! Rail service would be great if feasible.
! Public transportation services in Hanover.
! Provide transportation services to persons with disabilities, especially for getting them to and
from work.
! Public transportation to Chesterfield County. This will increase work force and provide
access to better employment.
! Increased bus service as well as expanded services into surrounding counties.
! Expanded service hours with more frequent service during day (3).
! Better rail service.
! Bus service to outlying areas.
! High-speed and light rail service will become more necessary in future.
! Light rail service along Broad Street.
! Buses from Chesterfield to MCV.
! Families in south side projects have difficulty getting to north side.
! North-south high speed rail system.
! Expansion of GRTCS into the counties surrounding Richmond (3).
! Light rail system from suburbs to downtown.
! Train station in downtown.
! Frequent bus service into Chesterfield and Hanover Counties to major business and retail
areas.
! Van service for elderly and poor in all counties.
! A metro system would be awesome.
! Full regional bus and/or van service throughout Richmond, Henrico, Hanover, and outlying
counties with some Park and ride services in outlying areas.
! Specialized transportation services on nights and weekends and bus services that cross
county lines.
71

! Subway or elevated rail system.
! Smaller buses on more regional routing.
! Much enlarged bus service connecting central city to outlying areas in counties.
! Very important to expand bus service and develop high-speed and light rail services.
! Increased bus service to all counties especially malls.
! Establishment of connected bus and park and ride services to all counties.
! Rail service from counties to Richmond.
! Mass transit to airport.
! Improved transportation for disabled.
Alternative Transportation
! We could use a lot more carpool and vanpool programs (9).
! Comprehensive carpool and vanpool services are a great first step to a comprehensive bus
system.
! More designated bike routes for recreation.
! Bike path on Route 5 (2).
! Increased bike paths and sidewalks (4).
! Encouraging widespread carpool and vanpool programs to reduce dependence on gasoline.
! Expand and increase bike lanes.
! Sidewalks should be added to outlying areas (2).
! Tax credits to businesses that support alternative transportation programs.
! Better travel information systems.
! More funding for van services for elderly and disabled.
! Pedestrian paths need to be added in Chesterfield, subdivisions without sidewalks are
ridiculous.
! Bicycle lanes on River Road and across Willey Bridge.
! Bike lanes on Chamberlayne and/or Brook Road.
! Incentive programs for people that carpool and vanpool.
! Local flexible van service to supplement bus service.
! More bike and pedestrian facilities in counties.
! Change zoning to require sidewalks for office complexes, shopping areas, etc.
! Appropriate paths for people who bicycle or jog to work.
! More vanpooling (2).
! More pedestrian and bike facilities where walking and bike riding can be done safely.
! More bicycle paths along busy roads in Chesterfield, Henrico, Hanover, and Richmond.
! Carpool incentives.
! HOV lanes.
! Company sponsored carpool incentives.
! More money for Ridefinders.
! Bicycles should have lanes throughout the downtown area.
! Bus lanes.
! Sidewalks in residential areas outside the city.
! Pedestrian paths into and out of city.
! Designated bike routes.
! Improve safety for bicycle commuters.
72

! Safe bike lanes protected with a cement barrier.
! Make Broad Street, Grace Street, Main Street, Cary Street, Leigh Street pedestrian malls.
Airport, Port of Richmond, and Freight Movement
! Planes, trains and trucks will be a very important consideration for the Richmond area.
! Better transportation services to airport not just taxis.
! Low cost air service provider (12).
! Regular, reliable public transportation to airport.
! Airport needs to grow.
! Enhance the airport using the BWI model.
! Continued airport improvement.
! Park and ride from county locations to airport.
! Expand Port of Richmond to increase foreign trade.
! Connect 288 to airport.
! It’s cheaper to fly out of Norfolk and D.C. why can’t this be changed.
! It’s more cost effective to drive to other airports.
! Richmond loses a lot of passengers to Norfolk and Washington, D.C. and is not convenient
for travelers from other cities.
! More cargo planes to ship freight into and out of Richmond.
! Clean up the James River.
! Expand and improve airport including cargo service.
! Expansion of airport to handle international flights.
! Let’s have a train to the plane and at least a bus to the airport.
Anything Else You Would Like To Add?
! Eliminate tolls in Chesterfield County.
! Cut tolls in Chesterfield County.
! If we don’t start focusing on improving mass transit our environment is going to become
very unhealthy.
! Student transportation for parents who can’t take off work to get children to cheerleading,
sports practice, and other socially appropriate activities.
! I never go to Richmond at night because there is no good transportation service to get me
there.
! I’ve paid $400 this year in repair bills because of pot holes.
! Public transportation is the most important problem in our region.
! We need to keep our transportation network healthy. We don’t want to become another
NoVa or Hampton Roads.
! More parking downtown.
! Transportation issues must not be manipulated to further separate the haves and have-nots.
Regional planning with economic revitalization of the city and our poorest residents should
be the driving principle of our transportation plan.
! Focus on alternatives to cars and highways.
73

2023 LRTP
Chapter V
Highway Data
74

Introduction
Chapter V-Highway Element- Data Collection
This section focuses on the data collection effort to support the highway improvements
recommended for the Richmond MPO study area. The list of improvements is separated into
“constrained” and “vision” projects. Constrained projects are additional highway improvements
that are recommended for the study area. Vision projects are additional highway improvements
that are recommended if future funding becomes available beyond the projected constrained
funding. Many constrained and vision projects were identified as a result of the data collection
effort.
Travel Demand Forecasting
Travel demand estimates from the air quality conformity analysis provide an initial view of the
congestion levels that exist today and in the long-term. These travel demand estimates result
from a series of model steps. For the Richmond MPO area, local member governments
estimated 1990 population, housing units, and students in their jurisdictions.
The 1990 U.S. Census provided the estimates for the 1990 housing. These estimates were
supplemented by building permits and certificates of occupancy provided by the localities in the
region. Vacancy rate and average household size factors were then applied to yield adjusted
population and number of households. To obtain school data, school enrollment was coded by
traffic zone according to school location. The number of automobiles per household was
calculated from census data at the traffic zone level. To calculate the total automobiles by traffic
zone, the automobile/household value was multiplied by the number of households.
Employment data was derived by geocoding employment data from the Virginia Employment
Commission (VEC) to traffic zones.
For the 2023 data, the RRPDC worked with local jurisdictions to distribute population totals
down to the traffic zone level. Projections for households and automobiles were derived from
the zone level population projections using factors for average household size and automobile
per household by traffic zone. The 2023 employment data was estimated by using a regression
analysis, which is based on historical and previously projected jurisdictional employment data.
Data Collection
Data collected for this LRTP includes Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratios on the highway network,
vehicle occupancy counts (VOC) at pre-selected survey stations, and speed/travel-time runs on
selected arterials.
V/C is a conventional level of service measure for roadways, comparing roadway demand
(vehicle volumes) with roadway supply (carrying capacity). This measure is used to determine
existing and future capacity deficiencies and to alert transportation providers to areas where
75

traffic mitigation measures should be considered. VOCs are used to determine the vehicle
occupancy rates (VOR), which are used to evaluate the efficiency of moving people as compared
to moving vehicles. Traffic observers collect car occupancy data for various locations around
the region. This data consist of counts of the actual number of vehicles and the actual number of
occupants in each vehicle in a given lane. Speed/travel-time data measures provide credible
estimates of system performances and reliability by examining how efficiently vehicles can
move through the transportation system. These measures can also be used to validate other
system planning tools and is particularly useful because the traveling public easily understands
speed and time. All of these measures are explained in greater detail below.
V/C Ratios
V/C is often associated with determining how well a roadway is performing or level of service
(LOS). The LOS of a facility is usually expressed in an alphabetical grading from A to F. For
example, LOS A describes a facility that has little or no congestion and LOS F indicates that a
facility is extremely congested. Table V-1 below lists descriptions of V/C ratios based on the
Highway Capacity Manual.
Table V-1: Descriptions of V/C Ratios
Typical
Description
V/C Ratio

! V/C < 0.77 is LOS A & B
! V/C = 0.77 – 1.00 is LOS C & D
! V/C > 1.00 is LOS E & F
V/C ratios were generated from the travel demand forecasting model for the 1) 1995 Base-Year,
2) 2023 No-Build, and 3) 2023 Build. These serve as the air quality evaluation years for the
Region’s 2023 Long-Range Transportation Plan. The base-year scenario represents the existing
area road network and traffic. The 2023 no-build scenario represent the base-year road network
plus any road projects, which are currently under construction. The 2023 build scenario
represents all projects, which are programmed in the TIP and identified in the Long-Range
Transportation Plan assumed to be completed by 2023. The 2023 build and 2023 no-build
scenarios reflect traffic that has been projected out to the twenty-year horizon year using
population, employment, and other socioeconomic factors. The following series of maps show
the levels of congestion based on the V/C ratios for the base-year, 2023 no-build, and 2023 Build
scenarios by jurisdictions. Grey lines represent facilities with minimum to no congestion, green
lines represent facilities approaching congestion, and the red lines represent congested facilities.
Vehicle Occupancy Rates
The MPO and VDOT coordinated the collection of VOR data by survey at selected stations on
the highway network. VDOT collected data on vehicle classification and occupancy at 17
locations from July 25, to August 9, 2000. Locations were selected in order to get a
representative sample of the vehicle occupancy in the region. Since the highest volume of traffic
is on the interstate and toll system, the survey locations were concentrated on these facilities.
Representative arterials were selected based on a review of average daily traffic volumes. (Map 3
shows the survey stations.) The data was collected on weekdays during morning and evening
rush hours. Figure V-2 gives a description, date, and time each survey was conducted.
77

Figure V-2: Vehicle Occupancy Survey Locations
Highway/
# of
Station Street Location of Count Station Dir Lanes Day Date Period
1 U.S. 1 South of Lee Bridge NB 3 Tuesday 7/25/00 A. M.
2 U.S. 60 West of Rte. 76 EB 3 Wednesday 7/26/00 A. M.
3 Rte. 150 Between Rte. 60 and 360 NB 3 Thursday 7/27/00 A. M.
4 Rte. 150 Between Rte. 60 and 360 SB 3 Friday 7/26/00 P.M.
5 Rte. 150 West of Rte. 10 SB 2 Thursday 7/27/00 P.M.
6 Rte. 150 West of Rte. 10 NB 2 Wednesday 8/9/00 A. M.
7 I-64 Exits 193 & 195 WB 3 Tuesday 8/1/00 A. M.
8 I-64 Between Exit 193 & 195 EB 3 Tuesday 8/1/00 P.M.
9 I-95 North of Exit 76 SB 3 Wednesday 8/2/00 A. M.
10 I-95 North of Exit 76 NB 3 Wednesday 8/2/00 P.M.
11 I-95 South of Exit 69 SB 3 Thursday 8/3/00 A. M.
12 I-95 South of Exit 69 NB 3 Monday 8/7/00 A. M.
13 U.S. 360 West of Rte. 288 EB 3 Wednesday 8/9/00 A. M.
14 U. S. 360 East of Rte. 150 EB 3 Thursday 8/3/00 P.M.
15 Parham Rd. Between Quioccasin Rd. and 6 NB 2 Tuesday 8/8/00 P.M.
16 Parham Rd. Between Quioccasin Rd. and 6 SB 2 Monday 7/24/00 P.M.
17 Rte. 60 West of Governor St. WB 3 Wednesday 8/9/00 P.M.
Source: VDOT
At each location, the surveyors determined the classification and counted the number of
passengers in each vehicle in fifteen-minute increments. The data was collected during the
morning period between 6:30 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. and the evening period between 4:00 P.M.
and 6:00 P.M. The survey was limited to these time periods since these are the times when
recurring system usage is at its peak. There were a total of 84,404 automobiles counted during
the survey period and the total number of passengers was 97,718, for a network VOR of 1.16.
The morning VOR was 1.13 and the evening VOR was 1.20. Tables V-3a and V-3b give the
VOR for each count station. The VOR varied between the morning and evening periods, with
the evening periods experiencing higher occupancy rates.
78

Figure V-3a: Morning Peak Period (6:30 AM
- 9:00 AM)
Highway/ # of Total Total
Station Street Location of Count Station Dir Lanes Date Period Autos Passengers VOR
1 U.S. 1 South of Lee Bridge NB 3 7/25/00 A. M. 3314 3996 1.21
2 U.S. 60 West of Rte. 76 EB 3 7/26/00 A. M. 4280 4620 1.08
3 Rte. 150 Between Rte. 60 and 360 NB 3 7/27/00 A. M. 8255 9063 1.10
6 Rte. 150 West of Rte. 10 NB 2 8/9/00 A. M. 4277 4808 1.12
7 I -64 Exits 193 & 195 WB 3 8/1/00 A. M. 5507 6030 1.09
9 I -95 North of Exit 76 SB 3 8/2/00 A. M. 9027 10,423 1.15
11 I -95 South of Exit 69 SB 3 8/3/00 A. M. 5102 5873 1.15
12 I -95 South of Exit 69 NB 3 8/7/00 A. M. 9532 10,868 1.14
13 U.S. 360 West of Rte. 288 EB 3 8/9/00 A. M. 3822 4306 1.13
Figure V-3b: Evening Peak Period (3:00 PM
- 6:00 PM)
53,116 59,987 1.13
Highway/ # of Total Total
Station Street Location of Count Station Dir Lanes Date Period Autos Passengers VOR
4 Rte. 150 Between Rte. 60 and 360 SB 3 7/26/00 P.M. 6162 6974 1.13
5 Rte. 150 West of Rte. 10 SB 2 7/27/00 P.M. 3402 4223 1.24
8 I-64 Between Exit 193 & 195 EB 3 8/1/00 P.M. 4988 5933 1.19
10 I-95 North of Exit 76 NB 3 8/2/00 P.M. 8791 10635 1.21
14 U. S. 360 East of Rte. 150 EB 3 8/3/00 P.M. 1610 2162 1.34
15 Parham Rd. Between Quioccasin Rd. and 6 NB 2 8/8/00 P.M. 2155 2601 1.21
17 Rte. 60 West of Governor St. WB 3 8/9/00 P.M. 1874 2258 1.20
28,982 34,786 1.20
Figure V-4 shows the number of vehicles by classification, for the combined three hour morning
and evening periods, and the percentage of total traffic volume for each vehicle classification for
the year 2000. During the survey, there were 84,404 passenger cars making up 94 percent (94%)
of the traffic. The combined single and combination-type trucks made up four percent (4%) of
the traffic, and vans made up four percent (4%) of the survey. The number of GRTCS buses
recorded at the selected stations during the survey represented less than 0.2 percent (0.2%) of the
total observed traffic.
79

Figure V-4: Vehicle Distribution for the Year 2000
Vehicle Distribution 2000
2%
4%
0%
Vans
2 Trucks
3 Buses
Autos
4
94%
Figure V-5 gives the total classification counts for each station for both morning and evening
rush hours.
Table V-5: Classification Counts for Combined Morning and Evening Periods
STA Station # Van
Single
Truck
Combine
Truck GRTCS Bus
Other
Bus
Commuter
Bus Auto
Total
Vehicles
1 U.S. 1 (NB) 70 62 24 0 19 1 3314 3490
2 U.S. 60 (EB) 89 36 12 0 0 0 4280 4417
3 Rte. 150 (NB) 184 47 43 5 1 1 8255 8536
4 Rte. 150 (SB) 138 23 24 0 0 0 6162 6347
5 Rte. 150 (SB) 59 56 28 0 0 2 3402 3547
6 Rte. 150 (NB) 137 90 43 0 0 0 4277 4547
7 I-64 (WB) 158 141 125 3 0 1 5507 5935
8 I- 64 (EB) 86 67 95 3 0 0 4988 5239
9 I-95 (SB) 151 270 452 29 3 21 9027 9953
10 I-95 (NB) 123 150 358 17 4 5 8791 9448
11 I-95 (SB) 130 192 407 2 2 5 5102 5840
12 I-95 (NB) 191 269 428 1 2 3 9532 10426
13 US 360 (EB) 80 46 37 1 1 0 3822 3987
14 US 360 (EB) 25 26 9 2 0 3 1610 1675
15 Parham Rd. (NB) 32 13 6 0 0 0 2155 2206
16 Parham Rd. (SB) 24 5 3 0 0 0 2306 2338
17 US 60 (WB) 26 27 2 85 3 0 1874 2017
TOTALS 1703 1520 2096 148 35 42 84404 89948
Travel-time and Speed Runs
Speed and travel-time are essential data to show the functioning of the overall highway network.
They are used as a performance indicator in that they are measurable, achievable ways to detect
and gauge delays in the transportation system.
The Global Positioning System (GPS) was used to collect, process, display, and analyze speed
and travel-time data for selected corridors on the highway network. This technology allows
travel-speed data to not only be highly accurate, but easily changed and updated.
80

Because of the number of corridors on the network, it was only possible to collect data on
selected facilities. Therefore collection of data for corridors was prioritized. It was decided to
begin with the interstates, followed by arterials that parallel the interstates, and then
circumferential routes. On the next page is a map showing these routes followed by a table
listing the corridors with the times, dates, run times, average speeds and weather conditions.
This list includes not only interstate highways, but also local highways and roads. The GPS data
gathering technique serves a twofold purpose. It not only gives good data for spatial and travel
speed analysis, but it also provides an overall picture of regional travel and possible problem
areas. This knowledge gives some insight as to traffic mitigation techniques that may be useful
in a specific area. This data will also prove useful when future runs are conducted and
differences in corridor travel times can be compared.
Table V-6: Travel-Time and Speed Data
Collected with Global Positioning System 1999-2000
Facility From To Dir. Time Date Run Time Avg Sp Conditions
I-95 CR 620 (exit 58) I-64E/I-95 Interchange NB 7:30 AM 5/8/00 23:00 min. 44.87 clear and sunny
I-95 CR 620 (exit 58) I-64E/I-95 Interchange NB 8:00 AM 4/12/00 27:00 min. 36.49 overcast
I-95 I-64E/I-95 Interchange CR 620 (exit 58) SB 4:00 PM 8/4/99 20:45 min. 53.95 clear and sunny
I-95 I-64E/I-95 Interchange CR 620 (exit 58) SB 4:30 PM 7/28/99 21:35 min. 52.33 clear and sunny
I-95 I-64E/I-95 Interchange CR 620 (exit 58) SB 5:00 PM 7/20/99 19:05 min. 53.72 clear and sunny
I-95 I-64W/I-95 Interchange Caroline County Line NB 4:00 PM 8/3/99 24:35 min. 61.23 clear and sunny
I-95 I-64W/I-95 Interchange Caroline County Line NB 4:30 PM 7/29/99 23:45 min 59.10 clear and sunny
I-95 Caroline County Line I-64W/I-95 Interchange SB 7:30 AM 3/7/00 23:00 min. 59.29 clear and sunny
I-95 Caroline County Line I-64W/I-95 Interchange SB 8:00 AM 3/21/00 25:00 min. 58.35 cloudy and raining
I-95 Caroline County Line I-64W/I-95 Interchange SB 8:30 AM 3/7/00 22:00 min. 59.45 clear and sunny
I-95 Caroline County Line I-64W/I-95 Interchange SB 9:00 AM 3/21/00 20:00 min. 61.59 cloudy and raining
I-64 Oilville exit I-195 Interchange EB 7:00 AM 6/17/99 18:45 min. 59.55 cloudy and raining
I-64 Oilville exit I-195 Interchange EB 7:30 AM 7/8/99 20:55 min. 53.54 clear and sunny
I-64 Oilville exit I-195 Interchange EB 8:00 AM 6/17/99 21:05 min. 50.91 clear and sunny
I-64 Oilville exit I-195 Interchange EB 8:30 AM 7/15/99 18:45 min. 60.17 clear and sunny
I-64 Oilville exit I-195 Interchange EB 9:00 AM 6/16/99 18:10 min. 59.50 clear and sunny
I-64 I-195 Interchange Oilville exit WB 4:00 PM 6/16/99 18:45 min. 59.33 cloudy and raining
I-64 I-195 Interchange Oilville exit WB 4:30 PM 7/7/99 20:25 min. 57.29 heavy rain
I-64 I-195 Interchange Oilville exit WB 5:00 PM 7/13/99 19:30 min. 58.91 clear and sunny
I-64 I-195 Interchange Oilville exit WB 5:30 PM 7/14/99 22:05 min. 52.37 clear and sunny
I-64 SR 155 exit I-64E/I-95 Interchange WB 7:30 AM 2/7/00 23:00 min. 58.63 clear and sunny
I-64 SR 155 exit I-64E/I-95 Interchange WB 8:00 AM 2/14/00 22:00 min. 59.51 overcast
I-64 SR 155 exit I-64E/I-95 Interchange WB 8:30 AM 3/8/00 25:00 min. 61.01 clear and sunny
I-64 SR 155 exit I-64E/I-95 Interchange WB 9:00 AM 2/14/00 22:00 min. 60.08 overcast
USR-1 SR 54 Chamberlayne Ave. SB 7:30 AM 6/1/00 20:00 min. 33.12 clear and sunny
USR-1 SR 54 Chamberlayne Ave. SB 8:00 AM 6/12/00 20:00 min. 29.88 clear and sunny
USR-1 SR 54 Chamberlayne Ave. SB 8:30 AM 6/1/00 21:00 min. 33.59 clear and sunny
USR-1 SR 54 Chamberlayne Ave. SB 9:00 AM 9/14/99 28:11 min. 31.37 very foggy
USR-1 Chamberlayne Ave. SR 54 NB 4:00 PM 8/5/99 log not found 33.31
USR-1 Chamberlayne Ave. SR 54 NB 5:30 PM 8/12/99 29:10 min. 28.89 overcast
USR-1 CR 619 Chamberlayne Ave. NB 7:30 AM 5/3/00 32:00 min. 33.69 clear and sunny
USR-1 CR 619 Chamberlayne Ave. NB 8:00 AM 5/2/00 31:00 min. 30.00 clear and sunny
81

USR-1 CR 619 Chamberlayne Ave. NB 8:30 AM 5/3/00 32:00 min. 33.50 clear and sunny
USR-1 Chamberlayne Ave. CR 619 SB 4:00 PM 8/10/99 33:40 min 33.74 clear and sunny
USR-1 Chamberlayne Ave. CR 619 SB 4:30 PM 8/11/99 33:20 min. 31.52 clear and sunny
Powhite Pkwy. SR 288 I-95 NB 7:00 AM 6/24/99 N/A 49.36 clear and sunny
Powhite Pkwy. SR 288 I-95 NB 7:30 AM 7/1/99 20:50 min. 42.04 overcast
Powhite Pkwy. SR 288 I-95 NB 8:00 AM 6/30/99 18:10 min. 46.20 cloudy and raining
Powhite Pkwy. SR 288 I-95 NB 8:30 AM 6/24/99 N/A 51.54 clear and sunny
Powhite Pkwy. SR 288 I-95 NB 9:00 AM 6/23/99 17:00 min. 51.03 clear and sunny
Powhite Pkwy. I-95 SR 288 SB 4:00 PM 6/23/99 N/A 49.31 clear and sunny
Powhite Pkwy. I-95 SR 288 SB 4:30 PM 6/29/99 17:15 min. 47.84 clear and sunny
Powhite Pkwy. I-95 SR 288 SB 5:00 PM 6/22/99 18:25 min. 45.57 clear and sunny
Powhite Pkwy. I-95 SR 288 SB 5:30 PM 6/30/99 23:20 min. 36.71 clear and sunny
Powhite Pkwy. I-95 SR 288 SB 6:00 PM 6/29/99 16:50 min. 51.05 clear and sunny
Chippenham Pkwy. River Rd. I-95 SB 7:30 AM 6/7/00 18:00 min. 50.41 clear and sunny
Chippenham Pkwy. River Rd. I-95 SB 8:00 AM 6/13/00 18:00 min. 49.43 clear and sunny
Chippenham Pkwy. River Rd. I-95 SB 8:30 AM 6/7/00 18:00 min. 49.50 clear and sunny
SR 288 Powhite Pkwy. I-95 EB 7:30 AM 5/11/00 15:00 min. 61.66 clear and sunny
SR 288 Powhite Pkwy. I-95 EB 8:00 AM 5/10/00 15:00 min. 62.82 clear and sunny
SR 288 Powhite Pkwy. I-95 EB 8:30 AM 5/9/00 15:00 min. 62.72 clear and sunny
SR 288 I-95 Powhite Pkwy. WB 7:30 AM 5/10/00 15:00 min. 60.49 clear and sunny
SR 288 I-95 Powhite Pkwy. WB 8:00 AM 5/9/00 15:00 min. 61.76 clear and sunny
SR 288 I-95 Powhite Pkwy. WB 8:30 AM 5/8/00 15:00 min. 62.44 clear and sunny
USR 60 SR 155 (Provid. Forge) I-95 WB 7:30 AM 6/15/00 40:00 min. 37.76 clear and sunny
USR 60 SR 155 (Provid. Forge) I-95 WB 8:00 AM 6/13/00 42:00 min. 36.56 clear and sunny
USR 60 SR 155 (Provid. Forge) I-95 WB 8:30 AM 6/12/00 40:00 min. 36.19 clear and sunny
Broad St. (Rt.250) Oilville USR 60 (21st St.) EB 7:30 AM 5/23/00 45:00 min. 29.47 cloudy and raining
Broad St. (Rt.250) Oilville USR 60 (21st St.) EB 8:00 AM 6/8/00 48:00 min. 30.47 hazy
Broad St. (Rt.250) Oilville USR 60 (21st St.) EB 8:30 AM 5/16/00 48:00 min. 31.25 clear and sunny
Broad St. (Rt.250) Oilville USR 60 (21st St.) EB 9:00 AM 5/17/00 46:00 min. 31.55 clear and sunny
Laburnum Ave. Osborne Tnpk. I-195 Interchange NB 7:30 AM 6/14/00 40:00 min. 31.51 overcast
Laburnum Ave. Osborne Tnpk. I-195 Interchange NB 8:00 AM 6/14/00 30:00 min. 33.57 overcast
Laburnum Ave. Osborne Tnpk. I-195 Interchange NB 8:30 AM 6/14/00 25:00 min. 35.58 overcast
Laburnum Ave. I-195 Interchange Osborne Tnpk. SB 7:30 AM 6/14/00 27:00 min. 25.49 overcast
Laburnum Ave. I-195 Interchange Osborne Tnpk. SB 8:00 AM 6/14/00 25:00 min. 29.43 overcast
Laburnum Ave. I-195 Interchange Osborne Tnpk. SB 8:30 AM 6/14/00 24:00 min. 31.35 overcast
Parham Rd. River Rd. Chamberlayne Ave. NB 7:30 AM 6/5/00 29:00 min. 24.66 overcast
Parham Rd. River Rd. Chamberlayne Ave. NB 8:00 AM 4/6/00 28:00 min. 26.63 clear and sunny
Parham Rd. River Rd. Chamberlayne Ave. NB 8:30 AM 6/5/00 N/A 27.09 overcast
Parham Rd. River Rd. Chamberlayne Ave. NB 9:00 AM 4/6/00 27:00 min. 26.63 clear and sunny
82

Data Analysis
V/C Analysis
From the V/C analysis, it is shown that the interstate system is congested now and will be in year
2023. The analysis also shows that the projects identified in the long-range plan will not
improve the congestion on these facilities to any great level. There are future widening projects
on I-64 located in Goochland, Henrico, and New Kent counties that will slightly improve
sections of this interstate but overall congestion will still exist. In the City of Richmond, there
are widening projects on I-64 and I-95, which will improve conditions in the city in 2023. Some
of the other arterials and roadways on the network that are currently congested will be improved
with the implementation of the 2023 constrained long-range plan. However, others will remain
congested in the year 2023 even with the implementation of the plan.
The V/C analysis also shows that congestion is not only localized in the urban core. Instead,
congestion occurs throughout the region in the outlying areas.
VOR Analysis
The VOR analysis shows that less people are sharing rides during the peak periods. In 2000, the
total network VOR was 1.16 during commuter periods. This rate is fairly consistent with
national trends. According to the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, in 1990, the
national VOR average for commuter periods was 1.12, which dropped from 1.18 in 1983. While
the region has a higher VOR than the nation, the region’s current rate of 1.16 could improve.
This rate reveals that on average there are less than two persons per vehicle on the roadways
during the most heavily traveled periods. This situation compounds congestion, safety, and air
quality issues.
The classification counts observed show that the automobile by far is the most dominant mode of
transportation on the CMS network. The passenger car made up 94 percent (94%) of the vehicle
distribution.
Travel-Time and Speed Analysis
Since this is the first time that speed and travel-time data was collected using the GPS, there are
no previous years of data to perform a comparison analysis. Therefore, this data will serve as a
baseline for future analysis. In the Regional Travel Time-Speed Technical Document produced
by the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission staff, average running speeds of
selected corridors were compared with posted speeds. In addition, this document summarizes
those corridors in which the average running speeds are operating under the speed limit. It gives
further information as to whether the lower speeds are caused by capacity problems or because
of a special event or circumstance.
83

Highway Improvements
Projects List
The Richmond Area MPO, on a jurisdictional level, identified needs for new capacity or facility
improvements. (See section on Highway Network Element for list of constrained and vision
projects.)
ITS Projects
The Richmond region has identified a goal to develop a framework for intergovernmental
coordination that promotes regional cooperation and regional prosperity when addressing
transportation issues within the Richmond region. One of the objectives to reach this goal is to
develop an ITS working committee (within two years) to identify and implement Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS) technologies that mitigate traffic congestion in the Richmond
region.
Although VDOT is the lead agency for the Richmond region’s ITS program, the Richmond Area
MPO has been involved in providing overall guidance and direction for the implementation of
the regional ITS plan through its ITS Steering Committee. This committee, which includes local
administrators, planners, and engineers in the Richmond region working with VDOT and other
agencies, was responsible for developing the ITS Early Deployment Study Richmond/Tri-Cities
Area in 1996 and will be reactivated to assist VDOT in further ITS activities for the region. The
report identifies specific short-term and long-range ITS projects, needs, and direction.
The implementation plan is as follows:
! Establish an on-going group to coordinate ITS planning
! Develop system for exchanging data among local agencies
! Install incident detection system
! Improve signal coordination and timing plan implementation on major diversion routes
! Develop and implement coordinated highway advisory radio (HAR) and variable message
signs (VMS) systems
! Develop region-wide or statewide standard for electronic toll collection
! Provide real-time transit schedule/location information
! Establish one phone number accessing travel information for all modes
! Improve interagency coordination at incidents
! Establish VDOT’s smart traffic as the centralized information manager
Many of the ITS projects identified in the ITS Early Deployment Study Richmond/Tri-Cities Area
are underway. These include developing a system for 1.) exchanging data among local agencies
and localities 2.) establishing a one phone number accessing travel information for all modes 3.)
improving interagency and jurisdictional coordination at incidents 4.) providing real-time transit
schedule/location information. Other recommendations include providing Internet and kiosk
information booths at a one-stop center and real-time traffic information using the Internet.
84

Many ITS activities are in operation in the Richmond region. VDOT’s regional smart traffic
center located in Chester is in basic operation and is continuing to develop as the region’s traffic
information hub; variable message signs (VMS) and portable variable message signs (PVMS) are
managing traffic through highway accidents and construction projects; highway advisory radios
(HAR) are alerting motorists of traffic situations on interstate highways; electronic toll collection
systems (Smart Tags) are in operation on the Powhite Parkway, Powhite Extension, Downtown
Expressway, and the Boulevard Bridge; and a synchronized traffic signal system is moving
traffic through some of the busiest streets in Richmond.
Currently, several area-wide and district wide ITS projects are identified in the Transportation
Improvement Program. They include continued funding for the smart traffic center, variable
message signs, highway advisory radios, and the fiber optic resource sharing initiative.
VDOT is in the process of developing a regional vision for ITS applications and functions in the
future. As a follow-up to the strategic assessment, VDOT is currently defining an ITS master
plan for the Richmond smart traffic center (STC) to support the ITS elements that have been
identified. Since it is important to have participation from the surrounding municipalities,
counties, and agencies as a regional system, information will be requested from the participating
stakeholders to identify existing communication infrastructure, resource-sharing opportunities,
and what level of system interaction is anticipated among agencies. Also, the region’s vision of
ITS and how it expects to use the information and operate system components will be
incorporated.
Air Quality Conformity
The Richmond maintenance area for ozone quality standards is mainly within the Richmond
MPO area. The maintenance area covers the jurisdictions of Richmond, Henrico, Chesterfield,
Hanover, and a small portion of Charles City. The maintenance area also includes two Tri-Cities
Area MPO jurisdictions (Colonial Heights and Hopewell). The results in the conformity
documentation for the Richmond maintenance area shows that the LRTP fulfills the criteria for
air quality conformity.
As a maintenance area, the MPO must meet certain provisions in the Clean Air Act Amendments
(CAAA) that include conformity requirements. Section 176 of the CAAA requires that the
MPO’s transportation plan conform to the general purpose of the SIP for air quality by reducing
the severity and number of national ambient air quality standards violations and to help the MPO
maintain attainment status. The conformity analysis process involves the analysis of the Plan’s
proposed projects to determine if implementation of the Plan will result in reduced or sustained
levels of hydrocarbon (HC) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions.
85

2023 LRTP
Chapter VI
Transit Data
86

Chapter VI-Existing Conditions and Data Analysis: Public
Transportation
Introduction
For many long-time Richmond residents, fond memories include the old streetcars that traveled
along Broad Street and other corridors to provide public transportation in Richmond. When the
old track system was removed and replaced with fixed-route transit service, the end of an era
occurred in Richmond. Since that time, more and more Richmond area residents have relied on
private automobiles for the majority of their trips and public transportation services shifted to
filling the needs of the areas transportation dependent. Today, the Richmond area has a public
transit network that is limited by funding and jurisdictional support for such services.
The Greater Richmond Transit Company System (GRTCS) is the sole fixed bus route service
provider in the Richmond region. GRTCS is a non-profit public service corporation, owned by
the City of Richmond and Chesterfield County and governed by a Board of Directors. GRTCS
currently operates 34 fixed routes throughout the City of Richmond with some service extending
into Henrico County. Chesterfield County provides a limited service. In addition to the fixed
route system, GRTCS also oversees Ridefinders, the region’s transportation demand
management agency, regulates taxis through the taxi commission, and contracts with outside
agencies to provide Americans With Disabilities Act services for the region’s elderly and
disabled population.
The City of Richmond is served by a network of fixed-route bus lines operating along a radial
route system. The routes provide the spokes of the traditional transit hub and spoke system, with
Downtown Richmond serving as the hub. Downtown Richmond was traditionally the
commercial and employment center of the region. However, beginning in the late 1980s and
continuing through the 1990s, the Richmond area began to exhibit rapid suburban development
similar to other communities in the country. With it came relocation of commercial and
employment sites away from downtown and into suburban areas that had little or no transit
service. While GRTCS attempted to modify existing services, many commercial and office
developments still do not have transit service.
This is due in large part to financial constraint parameters placed on GRTCS. While the average
fare box recovery rate for similarly sized areas is approximately 30 percent (30%), GRTCS’ fare
box recovery rate is 50 percent (50%). However, without some form of additional operating
subsidies service expansion and improvements will be difficult. In terms of route miles of
service, GRTCS has 33 percent (33%) less miles than similarly sized metropolitan areas. In
short, GRTCS has a highly efficient service in a limited service area that has not grown to match
suburban growth patterns in the region.
87

Fixed Route System Analysis
In 2000, GRTCS contracted with Urbitran Associates, Inc. to conduct a comprehensive
operational analysis (COA) of the transit operations. This section is taken from that COA and
examines areas where transit service would be important in the urban and/or urbanizing
jurisdictions in the Richmond area.
City of Richmond
Many portions of the City of Richmond have characteristics that would suggest the existence of
both a need and a market for public transportation. These indicators include density of
population, significant number of persons who are elderly or who reside in households with
income below the poverty level, households with one or no automobiles, persons commuting to
jobs in downtown Richmond or other places with concentrations of employment. In Richmond,
GRTCS has recognized these factors and responded to these needs. The following observations
can be made:
! The area generally bounded by I-95, Broad Street, and Belvidere Street has the highest
population density in the city. It also has significant populations with low car ownership and
households in poverty. A concentration of employment exists at the eastern end of the area.
This area is currently served by GRTCS Routes #1/2/41, 3/4/43,10/45, 13/51,15/16, 6/53, and
11/54. Service commensurate with the market should be retained.
! Significant numbers of households with incomes below the poverty level are found
throughout the city, with particular concentrations south of I-64 and east of I-95, between I-
95 and the James River south of Bellemeade, and in the tract north of Midlothian Turnpike
just east of Chippenham Parkway. GRTCS service is available to all these areas and should
be maintained.
! The current route structure is responsive to commuting patterns with significant transit
service available to areas showing higher percentages of work travel to downtown
Richmond.
! Large areas of Richmond south of the James River show low car ownership, indicative of a
probable transit need, but transit service is relatively sparse compared to other portions of the
city. Opportunities for service enhancement should be investigated.
! The portions of the city west of I-195/Powhite Parkway have the fewest indicators of transit
need. The portion of this area south of the James River shows relatively low percentages of
residents commuting to downtown Richmond and is the portion of the city with the least
transit service.
88

! Service to employment concentrations is desirable. The greatest concentration of jobs is in
the downtown/State Capitol area. Other concentrations are found along West Broad Street,
in the corridor between Broad Street and I-95, along Jefferson Davis Highway, and along
Midlothian Turnpike near the city line. Good transit service is available to downtown and
West Broad Street employment areas. The need for enhancing service to the job
concentrations south of the James River should be examined. Residential areas with a high
percentage of their work trips to downtown are located primarily in near West End (west of I-
195, north of Forest Hill Avenue, east of St. Christopher’s Road and south of Monument
Avenue).
! The number of jobs in the city is projected to increase, but at a modest rate and less than the
regional average growth rate. The projected increase in labor force participation in the
region should allow many of these new jobs to be filled by city residents, with commuting
patterns to downtown remaining much as they are today. There is a need to develop reverse
commute services from the city to outlying employment centers.
! Clusters of persons most likely to be in need of transit are located in Southwest Richmond
(east of Chippenham Parkway, south of the Powhite Parkway, and north of Walmsley
Boulevard) and in south Richmond (along the I-95/Route 1 corridor, south of Mimosa
Street). Several of these areas with high concentrations of persons below poverty, elderly
persons, and zero car households are not currently served by GRTCS.
! Service to hospitals/medical facilities is desirable. All hospitals in Richmond are accessible
by transit.
! Service to higher education facilities including the University of Richmond (Route #16),
Virginia Union University (Route #22/74), Virginia Commonwealth University (Routes
#1/2/41, 3/4/43, 6/53, 10/45, 11/54, 13/51, 15/16), Medical College of Virginia (Routes #7,
24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 37, 1/2/41, 3/4/43, 10/45, 6/53, 56, 64, 65, 66, 67), and J. Sargeant
Reynolds Community College (Route #34/62/63) should be maintained.
Chesterfield County
! Service is desirable for persons living in the area near Chippenham Parkway, from Jefferson
Davis Highway west to Powhite Parkway.
! Service is desirable to employment opportunities and medical facilities in the Midlothian
Turnpike corridor. The land use element of the comprehensive plan should be reviewed to
determine other areas where employment opportunities exist and consideration should be
given to providing services to those areas.
! Service should be available to the courthouse and to health facilities in the Chesterfield
County Complex.
89

! Service is desirable to employment opportunities and medical facilities in the Midlothian
Turnpike corridor. The land use element of the comprehensive plan should be reviewed to
determine other areas where employment opportunities exist and consideration should be
given to providing services to those areas.
Table VI-1: Existing GRTCS Bus Routes
1 - Monument/Church Hill
2 - Patterson/Church Hill
3 – Maymont/Fairfield Ct.
4 – Whitcomb Court/U of R Stadium
6 – Broad St./Main St. Operating via Admiral Gravely Blvd.,
Government and Williamsburg Rds.
7 – Seven Pines
9 – VCU Shuttle Connects the Academic and MCV
Campuses
10 –Riverview/Jefferson
13 – Main Street/Church Hill 1. Reroute westbound trips from
Grace St. to Broad St. (designated
snow emergency route)
2. Bypass River Road Shopping
Center
16 – Grove/Westhampton
18 – Henrico Shuttle Between the Henrico County Government
Center on Parham Rd. and the Willow
Lawn Shopping Center on Broad St.
19 – JOBS Along Broad St. corridor; 11 th St. and
Broad St. follows west to Pemberton Rd.
22 – Hermitage/Oak Grove
23 – Lakeside Connector An evening neighborhood connector
between the regular route endpoint at
Westbrook Ave. and the northern extension
to Parham Rd.
24 – Lakeside Lakeside Ave., Hermitage and Wooman
Rds.
26 – Parham Rd. Express Along I-64 between Parham Rd. and 3 rd St.
exits
27 – Glenside Express Along I-64 between Staples Mill Rd. and
downtown
28 – Fair Oaks Express Along I-64 between Fair Oaks and
downtown
29 – Gaskins Express Along I-64 between Gaskins Rd. and
downtown Richmond at 7 th and Broad St.
32 – Ginter Park Has two branches:
90

1. Up North and Fendell Aves.
2. Along Laburnum and Hazelburst
Aves.
34 – Highland Park End southbound trips at Main St.
37 – Chamberlayne
40 – Northside-Belmont/Westover Ends trips at McGuire Hospital
42 – Willow Lawn/Southside
44 – Laburnum/Willow Lawn Bypass Dabney Center Industrial Park
46 – Parham Rd. Operates on Parham Rd. and Brook Rd.
offering transfers for the following routes:
- #37 Chamberlayne
- #24 Lakeside
- #18 Henrico Shuttle
- #19 JOBS
- #2 Regency
51 – Laurel/Church Hill Operate eastern end of route in same
manner as #1,2 (to Oakwood and
Rittenhouse Square)
56 – Richmond International Airport All inbound and outbound trips currently
operated as deadhead on the #28 will be
operated as local trips on the #56
62 – Hull St. Bypass Clarkson/Woodhaven deviation
63 – Cloverleaf Mall Bypass Forest Hill Ave. branch
64 – Stony Point Connects downtown Richmond and the far
west end south of the James. Portions of
this route operates in Chesterfield County
along Forest Hill Ave.
66 – K-Mart Express Bypass Swanson and Worthington Rds.
67 – Chippenham Limited Connects downtown Richmond and the
Chippenham Mall
70 – Stony Point/Forest Hill
71 – Forest Hill/Jahnke Rd
72 – Ruffin Rd
80 – Midlothian/Hull Street Circulator Focusing on the Hull St. and Midlothian
Tnpk. corridors west of Belt Boulevard.
! Service should be available to the courthouse and to health facilities in the Chesterfield
County Complex.
! Service to community college campuses is desirable.
! There is a market for commuters to Richmond, particularly from the western Midlothian
Turnpike corridor.
91

Bus Routes
Richmond Regional MPO Area
Bus Routes
W
N
E
4 0 4 8 12 16 Miles
S Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, December 2000
Map VI-2

Hanover County
! Service for persons in poverty is desirable. Persons in poverty were found in areas located
east of U.S. Highway 301/north of Highways 606 and 643, and south of Oticon Road/north
of the Hanover Goochland County border.
! Service to employment concentrations is desirable. A few census tracts with 1,000 to 5,000
jobs are scattered throughout central Hanover County (along the U.S. 1 and I-95 corridors)
and in the southeast (along the Henrico County border, north of Mechanicsville Turnpike).
! The area with the largest number of work trips to downtown Richmond is located in Central
Hanover County, along the border of Henrico County.
! Hanover County is the only jurisdiction in which the percentage growth in jobs is projected
to be less than the percentage growth in population. Thus, Hanover County residents will
increasingly be commuting to jobs in other jurisdictions.
! Service to Randolph-Macon College and other educational institutions is desirable.
! Currently, GRTCS provides no transit service in Hanover County.
Henrico County
! Service for the elderly is desirable, particularly in areas located in central and western
Henrico County, west of U.S. 1 to the Goochland/Henrico border. Specifically, several
clusters are located south of I-64. GRTCS Routes #1/2/41, 6/53, and 24 currently provide
limited service to some of those areas.
! Services for persons below poverty is desirable, particularly in areas located in central
Henrico County, in between the City of Richmond and Hanover County borders (east of
Highway 2 and north of Lake Drive). No service is currently provided to these areas.
! Service to employment concentrations is desirable. The Dabney Center Industrial Park
located along the Richmond border, south of I-64/Staples Mill Road section has 10,00 to
15,000 jobs and no GRTCS service. The Innsbrook employment area north of West Broad
Street near I-295 should also be served.
! The areas around the intersection of Laburnum Avenue and Mechanicsville Turnpike have
such characteristics as relatively high population density, one-car households and significant
commuting to downtown Richmond, all of which suggest a need for GRTCS services.
! Henrico County had 127,857 jobs in 1990 and will have 211,645 jobs by 2018, a percentage
change of 65 percent (65%) and the largest absolute growth in the region. If these forecasts
93

hold, by 2018 Henrico County will have the most jobs of the four jurisdictions and only
minimal transit service.
! Service to J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College (currently not served) and other
educational institutions is desirable.
! Service to St. Mary’s and other hospitals/medical facilities is desirable.
Transfer Centers
The comprehensive operations analysis also examined the need of GRTCS to move away from a
hub (downtown Richmond) and spoke (transit routes) system to one that provides multiple
transfer locations that link multiple jurisdictions without the need for going downtown (to the
hub) along one spoke and transferring to another spoke. The COA recommends the following
transfer center locations:
! Downtown between 7 th and 8 th Streets on Grace Street
! Southside Plaza (short term satellite location)
! Willow Lawn (short term satellite location)
! Former Azalea Mall (short term satellite location)
! Regency Square Mall (long term satellite location)
! Fair Oaks Park and Ride/Richmond Airport (long term satellite location)
! Virginia Center Commons (long term satellite location)
! Chesterfield Town Center (long term satellite location)
! Chippenham Mall (long term satellite location)
! Du-Pont/K-Mart/Amphill (long term satellite location)
Paratransit Service
GRTCS’s Community Assisted Ride Enterprise (CARE) service is a curb-to-curb service
available to eligible customers in the system’s fixed-route service area. Operated on a contract
basis by Laidlaw Transit Services, Inc. of Richmond, the service area includes the City of
Richmond, Henrico County, and limited portions of Chesterfield County. To be eligible for
service, an application must be submitted to GRTCS’s Customer Service Department.
Customers are approved based on eligibility requirements established by the Americans With
Disabilities Act (ADA) and receive an identification card and program information.
Tickets for CARE service are sold in books of six for $13.50 or $2.25 per ticket and can be
purchased at GRTCS ticket outlets or by mail. Each ticket is good for a one-way trip. Standard
reservations may be made for customers who travel between the same origin and destination at
the same time at least four days a week. This allows customers whose trips occur on a regular
basis to avoid making individual phone reservations for each trip. Customers may not change
origins/destinations or time of travel for standing reservations. Cancellations require a minimum
two-hour advance notice.
94

Demand response trips are defined as those that occur three days per week or less, and require
travel from varied origins and destinations. Reservations for each trip must be made in advance
at least one day before the trip. Reservations are accepted between 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM.
Cancellations must be made at least two hours in advance of the arranged pick-up time.
CARE service operates in the City of Richmond on weekdays and weekends between the hours
of 5:30 AM and 12:30 AM. Service is provided in Henrico County weekdays between the hours
of 6:00 AM and 7:00 PM and limited service is provided in Chesterfield County on weekdays
between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM. CARE service is unavailable on major holidays.
The overall level of service in the City of Richmond is adequate in both coverage and
availability. Because Henrico has agreed to comprehensive service throughout the county,
coverage is not an issue but weekend availability is a concern. Chesterfield County’s limited
service meets the ADA service needs of the population located along the existing transit routes.
However, there are a number of residents in Chesterfield who would qualify for ADA paratransit
services but do not have access to it. According to GRTCS, current demand can be met, but the
need for CARE service is expected to expand a great deal in the coming 20 years. Senior
population will be increasing faster on a percentage basis than total population. In addition, the
general population is also expected to grow rapidly which will place even further strains on the
CARE services.
New Technologies and Service Techniques
Given the size of GRTCS the following new technologies should be able to become a reality
during the next 10 years:
! Low-emission diesel, alternatively-fueled or electric/electric-hybrid buses that makes up the
vast majority of the GRTCS fleet.
! Intelligent Transportation System technology applied to fleet management, including traffic
signal preemption.
! Real-time passenger information system at stop locations, in transit vehicles, at kiosks or via
the Internet.
! Use of magnetic swipe cards as fare collection media, contact and radio frequency cards to
update accounts and facilitate the fare payment process for customers while reducing fare
collection times and costs for GRTCS buses.
! Use of Bus Rapid Transit facilities. This may include dedicated bus lanes on an existing
roadway or guideways off a street that is reserved for exclusive use by transit vehicles.
Systems of this type are already in use in Pittsburgh and Ottawa.
Public Transportation Services in Rural Counties
In 2000, the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission examined the public
transportation services available in the remaining rural jurisdictions. Excerpts from that study
are included below.
95

An analysis of commuting patterns, employment growth, and specified transportation issues
displays the transportation demands within the rural counties. Commuting patterns prove more
rural residents travel daily into the central core of the Richmond region. Employment analysis
shows similar results, and indicates that suburban communities will experience more job
openings and will increase the commuting rate into these areas. Discussions about transportation
demands in the rural communities have shown a small population in need of after hours
transportation, shuttles to employment centers, educational centers, flexibility, and direct access
to urban and suburban communities.
While there are a variety of transportation options throughout the Richmond region, there are no
services that unify the rural communities with the remainder of the region. Large-scale transit
service through GRTCS is currently limited to the larger localities, and does not extend into the
rural counties. Community action agencies and specialized paratransit service are the only
transit options available to residents of Charles City, Goochland, New Kent, and Powhatan
counties. Many individuals do not utilize this service because of limited availability, and may
opt to rely on family and friends for transportation to and from work. This system cannot
continue to sustain the transportation needs of rural residents.
Charles City County
# Commuting patterns in Charles City County show over 47 percent (47%) of workers travel
into the City of Richmond and Chesterfield and Henrico counties.
! An additional 17 percent (17%) travel east to peninsula destinations.
! The majority of job growth continues to occur in the suburban areas of the Richmond region,
especially Chesterfield and Henrico, while job growth in Charles City County remains
marginal. This displays a need for transportation services to those areas of higher job
growth.
! Charles City County maintains a higher unemployment rate (3.1%) than state (2.8%) or
regional rates (2.2%).
! Charles City County retains a significantly higher rate of households below the poverty level
(17%).
! Quin Rivers Community Action Agency provides much of the transportation services
available to residents of Charles City County. Additional vans and funding for maintenance
are desired to continue these transportation services.
! Residents, especially low-income, elderly and disabled, indicate a need for reliable
transportation services.
96

New Kent County
! Commuting patterns of New Kent workers indicate 47 percent (47%) travel into the City of
Richmond, Chesterfield or Henrico counties.
! Only 20 percent (20%) commute to work within county bounds.
! Services connecting western New Kent to employment centers in the core of the Richmond
region will benefit these commuters.
! While a significant amount of job growth has occurred in New Kent, total numerical job
growth in the suburban counties of the Richmond region will continue to outpace New Kent
County.
! Additional services for persons in poverty are desirable, especially to employment centers in
Henrico County and the City of Richmond.
Goochland County
! Residents primarily commute into the City of Richmond (30%) and Henrico County (25%)
while 29 percent (29%) work within county bounds.
! Job growth continues to outpace population growth.
! Additional job growth is expected due to the extension of the West Creek facilities.
Transportation services to this employment center will be beneficial to those below poverty.
! Households in poverty remain significantly higher than other counties in the Richmond
region at a rate of 9 percent (9%).
! Goochland Fellowship and Family Services and the Powhatan-Goochland Community
Action agency provide limited services for low-income persons.
! Transportation services for low-income families to childcare and retail centers are desired.
! Transportation services to employment centers during the day as well as evening hours are
needed. Shuttle services offer a possible solution.
! Additional after hours services to a nightly health clinic and education centers will be
beneficial for low-income persons.
Powhatan County
! Commuting patterns of Powhatan workers indicate over 66 percent (66%) travel into
Chesterfield and Henrico counties or the City of Richmond daily.
97

! Limited services for low-income persons are currently provided through the Powhatan-
Goochland Community Action Agency. Additional vans and drivers are continually needed
to maintain these services.
! Services to employment and educational centers are desirable, especially if those areas
contain additional connections to GRTCS.
! A service to retail centers such as Chesterfield Town Center is desirable. This service will
provide access to goods and services as well as employment.
98

2023 LRTP
Chapter VII
TDM
99

Chapter VII-Existing Conditions and Data Analysis:
Transportation Demand Management
Introduction
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a set of strategies, policy decisions, and planning
processes that are aimed at relieving congestion on highways. TDM actions usually fall in one
of three categories:
! Actions that promote alternatives to the single occupant vehicle (SOV)
! Actions that encourage more efficient use of alternative transportation systems
! Actions that discourage automobile use.
TDM is not a new concept; however, because of such federal legislation is the Clean Air Act
(CAA), the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), and the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA-21), as well as state and local trip reduction ordinances, the
variety of TDM options has quadrupled in the last ten years.
This section will focus on each of the potential TDM strategies that could be used in the
Richmond area. It will define each strategy, discuss the many variations of each strategy, detail
the implementation issues that are associated with the actions, and then assess their current use in
the Richmond area.
Carpool Programs
Description of Strategy
Carpooling is the sharing of rides in a private vehicle among two or more individuals and is the
most prevalent type of alternative to driving alone. In 1980, 19 percent (19%) of all work trips
were made by carpooling in the United States. In 1990, the share of carpools among work trips
in the Los Angeles regions was 14 percent (14%), and in Richmond about 12 percent (12%).
The process of grouping commuters into carpool arrangements, or carpool matching, occurs in
one of three ways:
! Area-wide Programs: Public agencies and non-profit organizations allow employees and
commuters to call into the agency to receive “instant” matching over the phone to complete a
carpool registration form and be sent a “match list” with the names of others that have similar
commute patterns. These organizations maintain computerized databases with the names of
potential carpools and this is used to make matches.
! Employer and Developer Programs: The 1979 oil crisis prompted the Federal sponsors of
rideshare programs to modify carpooling efforts in urban areas to focus on employers as the
means to promote carpooling. In the mid-1980s, carpool programs sponsored by commercial
and residential developers for tenants and homeowners were initiated, in response to traffic
mitigation requirements.
100

! Informal Arrangements: The majority of commuters form carpools through more informal
arrangements. According to a 1991 survey of commuters in Southern California, 53 percent
(53 %) of carpoolers in the region share a ride with household members, six percent
(6%)with other relatives, 15 percent (15%) with friends and neighbors, and less than a third
with co-workers.
Implementation Issues
The implementation of carpool programs largely revolves around the matching systems used by
both area-wide programs and individual employers. Generally, carpool programs, no matter how
implemented (employer, developer, rideshare agency), require several key elements for success:
! A pool of prospective commuters who might share rides
! Sound market research information on types of employees to target for rideshare matching
and promotion
! Good, up-to-date information on commute options and potential matches made available to
interested employees in a timely manner
! A “personalized” approach to persuade employees to try carpooling and contact a fellow
worker or even a stranger
! High-level corporate support by employers so that carpooling becomes part of the “corporate
culture”
! Financial support to assure a sound, lasting program
! Supporting programs which staff the carpool program, distribute marketing material, promote
specific incentives, and generally promote the carpool program and other commute
alternative.
Currently, Ridefinders, the Richmond areas regional rideshare agency, maintains a database of
3,965 potential poolers. Ridefinders has carefully researched which employers to approach to
receive the biggest benefit for efforts, using scatter plot maps where necessary. For the coming
year, Ridefinders will add a more personalized approach to matching, including introductory
phone calls, and will continue to support the guaranteed ride home program which is designed to
allow those who carpool to get home when an emergency or unscheduled overtime forces them
to miss their pool.
Ridefinders matching system provides many of the characteristics of a successful matching
system. Currently in use by Ridefinders or to be implemented in FY 2001 are:
101

! The requestor is given accurate, useful, timely and comprehensive information on potential
matches, and information on all alternatives (including transit and alternative routes) is
included.
! Personalization and follow-up will maximize use of the “match lists.” Commuters are often
reluctant to contact a stranger, so the information should also be provided to the employee
transportation coordinator (ETC) so that follow-up and face-to-face meetings can be
arranged. (new in 2001)
! Flexible database that can be segregated by type of commuter and allow the database to be
downloaded into forms for use by individual companies or for special events.
! Assure that security features are built into the system so that employers and commuters can
be confident that the information is not used for other purposes and to maintain
confidentiality within a single employer.
! Provide for on-line, interactive matching for those calling in for information or for use by
remote locations at employers or TMAs that experience “walk-in” requests. (new for 2001)
! Matching system characteristics not currently used by Ridefinders but that could improve
success are:
$ A database that is updated and purged regularly. A rapidly mobile work force means that
information that is more than six months old is likely to be unusable.
$ Matching systems used by employers for their own in-house programs should be menuor
screen-driven for ease of use and able to operate on most available personal
computers. Quick processing time is a must as employees often request information on a
“walk-in” basis.
Carpooling will continue to account for the largest proportion of non-solo commutes. The ability
to assist individuals in finding someone with which to share a ride, coupled with the time and
financial incentives afforded by several critical supporting strategies, will assure the proportion
of carpoolers remains high.
Vanpool Programs
Description of Strategy
Vanpools represent an important alternative to driving alone, falling midway between transit and
carpools in terms of carrying capacity and flexibility, economics, and convenience to the user.
Vanpools usually involve groups of seven to fifteen people – mainly commuters – traveling
together in a passenger van on a routine basis. Normally, one member of the group serves as the
driver, and also assumes the responsibility for the organizational and maintenance details of the
102

Ridefinders Scatter Plot
Richmond Regional MPO Area
%U
$T
%U
#
%U
First Shift
Second Shift
Third Shift
Interstates
Highways
%U
W
N
#
#
E
$T
$T
$T $T
#
#%U
%U
%U%U
$T
%U
#
#
$T # # # # %U $T
$T $T $T
# %U
%U ##
%U
%U $T $T $T $T $T
$T
%U $T
# $T $T $T
$T
$T
#
#
%U
%U
%U
$T %U
$T
%U
$T $T
#
$T
%U ##
## %U $T #
%U %U
$T %U $T $T $T
%U
#
$T
%U
%U
#
#
%U #
%U ##
%U $T ##
#
%U
$T
#
%U
#
#
#
# #%U
%U
%U
%U %U %U
%U #
%U
#
# #
#
#
# # # #
#
#
#
#
# %U
%U %U
$T
%U
$T $T
$T
$T $T
$T $T
$T $T
%U %U
%U
%U
%U
%U %U
%U
%U
# %U %U %U
$T
%U
# #
#%U
%U
#
%U
#
# # # # # # %U %U
%U
$T $T $T
$T
%U %U
%U
%U%U
%U
%U %U
%U
$T
$T $T
$T $T $T$T $T
$T$T
$T $T $T
$T
$T
$T $T
$T
$T
$T
$T
$T
$T $T $T $T $T $T $T
$T $T
$T
%U %U %U
# #%U
%U $T
# ##
#
#
#
##
%U
#
%U
%U
%U %U
%U
%U
%U
$T
$T
$T
%U %U %U
%U
$T
%U %U
$T $T
$T ÊÚ
$T $T
$T $T $T
$T $T
$T
$T
$T
$T $T $T
%U #
#
# # #
# # $T $T %U # %U
# %U $T
$T
#
#
$T
#
##
# #
#
%U %U %U
$T
$T
$T
$T
%U
$T $T
$T
$T
$T $T
$T %U %U $T %U %U
$T $T
$T $T %U $T
#
$T
%U $T $T $T #%U
#
%U
$T $T
# # $T %U
%U
##
#
%U
#
#
$T
# $T
#
#
%U %U
$T $T # $T
#
#%U
#
5 0 5 10 15 20 Miles
S Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, December 2000
$T
#
$T $T
$T %U
$T
%U

operation. Riders typically pay a weekly or monthly fee to cover expenses to the driver, who
frequently rides free and may have off-hours use of the vehicle.
To form a vanpool, it is necessary to:
! Identify a group of at least seven travelers whose trip patterns, time schedules, and personal
characteristics are sufficiently compatible to form a stable, ridesharing unit.
! Support the cost of acquiring, fueling and maintaining a vehicle.
! Find an acceptable arrangement for sharing responsibility in terms of driving,
organization/scheduling, and vehicle maintenance.
! Assume the risk and expense of insuring the vehicle.
Because of these responsibilities and uncertainties, a number of alternative arrangements have
evolved to encourage vanpools to form and remain viable. Some of these arrangements have
specifically developed to bring in the support of external groups which assist the vanpool in
startup and/or operation. For simplicity, the three fundamental methods of vanpool organization
are described below:
! Owner-Operator Vans: This is the simplest and oldest arrangement, where the van is owned
or leased directly by an individual. In this instance, the owner has complete responsibility
for organizing the vanpool and assumption of all financial arrangements and risks. Vans
formed under this type of arrangement have provided the basis for the more formal and
institutional programs described below.
! Employer-Sponsored Vanpools: Many employers purchase or lease vans for use by their
employees. Riders are then charged a fare which represents their share of the operating and
capital cost of the vehicle. In many cases, the driver is either not charged a fee or allowed
personal use of the vehicle. This arrangement allows employers a mechanism to subsidize or
support the vanpool in direct or indirect ways. Examples of employer-sponsored vanpools
include 3M, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and CONOCO in Houston.
! Third-Party Vanpools: In this arrangement, a third party organization such as non-profit
corporation, private vendor, or transit agency acquires the vans and makes them available to
employers or individual users. The vans are leased to the users at rates which are based on
the costs of the vehicle, maintenance, fuel and insurance. The third-party administration
costs may or may not be rolled into the fares. Rather than directly leasing vans, some public
agencies restrict their third party role to forming vanpools only, referring their riders to
private leasing companies for the equipment. Examples of this arrangement include
Commuter Transportation Services, Inc. in Los Angeles, a non-profit regional agency (200
vans in 1984), and the Tidewater Regional Transportation District, a regional transit agency
(95 vans in 1984). Vanpool Program Services, Inc. (VPSI), is perhaps the most distinct
third-party service vendor; a subsidiary of Budget Car Rental, VPSI provides full-service van
104

acquisition and operating and administrative assistance to employers and individuals
nationwide.
Implementation Issues
Despite the significant appeal of vanpooling as a medium-density modal option with high trafficimpact
potential and traditional economic self-sufficiency, efforts to boost use of the mode will
meet with numerous barriers. At a minimum these include the following:
! Public transit operators are likely to fear competition from vanpooling in certain markets.
! Some public transit operators will actually see cost and other advantages to higher levels of
vanpool service in their service areas, but may be constrained by political, institutional, and
funding issues in seeking to make greater use of vanpool options.
! While some employers view vanpools as an important employee benefit and management
strategy, many employers are resistant to vanpooling for such reasons as:
$ Loss of flexibility when employees must leave at a certain time to join their vanpool
$ Added administrative bother and expense, with the result that vanpooling is placed in
the hands of third parties or owner-operators at higher cost to the traveler
$ Concerns about their employees mixing with the employees of another employer, for
reasons of information loss, employee loss, and even concerns about insurance
coverage
! Many transportation planners, employers and individual travelers perceive vanpools as being
limited to only special situations, namely long commute trips and large employers.
Ridefinders has been working to mitigate many of these barriers. In regard to possible
competition with public transit, it may prove cost effective to rely on vanpools to serve various
transit markets that are not easily served by transit; however, this will require local policy
changes that are most likely to be motivated by financial factors. Vanpool market penetration
need not be limited to trips of 20 miles or more if favorable economics and commensurate time
savings are made available. This can be achieved through subsidy schemes, SOV parking
disincentives and development of such time saving measures as preferential HOV lanes, access
and parking. Finally, the perceptions of individual travelers toward vanpooling as a mode for
long trips only may be altered if either the economics or travel time considerations are made
more favorable through the measures described above.
Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities and Site Improvements
Description of Strategy
Bicycling and walking are often overlooked as serious travel options in the United States. In
older U.S. cities as well as in Europe and other parts of the world, these modes constitute a very
105

important part of the transportation system. In the modern, suburban environment that
characterizes most U.S. metropolitan areas, however, these modes seem out of scale and out of
place. Distances between residences and activities are discouraging to pedestrians and bikers in
this environment; further, these distance barriers are magnified by environmental design factors
that either prevent direct paths, or that put pedestrians or bikers in conflict with vehicular traffic.
Hence, biking and walking seem inappropriate to the environment, and hence are typically not
given great weight in transportation planning or policy schemes.
The essence of Travel Demand Management (TDM) is one of managing the overall
transportation system to its highest efficiency by drawing upon all travel options to the extent
that they can contribute and creating a balanced environment where there are numerous options
available. In this regard, there may be more potential to bicycling and walking than might
appear at first glance, both in a direct and in a complementary relationship. To clarify, there are
three important ways in which bike and walk modes might be pushed into greater service in
transportation management programs:
! As Primary Modes: realistically more people could use biking or walking as a primary mode
instead of driving, if given appropriate opportunity and encouragement.
! As Feeder Mode: bike and walk can be an effective media to connect with transit (or
ridesharing) modes for longer trips, again if given appropriate opportunity and
encouragement.
! For Circulation: the degree to which a destination site or activity center allows convenient
circulation impacts travelers’ decision on how to reach the site in the first place (i.e., whether
they are dependent on a private vehicle to ensure mobility once at the site).
Even with the great limitations presented by the built environment, it is reasonable to conclude
that rates of biking and walking, particularly for non-recreational purposes, are considerably less
than their potential. If greater advantage could be taken of the situations where biking or
walking are legitimate alternatives, even at marginal rates beyond current levels, impacts on
traffic levels and air quality could be consequential.
Implementation Issues
Stimulating higher rates of bicycle and walking modes has benefits as part of an overall
transportation management strategy. This strategy is inherently cost effective from a public
investment point of view, and would have favorable impacts upon air quality challenges that are
facing the Richmond area. These limitations notwithstanding, there are a number of technical
and policy actions which can be taken to maximize the benefits which can be offered by these
modes. The following are offered as recommendations toward ways to accomplish the
implementation of the more effective strategies:
! Planning for Transportation Programs Needs to Proactively Consider the Potential
Bicycle/Walking Link
106

Bicycle and pedestrian initiatives have typically been pushed by interest groups, rather than
evolving as part of a rational, comprehensive planning process that sees biking and walking
as an integral link to the overall transportation system. These linkages apply not only
connections between residential areas and activity centers, but where these modes are
carefully considered in relation to regional transit systems and in the design of activity
centers themselves, so that they can support access and circulation by modes other than just
private vehicles. The requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 and
special funding sources (Congestion Management Air Quality, or CMAQ) under the
Transportation Equity Act of the 21 st Century (TEA-21), may well provide the impetus to
broaden the consideration of these non-motorized modes in local planning and programming.
! Direct Scarce Resources Toward Settings with the Greatest Payoff
The research results tell us that certain factors help explain where bicycle and walking
initiatives are likely to be most fruitful. These include settings where travel distances are
relatively short between residential areas and key trip attractors, areas where there are high
concentrations of people under 40 (such as university communities), and where there already
exists compatible infrastructure which can be modified into appropriate facilities. Areas
where auto travel is difficult because of localized congestion or parking facilities are
crowded and expensive also represent good potential, so long as the congestion does not
present a safety threat to bike or pedestrian travel.
! Place Emphasis on Conventional Facilities
Despite the intellectual appeal of bicycle and walking facilities that double as recreational
trails, evidence suggests that less exotic options such as sidewalks and bike lanes along
arterials are probably just as or more effective and may cost much less. For utilitarian travel
like commuting, would-be bike/walk patrons are more likely to be interested in an efficient,
direct path with acceptable safety levels, than one which is isolated and attractive but that
does not go where they want it to go. Nevertheless, if park trails and bike paths are in
existence or are planned, their recreational use may well lead to spillover to greater levels of
utilitarian travel.
! Consider Linkages which Promote Continuity
In many urban areas where systems of bike trails, paths, or walkways exist, they may fall
short in that there are major gaps in the network by which activities are connected. For
example, a regional system of bike paths/trails may simply not be connected to particular
sectors of the metropolitan area because of missing links or absence of coverage in the given
area. Similarly, pedestrian paths may be blocked or truncated, or made circuitous by natural
or man-made obstacles. This continuity can be improved through careful planning and
identification of obstacles.
! Think in Terms of Packages of Actions
Empirical evidence suggests that no one strategy looms as paramount in the decision to bike
or walk. Obviously, safety is an issue, as is having a secure place to park one’s bicycle if
biking is the mode, or having a place to shower and change at the end of a long and strenuous
107

trip, or in extreme weather. It appears more practical and promising if strategies to enhance
biking and walking are not done piecemeal, but as part of a carefully-thought-through
program of actions where each of the major impediments/barriers is diminished in some way.
! Consider the Linkage with Transit
While higher percentages of commuters using biking or walking for their primary mode to
work offers dividends, the potential in terms of congestion or air quality may be greater if
bicycling and walking are given higher attention as supporting modes to connect with transit
for longer trips. This means careful thought and design of transit stations in rail systems, to
be able to attract substantial numbers of users from local neighborhoods by walking or
biking, rather than cars. It also means working within the formal planning process to
promote linkages between transit and the community, via path/sidewalk connections as well
as avoiding conflicts with traffic. And it also means attention to inter-system connections,
meaning secure bike rack/locker areas for cyclists, and shelters and adequate lighting for
pedestrians.
! Private Sector Involvement and Support
Developers play an important role in the potential for bike/pedestrian use in the design of
buildings and subdivisions, in terms of the location of buildings relative to streets, other
buildings, services, and transit. Development review procedures can and have been used
successfully to force higher design standards in regards to incorporation of
bike/pedestrian/transit usage. Similarly, employers can be encouraged to increase attention
to bike/walk use through provision of bike facilities and showers and changing facilities.
! Financial Encouragement
While cost, per se, is not shown by surveys as a major reason why individuals bike or walk to
work, these surveys are generally measuring reaction to the status quo regarding relative
costs among modes, and suggest that persons who bike/walk do so for entirely different
reasons. However, substantial changes in the relationships among modes in terms of cost,
such as what might come about through introductions of either incentives or driving
disincentives (charging for formerly free parking) would be reasoned by most travel analysts
to have a significant effect on the attractiveness of walking or biking, assuming that it is a
physically reasonable option.
! Marketing and Education
Assuming strategies can be implemented which materially enhance the environment for
biking or walking, then it will be important to notify the public of the changes and their
potential benefit from seeking use of the options. These efforts should also be paralleled by
monitoring and evaluation, with collection of appropriate data to track the effectiveness of
particular technical, policy or marketing/informational approaches for future planning and
programming efforts.
In the long-term, the ultimate potential of biking and walking depends on major alterations to
current development trends, planning procedures, funding programs, and even tastes an
preferences which are conditioned on current experience. Until or whenever these more
108

fundamental changes occur, the measures listed above should dramatically increase the use
and contribution available from these seldom used, time-honored modes of travel.
In 2000, the MPO agreed to serve as a model for VDOT to draft a regional Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan. This plan will consider the above factors and hopefully, develop and
implementation program that all local jurisdictions will agree to and follow. The following
information represents what has been done to date in the Richmond area for bicycle planning.
Bicycle Planning in the Richmond Region
Town of Ashland
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Current facilities: US Bike Route 1, US Bike Route 76.
Planned facilities: Enhanced bicycle crossing at Junction Dr.; improve existing trails; complete
sidewalks and bicycle facilities to link components; installation of several new trails, sidewalks,
and bike lanes; and seek inclusion of bicycle facilities consistent with the Plan in all new capital
projects undertaken by the Town or by the state in Ashland.
Charles City County
Greenway element included in Master Plan for Recreation Parks and Greenways.
Current facilities: US Bike Route 76.
Planned facilities: Capital-to-Capital Bikeway, greenway system providing miles of “linear
parks” for walking and bicycling safely through the county.
Chesterfield County
Bike element included in comprehensive plan.
Current facilities: Limited number of isolated bike trails in the county park system. Currently
no bicycle facilities provided specifically within any of the county parks, athletic complexes, or
between schools and adjoining neighborhoods. US Bike Route 1.
Planned facilities: The Countywide Bikeway Plan identifies routes where bikeway facilities
should be provided. The plan does not identify the specific type of facility to be provided. The
plan does anticipate a combination of exclusive bicycle roadways, bicycle lanes, and bike routes.
Bike facilities identified on the Bikeway Plan are considered for inclusion in road improvements.
109

Goochland County
No major bike plan.
Current facilities: US Bike route 76.
Planned facilities: None.
Hanover County
No major bike plan.
Current facilities: US Bike Route 1, US Bike Route 76, “other state and regional trails.”
Planned facilities: The Recreation Advisory Commission has suggested three greenways for the
County, a bicycle plan meeting VDOT standards should be incorporated into the Comprehensive
Plan.
Henrico County
No major bike plan.
Current facilities: US Bike Route 1, US Bike Route 76.
Planned facilities: Capital-to-Capital bikeway.
New Kent County
No major bike plan.
Current facilities: None.
Planned facilities: Sidewalk/trail network planned for the courthouse area.
Powhatan County
No major bike plan.
Current facilities: Bike route extending west from Chesterfield County via the Norfolk-Southern
Railroad right-of-way to Route 605 in Powhatan County.
Planned facilities: Encourage sensitive roadway alignment and design that balances the needs of
vehicular traffic with the needs of the citizens for comfortable bicycle access, encourage
developments to plan for connections to a countywide system of bikeways along major road
corridors.
110

City of Richmond Transportation Plan
Bicycles included as part of Transportation Plan. “A comprehensive network of bicycle facilities
is included. The network includes a signed bicycle route system designed to link attractions and
is intended for commuting movements. The bicycle route system is recommended for
experienced cyclists and is proposed within existing right-of-way. Another recommendation is a
trail network of grade-separated bikeways that will also support pedestrian movements. These
systems are proposed primarily along the north and south banks of the James River.”
Current facilities: The Canal Walk, US Route 1 Interstate bicycle route (without signing),
recreational trails along the James River/Belle Isle, no signed bicycle routes within the City.
Bicycle commuting represents 5% of the market in the CBD, although roads are not designed to
support them.
Plan’s suggested improvements: Bicycle trails designed to support all classes of cyclists
(commuter, recreational, beginner). The bicycle plan for the City includes bicycle paths
designed for commuters which are located on street and within the stream of traffic. These are
signed bicycle routes and include:
! Eastern-Western transect that provides access from the West End and Fan to the CBD and
connects to the Route 5 bicycle paths being planned from Richmond to Williamsburg;
! The Northern-Southern transect provides commuter access from the North side on Brook
Road to the CBD and continues to the Southside where it provides access to a grade
separated section along Jefferson Davis Highway and also along Broad Rock Road to
connect to the Route 10 Bike Route in Chesterfield County.
Greenways along the north side and south side of the river and bicycle lock-up facilities are also
planned.
111

Existing & Planned Bicycle / Pedestrian Facilities
Richmond Regional MPO Area
City of Richmond
Chesterfield County
Capitol to Capitol
Bikeway
W
N
S
E
3 0 3 6 9 12 Miles
Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, December 2000

Bike Route 1 and Bike Route 76
Richmond Regional MPO Area
Bike Route 1
Bike Route 76
Interstates
W
N
S
E
5 0 5 10 15 20 Miles
Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, December 2000

Employer Complementary Support Measures
Description of Strategy
Driving alone is such a long-standing habit for most United States commuters that few even
think of trying an alternative without encouragement and assistance. Providing complementary
programs and services that increase commuters’ awareness of their alternatives, enhance the
convenience of using an alternative, or reduce the need for a personal automobile during the
workday are important support measures that employers can offer.
Complementary programs and services fall into three categories: TDM program marketing, site
amenities and design, and supporting activities.
TDM Marketing
Drive-alone commuters must be made aware of the availability of TDM strategies and
encouraged to try them. As a complementary measure, program marketing features
dissemination of information on available TDM services and incentives to the public at large or
targeted to specific travel markets. Program marketing often also includes personalized
commute planning assistance and special promotional activities such as fairs or “clubs” that can
increase commuters’ interest in ridesharing.
As with many TDM program elements, marketing of TDM can be directed to commuters at
several geographic levels: regional, local area, and individual employers. Regional marketing
typically is sponsored by regional ridesharing agencies, transit operators, local governments, and
metropolitan planning organizations. These agencies often promote the use of TDM generally,
but some regional programs target the use of specific regional strategies or services such as
public transit. Regional commute groups increasingly are targeting their TDM marketing
activities to employers because of their greater effectiveness on promoting TDM to employees.
TDM marketing can also be targeted to a smaller audience in a defined local area, for example,
an employment, shopping, or residential complex. Developers and property managers are often
the sponsors of these programs generally as a condition placed on the development project by a
local planning board. TDM marketing in a local area can also be sponsored by groups of
employers and/or developers (e.g., transportation management associations). To these groups,
joint marketing could result in cost savings over individual promotion. At employment sites,
local area marketing is often targeted to new tenants by the leasing agent or building manager.
Residential-based programs often target new residents through realtors and property managers.
The third geographic level of program marketing is at an individual employment site. Here,
marketing is done by employers who promote use of TDM options to their employees.
Employer marketing efforts do sometimes include general promotion of TDM, but most often
market the specific TDM services and incentives provided by the employer or options available
only to travelers at that site.
114

There are three components of TDM marketing that warrant attention: information
dissemination, transportation coordinators, and special promotions.
! Information Dissemination – TDM information can be disseminated by many methods
depending on the scope and size of the target market. Regional distribution methods might
include mass mailings, newspaper, radio and television advertising, and roadside signs, such
as those that list “Pool” phone numbers. At individual employment sites, information
dissemination typically relies on poster, bulletin boards, flyers distributed desk-to-desk, inhouse
newsletters, new employee orientation, and periodic promotional events such as
rideshare fares. Local area information dissemination utilizes elements of each of these other
two programs, for example, mass mailings to new tenants or new homeowners, information
distributed through realtors and building managers, posted notices, newsletters, and
promotional events.
Information can be provided at various levels of sophistication and commuter convenience.
The most basic level is passive postings, such as carpool ridematch boards, information “take
one” displays, mass mailings, and roadside signs that inform commuters of assistance
available from a remote source such as a regional ridesharing agency. At this level, the
commuter must make the effort to follow-up with a call or mailback card to receive more
information.
The highest level of information assistance is provided by a commute information center,
centrally located within an employment area, at a transit station, or at an individual
employment site. At this level, the commuter still makes an effort to use the center’s
resources, but receives immediate, personalized assistance. These centers are staffed,
generally full-time, and provide both information on available services and personalized
commute planning. They also can serve as outlets for distribution of transit fare media or
other commute products.
! Transportation Coordinators – Many commute information centers and some remote
assistance offices are staffed with transportation professionals who provide personalized
assistance to commuters. These professionals, often called Transportation Coordinators or
Employee Transportation Coordinators (ETCs), offer individual trip planning assistance at
employment sites, as well as performing more general marketing and information functions.
At employment sites, the ETC is generally the focus of the company’s commute program and
manages the program’s development, implementation, marketing, administration, and
evaluation.
! Special Promotions – In addition to general and on-demand information on TDM strategies,
TDM marketing often includes special promotions such as periodic prize drawings, contests,
awards for ridesharing, commuter or bicycle clubs, and other activities to attract the attention
of commuters, generate excitement about the use of commute alternatives, and reward
ridesharers. They are often sponsored in conjunction with area-wide commuter promotions
such as annual ridesharing week or Earth Day. Special promotions are widely used,
especially at employment sites, in part due to their low cost and high “splash” value.
115

While Ridefinders provides all three of these items for use by employers, only a few dozen
actually take advantage of these services. There is a role for local jurisdictions and the MPO to
encourage the use of these available resources by more companies within the Richmond region.
Site Amenities and Design
Many employment sites, especially those in suburban areas, were designed with the expectation
that employees would primarily arrive by private automobile. The goal of the second group of
complementary programs, site amenities and design, is to change the work site to make it more
“friendly” to commute alternatives.
! “Rideshare Friendly” Work Site Design – “Rideshare friendly” work sites are those that:
accommodate the space and maneuvering needs of transit and vanpool vehicles; provide safe,
attractive rideshare loading areas; and minimize the walking distance for HOV commuters.
Some sites also target the special needs of bicycle and pedestrian commuters. They include
bicycle parking protected from theft and from weather, showers and personal storage lockers,
and bicycle maintenance facilities.
! On-Site Services – On-site services include cafeterias and restaurants, dry cleaners, ATMs,
convenience shopping, video rental stores, printers and copy shops, and other personal or
business-related service establishments commuters need to perform workday errands. A
common objection to ridesharing voiced by drive alone commuters is that they need a car
during the day to perform personal or job-related errands. A 1991 survey of Southern
California commuters, for example, showed that 29 percent (29%) of employees make at
least one errand stop on the way home from work. Over half of the commuters also said they
need their car for business or personal trips during the midday. Many of these stops and trips
were for meals or shopping. Availability of service establishments on-site or within walking
distance can minimize both the true and perceived need for a personal auto.
Again, Ridefinders has worked with some developers on site design issues. But this activity is
best left to local jurisdictions during the design review and negotiation phase rather than
attempting to retrofit existing developments.
Supporting Services
Supporting services are program elements that address two concerns that commuters often have
about use of commute alternatives: the fear of being stranded without transportation in the event
of an emergency and the fear that use of ridesharing will hinder their advancement in the
company.
! Guaranteed Ride Home Programs – Guaranteed ride home (GRH) programs, also called
guaranteed return trip or emergency ride home, are “commuter insurance.” Many commuter
surveys have shown that an important factor in commuters’ reluctance to rideshare is the fear
they will not be able to respond to a personal emergency, such as picking up a sick child at
school, or be stranded without transportation if they have to work late unexpectedly. GRH
116

programs offer free or subsidized emergency transportation, generally by taxicab or rental
car, to commuters who do not drive to work alone.
! Corporate Commitment – Corporate commitment refers to the overall level of support for the
TDM program. In general, it reflects a willingness of upper level corporate management to
devote resources to the program, provide tangible incentives, establish a corporate “culture”
that supports (rather than penalizes) employees’ use of commute alternatives, and participate
in local and regional transportation-related programs. A strong commitment typically is
demonstrated by an extensive package of incentives offered to commuters, but also includes
supportive work environment policies such as not holding meetings late in the afternoon and
not penalizing ridesharing employees who choose not to work overtime. Strong corporate
commitment is sometimes manifested by ridesharing among corporate executives.
Ridefinders has made available a GRH program for those who register their carpool or vanpool
with Ridefinders. When registering, they must certify that they are committed to this alternative
mode at least three days a week. A greater role is available for employers, but without support
from local jurisdictions, the MPO, and Greater Richmond Chamber of Commerce, the potential
of the services is greatly diminished.
Preferential HOV Treatments
Description of Strategy
Preferential HOV facilities can be an effective way to encourage travelers to use higheroccupancy
modes of travel, such as transit, carpools, or vanpools. By dedicating certain portions
of a highway or supporting transportation facilities to exclusive or priority use by highoccupancy
vehicles, users of these modes will realize a travel time advantage. This advantage,
which presents itself in terms of reduced travel time and greater predictability of travel time, in
turn serves as an important incentive to encourage use of HOVs.
! HOV facilities can occur in numerous forms, but the general idea is to design or operate the
transportation facility in such a manner that HOV users are given priority treatment.
Perhaps the most important dimension in beginning HOV applications relates to the way in
which they are introduced, with two important differences:
! Add a Lane: The HOV lane(s) are introduced as entirely new capacity, thereby preserving
the existing highway capacity for mixed-use traffic.
! Take a Lane: The HOV lane(s) are introduced by reallocating the facilities which are already
present, thereby taking capacity away from existing traffic.
The first option has been shown nationally to be the best way to introduce HOV lane use. The
second option often leads to public resentment, political attack, and ultimately, removal of the
HOV facility.
117

Implementation Issues
HOV facilities are typically implemented by public agencies, because they are major public
works facilities. The potential exists, however, for private or non-profit authorities to construct
and operate HOV facilities along the lines of a toll road. In fact, through discriminatory pricing
strategies, the granting of either toll discounts to HOVs or charging toll premiums to SOVs could
result in a facility which operates somewhat like a preferential HOV facility. These so-called
High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes have been used in California in the median area of a highly
congested freeway facility. Average timesavings for users exceeds 15 minutes and SOV tolls
can be as high as $20.00 one-way.
The primary issue in developing the support basis necessary to build and maintain an HOV
facility is that objectives be coordinated among the various entities. Most particularly:
! The traveling public, even in highly congested travel corridors, may not initially embrace
HOV facilities as a solution; typically they see the solution in the provision of new highway
capacity, and resent any restrictions on the use of that capacity.
! Elected officials, sensing the mistrust of the public and the business community, may not see
HOV facilities as supportive of their economic development or political goals.
! Communities or jurisdictions may disagree with each other on an HOV facility which affects
each of them differently.
! Agencies may disagree on the benefit or desirability of HOV lanes; transit agencies may feel
that HOV lanes near a fixed guideway transit line will sap its ridership, or that carpools will
compete with regular route transit service.
Resolution of these issues begins with good planning and information. Individuals need to be
apprised of the costs and benefits of the HOV lane, first of all to accept it as a transportation
management strategy, and second to be persuaded to use it. Information programs can be
effectively developed to perform this function.
The acceptance of HOV lanes can also be buffered significantly by the manner in which they are
introduced:
! Letting the public know well before the opening of a facility that it will be HOV exclusive
(or some day will be HOV exclusive) is less likely to produce a reactionary shock when the
event occurs.
! If it appears that it will take a while for lane usage to build to design levels, it may be
necessary to initiate operations with a modest minimum occupancy requirement (i.e., HOV-2
instead of HOV-3 or 4). This can be adjusted over time to provide the appropriate balances
between efficiency and utilization.
118

! Developing complementary programs to support use of the lane is important. These include,
as appropriate, transit service improvement, carpool/vanpool programs, rideshare/transit
staging or park and ride areas, parking management programs, and relevant financial
incentives or disincentives.
! Enforcement is very important, not only to ensure the continued high performance of the
facility, but to give it public credibility that its integrity and dedicated use will be maintained.
Programming HOV facilities also relies significantly on available resources and being able to
dedicate those resources toward an HOV project. Agencies, or the elected bodies that direct the
agencies, may see alternative projects for the resources that would be used for HOV lanes.
Increasingly, federal and state funding programs and regulations (such as the Federal Clean Air
Act, Congestion Management System requirements, and local traffic mitigation ordinances) may
place higher priority on the inclusion HOV facilities in state and regional transportation system
plans. Currently, the Richmond area has no HOV facilities nor does it have any planned. While
Ridefinders supports the concept of HOV lanes it has not taken an official stand on the issue.
Economic Incentives
Description of Strategy
Two key factors in a traveler’s decision to use one mode over another are the relative time and
costs. Given the overwhelming advantage of the single occupant vehicle (SOV) in most modern
suburban travel situations, incentives are critical in any attempt to shift travelers into alternative
modes of travel. Financial incentives offered directly to travelers by employers or public
agencies, termed user subsidies, have been effective. Travel Demand Management (TDM)
incentives are most often applied to work trips. These can include incentives to use specific
alternatives, such as transit or vanpooling, or more flexible incentive schemes that provide
subsidies to users of any alternative commute modes, such as rideshare and travel allowances.
Recent studies have concluded that subsidies are a frequently present component of effective
employer trip reduction programs. Most commonly, subsidies are provided by employers who
need to reduce parking demand or to alleviate access problems. Alternatively, public agencies
may offer subsidies to travelers to achieve localized or area-wide trip reduction goals.
While financial incentives come in many forms and can be tailored by employers and public
entities to various entities to various travel markets and situations, some of the more common
subsidy schemes include:
Employer/Developer-Provided Incentives
! Transit Pass Subsidies: Have employer/developer total or partial purchase transit passes,
tickets or tokens for employee use. In some cases, the employer purchases monthly passes
and sells or gives the pass to employees. In other cases, the employer agrees to reimburse
employees for their purchases. A 1990 survey of U.S. transit operators revealed that over
60,000 employees receive subsidized passes from their employers in 10 cities. A 1983
119

survey of employers revealed that 10 percent (10%) of all firms distribute transit passes and
two-thirds of these subsidize the passes. In Boston, 130 of the 800 employers participating in
the pass program provide subsidies to over 10,000 commuters.
! Vanpool Operating Subsidies: Vanpool subsidies can take many forms. Employers that
provide the vehicles, underwrite insurance and capital costs, or help employee groups arrange
vanpool leases are providing an “in-kind” form of financial incentive. Direct subsidies to
users of vanpools, no matter who owns, leases or operates the vans, are covered in this
section. Vanpools generally serve long-distance commuters, and since vanpool fares are
usually distance-based, the monthly fare can be substantial, often ranging from $50-$100.
Employer subsides help defray the out-of-pocket costs of vanpooling by subsidizing
employees through:
- free or subsidized fares for the first one to six months of usage
- monthly subsidies or one to two free months per year for “loyal” riders
- free fares and use of the van by the driver
Fourteen percent (14%) of employers, according to a 1983 survey, offer vanpooling as a
program element. Of these, most involved no fares for the driver and one quarter subsidized
the fare. Therefore, most employer-sponsored vanpool programs and all owner-operated
vans operate without user subsidies. Of course, this does not include public sector subsidies
and tax credits.
! Rideshare Subsidies: Rideshare subsidies generally involve a broader subsidy scheme by
offering a user subsidy to any employee using a commute alternative, not just transit or
vanpool riders. Rideshare subsidies, offered on a daily, pay period, monthly, or annual basis,
represent a means to more equitably implement a financial incentive by allowing employees
to choose the alternative that best suits their travel needs, and then apply the rideshare
subsidy to that mode. Sometimes the subsidy increases with the occupancy of the alternative
(i.e., transit users and two-person carpools get a smaller subsidy than those in larger carpools
or vanpools). Another subsidy scheme involves a uniform monthly subsidy equally applied to
any commute alternative. The 1983 survey of employers cited above reveals that 32 percent
(32%) of respondent firms had a rideshare program and 13 percent (13%) of these provided
rideshare subsidies of some form.
! Travel Allowances: Whereas rideshare subsidies apply to users of commute alternatives,
travel allowances represent a monthly stipend for employees to use on whatever travel mode
they wish, including driving alone. Travel allowances are most often tied to parking charges
whereby employees can apply the allowance to all or part of their parking fees, or use the
allowance to purchase a bus pass or share the cost of commuting in a carpool or vanpool.
For employees who bicycle, walk, or are dropped off at work, the allowance becomes a
windfall.
Another form of travel allowance is a differential parking subsidy that provides higher
allowances to users of commute alternatives and/or higher parking subsidies for higher
occupancy levels. Again, these allowances differ from rideshare subsidies in that they apply
in some form to all employees, with solo drivers receiving the lowest subsidy. For example,
120

solo commuters might receive a 50 percent (50%) parking subsidy, two-person carpools a 75
percent (75%) subsidy, three-person and more pools receive a 100 percent (100%) parking
subsidy, and transit users and others receive a subsidy for all or part of their commute
expenses.
! Other Financial Incentives: Other financial incentives that provide a real, monetary
incentive to using alternative travel modes do not involve direct subsidy payments to users.
These include:
- use of fleet vehicles for ridesharing
- free or discounted fuel for pooling vehicles
- free or discounted maintenance and repair for pooling vehicles
- extra vacation for commute alternative users
- free or discounted equipment (shoes, bicycle helmets)
The use of fleet vehicles generally involves employers with existing fleets (utilities, sales, public
service) allowing employees to use these vehicles for pooling purposes by taking vehicles home
at night. In addition, these employers must address the insurance issue of commuting use of the
vehicle. Subsidized fuel or maintenance generally involves utilizing on-site motor pool services
or contracted arrangements with gas stations or repair shops. Sometimes commutes are
reimbursed for a monthly gasoline allowance as an added incentive to ridesharing. Extra vacation
is provided in lieu of cash subsidies at some firms whereby employees receive, for example, one
to two days extra paid vacation per year for ridesharing a specified number of days. Finally, free
or discounted equipment may be viewed as more of a prize or giveaway, but when tied to use of
an alternative does defray the out-of-pocket costs. Such equipment has included walking shoes,
bicycles, bicycle helmets, emergency road-side kits, etc. One firm in Los Angeles provided
bicycles to commuters and gave them to the employee after six-months use for commuting.
Public Agency-Provided Incentives
! Transit Fare Discounts: While most public transit service is subsidized, the ability to
directly subsidize users most often involves the reduction of fares for all users or targeted
user groups (commuters, students, elderly, etc.). Fare discounts targeted to commuters are
fairly rare, because commuters represent "choice" riders (i.e., having a choice of commute
options). Service is generally the most costly to operate during the peak periods, and
premium express-type commuter service most often commands a fare surcharge, not a
decrease. However, the ability to increase transit ridership by decreasing transit fares is a
discussed element, which therefore would reduce trips. In some cases, transit operators have
experimented with free fares to increase ridership.
! Transit Subsidies: While "user-side subsidies" are prevalent in elderly and handicapped
services, some limited examples exist of public sector agencies offering commuters direct
subsidies for using transit. In some cases, cities or counties match employer transit subsidies.
In other cases, transit operators sell passes to employers at a discounted rate if the employer
in turn subsidizes the passes (in effect, the equivalent of a subsidy match). Finally, some
public agencies have provided free ride tickets to commuters to use transit on a trial basis.
121

! Vanpool Start-up Subsidies: As with tickets for trial use of transit, some public agencies
have subsidized the start-up costs of vanpools. This is accomplished by either providing a
one-time start-up incentive to new vanpools or subsidizing all or part of an individual's
vanpool fare for the first few months of operation. In California, vanpool start-up subsidies
have been used in conjunction with highway reconstruction projects, to mitigate the impact
of delays and hassles on commuters by providing an alternative to driving alone.
Implementation Issues
The provision of direct subsidies to users of travel alternatives is not widespread among
employer and public agency TDM programs. Most programs attempt to induce mode shifts by
providing travelers with improved information on alternatives. However, information alone
cannot counterbalance the overwhelming cost, time savings, and convenience associated with
driving alone. Even the potential sharing of operating costs available from carpooling is not
enough to sway most travelers. Thus, the ability to provide incentives to using alternatives (or
disincentives to driving alone) are among the most effective means to realize trip reduction
objectives.
In implementing public sector subsidy and fare discount programs, the primary issues revolve
around the role of the subsidies in an overall TDM policy or program and the ability to link
public subsidies to employer programs that involve a matching subsidy. Specifically,
implementation issues to be considered include:
! The ability of subsidies to fulfill public policy objectives in an effective, equitable and
consistent fashion.
! The relationship of user subsidies to employer and developer requirements in terms of
strategic reinforcement of employer programs.
! The use of impact fees, transportation funds, or general funds to provide subsidies rather than
or in addition to new services and infrastructure.
! The ability of employer transit pass programs to increase ridership and offset revenue loss
from prepayment discounts.
! The desirability of reducing transit fares for specific markets given the price inelasticity of
transit fares with respect to demand.
Perhaps the most effective scheme for providing user subsidies and transit discounts is to provide
financial incentives to employers rather than directly to travelers, so as to reinforce in-house trip
reduction programs and assist in compliance with requirements. Tying subsidies to an employermatch
benefits travelers, employers, and the public agencies by maximizing the subsidy available
to travelers. Revenue for public subsidies can come from a variety of sources. User fees, such as
parking revenue or taxes, can be utilized. Business taxes and developer fees can also be utilized.
122

Employer considerations of financial incentives include issues related to employee benefits and
equity. In general, most employers implement subsidies when their information-based program
does not yield required or desired results. Alternatively, where parking supply is limited at a site
to which the employer is relocating, financial incentives are provided to reduce parking demand
and provide relocation assistance to employees. Specifically, implementation issues include:
! The provision of a subsidy for ridesharers versus a travel allowance for all employees and
related equity issues.
! The inclusion of commute benefits in the firm's overall benefits package and the inclusion of
commute benefits in the collective bargaining process.
! Federal tax law currently requires all commute benefits (except transit and vanpool subsidies
up to $65 per month) to be treated as taxable income to the employee.
! Subsidy programs and related tax reporting require administrative support beyond the
promotion of alternatives.
! The ability of parking charges and van pool fares to offset significant subsidy expenses.
! The disposition of extra parking due to reduced parking demand.
As mentioned above, subsidies are most effective when combined with parking charges.
Therefore, the most effective means for implementing subsidies may be the provision of a travel
allowance giving employees the opportunity to make monthly choices between parking and
commute alternatives based on personal needs and potential cost savings. The net cost to the
employer under an allowance scheme is the amount of subsidies retained by ridesharers.
However, parking charges, differential rates based on occupancy, and rideshare subsidies can be
combined to produce intended effects. Rather than subsidizing all travelers, parking fees charged
to solo drivers directly cross-subsidize users of commute alternatives, as is the case with
Bellevue City Hall. The decision to use a travel allowance versus a cross-subsidization scheme
will depend on a variety of equity, administrative, policy, and financial issues. However, the
ability of subsidies, when combined with parking charges, to produce the most effective
programs examined to date, suggests that the inclusion of financial incentives in TDM programs
as a primary strategy be a top consideration when developing an effective program.
Current efforts in the Richmond area are beginning to increase. With the new Commuter Choice
Initiative, several employers, including the state of Virginia, have contacted Ridefinders to
implement subsidy and parking cash-out schemes. More interest is expected in this area in the
coming years.
123

Parking Supply and Pricing Management
Description of Strategy
Local Parking Policy
The development and management of parking supply involves many public and private sector
groups. The public sector plays several roles in parking:
! Localities set "parking requirements" in codes. The requirements oblige developers to
provide a certain amount of parking with their developments. Requirements in zoning codes
usually vary with the type of land use.
! Some localities build and manage off-street parking supply, whether to encourage shopping
or as part of redevelopment, or generally to control the location and price of parking. The offstreet
supply might be surface lots or garages.
! Localities control the supply and regulation of on-street parking. On-street controls
discourage commuters from parking in neighborhoods ("preferential parking programs") or
encourage turnover in shopping areas (meters and timed zones).
! Finally, localities influence the revenues and rates charged by private providers of parking, if
and when they impose revenue or space taxes on private providers.
The federal government also influences parking policy. The IRS exempts from taxes free or
subsidized parking offered by employers to employees up to $120 per month. Currently, no
parking space in the Richmond area exceeds $120 per month. The result is more employee
demand for parking, higher local parking requirements and less incentive for use of transit and
ridesharing compared to the case where subsidized parking is taxed.
The private sector also has an important role in parking. Where the market allows, commercial
parking operators provide and price surface lots and garages available to commuters and
shoppers. Developers provide parking as part of commercial developments. At office
developments, these developers lease some parking to project tenants and some to visitors. At
retail shopping centers, all or most of the parking may be open to the public at large.
Policy changes influencing parking supply, price, and location do not come easily, in part
because any change raises equity issues across affected parties. For example, a change in how
much parking government code allows and where it is allowed influences the cost and revenues
of parking, as well as market viability of an entire development. Such a change applied to new
developments favors or disadvantages developments already in place, depending on whether new
requirements allow more or less parking. Supply or pricing changes at an activity center, whether
downtown or suburban, may favor or disadvantage activity center growth and the economy
relative to other centers in a region. Parking policy changes pertaining to commuters may well
influence parking availability for visitors and shoppers. Revenues of the commercial parking
industry are affected by changes in parking taxes, code-required supply, and location.
124

Parking and Demand Management
Parking is a vital element of any Transportation Demand Management program. Considerable
recent and past research suggests the supply and price of parking may be the most potent demand
management strategy. For example, one recent study found parking pricing alone was as
effective in reducing trips as a combination of several demand management strategies
implemented without parking pricing. Because parking pricing is so central to traveler choices
between solo driving, carpooling, transit use, and walking, traffic congestion and air quality are
intimately linked to parking. Therefore, the Richmond area MPO should examine parking policy
as part of their demand management programs to maximize effectiveness.
Localities can integrate parking into their demand management efforts through two broad
approaches: pricing and supply management.
Pricing
Governments may take several approaches to pricing parking. They may:
! Impose or increase fees and surcharges for solo drivers or long-term parkers in public
parking facilities.
! Give price preference to carpools and vanpools.
! Tax the providers of parking, whether commercial operators of parking or all public and
private entities providing parking.
! Impose parking pricing through regional regulations, for example, air quality regulations or
special legislation.
! Especially regarding state government, tie funding allocations for road improvements to
requirements for local trip reduction plans incorporating parking pricing among other
demand management strategies.
Developers and employers also can play a role in pricing. One or more of these entities can.
! Remove, reduce or cash out employer-provided parking subsidies.
! Reverse "early bird" or monthly discounts favoring long-term commuter parking.
! With or without government regulation, impose parking pricing and discount parking for
carpoolers where free parking prevails, or where carpoolers enjoy no price breaks.
! Develop parking regulations and pricing for commercial and retail mixed-use areas and
manage and enforce parking.
125

Some examples include:
! Madison, Wisconsin imposes a peak period surcharge at municipal garages to encourage
commuters to switch to shuttle service.
! Seattle discounts carpool parking downtown and requires the same discounts in many
development agreements.
! San Francisco increased rates at public and commercial garages through a parking tax as part
of its "transit first" policy. Through developer agreements, the City also negotiates parking
rates at new commercial developments.
! Employers in Bellevue, Washington, Los Angeles, California and Montgomery County,
Maryland have imposed parking pricing on employees alone or in combination with travel
allowances, or provided effective parking subsidies to rideshare patrons.
! Montgomery County, Maryland ended its sale of discount monthly parking booklets for
commuters.
! The Transportation Management Association in Bellevue, Washington for some time
managed and enforced parking to prevent commuters from parking in shopper areas.
Supply Management
Localities influence the supply of parking at and around developments through:
! Parking code measures.
! On-street controls (meters, timed zones, neighborhood preferential parking).
! Controls on the amount of parking built and operated by the public sector.
Localities can exert the most direct control over parking supplies through the zoning code.
Parking codes establishing the amount of parking developers must provide ("minimum"
required) can be set with low minimums and/or maximums ("maximum" which can be provided)
to insure overly ample supplies are not provided. Or, localities can allow reductions in minimum
requirements ("flexible" requirements) in return for traffic mitigation. Developers can reduce the
minimum amount of parking required in return for supporting transit, carpooling, cycling, and
other alternatives to solo driving. Examples include:
! Portland, Oregon sets a "lid" on the total supply of parking, except hotel and residential
parking.
! Seattle and Bellevue, Washington put limits (a "maximum") on the amount of parking at
commercial developments. The limit is tied closely to transit in the case of Seattle.
126

! San Francisco limits parking to seven percent (7%) of gross floor area in commercial
developments within the downtown area where transit service is good.
! The City of Hartford, Connecticut, requires all new parking downtown to be underground,
partially to encourage development of off-site parking. The city also reduces minimum
required parking in return for developer carpool and transit encouragements.
! Similar reductions in minimums are found in Palo Alto and Sacramento, California and in
Chicago, Illinois.
! Calgary, Canada, and Orlando, Florida, have required or allowed payments "in-lieu" of onsite
parking. Fees support municipal parking, whether central or peripheral to downtown.
Implementation Issues
Pricing – Objectives and Instruments
Parking pricing serves the objective of trip reduction. Whether by way of increased rates or
surcharges at public and private facilities, removal of parking subsidies, implementation of
regulations and developer agreements encouraging parking pricing as a demand management
measure, changes in early-bird or other rate schedules in commercial parking, parking taxes or
other means, pricing can reduce vehicle trips significantly in both suburban and urban settings.
Objectives will determine what strategies and policy instruments should apply. For lessening
localized traffic problems, parking pricing or subsidy removal or changes in public parking rates
at employment centers will be effective. However, to achieve regional objectives of improved air
quality or trip reduction on routes traversing several jurisdictions, multi-jurisdictional pricing
efforts will be necessary. And where private rather than public parking supplies predominate,
strategies must focus on commercial parking.
It is important to appreciate that pricing can also bring results opposite to those desired. For
instance, as some of the examples suggest, pricing can divert some parkers to alternative parking
facilities (e.g., Madison), or shorten their parking stay (Chicago), switch commuters among
alternative modes (Seattle). Planners need to anticipate these possible results along with mode
shifts.
Pricing - Implementation
Once objectives are clearly established, the next step is an assessment of certain key variables.
Depending on objectives, it will be important to estimate:
! Character and size of the travel market to whom the actions will be applied, including the
proportion of through traffic.
! Amount and use of available parking supplies, including overall demand as well as
proportion of long- versus short-term use and shoppers versus commuters.
127

! Availability of parking nearby the priced zone, to assess spillover parking potential.
! Difference between public and private parking supplies and rates, since some parkers may
simply shift to commercial facilities if public rates exceed commercial rates.
! Whether pricing mechanisms are already in place or must be started from scratch
(particularly in suburban areas).
! Degree of employer subsidization of employee parking.
! Quality and capacity of transit services, carpool matching programs, bicycling facilities, and
other alternatives to solo driving.
! Available policy instruments, including demand management ordinances and developer
agreements which might be modified to encourage pricing, or state or county funding
allocation formulas and legislation (e.g., Congestion Management Plan) which might be
modified to encourage pricing.
! Local regulatory power over commercial parking rates, and authority to implement and
enforce parking taxes.
Supply Management - Objectives and Instruments
Parking supply measures support the objective of trip reduction. Revising minimum or maximum
rates, allowing below minimum rates in proximity to transit or for demand management
programs, and providing shared parking at mixed-use developments are all important
considerations in a trip reduction program.
As with pricing, program objectives will determine what strategies and policy instruments should
apply. For new developments in proximity to transit, maximum rates and controls on street
parking will provide the maximum incentive for transit use. Maximums are especially important
to consider in proximity to suburban rail stations, in light of findings previously discussed about
excess parking supplies in many suburban developments. Adding carpool stalls where supply is
limited will provide an incentive for pooling, especially where stalls can be located to shorten
walks to building entrances. Also worthwhile are flexible requirements allowing for reductions
in normal on-site minimum parking requirements in return for support of ridesharing and transit
encouragements, peripheral parking and transit facilities.
Supply Management - Implementation
Implementing maximum rates or flexible parking requirements does not involve significant
implementation barriers. Nor are there difficulties in specifying designated carpool parking in
developer agreements or codes. Localities typically have the authority to regulate parking
128

supplies by way of parking requirements in codes. Thus, only code modifications are required,
supported by periodic parking demand studies.
While code modifications are not difficult, they should be made cautiously. Several localities
have instituted maximums and flexible requirements with unexpected results. For example,
several cities have provided for optional relaxations in parking requirements for various purposes
(support of peripheral parking, ridesharing and transit encouragements, in-lieu funds) only to
find developers not taking advantage of relaxations. Los Angeles, Hartford, Seattle, Bellevue,
San Francisco, and Orlando all provide examples. In Los Angeles it appears the flexible
requirement attached too many burdensome requirements to attract developers. In Hartford, the
fringe parking provisions were not considered a burden by developers, but developers did not
want to operate shuttles over the long-term. Peripheral lots were not perceived as a good
alternative for employees. No fringe parking has developed under the flexible parking code.
Developers prefer simply to lease nearby surface lots for employees who then walk a block or
two to work. In all these locations, the cost of providing parking on-site is substantial.
The implementation lessons for localities are as follows:
! Careful assessments must be made to determine levels of parking demand and lender and
developer preferences before instituting maximums, minimums, or flexible requirements.
! Incentives for reduced requirements must be attractive not only to employees but to
developers as well. Generally, developers prefer one-time actions or fees rather than longterm
operational commitments as incentives for any public benefit action. For example,
developers in Chicago routinely take advantage of relaxations in minimum parking
requirements in return for physical connections between office developments and
transit stations. However, as the Hartford case suggests, developers are much less inclined to
operate park and ride service over some extended period of time. They probably would prefer
to make one-time payments to a fringe or regional park and ride lot system.
! Tight maximum requirements near transit stations and trunk lines should be implemented
only after assessing what the market (developers and lenders) provides and prefers to
provide, and what is the current level of parking demand in the vicinity of transit facilities.
This approach minimizes the risks of setting maximums above usual levels of demand and/or
market preference.
While parking supply and management are effective TDM tools, there is no support and little
interest in these strategies for fear of losing an economic development edge.
129

Existing Park and Ride Lots
Richmond Regional MPO Area
Æü
Æü
Æü Æü
Æü
Æü
Æü
Æü
Æü
Æü
Æü
Park and Ride Lots
Interstates
Highways
N
W
S
E
5 0 5 10 15 20 Miles
Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, December 2000

Variable Work Hours/Compressed Work Weeks
Description of Strategy
Work hour policies established by employers govern the time period in which employees travel
to and from work. Such policies influence not only the volume of employees traveling during
peak traffic periods, but employee propensity to consider transit, carpooling and, other
alternatives to driving alone to work. Consequently, work hours management is thus another
important component of travel demand management.
There are three types of variable work hours with potential application as demand management
tools:
! Staggered work hours
! Compressed work weeks
! Flextime
Staggered hours are staged start work times set by employers. For example, employee start times
might be set at 15-minute increments. The primary influence of this strategy is to spread peak
traffic.
Compressed work weeks allow employees to work more hours in fewer days than the usual
eight-hour per day schedule. One common option is the "4/10, "where employees work 10-hour
days over four days. The goal of this approach potentially is twofold: reduce vehicle miles of
travel across the work week and encourage employees to arrive and/or depart outside normal
daily peak periods.
Finally, flextime allows employees to set their own arrival and departure time within a band of
time. The employee is required to arrive within a two- or three-hour band and leave eight hours
later. This strategy potentially influences travel in two major ways. In congested areas, it may
encourage employees to avoid most congested times, thereby spreading peak traffic. And where
work hour differences within a company are a barrier to ridesharing, it can encourage rideshare
candidates to coordinate arrivals and departures where they previously could not.
Employees and employers may find alternative work hours attractive not only to open up new
transportation options, but also to improve the fit between work and family responsibilities. A
four-day workweek or flextime may make it easier for two-worker households to manage
shopping, day care, and other chores while still working forty-hour weeks. Absenteeism,
tardiness, and turnover may be reduced by variable work hour programs in settings where
workers need and want more flexibility in their schedules. For example, one company found
flextime reduced sick time and personal leave an average of 3.5 days per year per employee and
increased productivity by three percent (3%).
New work hour policies and programs will involve an array of private and public sector parties.
Company management and corporate policies influence work hours. Employees, through their
131

unions, also determine work hours. The public sector influences work hour policy in several
ways. In terms of demand management, localities may encourage variable work hours through
local demand management ordinances affecting employers. Likewise, states and air quality
districts may require attention to variable work hours in local regulations and rules. Finally,
federal labor legislation (and sometimes state legislation) sets certain parameters within which
any work hour program, variable or not, must operate.
Implementation Issues
Careful planning is needed to start any variable work hours program. Steps include assessing
managers in various departments, possible conflicts with the need to interact with clients and
customers, and needed changes in company policies. As the cost assessment suggests, it also is
important to estimate the need for changes in security coverage and settings in building heating,
cooling, and lighting. Procedures and costs associated with these changes need to be assessed
and compared with benefits in vehicle trip reduction. Finally, an evaluation system should be set
up including a monitoring committee and a regular assessment survey of employees and
managers. Some important steps in the implementation of variable work hours within
participating companies and organizations include:
! Meetings with each level in an organization to spell out the proposal, to gain feedback, to
assess feasibility, and to modify plans.
! Modification of work hour policies and union agreements as needed to accommodate the
designed program. Some key labor issues include the definition of overtime in a flexible
schedule, which employees will and will not qualify for variable work hour consideration,
and method of recording and tracking hours worked.
! Development of supervisor information guides with individual counseling sessions. For
instance, how to insure telephone coverage (rotating coverage by secretaries) and how to
insure check abuse (remove flextime privilege for offenders).
! Pilot program implementation for six months with assessment survey to evaluate worker and
supervisor reactions. Survey should address issues of commute, personal control over time,
communications with supervisors, morale, absenteeism, turnover, work flow, service quality,
and customer perceptions.
Variable work hours may involve some implementation hurdles. Sometimes labor union
agreements will restrict the hours employees work. Any change may require formal meeting and
negotiating. Management may resist flextime believing it reduces flexibility to schedule
meetings or inhibits responsiveness to clients and customers. One study of four-day workweeks
suggests managers believed communication between departments and between agencies or firms
may be adversely effected. Another survey of State Departments of Transportation found
employees generally favored alternative work hours, but management expressed concern about
employee supervision.
132

Ridefinders routinely introduces flexible work arrangements when promoting TDM strategies to
local employers. Many organizations throughout the Richmond region have begun their own
programs with or without the assistance of Ridefinders. This TDM strategy is the second most
utilized in the Richmond area.
Teleworking
Description of Strategy
Teleworking is an approach for reducing home-to-work trips by allowing employees to work-athome.
Employees may be linked to the work place by computer and modem or may simply take
work home requiring no computer. Teleworking employees usually work at home one to several
days per week but generally report to a central office location on the remaining days. A related
option, telework centers allows employees to work at a satellite work center (run by single
employers) or neighborhood work centers (run by multiple employers). The centers usually are
equipped with computers and modems and connected to a main office.
Teleworking is a growing phenomenon. There are about 4.4 million telecommuters in the United
States, a figure that has grown about 20 percent (20%) per year since 1988. The growth trend is
spurred by the nature of the economy and by technology advances. In 1950, only 17 percent
(17%) of United States workers were in information or service businesses such as sales, public
relations, personnel, banking, health care and publishing. By 1980, over 50 percent (50%)of
workers held information and service-related positions. The 1990 Census revealed that
approximately 62 percent (62%) of the work force held jobs that could be candidates for
teleworking. With proper equipment, many functions associated with these positions can be
done from the home or remote locations. Laptop or personal computers can be used to dial into
host computers to retrieve information, update files and relay products. Recently, AT & T
announced software for automatic call distributors allowing companies to route incoming calls
and data to customer service agents working at home, allowing companies to recruit agents who
need to stay at home to care for a small child or elderly person. For telecommuters
geographically dispersed, companies can arrange to provide dial-up or virtual services. For
telecommuters concentrated in a single locale, companies can lease a dedicated line to a central
neighborhood center.
Teleworking is an important element of employer demand management programs. Not only can
the strategy reduce the number of work trips for those working at home and/or their length for
those working at satellite centers, it may dovetail with other employer objectives including
improved morale and productivity. For example, in a pilot project at AT&T and state agencies in
Phoenix, Arizona, 80 percent (80%) of supervisors of telecommuters said teleworking increased
employee productivity, 76 percent (76%) said teleworking improved employee morale, 90
percent (90%) said the teleworking program should be expanded. In a State of Hawaii pilot
program discussed later as examples, 80 percent (80%) of telecommuters reported an increase in
work productivity. The majority of supervisors said productivity increased. Thus, teleworking is
a demand management strategy likely to be attractive to employees and managers.
133

Because the strategy is new, it is difficult to estimate potential benefits. Much depends on future
growth of teleworking, the mix of industries in the future, and unforeseen technology advances.
One forecast estimates $23 billion could be saved annually in transportation, environmental, and
energy costs if there is a 10 to 20 percent (10-20%) increase in activities done through
teleworking instead of through physical transportation improvements.
Implementation Issues
To maximize the potential effectiveness of teleworking as a demand management strategy,
localities can take several steps:
! Encourage demonstrations in both the public and private sector. Teleworking is still a
relatively new demand management strategy. Most states and local governments begin
teleworking through carefully evaluated pilot programs. These pilots should be encouraged
and well publicized. If a joint public-private program is launched, the private sector may not
only join in the demonstration, but donate equipment and services, especially for satellite
centers.
! Ease barriers to teleworking. Localities can develop model employee-employer agreements
to deal with barriers. Such models should alleviate concerns about equipment liability, theft
or damage, and eligibility for worker’s compensation. Companies should be cautioned to
avoid putting telecommuters on a contractor basis or by requiring them to buy their own
equipment and provide insurance coverage. Union and labor groups should be consulted in
the design of pilots to guard against their resistance. The AFL-CIO in 1983 passed a
resolution calling for the Department of Labor to ban computer homework except for the
handicapped. The Service Employees International Union banned teleworking in 1982 for its
clerical and health care workers. However, if employees are interested in teleworking, union
concerns can be moderated. Finally, localities can modify local zoning codes which prohibit
or discourage work at home arrangements. Some of these laws arose in the 1940s out of
concern for “sweatshops” and "cottage industries.”
Localities can ensure telecommute programs are designed to have the best possible chances at
success by:
! Establishing teleworking as a voluntary arrangement between supervisor and employee, not
an entitlement or employee benefit. Either party may terminate the arrangement with notice.
! Measuring job performance by results under clearly defined tasks and deliverables.
! Ensuring that telecommuters working at home agree to secure proprietary information.
! Gaining agreement between the employer and telecommuter on ownership and use of
equipment. One option is for the company to provide the equipment (e.g. computer, modem,
printer, access line) and retain all ownership rights to it. Another is for the employee to use
his or her own equipment and receive some compensation. In any case, costs for employee
business calls must be compensated.
134

! Working out utility cost implications. Most telecommute programs do not compensate
employees for any additional utility expenses associated with work at home. Employers and
employees need to address and negotiate this issue. The usual rationale for not compensating
these expenses is that the benefits of working at home offset the incremental increase in
utility costs.
! Ensuring telecommuters are covered under Workers' Compensation for job-related accidents
occurring when the employee is working at home. Employees work in a designated
workspace free from hazards. The employer, with reasonable notice, may make on-site visits
to determine the site is safe.
! Establishing liability. Usually, the employee remains liable for injuries to third parties and or
members of the employee's family on the employee's premises.
! Helping employees understand tax implications relating to the home workspace. Generally,
IRS allows a deduction for home offices provided the employees use it for the convenience
of the employer. It is not necessary that the employer require work at home as a condition of
employment. However, the designated place of work must be used exclusively for work
purposes.
! Spelling out all arrangements in a teleworking Agreement. Any violation of the rules may
result in termination of the teleworking arrangement.
While Ridefinders staff is knowledgeable about teleworking and has attempted to set up
teleworking programs at several employers, it still remains a limited option in the Richmond
area. As technology improves, and as management resistance to teleworking wanes, this TDM
option should be more widely used in the future.
135

2023 LRTP
Chapter VIII
Intermodal Data
136

Chapter VIII-Existing Conditions and Data Analysis:
Intermodal
Introduction
The Richmond area has a long history of providing intermodal services to the region and to
points further west in Central Virginia. In its early history, the James River was used as a major
shipping route to bring products and raw materials to markets along the Eastern Seaboard and to
world markets across the Atlantic. As time progressed, rail movement of freight took on a
significant share of the goods movement market. Remnants of the large scale rail facilities can
still be seen around the area, as well as major rail lines still in use. With the invention of the
internal combustion engine, trucks became an important mode for moving freight around the
United States. Early US Routes like Route 1 and 301 as well as Route 60, 360 were forbearers
of the interstate system that were important truck lines. The advent of the Interstate system did
not leave the Richmond area behind, as Interstates 95 and 64 converge in Richmond. To the
south, Interstate 85 also became an important truck route.
However, times have changed in the movement of freight. Today, with the rise of the global
economy comes the need to move freight via many modes, and those region’s that have
developed break-of-bulk facilities and/or transfer facilities are becoming the new leaders in
intermodal transportation. The movement of freight through and into the Richmond area has
largely been left to the private sector. Without public financial input, these private providers
have been reluctant to expand operations or improve facilities. As a result, other regions of the
Commonwealth have surpassed Richmond as a leader in intermodal transportation services.
Because of proprietary information restrictions, it is unknown how much the region has fallen
behind in the provision of facilities for intermodal transportation. One clue may be a recent
Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation study that suggested focusing intermodal
funds on Northern Virginia and Tidewater because facilities in the Richmond area could not
accommodate the needs of the freight industry as well as these other two areas. Richmond lacks
an intermodal transfer facility, does not provide good connectivity for rail shipments that may
need to begin on a north-south route and then transfer to an east west route, does not provide
good rail access for local truck shipments, and can only handle a limited amount of cargo at its
ports because most ocean-going vessels have drafts which exceed safety depths for James River
navigation.
To rectify this situation, it is up to the MPO and local jurisdictions to take a hard look at
intermodal facilities and decide what improvements are necessary to increase intermodal
efficiency throughout the Richmond area. This section will examine the existing facilities in
place for truck, rail, and water-borne transportation of freight within the Richmond region.
Rail Facilities
Two major railroad companies have operations and tracks in the Richmond area: CSX
Corporation and Norfolk Southern Corporation. They account for all rail freight movement in
137

the region. CSX maintains Acca Yard as their primary facility with approximately 20 tracks and
provides such freight services as classification, staging, bulk transfer, rail car maintenance and
industrial switching. CSX also maintains Fulton Yard with 13 tracks with staging its primary
function, and Collier Yard with 13 tracks and limited classification and storage services as well
as Bulk transfer, industrial switching, and staging. CSX also has rail sidings and spurs at
Richmond International Airport and the Port of Richmond. Norfolk Southern maintains
Washington Street Yard for industrial switching, bulk transfer, and storage on seven tracks, and
the Wagner Road Auto ramp facility for automotive transfers on five tracks. Generally, CSX
operations are intended to serve North-South corridors and Norfolk-Southern east-west corridors
within our region.
The two rail corporations handle about 1,929 truckload equivalents (TLEs) inbound daily and
1,159 TLEs outbound daily. Most rail freight movement is headed either to the North Eastern
region or South Eastern region, (collectively these two areas constitute roughly 85-90 percent
(85-90%) of all rail freight origins/destinations), though about 10 percent (10%) is to/from
Midwestern markets. Inbound commodities are primarily food or kindred products, chemicals
and allied products, machinery, pulp, paper and allied products, electrical equipment, apparel,
fabricated metal products, textile mill products transportation equipment, lumber and wood
products, and rubber and plastic materials. Outbound commodities include pulp and paper
products, food and kindred spirits, electrical machinery, equipment or supplies, chemicals and
allied products, lumber or wood products, apparel, rubber and plastics, fabricated metals, textile
mill products, furniture, primary metal products and instruments, photographic goods, and
watches. It is interesting to note that many of the most recognizable rail shipments seen at Acca
Yard and along rail lines is coal which is primarily moving through the region, not an origin or
destination commodity.
Truck Movements
There are over 100 trucking firms with facilities in the Richmond region representing every type
of trucking firm from small mom and pop operations specializing in short haul operations to
subsidiaries of major trucking firms who can handle long haul loads as well. There are also a
number of trucking transportation brokers who specialize in finding customers the best “deal” to
move shipments out of or into the region. Two major types of trucking operations are used for
the vast majority of freight movements: private trucks and for-hire trucks. For-hire trucks are
those owned and operated by trucking firms such as Red Star, Southeastern Freight Lines, Cox
Transportation, Certified Transportation, and Yellow Freight Systems, Inc. Private trucks are
private owner-operators that rely on brokerage services and short-hauls for business.
Outbound truck flows from the Richmond region carry a diverse series of commodities.
However, five commodities make up approximately 62 percent (62%) of all outbound truck
flows. The five commodities are: food and kindred spirits, pulp, paper and allied products,
lumber or wood products, chemicals or allied products, and fabricated metal products. The five
inbound flow commodities that make up about 60 percent (60%) of all in bound commodities
are: food and kindred spirits, pulp, paper or allied products, lumber or wood products, chemicals
and allied products, and farm products. Unlike rail, there are about 3,705 outbound TLEs per
138

day and 2, 160 TLEs inbound. Collectively then trucks tend to be the freight mover of choice for
outbound commodities while rail is the mode of choice for inbound flows.
Inland Port Facilities
The largest port facility in the Richmond area is the Port of Richmond (Port). The port is a
publicly-owned facility of the City of Richmond that has been set up to be financially selfsufficient.
The port is managed by an independent free enterprise agency known as the Port of
Richmond Commission and is operated by privately-owned Federal Marine Terminals, Inc.
Federal Marine provides the terminal, warehouse, stevedoring, and inland distribution services at
the port using Teamster labor.
The 61 year old, 120-acre container and general cargo facility is located on the James River,
approximately 100 miles from Cape Henry. The port acts as a transportation hub due to its
excellent inland geographic location alongside I-95 with easy access to I-64 and I-85. Rail is
provided by CSX direct and to Norfolk Southern via switch. The port is a full-service niche port
that handles specific types of cargo and customers. Import export shipments come from and go
to such diverse locations as the United Kingdom, northern Europe, the Mediterranean, Canada,
Mexico, and the Caribbean. Independent Container Line, Inc., the port’s principal carrier, also
provides service to Russia and Latvia via feeder vessel and to northern Italy by feeder rail.
Although waterborne tonnage decreased by 11 percent (11%) in 2000, the part maintained a
healthy 555,299 tons of cargo through it facilities. Newsprint and wastepaper continue to be
primary commodities of interest at the port, with wastepaper export increasing by 83 percent
(83%) in the year 2000. The port handled 39,901 TLEs in 2000 and saw over 50,000 trucks pass
through its entrance during the year.
The port spent $1.2 million dollars for infrastructure improvements in 2000 to continue its
planned rehabilitation and expansion of the port’s facilities and capabilities. The South Side
Development Plan is nearing completion which will provide an additional 25 acres for additional
cargo lay down and construction of future warehouse space. A Rail Loading Area upgrade was
also completed in 2000.
One of the port’s highest priorities is the completion of the Deepwater Terminal Turning Basin
expansion project. Currently, the turning basin provides a very small margin of error for turning
for some of the larger ships that make the Port of Richmond a port of call. The Port is also
interested in pursuing the widening and deepening of the James River Navigation Channel. At
present, a narrow 25-foot deep channel with a maximum 22-foot ship’s draft limits the port’s
ability to grow in order to handle many of the larger ocean-going vessels. The port would like a
comprehensive study of the widening and deepening project to be completed in the near future
with environmental considerations being given a full and fair consideration in determining the
feasibility of the project. The Port Commission continues to work with the Army Corps of
Engineers in improving channel maintenance, placement site conditions, and increasing the longterm
capacity of dredged material placement sites. Other improvements made in 2000 included
139

major repairs to warehouse floors and doors, the wharf fender system, and the port’s electrical
distribution and fire protection systems.
While the Port of Richmond is the largest port in the region and handles the vast majority of
waterborne freight, there are several other marine terminals in the region. These are:
Cedarcrest Marine Inc.
13101 Sturgeon Point Road
P.O. Box 158
Charles City, VA 23030
Annabel Lee Riverboat
2025 E. Main Street, Ste. 105
Richmond, VA 23223
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners
3302 Deepwater Terminal Road
Richmond, VA 23234
Shirley Plantation
Weanack Land Limited Partners
501 Shirley Plantation Road
Charles City, VA 233030-2907
Bulcan Materials
1300 Willis Road
Richmond, VA 23237
IMTT Richmond
5500 Old Osborne Turnpike
Richmond, VA 23231
Kotch Petroleum
4110 Deepwater Terminal Road
Richmond, VA 23234
Simsmetal America
3220 Deepwater Terminal Road
Richmond, VA 23234
E.I. DuPont Drewry’s Bluff
1201 Bellwood Road
Richmond, VA 23237
140

Intermodal Transportation Network
Richmond Area MPO
h
Æb
Æb
e
e
Æb
h
í
Jurisdiction Boundaries
MPO Study Area
Interstates
Principal Arteries
Railroads
Airports
Train Stations
Bus Terminals
Port of Richmond
Æb
h
Æb
í
e
10 0 10 20 Miles
e
e
N
W E
S
Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, February 2001

Regional Transfer Facilities
Currently, the region does not have an intermodal transfer facility. A study by Reynolds,
Smith and Hills, Inc., though not completed, identified seven locations within the
Richmond-Petersburg MSA for potential sites of an intermodal transfer facility. The
seven sites are:
! Acca Yard
! Fulton Yard
! Richmond International Airport
! Port of Richmond
! Washington Street Yard
! Wagner Road Autoramp Facility
! Collier Yard
Each site has some limitations that have prevented the establishment of an intermodal
transfer facility at that location.
Acca Yard is physically constrained for expansion purposes. The costs to obtain the
necessary land for expansion are prohibitively expensive. In addition, the yard is one of
the most congested facilities on the east coast and serves CSX Railroad and Amtrak.
Included at the site are staging, bulk transfer, maintenance facilities, and industrial
switching. Another drawback to the site is that the other major rail company in the
region, Norfolk-Southern, does not operate at this facility. Approximately 20 tracks are
available within the Acca Yard.
Fulton Yard is smaller than Acca Yard and is limited to support facilities, staging, and
limited industrial switching. The yard is used by CSX for train switching and as a
staging area before trains are sent to Acca Yard for coordination into the freight
movement queues. Fulton Yard is not served by Norfolk Southern. Finally, the proximity
to an historic district in the City of Richmond may have additional negative impacts.
There are 13 available tracks in Fulton Yard.
The Richmond International Airport is located between residential neighborhoods and
commercial/industrial business parks. Southeast of the runway is the CSX mainline
between Richmond and Newport News. While a significant amount of cargo is handled
through the airport, a number of environmental concerns, including the White Oak
Swamp, make expansion difficult. The facility currently does not provide access to
Norfolk Southern. Currently, only siding and industrial spurs are located in the area.
The Port of Richmond, located along the James River is constrained by the River on the
east and I-95 in the west and north. The port is connected to a CSX main north-south line
by an industrial spur line. There is little room to expand the port for an intermodal
facility since surrounding land has already been developed for industrial purposes. The
142

site also is not served by Norfolk Southern. A total of three tracks are available in the
Port of Richmond.
The Washington Street Yard is located east of the central Business District in Petersburg.
The site is used and maintained by Norfolk Southern and serves as a support yard for
local industrial switching operations. To the north is a landfill and there are several
public crossings east of the yard. The yard contains the mainline from Norfolk to
Roanoke and a branch leading to Hopewell. There are no CSX facilities at the site, and
surrounding land uses may make expansion difficult. There are seven available tracks in
the Washington Street Yard.
The Wagner Road Autoramp is used as an eastern distribution point for automobiles.
There are numerous archaeologically significant, natural habitat for rare and endangered
species and wetlands that limit site expansion. The Wagner Road autoramp has five
tracks all owned by Norfolk Southern. The yard is not served by CSX.
Collier Yard is located near the crossing of the CSX and Norfolk Southern lines south of
the Central Business District in Petersburg. The yard is 1.5 miles long and has a total of
13 tracks and serves as an interchange between CSX and Norfolk Southern. In addition,
the yard provides storage areas, staging areas, bulk transfer and industrial switching
facilities. Land use adjacent to the site is primarily industrial with scattered residential
lots to the east. Petersburg Battlefield National Park is located to the south of the Yard.
Arthur Swamp is located to the west.
Freight Flow In the Richmond Petersburg Area
There are five types of freight traffic within the Richmond area:
! Long-haul traffic
! Short-haul extraregional traffic
! Local distribution traffic
! Transit traffic
! Through traffic
Long-haul traffic is defined as trips into or out of the area with destinations more than
250 miles away from point of origin. The market favors the use of for-hire trucks
because of the expense related to empty truck miles. For-hire trucks can coordinate trips
to haul materials into or out of Richmond and pick-up another shipment within the
destination area for freight haul to another destination. Because of the difficulty in
finding qualified drivers and paying their salaries, some of the long-haul trucking
companies subcontract the line-haul to rail companies. The trailers are then transported
via rail on flatbed cars and picked up at a predetermined destination.
Short-haul extraregional traffic is defined as freight movements within a 250-mile radius
of the origin. The traffic consists primarily of delivery movements from a wholesale
143

distribution warehouse to outlying regional establishments. These trips are generally
delivery trips with an empty back-haul, and are done by private fleets with the driver
returning home each night.
Local traffic produces the greatest number of freight trips in an area. They typically
involve small shipments from wholesale distribution centers to retail stores or local
manufacturers. Multiple shipments destined to several receivers are loaded on the same
truck for multiple deliveries on a single trip. They also include shipment of
manufactured components to another manufacturer who incorporates the component into
a finished product.
Transit traffic movements are trips that neither originate nor end in the Richmond area,
but the through movement includes some type of processing within the region. This may
include containers that are received at the port and loaded onto rail cars, or storage of
items at some location until it can be moved outside the region by rail, truck, or ship.
As the name implies, through traffic trips are those that neither originate nor terminate in
the region. The most visible examples are trucks which travel through Richmond via I-
95, I-295, and I-64.
To assess the impact of freight movement on transportation in the Richmond area, flows
from and to the area were examined in Figure VIII-2 by inbound flow and outbound flow.
Figure VIII-2: Total Freight Flows in Richmond Region
(Shown in Truck Load Equivalents/Day)
Trip Type Inbound Outbound Local
Local Trips ---------- ---------- 26,723 TLEs
Long-Haul (Truck) 480 TLEs 824 TLEs ---------
Long-Haul (Rail) 123 TLEs 38 TLEs ---------
Short-Haul Extrareg. (Truck) 1,680 TLEs 2,882 TLEs ----------
Transit Trips (Port) 1,697 TLEs 1,282 TLEs ----------
A number of freight movements pass through the region and are shown here divided into
Northbound and Southbound movements.
Through Trips (Truck) 1,332 TLEs Northbound 1,046 TLEs Southbound
Source: Intermodal Transportation Facility Study: Phase 1 Report; Reynolds, Smith and
Hills, Inc, Tallahassee, FL
144

Obviously, the dominant form of transportation for these trips is by truck. However, rail
does handle a great deal of freight flow when measured in tons. A total of 9,647,229 tons
per year is inbound to Richmond with 54 percent (54%) coming from the Southeast and
31.6 percent (31.6%) from the Northeast. The remaining tonnage comes from the central
states. In terms of outbound flows via rail, a total of 5,800,644 tons is moved from
Richmond with 69.8 percent (69.8%) to the Northeast and 20.9 percent (20.9%) to the
Southeast. The remaining flows are to the central states. Because of the costs associated
with trucking and rail there is a definite factor that determines which mode is most likely
used--distance. Trips 200 miles and under are dominated by truck, between 200 and 400
miles the breakdown is even, and from 400-1,000 miles the preferred method is rail.
Beyond 1,000 miles, rail is preferred over truck; however, depending on the commodity
air service becomes competitive.
Intermodal transportation in the Richmond region is expected to grow at an annual rate of
approximately 3 percent (3%). From an economic development perspective, the sectors
of the Richmond economy that generate the highest percentage of outbound freight flows
are:
! Pulp, paper and allied products
! Food or kindred products
! Electrical machinery, equipment or supplies
! Chemicals and allied products
! Lumber and wood products (excludes furniture)
! Apparel and other finished textile products
! Machinery (except electrical products)
! Rubber and plastic products
! Fabricated metal products
These products can be shipped via rail, water, or truck depending on the type of freight
facilities locally. Because of existing intermodal facilities in Richmond, most trips,
except overseas export will likely be via one mode.
Finally, any discussion of freight movement would not be complete without a brief
discussion of catchment area. Catchment area is defined by the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics as those metropolitan areas which are likely to have freight movement
interactions. They are further refined by the distance to another airport which may
provide closer or less costly transfers for shipments. The areas included are roughly
limited to all metropolitan areas within a 500-mile radius with a bias to regions south and
west of Richmond. The following metropolitan areas are considered within the
Richmond Catchment area and can be expected to provide freight movements into or out
of Richmond:
! Baltimore-Washington
! Hampton Roads
! Rocky Mount-Wilson-Greenville, NC
! Raleigh-Durham-Fayetteville, NC
145

! Greensboro-Winston-Sale-High Point, NC
! Roanoke-Lynchburg, VA
! Charleston, WV
! Wilmington, NC
! Charlotte, NC
! Columbia-Florence, SC
! Augusta, GA
! Asheville, NC
! Greenville-Spartanburg, NC
! Knoxville-Johnson City-Bristol, TN-VA
! Lexington-Huntington, KY-WV
Of these, Baltimore-Washington and Charlotte, NC are the only ones to have established
a well-integrated intermodal facility. Each of these areas are known for their industrial
and wholesale trade establishments that are included in the list above and could
potentially find Richmond an excellent location for intermodal transfers. Many of these
would likely be to ships bound for Eastern Shore markets or other markets overseas. In
1997 the total number of employees within the catchment area in four key industries for
intermodal trade (agriculture, manufacturing, wholesale trade, and retail trade) totaled
9,588,134. The total number of establishments in these four key industries within the
catchment area total 660,875. By 2023, the Richmond area could be serving well over
1.5 million establishments if adequate intermodal facilities area available.
Airports
Four airports (Richmond International Airport, Chesterfield County Airport, Hanover
County Airport, and New Kent County Airport) serve the Richmond region. Only
Richmond International Airport provides scheduled commercial airline service and major
air cargo operations. The other airports support general aviation activities of various
levels. Each of the airports is described below.
Richmond International Airport
The Richmond International Airport (RIC) serves a 41-county area throughout eastern
and central Virginia and has experienced significant growth in demand for both
commercial passenger service and air cargo activity. RIC is located on 2500 acres in
eastern Henrico County, seven miles east of downtown Richmond. It is owned and
operated by the Capital Region Airport Commission (CRAC) a political subdivision of
the Commonwealth of Virginia. CRAC member jurisdictions are the City of Richmond,
and Chesterfield, Hanover, and Henrico counties. The Commission’s enabling legislation
allows membership to the counties of Charles City, Goochland, New Kent, Powhatan,
and the Town of Ashland.
The present terminal was designed to accommodate 1,000,000 enplaned passengers
annually, a level of service that was surpassed seven years ago and is expected to
continue to increase over the next 10 years. High on the list of airport expansion projects
146

are new gates, tarmacs, aprons, and taxiways. Air cargo activity has also been increasing
at a rate of 10 to 17 percent (10-17%) annually. In response the airport has targeted on
increasing parking for air cargo planes, constructing new bulk cargo handling facilities,
and is studying the potential of lengthening the airport’s primary cargo runway.
Chesterfield County Airport
Chesterfield County Airport is a general aviation airport that provides facilities for
privately-owned aircraft used for personal and business activities. It is also designated as
a reliever airport to Richmond International Airport and is designated as a C-II facility,
one which can handle airplane approach speeds of 121 to 140 knots and plane wingspans
of 49 to 78 feet.
The airport is owned by Chesterfield County and operates as a department within the
county. The airport encompasses 586.34 acres with an additional 28.48 acres of aviation
easements. The airport has a 5,500 foot x 100 foot runway with a full-length parallel
taxiway. Apron space is approximately 41,500 square yards with a total of 97 paved
tiedowns. There are hangars for aircraft storage and a sophisticated lighting system for
nighttime flights. The airport has facilities for both major and minor aircraft repair, fuel
services and has an airplane base of 105 aircraft.
The airport’s Master Plan calls for the consideration of the following upgrades:
! A 3,500 foot crosswind runway
! Construction of a parallel taxiway for the crosswind runway
! Additional exit taxiways
! Additional hanger spaces
! Relocation of the airport lighting electrical vault
Hanover County Airport
The Hanover County Airport opened in 1971 and is conveniently located on
approximately 200 acres of land east of I-95, between the Atlee and Lewistown Road
interchanges. As part of the National Transportation System, the airport provides general
aviation service to both corporate clientele and the recreational pilot. The Airport serves
small single engine and multi-engine aircraft, as well as light business jets.
The airport has been identified by the Federal Aviation Administration National Plan of
Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) as a vital link to air service in the Richmond
Metropolitan area. As such, the airport has been designated as a reliever airport to
Richmond International Airport (RIC) in both the National System and the Virginia Air
Transportation System. The airport has a 4,650 x 80 foot asphalt runway, limited lighting
facilities, minor service capabilities, fueling service, and approximately 66 aircraft based
at the airport.
147

Based on this Master Plan, the airport will not expand beyond its role as a general
aviation reliever airport, and no improvements are planned which would change that role.
All capital development focuses on improving the airport’s public facilities and continued
improvement of operational safety in accordance with FAA regulations.
Improvements planned for the Hanover County Airport are intended to maintain its
importance in the regional general aviation system. In accordance with the 1990 Airport
Master Plan, several capital improvements were made to improve the safety of the
airfield, including the widening and pavement strengthening of the runway and taxiway,
addition of apron space for maneuvering of aircraft, improved parking facilities, and the
construction of a 750 feet runway extension to improve landing in all weather conditions.
New Kent County Airport
Originally constructed in 1955, the New Kent County Airport is owned and operated by
the county. The airport sits on 130 acres with an additional 63 acres of easements. The
airport has one 3,600 x 75 feet runway with adjacent parallel taxi way. There are 44
tiedowns, 36 T-Hangar units and one maintenance hangar for minor repairs. Under the
Airport Reference Codes, New Kent County Airport is considered a general aviation B-1
small aircraft airport. It is appropriate for airplanes with approach speeds of 91 to 120
knots with wing spans less than 48 feet.
According to the Airport Master Plan, the facility is expected to remain a B-1 small
aircraft facility and will need only minor improvements through 2018. It is
recommended that New Kent County airport install medium intensity taxiway lights, a
global positioning system, new runway lights, a relocated wind sock, a new or
rehabilitated terminal building replacement of T-Hangars and a new above ground
fueling facility be installed.
148

2023 LRTP
Part 2
149

2023 LRTP
Chapter IX
Goals and Objectives
150

Chapter IX-Richmond Area MPO Long-Range Transportation
Plan Goals and Objectives
Goal 1:
To develop a balanced transportation system that serves the needs of our
diverse population.
Objective A.
Objective B.
Objective C.
Objective D.
Objective E.
Objective F.
As the backbone of the regional transportation system, the
continued support of the highway network is a priority, with
emphasis on maximizing the efficiency and safety of the regional
roadway network.
To ensure over the twenty-year life of the plan that the MPO
works towards an 82.5 percent (82.5%)–17.5 percent (17.5%) split
of funding with 82.5 percent (82.5%) going to roadway
improvements and 17.5 percent (17.5%) to transportation
alternatives. Each year the TIP should reflect a change toward the
82.5-17.5 split.
To aggressively pursue funding sources for all modes of
transportation.
To expand, at a rate equivalent to our annual growth rate in
disabled population, our specialized transportation services, once
existing capacity on available systems has been absorbed.
To work with local governments within the MPO jurisdiction to
encourage each locality within five years to adopt the
recommendations of the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) Regional Pedestrian and Bicycle Study.
Within five years, ensure that all Greater Richmond Transit
Company vehicles and facilities in use within the MPO
jurisdiction have adequate provisions for bicycle
storage/transportation (i.e., bikes on buses).
Goal 2:
To increase transportation planning efforts in the alternative transportation
area so that increased emphasis is placed on transit, non-motorized, and
commuter transportation options.
Objective A.
To tie transportation funding to local government comprehensive
plans giving priority to those projects which help achieve compact
and/or infill development goals.
151

Objective B.
Objective C.
To expand the existing commuter assistance program
(Ridefinders) by providing experimental program dollars,
including subsidy programs, in an effort to obtain an annual two
percent (2%) growth rate in the use of alternatives to the SOV.
To charge Ridefinders, with support from the Greater Richmond
Chamber of Commerce, to work with five local employers that
employee 500 or more employees, to develop peak spreading
programs (i.e., alternative work hours) and reduced work-related
trip making programs (teleworking, home dispatch) so that peakperiod
traffic volumes are maintained at levels lower than the
annual growth rate of the region.
Goal 3:
To educate local residents, MPO decision makers, and local elected
officials that it is impossible to “build our way out of congestion.”
Objective A.
To conduct a seminar for the MPO, Technical Advisory
Committee, Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee, local
elected officials, and citizens on the costs and benefits associated
with all transportation modes and urban sprawl, including the
limited dollars available to complete requested projects.
Objective B: To conduct one media event annually concurrent with adoption of
the annual TIP to show how and why projects were selected and
the costs associated with them.
Objective C: To develop a public awareness campaign and promote through
local media outlets, civic groups, civic associations, and social
service agencies describing the costs and transportation options
that are being provided through the long-range plan and TIP
process.
Objective D: Through Ridefinders and Greater Richmond Chamber of
Commerce, sponsor, promote, and participate in an annual
alternative transportation event in which MPO members and other
elected officials use alternative transportation modes to reach a
predetermined location to proclaim they have used this alternative
because they realize that we as a region cannot build our way out
of congestion.
152

Goal 4:
To support the efforts of the port facilities along the James River, airport
and rail service providers to expand existing facilities.
Objective A.
Objective B.
Objective C.
Objective D.
Objective E.
Objective F.
To support the Capital Region Airport Commission in seeking
grant and other state and federal funds over the next ten years to
develop expanded airport facilities.
During the twenty year life of the plan, assist in upgrading and/or
enhancing other airports in the region, both public and private, by
identifying non-MPO funding sources so that private planes can
be diverted from the limited capacity runway at Richmond
International Airport.
To adopt an MPO resolution and annually reaffirm the resolution
to encourage the development of a statewide passenger rail plan to
implement high-speed rail and higher speed rail passenger
services in the Richmond region.
To assist the Capital Region Airport Commission, the port
facilities along the James River, and rail service providers in
seeking non-MPO source federal, state, and grant funds to
improve cargo and commodity movement so that internal freight
movement volumes on roadways can be reduced by 10 percent
(10%) during the twenty year life of the plan.
To assist all port facilities along the James River in seeking state
and federal funds to improve the James River Navigational
Channel to enhance the efficient movement of goods and
commerce on the river.
To encourage long-distance through shipment of goods to utilize
multiple modes of transportation such that through truck traffic is
reduced by 15 percent (15%).
Goal 5:
To develop a planning and programming process that protects and
enhances the quality of life in the Richmond region for all segments of the
regional population.
Objective A: Continue to include public involvement, community, jurisdictional
and regional values, and environmental justice concerns when
proposing and funding transportation plans and projects.
Objective B: To maintain the region’s efforts in integrating air quality goals and
attainment in the formulation of regional transportation plans,
policies, and decisions.
153

Objective C: To continue to strengthen transportation linkages between
employment centers lacking an adequate labor supply with
neighborhoods suffering from unemployment above regional
levels, such that the neighborhood residents may fill those labor
supply needs. To communicate these transportation linkages to
state and local social service agencies who identify and train local
residents to fill available positions at employment centers.
Goal 6:
Develop a framework for intergovernmental coordination that promotes
regional cooperation and regional prosperity when addressing
transportation issues within the Richmond region.
Objective A: To plan and program transportation resources equitably between
localities in a way that achieves overall economic development
strategies contained in local government comprehensive plans
giving priority to those areas which are in identified activity
centers.
Objective B: To annually develop a list of regional high congestion locations
and target funds to address those locations in the annual TIP and
Long-Range Transportation Plan.
Objective C: Develop within two years, an ITS working committee to identify
and implement Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)
technologies that mitigate traffic congestion in the Richmond
region.
Objective D: Conduct an annual seminar with local planning departments and
planning commissioners to discuss current and future land use
plans and their impact on other jurisdictions and the regional
transportation network.
Objective E: To design the regional transportation network to support the
Governor’s commitment to the Chesapeake Bay 2000 agreement
that calls for a reduction in harmful sprawl by 30 percent (30%) in
the year 2010 (measured from the baseline established in the
Chesapeake Bay 2000 agreement), including protecting water
quality and mitigating noise and visual impacts.
154

2023 LRTP
Chapter X
Highway Element
155

Chapter X-Richmond Area Highway Network Element
Items Beyond MPO Control That, If Addressed, Could Enhance Plan
Success
! Additional funding control for the MPO should be considered to provide for more
regionally significant projects. Currently, the MPO has direct oversight over RSTP
and CMAQ funds, which averages about seven percent (7%) of all available
transportation funds in the Richmond district per year.
! Develop a highway funding program that focuses on improving existing roadways
and enhancing safety without unnecessarily expanding capacity.
Introduction
The dominant mode of transportation in the Richmond area is the highway system. Many
transportation modes utilize the highway network. For example, roads provide
transportation access for buses, carpools and vanpools, bicycle and pedestrian travel, and
freight movement. The interstate system in and around the study area offers easy access
to the north, south, east, and west. VDOT manages the state’s interstate, primary, and
secondary system for each county except Henrico County which manages its own
secondary system. The City of Richmond is responsible for all roads within the city
except for the interstate and toll roads and the Town of Ashland is responsible for its
local road system. The Richmond Metropolitan Authority (RMA) is responsible for the
Downtown Expressway, the Powhite Parkway, and the Boulevard Bridge toll roads.
VDOT is responsible for the Powhite Parkway Extension, also a toll facility.
Although there is a need to reduce vehicle emissions to improve air quality, roadways
remain as the primary component in this Plan’s recommendation. This chapter includes a
list of improvements that are separated into “constrained” and “vision” projects.
Constrained highway projects are financially affordable using projections based on
current funding assumptions. This also includes roads that are to be funded as part of a
developers proffer to localities. Vision projects are additional highway improvements
that are recommended for the study area if future funding becomes available beyond the
projected constrained funding. Some of these improvements provide for a reduction in
vehicle miles of travel and improvements in the level of service, which improves air
quality and reduces energy consumption.
156

Highway Element Plan Components
There are several recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the
highway system in the Richmond region over the next twenty years.
! Select appropriate projects for federal/state/local funding through the year 2023.
! Develop a low cost, simple prioritization process to assist in the creation of the
MPO’s top priority projects.
! Work toward local and regional land use/transportation planning by promoting as a
regional body, amendments to the Code of Virginia to provide local governments the
authority to approve or disapprove development requests based on the adequacy of
the surrounding transportation facilities.
! In the next LRTP update, expand the consideration and impacts of building new or
expanded roadways and public transportation services to meet environmental justice
requirements.
! Consider ITS, TDM, TSM, and access management measures along with other
options to compensate for increased congestion.
Each of these components is discussed in further detail below.
Select appropriate projects for federal/state/local funding through the year 2023.
Working through the LRTP task force, the MPO identified, on a jurisdictional level,
needs for new capacity, facility improvements, and major reconstruction/rehabilitation.
The list of constrained projects and vision projects are provided in the tables at the end of
this chapter. Maps showing the location of the constrained highway projects are provided
with the constrained project lists in Figure X-1: Maps and Charts of Proposed Highway
Projects by Jurisdiction at the end of this chapter.
Develop a low cost, simple prioritization process to assist in the creation of the MPO’s
top priority projects.
The MPO annually conducts a review and submission of its top priority projects to the
Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB). The MPO’s comments and
recommendations, along with comments from area local governments, citizens, groups,
and organizations are considered by the CTB as part of the state’s public review process
for selecting transportation projects for state and federal funding. To assist the MPO in
the creation of the MPO’s top priority projects, the MPO should develop a low cost,
simple prioritization process.
157

Work toward local and regional land use/transportation planning by promoting as a
regional body, amendments to the Code of Virginia to provide local governments the
authority to approve or disapprove development requests based on the adequacy of the
surrounding transportation facilities.
If local governments could tie development approval to the adequacy of public facilities,
new growth could be managed in a more fiscally responsible manner by targeting
development to specific areas where public infrastructure will be provided according to a
set schedule (capital improvement program). Using this strategy, growth can be better
accommodated. Opportunities for guiding growth on a regional level are created through
the coordination between localities of areas targeted for new development.
Local governments, though, do not have express statutory authority to phase growth by
restricting it only to areas where public facilities exist or are scheduled for expansion. To
gain such authority would necessitate state legislation. Locally elected officials in the
region would need to join forces via the Planning District Commission to encourage the
region’s General Assembly delegation to sponsor such enabling legislation.
While the planning profession has long held that land use comes first and transportation
services follow to serve that land use, that belief underwent examination and change in
the late 1980s. Today, communities that have successfully developed land use and
transportation plans simultaneously and with careful coordination, are those that are
deemed by planners, citizens, and developers as the best planned and functioning
communities.
Within this context, the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, with
cooperation from the Richmond Area MPO, should also begin to look at outward growth
from urban areas to determine whether it makes sense to pursue alternative growth, land
use, and transportation strategies. The first step would be to complete a regional growth
assessment, with transportation being one element of that study. Subsequent studies
could then examine alternative land use patterns, effectiveness of various growth
management strategies, and the like.
In the next LRTP update, expand the consideration and impacts of building new and/or
expanded roadways and public transportation to meet environmental justice
requirements.
Title VI and Environment Justice Executive Order both mandate that in determining a
location for a facility, persons should not be excluded from the process. There should be
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income
with respect to environmental laws and regulations and policies. Title VI and
Environment Justice also requires that the MPO develop a public participation process
that will ensure meaningful community participation. An assessment of the
158

environmental justice provisions and the impacts of transportation decisions on low
income and minority populations is included in the data collection element of this plan.
To ensure that the environmental justice requirements are adequately met in the future,
the MPO should consider the reformation of the Elderly and Disabled Committee to
include an Environmental Justice Committee. Many of the areas of concern overlap
between the elderly and disabled population and the low income and minority population.
Collectively, their voice for improved transit service and/or road projects that improve
pedestrian safety or mitigate adverse impacts would be louder and would increase their
ability to get things done. Members representing low-income and minority communities
from each jurisdiction could be added to the existing EDAC.
One of the first tasks of the new Environmental Justice Committee would be to review
MPO public participation programs to ensure fair and adequate input to the transportation
process. In future meetings, the committee could provide assistance to staff in
completing environmental justice analysis, make recommendations on specific
transportation needs, and advocate for necessary funding for the identified projects. The
committee could also assist the CTAC and TAC in identifying unique situations in
transportation provision that might otherwise slip through the cracks because of the
limited number of people that are impacted by policy and/or service provisions.
Consider ITS, TDM, TSM, and access management measures along with other options to
compensate for increased congestion.
The region currently identifies ITS, TDM, and TSM projects in the Congestion
Management System (CMS) as alternatives to highway projects to address congestion
and air quality issues in the Richmond area. These measures are intended to reduce
traffic by first looking at ITS and other TDM measures as alternatives to building more
roads. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) involve using advanced technologies to
increase the safety and efficiency of the transportation system. ITS includes utilizing
variable message signs, highway advisory radios, real-time transit schedule, and
electronic toll collection. Most of the ITS activities in the region are coordinated by
VDOT. Therefore, it is recommended that an ITS Steering Committee made up of the
jurisdictions in the region be established to provide overall direction and guidance to
regional ITS efforts.
TDM (Transportation Demand Management) is any action intended to reduce the use of
the single occupancy vehicle and improve traffic efficiency by the use of carpools,
vanpools, teleworking, or incorporating traffic impact policies into local development
decisions. TSM (Transportation System Management) is any action that involves making
operational changes to improve performance of the transportation system and includes
but is not limited to such items as the construction of new transit facilities, turn lanes,
reversible lanes during peak periods, and installing signals.
Access management regulates access to land development while preserving traffic flow.
It focuses on managing existing roadways more efficiently and effectively. It involves
159

principles and techniques to better manage the location and placement of driveways,
entrances, and crossovers by such regulating spacing between driveways, signals,
crossovers, etc. Effective access standards and regulations benefit a community by
reducing accidents, increasing capacity, improving air quality, providing better access to
businesses, and improving mobility. Overall, safety is improved, congestion is reduced,
and the life of a roadway is extended with little cost to taxpayers. It is recommended that
as a first step, all rural counties within the Richmond MPO adopt a series of access
management standards.
The region utilizes its Congestion Management System (CMS) assessments and reviews
to assist in selecting cost-effective strategies/actions to improve the efficiency and safety
of its transportation network. ITS, TDM, TSM, and Access Management are all highway
alternative strategies identified in the CMS.
Considerations for Local Governments
Local governments in the Richmond area should consider the following in regard to the
highway element of the Plan.
! Local governments should consider all options including TSM, TDM, and ITS when
planning improvements to the roadway network.
! Access management standards are an effective tool in maintaining the safety and
operational efficiency of a roadway. Each jurisdiction should consider the adoption
of access management standards in their local codes and such standards should be
those recommended by ITE and AASHTO.
! Each local government should begin or continue to discuss with its regional neighbors
on both transportation and land use issues.
! While land use decisions are made at the local level, TEA-21 requires that the LRTP
assess alternative land use scenarios and point out inconsistencies between
comprehensive plans and transportation programming.
! Local jurisdictions should, whenever feasible, pursue transportation enhancement
funds to better integrate road projects into the surrounding community.
160

Figure X-1: Maps and Charts of Proposed Highway Projects by Jurisdiction
161

The 2023 Long-Range Plan Highway List for the Town of Ashland
($000)
URBAN
Improvement Distance Total Previous Balance to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
2 Ashcake Rd (Rt. 657) Washington Hwy (US 1) Hill Carter Pkwy Widen to 4 Lanes 0.35 $4,000 $4,000
4 Johnson Rd (Rt. 779) Existing Johnson Rd (Rt. 779) Maple St (Rt. 612) New Facility 0.65 $2,100 $2,100
6 S Taylor St Ext. Pleasant St Washington Hwy (US 1) New Facility (2L) 0.5 $1,900 $1,900
7 Southern Connector Maple St (Rt. 612) Rt. 1 New Facility (2L) 0.55 $1,900 $1,900
8 W Vaughn Rd Ext. N Taylor Rd Thompson St (VA 54) New Facility (2L) 0.8 $2,500 $2,500
9 Washington Hwy (US 1) Ashcake Rd (Rt. 657) Pleasant St Reconstruction (4L) 0.6 $2,036 $570 $1,466
10 Washington Hwy (US 1) Pleasant St England St (VA 54) Reconstruction (4L) 0.41 $3,067 $2,386 $681
12 Railroad Overpass Vaughn Rd. Archie Cannon Drive RR Overpass 0.25 $1,300 $1,300
PRIVATE $143
URBAN TOTAL 4.11 $ 18,803 $ 2,956 $ 15,704
TOWN TOTAL 5.91
Estimated Cost (x $1,000)
REGIONAL STP:
RSTP (URBAN)
Estimated Cost (x $1,000)
Improvement Distance Total Previous Balance to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
3 Hill Carter Pkwy Interchange at England St (VA 54) Modification NA $3,500 $ 2,161
$1,339
5 North East Collector Rd Jamestown Rd Patrick Henry Rd (VA 54) New Facility (2L): PE 1.3 $1,550 $150 $1,400
1.3 $ 5,050 $ 2,311 $ 2,739
Ashland 6/21/01

VISION:
The 2023 Long-Range Plan Highway List for the Town of Ashland
($000)
VISION (INTERSTATE)
Estimated Cost (x $1,000)
Improvement Distance Total Previous Balance to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
1 I-95 Ashland S.C.L. Ashland N.C. L. Widen to 8 Lanes 1.8 $10,500 $10,500
INTERSTATE TOTAL 1.8 $10,500 $10,500
VISION (URBAN)
Estimated Cost (x $1,000)
Improvement Distance Total Previous Balance to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
11 Patrick Henry Rd (VA 54) I-95 North East Collector Rd Widen 0.48 $0 $0
13 Washington Hwy. (Rt.1) Ashcake Rd. Southern C.L. Add Center Turn Lanes 1.5 $0 $0
14 Hill Carter Parkway Hill Carter Pkwy Rt. 54/Rt. 1 New 4 Lane Facility 2.1 $0 $0
15 Industrial Connector Hill Carter Pkwy Northern Connector New 2 Lane Facility 0.5 $0 $0
16 Northern Connector Archie Cannon Washington Hwy (US 1) New 2 Lane Facility 1.2 $0 $0
Ashland 6/21/01

Charles City County
ð
%a
Ú
r
â
#³
Label corresponds to project number
on jurisdiction's constrained project list
W
Projects
Bridge Improvement
Interchange
Intersection Improvement
Rail Crossing Improvement
Signal Improvement
Other Improvement
New Facility
Realignment
Reconstruction
Widen
Other Improvement
N
S
E
#
3
2
1
ÊÚ
4
22
ÊÚ
#
#
#
# #
#
#
# #
ð
15
# #
10
#
ÊÚ
7
ÊÚ
# #
# # #
ÊÚ
36
#³
30
6
16
19 21 25
8
38
ð#
# #
ÊÚ
ÊÚ r
39 32
14
23
13
12
1
ð
24
11
ÊÚ
ÊÚ
5
ð
29
31
ÊÚ #
ÊÚ #
20
ÊÚ
9
26
34
Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, December 2000
1 0 1 2 3 4 Miles

The 2023 Long-Range Plan Highway List for Charles City County
($000)
PRIMARY
Estimated Cost (x $1,000)
Improvement Distance Total Previous Balance to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
1 John Tyler Memorial Hwy (VA 5) Henrico C.L. Parrish Hill Creek Widen to 4 Lanes 15.00 $18,263 $18,263
4 John Tyler Memorial Hwy (VA 5) Intersection at Roxbury Rd (VA 106) Turn Lanes NA $292 $148 $144
6 Roxbury Rd (VA 106) New Kent C.L. Prince George C.L. Widen to 4 Lanes 10.30 $9,475 $9,475
7 Roxbury Rd (VA 106) John Tyler Memorial Hwy (VA 5) Williamsburg Rd (US 60) Signage/Turn Lanes NA $500 $500
8 Roxbury Rd (VA 106) Bridge Replacement/Approaches Chickahomny River Replacement NA $4,279 $2,491 $1,788
34 Courthouse Rd (VA 155) Intersection New Kent County Line Modification NA $500 $500
35 John Tyler Memorial Hwy (VA 5) Intersection Rt. 155 Modification NA $500 $500
36 John Tyler Memorial Hwy (VA 5) Intersection Lake Charles Modification NA $500 $500
PRIMARY TOTAL 25.30 $34,309 $2,639 $31,670
SECONDARY
Improvement Distance Total Previous Balance to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
11 Adkins Rd (Rt. 618) 1 mi N Alpine Rd (Rt. 629) 1.4 mi N Alpine Rd (Rt. 629) Reconstruction 0.40 $668 $494 $174
12 Adkins Rd (Rt. 618) Bridge Approach at Gunns Rd Reconstruction 0.05 $355 $355
13 Adkins Rd (Rt. 618) Bridge at Gunns Rd Rehabilitation NA $425 $425
14 Barnetts Rd (Rt. 609) Bridge Approach at East Run Reconstruction 0.20 $115 $65 $50
15 Barnetts Rd (Rt. 609) Bridge at East Run Rehabilitation NA $340 $66 $274
16 Charles City Rd (Rt. 600) Henrico C.L. Roxbury Rd (VA 106) Widen to 4 Lanes 3.70 $2,875 $2,875
19 Wayside Rd (Rt. 607) Roxbury Rd (VA 106) The New Rd (Rt. 639) Reconstruction 0.90 $1,561 $1,287 $274
23 Barnetts Rd (Rt. 609) Lott Cary Rd (Rt. 602) Old Union Rd (Rt. 603) Reconstruction 1.00 $1,789 $1,789
24 Lott Cary Rd. (Rt. 602) Courthouse Rd (VA 155) 0.8 mi E Adkins Rd (Rt. 618) Reconstruction 2.60 $2,165 $2,165
25 Wayside Road (Rt. 607) Rt. 609 Stagg Run Road (Rt. 642) Reconstruction 1.18 $1,939 $1,939
26 Angel View Ln (Rt. 615) John Tyler Memorial Hwy (VA 5) Rt. 626 Reconstruction 3.10 $2,582 $2,582
32 Barnetts Rd. (Rt. 609) Intersection CSX Railroad Modification NA $500 $500
33 Adkins Rd. (Rt. 618) Intersection Long Beach Modification NA $500 $500
SECONDARY TOTAL 13.13 $ 15,814 $ 1,912 $ 13,902
COUNTY TOTAL 38.43
Estimated Cost (x $1,000)
Charles City
6/21/01

REGIONAL STP:
RSTP (PRIMARY)
Estimated Cost (x $1,000)
Improvement Distance Total Previous Balance to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
3 John Tyler Memorial Hwy (VA 5) Intersection at Rt. 608 Turn Lanes NA $437 $85 $352
9 Courthouse Rd (VA 155) Intersection at Rt. 614 Modification NA $351 $351 $0
10 Courthouse Rd (VA 155) Intersection at Rt. 602 Modification NA $257 $257 $0
20 Courthouse Rd (VA 155) Intersection at Rt. 612 Modification NA $500 $0 $500
29 Courthouse Rd (VA 155) Rt. 614 Rt. 612 Modification 1.50 $500 $0 $500
30 Roxbury Rd (VA 106) Intersection Wayside Road (Rt. 607) Turn Lanes NA $558 $70 $488
Primary RSTP Total 1.50 $2,603 $763 $1,840
RSTP (SECONDARY)
Estimated Cost (x $1,000)
Improvement Distance Total Previous Balance to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
21 Wayside Road (Rt. 607) The New Road (Rt. 639) Stagg Run Road (Rt. 642) Reconstruction 0.08 $1,500 $0 $1,500
22 Wayside Road (Rt. 607) John Tyler Memorial Hwy (VA 5) Roxbury Rd (VA 106) Reconstruction 0.87 $1,000 $0 $1,000
31 Adkins Rd (Rt. 618) Bridge Approaches Chickahomny River Improve Approaches NA $500 $0 $500
Secondary RSTP Total 0.95 $3,000 $0 $3,000
INDUSTRIAL ACCESS FUNDS:
Estimated Cost (x $1,000)
Improvement Distance Total Previous Balance to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
38 Roxbury Industrial Center Rd. A Intersection Route 664 New Facility 0.22 $0
39 Roxbury Industrial Center Rd. B Intersection Route 667 New Facility 0.23 $0
P/L Total $451
Charles City
6/21/01

Chesterfield County
#
204
#
82
#
MPO Funded Projects
#
165
#
Projects
#
#
#
220
167 168
55
# #
# 95
23
#
#
# #
%a
ð Bridge Improvement
56 Ú
214 129
# #
169 48
%a Interchange
178
# 228
60 Ú
# # #
Ú Intersection Improvement
11
# 57
# #
61 40 41 # #
r Rail Crossing Improvement
%a #
120
161
156
59
223 Ú
â Signal Improvement
#
#
62
# 183 185 182
#³ Other Improvement
#%a ##
%að
54
153
# # #
# # ÚÚÚ # 75
14
#
New Facility
128
119
90
#
#
117
181
Realignment
184 #
155 #
#
#
#
1
#
152
162
Reconstruction
27
91
14
118
ð
Widen
## # 92
74
26
65
Other Improvement
#
#
#
%a
#
170
224 25
234 # r
#
#
#
#
231
# %a 96
225
#
72 186 #
# #
151 Ú
83
79
68
#
36
#
# 229
226 Ú Ú
#
# 221
# # Ú
93
174
## 227
216
130
#
6
#
71
230
Ú
#
123
# # %a
# #
# # 149
# 78
31 125
# # 150
# 210
# #
69
# #
# #
70
# # 171 #
211 233
206 #
#
#
98
Label corresponds to project number
on jurisdiction's constrained project list
N
W
E
S
Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, December 2000
1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Miles

Chesterfield County
49
50
43
%a
%a #
191
#
#
112
#
164
#
P/L Funded Projects
Projects
# #
147
#
ð Bridge Improvement
# 111
#
38
21 22 115
%a Interchange
#
#
# # #
188
#
#
#
# #
Ú Intersection Improvement
212
#
138 #
200 # #
88
r Rail Crossing Improvement
#
#
196
196
#
â Signal Improvement
#
202 160 #
44 52 213
#³ Other Improvement
#
# 46 47
180
# #
#
# #
#
New Facility
51 %a %a
# # 192
%a
45 53
205
#
Realignment
#
#
63
#
# #
#
#³
# 157
63
172
32
Reconstruction
#
18
203
114
33 #
Widen
113
64
#
#
77
#
#
# %a
146 112
#
#
121
Other Improvement
145
#
124
# #
##
#
#
#
# #
ð
34
158
68
94
#
#
173 #
#
#
24 140
217 122
215
#
35
##
#
# #
67 189
# #
# # 218
130
143
#
%a #
208
144
70
# #
#
##
#
37
#
197
#
163
#
#
# #
76
148
#
99
#
#
219
# # #
209
#
Label corresponds to project number
on jurisdiction's constrained project list
232 Park and Ride lots - various locations around the county
#
132
W
N
S
E
Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, December 2000
1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Miles

INTERSTATE
The 2023 Long-Range Plan Highway List for Chesterfield County
($000)
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
1 I-95 Bridge at Falling Creek Rehabilitation NA $6,843 $6,651 $
192
6 I-295 Interchange at Meadowville Rd (Rt. 618) New Facility NA $22,000 $ 22,000
INTERSTATE TOTAL 0.00 $28,843 $6,651 $ 22,192
PRIMARY
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
11 Chippenham Pkwy (VA 150) Powhite Pkwy (VA 76) Hull Street Rd (US 360) Widen to 6 Lanes 4.10 $26,517 $24,166 $2,351
14 Chippenham Pkwy (VA 150) Hull Street Rd (US 360) Jefferson Davis Hwy (US 1/301) Widen to 6 Lanes 4.60 $32,985 $8,760 $24,225
23 Huguenot Rd (VA 147) Buford Rd (Rt. 678) Chippenham Pkwy (VA 150) Widen to 6 Lanes 0.72 $3,278 $3,278
25 Hull Street Rd (US 360) Otterdale Road (Rt. 667) Swift Creek Widen 4 to 8 3.80 $46,695 $46,695
26 Hull Street Rd (US 360) Swift Creek VA 288 Widen to 8 Lanes 0.96 $10,010 $500 $9,510
27 Hull Street Rd (US 360) VA 288 Genito Rd (Rt. 604) Widen to 6 Lanes 1.74 $5,545 $2,702 $2,843
31 Hundred Rd E. (VA 10) I-295 Meadowville Rd. (Rt. 618) Widen 6 to 8 1.55 $13,200 $2,172 $11,028
233 Hundred Rd E. (VA 10) Jefferson Davis Hwy (US 1/301) Meadowville Rd. (Rt. 618) Widen 4 to 6 2.95 $8,919 $800 $8,119
36 Iron Bridge Rd (VA 10) Lori Rd (Rt. 655) Centralia Rd (VA 145) Widen to 6 Lanes 0.41 $1,989 $1,989
231 Jefferson Davis Hwy (US 1/301) Bridge over CSX Railroad Rehabilitation NA $4,343 $900 $3,443
40 Midlothian Tnpk (US 60) Old Buckingham Rd (Rt. 677) Courthouse Rd (Rt. 653) Widen 4 to 6 1.29 $10,560 $10,560
41 Midlothian Tnpk (US 60) Courthouse Rd (Rt. 653) Robious Rd (Rt. 675) Widen to 8 Lanes 1.79 $9,075 $9,075
42 Midlothian Tnpk (US 60) Robious Rd (Rt. 675) Powhite Pkwy (VA 76) Widen to 8 Lanes 1.26 $6,388 $6,388
48 Powhite Pkwy (VA 76) Chippenham Pkwy (VA 150) Midlothian Tnpk (US 60) Widen to 6 Lanes 2.83 $12,830 $12,830
54 Powhite Pkwy (VA 76) Interchange at VA 288 New Facility NA $11,932 $11,932
55 VA 150 / VA 76 Interchange Galleria Access System New Facility (4L) NA $16,500 $16,500
56 VA 288 Powhatan C.L. Midlothian Tnpk (US 60) New Facility (6L) 1.44 $25,643 $3,295 $22,348
57 VA 288 Midlothian Tnpk (US 60) Woolridge Rd Ext. (Rt. 668) New Facility (6L) 1.80 $90,387 $6,764 $83,623
59 VA 288 Woolridge Rd Ext. (Rt. 668) Powhite Pkwy Ext. (VA 76) New Facility (6L) 2.32 $71,888 $6,065 $65,823
60 VA 288 Interchange at Midlothian Tnpk (US 60) New Facility NA $16,500 $16,500
61 VA 288 Interchange at Woolridge Rd. Ext. (Rt. 668) New Facility NA $16,500 $16,500
62 VA 288 Interchange at Lucks Lane (Rt. 720) New Facility NA $16,500 $16,500
65 VA 288 Interchange at Qualla Rd (Rt. 653) New Facility NA $17,863 $17,863
PRIMARY TOTAL 33.56 $476,047 $56,124 $419,923
SECONDARY
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
68 Bailey Bridge Rd (Rt. 654) Claypoint Rd (Rt. 651) Spring Run Rd (Rt. 662) Reconstruction 3.50 $8,690 $715 $7,975
70 Beach Rd (Rt. 655) Second Branch Rd (Rt. 653) Bundle Rd (Rt. 654) Reconstruction 1.71 $4,730 $4,730
71 Beach Rd (Rt. 655) Nash Rd (Rt. 636) Iron Bridge Rd (VA 10) Widen to 4 Lanes 0.99 $3,740 $3,740
73 Belmont Rd (Rt. 651) Whitepine Rd Cogbill Road (Rt. 638) Reconstruction 1.56 $3,300 $3,300
Chesterfield 6/21/01

74 Belmont Rd (Rt. 651) Cogbill Rd (Rt. 638) Turner Rd (Rt. 650) Reconstruction (4L) 3.11 $6,710 $6,710
77 Beulah Rd (Rt. 641) Kingsland Rd (Rt. 611) Hopkins Rd (Rt. 637) Reconstruction 2.15 $5,940 $5,940
78 Branders Bridge Rd (Rt. 625) Iron Bridge Rd (VA 10) S. Happy Hill Rd (Rt. 4964) Reconstruction 1.36 $3,900 $3,900
81 Center Pointe Pkwy Reloc. Coalfield Rd (Rt. 754) VA 288 New Facility (4L) 0.80 $2,974 $2,974
82 Coalboro Road (Rt. 664) Winterpock Rd (Rt. 621) River Rd (Rt. 602) Resurfacing 2.30 $5,000 $1,418 $3,582
89 Courthouse Rd (Rt. 653) Edneberry Drive (Rt. 2560) Lucks Lane (Rt. 720) Widen to 4/6 Lanes 1.50 $9,507 $8,192 $1,315
90 Courthouse Rd (Rt. 653) Providence Rd (Rt. 678) Hull Street Rd (US 360) Widen to 6 Lanes 1.34 $5,170 $5,170
91 Courthouse Rd (Rt. 653) Hull Street Rd (US 360) Genito Rd (Rt. 604) Widen to 4 Lanes 1.18 $4,132 $3,443 $689
92 Courthouse Rd (Rt. 604) Genito Rd (Rt. 604) VA 288 Widen to 4 Lanes 1.78 $9,264 $6,827 $2,437
94 Courthouse Rd (Rt. 604) Bridge Widening over VA 288 Rehabilitation NA $1,573 $1,573
95 Cranbeck Rd Robious Rd (Rt. 675) Huguenot Rd (VA 147) Widen to 4 Lanes 0.37 $1,650 $1,650
97 Dundas Rd (Rt. 641) Interchange at Strathmore Rd (Rt. 1607) Modification NA $882 $571 $311
116 Genito Rd (Rt. 604) Woolridge Rd (Rt. 668) Old Hundred Rd (Rt. 652) Widen to 4 Lanes 2.19 $10,780 $10,780
117 Genito Rd (Rt. 604) Old Hundred Rd (Rt.754) Hull Street Rd (US 360) Widen to 4 Lanes 2.93 $18,000 $8,993 $9,007
118 Genito Rd (Rt. 604) Hull Street Rd (US 360) Courthouse Rd (Rt. 653) Widen to 4 Lanes 1.22 $2,861 $2,384 $477
119 Genito Rd (Rt. 604) Bridge at VA 288 Rehabilitation (4L) NA $1,163 $104 $1,059
122 Hopkins Rd (Rt. 637) Inca Dr (Rt. 2440) Laurel Oak Rd (Rt. 3068) Reconstruction 0.64 $4,311 $2,068 $2,243
124 Kingsland Rd (Rt. 611) Iron Bridge Blvd (VA 10) Chester Rd (VA 144) Reconstruction 3.88 $10,010 $10,010
125 Kingston Ave Bermuda Hundred Rd (Rt. 697) N of Bermuda Hundred Rd New Facility (4L) 0.39 $1,430 $1,430
127 Lucks Lane (Rt. 720) Spirea Rd Coalfield Rd (Rt. 754) Widen to 4 Lanes 1.28 $5,766 $5,766
128 Lucks Lane / VA 288 Conn. VA 288 at Lucks Lane (Rt. 720) New Facility (4L) 0.46 $1,711 $1,711
148 Nash Rd (Rt. 636) Reedy Branch Rd (Rt. 635) Woodpecker Rd (Rt. 626) Reconstruction 1.93 $5,280 $5,280
149 Nash Rd (Rt. 636) Woodpecker Rd (Rt. 626) Highland Glen Dr Reconstruction (2L) 1.07 $3,952 $209 $3,743
150 Nash Rd (Rt. 636) Highland Glen Dr Beach Rd (Rt. 655) Reconstruction (2L) 2.25 $6,278 $2,374 $3,904
151 Newbys Bridge Rd (Rt.651) Qualla Rd (Rt. 653) Courthouse Rd (Rt. 604) Widen to 4 Lanes 1.93 $5,390 $1,007 $4,383
152 Newbys Bridge Rd (Rt. 649) Belmont Rd (Rt. 651) Walmsley Blvd (Rt. 647) Reconstruction 4.54 $10,700 $400 $10,300
154 Old Hundred Rd (Rt. 652) Dry Bridge Rd (Rt. 685) Otterdale Rd (Rt. 667) Reconstruction 2.27 $8,000 $8,000
155 Old Hundred Rd (Rt. 754) Genito Rd (Rt. 604) Brandermill Pkwy Widen to 4 Lanes 1.10 $2,494 $2,494
160 Providence Rd (Rt. 678) Courthouse Rd (Rt. 653) Hicks Rd (Rt. 647) Reconstruction 1.95 $5,390 $5,390
161 Providence Rd (Rt. 678) Hicks Rd (Rt. 647) Midlothian Tnpk (US 60) Reconstruction 2.02 $5,610 $5,610
164 Robious Rd (Rt. 711) Powhatan C.L. James River Dr Reconstruction 1.24 $3,300 $3,300
166 Robious Rd (Rt. 711) Salisbury Rd Robious Crossing Dr Widen to 4 Lanes 1.62 $8,640 $6,118 $2,522
167 Robious Rd (Rt. 711) Robious Crossing Dr Huguenot Rd (VA 147) Widen to 4 Lanes 0.10 $380 $380
168 Robious Rd (Rt. 675) Huguenot Rd (VA 147) Cranbeck Rd Widen to 4 Lanes 0.35 $1,054 $1,054
169 Robious Rd (Rt. 675) Cranbeck Rd Midlothian Tnpk (US 60) Widen to 4 Lanes 2.61 $10,729 $9,272 $1,457
171 Salem Church Rd (Rt. 642) Beulah Rd (Rt. 641) Kingsland Rd (Rt. 611) Reconstruction (4L) 0.82 $3,480 $324 $3,156
173 Spring Run Rd (Rt. 662) Hull Street Rd (US 360) Bailey Bridge Rd (Rt. 654) Widen to 4 Lanes 1.87 $9,130 $365 $8,765
177 Turner Rd (Rt. 650) Walmsley Blvd (Rt. 647) Belmont Rd (Rt. 651) Widen to 4 Lanes 1.93 $4,737 $4,737
180 Walmsley Blvd (Rt. 647) Hull Street Rd (US 360) Newbys Bridge Rd (Rt. 649) Widen to 4 Lanes 1.39 $4,336 $4,336
181 Walmsley Blvd (Rt. 647) Newbys Bridge Rd (Rt. 649) Turner Rd (Rt. 650) Widen to 4 Lanes 0.68 $2,122 $2,122
182 Walmsley Blvd (Rt. 647) Turner Rd (Rt. 650) Richmond C.L. Widen to 4 Lanes 0.88 $2,768 $2,768
183 Walmsley Blvd (Rt. 647) Interchange at Newbys Bridge Rd (Rt. 649) Turn Lanes NA $1,063 $948 $115
184 Walmsley Blvd (Rt. 647) Interchange at Holridge St Turn Lanes NA $517 $323 $194
185 Walmsley Blvd (Rt. 647) Interchange at Turner Road (Rt. 650) Turn Lanes NA $1,356 $644 $712
204 Genito Road (604) Powhatan CL Mt. Hermon Road Reconstruction 2.70 $4,100 $4,100
206 Lewis Rd (Rt. 632) Bradley Bridge Rd (Rt.631) Iron Bridge Rd. (Rt. 10) Reconstruction 2.00 $3,000 $3,000
210 Old Bermuda Hundred Rd Old Stage Rd. Jeff-Davis Hwy (Rt. 1) Reconstruction 0.50 $700 $700
211 Old Bermuda Hundred Rd Golf Course Rd (Rt. 620) E. Hundred Rd. (Rt. 10) Reconstruction 0.60 $869 $869
214 Old Buckingham Rd. Midlothian Tpke. (Rt. 60) Huguenot Rd. (Rt. 147) Reconstruction 1.80 $2,700 $2,700
Chesterfield 6/21/01

216 Qualla Rd. (Rt. 653) Beach Rd. (Rt. 655) Rt. 288 Interchange Reconstruction 4.80 $7,200 $7,200
234 Qualla Rd. (Rt. 653) Rt 288 Rt 604 Reconstruction 1.07 $2,500 $2,500
220 Winterfield Rd (Rt. 714) Interchange Salisbury Rd (Rt. 902) Modification NA $550 $550
221 Summit Rd (Rt. 736) .6 mi S Rt. 655 .5 mi S Rt. 655 Rebuild 0.10 $50 $50
223 Reams Rd (Rt. 647) Interchange Adkins Rd (Rt. 672) Modification NA $663 $663
224 Woodlake Village Pkwy (Rt. 3600) Interchange Woodlake Village Pkwy Modification NA $500 $500
225 Salem Church Rd (Rt. 642) Interchange Huntingcreek Dr. (Rt. 1913) Modification NA $482 $482
226 Hensley Rd. (Rt. 659) Interchange Spring Run Rd. (Rt. 654) Modification NA $250 $250
227 Riverway Rd. (Rt. 659) Interchange Beach Rd (Rt. 655) Modification NA $280 $280
228 Old Bon Air Rd (Rt. 718) Iron Mill Rd (Rt. 2652) 600' S Groundhog (Rt. 1708) Reconstruction 0.21 $475 $475 $0
229 Salem Church Rd (Rt. 642) Interchange Centralia Rd (Rt. 145) Modification NA $100 $100
230 Centre St (Rt. 1513) Rt. 10 0.2 km N Rt. 10 Widening NA $1,267 $1,267 $0
SECONDARY TOTAL 82.97 $ 265,584 $ 58,441 $ 207,143
PRIVATE/LOCAL (P/L) PROJECTS:
P/L (PRIMARY)
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
18 Chippenham Pkwy (VA 150) Jefferson Davis Hwy (US 1/301) I-95 Widen to 8 Lanes 1.35 $0 $0
21 Huguenot Rd (VA 147) Midlothian Tnpk (US 60) Robious Rd (Rt. 675) Widen to 6 Lanes 1.23 $0 $0
22 Huguenot Rd (VA 147) Robious Rd (Rt. 675) Buford Rd (Rt. 678) Widen to 6 Lanes 3.08 $0 $0
24 Hull Street Rd (US 360) Powhite Pkwy Ext. (VA 76) Otterdale Road (Rt. 667) Widen to 6 Lanes 3.22 $0 $0
32 Iron Bridge Rd (VA 10) Jessup Rd (Rt. 643) Cogbill Rd (Rt. 638) Widen to 6 Lanes 0.66 $0 $0
33 Iron Bridge Rd (VA 10) Cogbill Rd (Rt. 638) Kingsland Rd (Rt. 611) Widen to 6 Lanes 1.87 $0 $0
34 Iron Bridge Rd (VA 10) Kingsland Rd (Rt. 611) VA 288 Widen to 6 Lanes 1.36 $0 $0
35 Iron Bridge Rd (VA 10) VA 288 Lori Rd (Rt. 655) Widen to 6 Lanes 1.43 $0 $0
37 Iron Bridge Rd (VA 10) Centralia Rd (VA 145) Buckingham St Widen to 6 Lanes 3.85 $0 $0
38 Midlothian Tnpk (US 60) VA 288 Winterfield Rd (Rt. 714) Widen to 6 Lanes 1.69 $0 $0
43 Powhite Pkwy Ext. (VA 76) Hull Street Rd (US 360) Genito Rd (Rt. 604) New Facility (4L) 4.71 $0 $0
44 Powhite Pkwy Ext. (VA 76) Genito Rd (Rt. 604) Woolridge Rd Ext. (Rt. 668) New Facility (4L) 1.55 $0 $0
45 Powhite Pkwy Ext. (VA 76) Woolridge Rd Ext. (Rt. 668) Old Hundred Rd (Rt. 652) New Facility (4L) 0.90 $0 $0
46 Powhite Pkwy Ext. (VA 76) Old Hundred Rd (Rt. 652) Coalfield Rd (Rt. 754) Widen to 4 Lanes 1.66 $0 $0
47 Powhite Pkwy (VA 76) Coalfield Rd (Rt. 754) VA 288 Widen to 4 Lanes 0.80 $0 $0
49 Powhite Pkwy Ext. (VA 76) Interchange at Hull Street Rd (US 360) New Facility NA $0 $0
50 Powhite Pkwy Ext. (VA 76) Interchange at N/S Arterial New Facility NA $0 $0
51 Powhite Pkwy Ext. (VA 76) Interchange at Genito Rd (Rt. 604) New Facility NA $0 $0
52 Powhite Pkwy Ext. (VA 76) Interchange at Woolridge Rd Ext. (Rt. 668) New Facility NA $0 $0
53 Powhite Pkwy Ext. (VA 76) Interchange at Coalfield Rd (Rt. 754) New Facility NA $0 $0
63 VA 288 Warbro /Brandermill Pkwy Intg and E/W Arterial New Facility (4L) NA $0 $0
64 VA 288 VA 288/US 360 CD/Access System New Facility (4L) NA $0 $0
67 VA 288 VA 288/U.S.60 CD/Access System New Facility (4L) 0.00 $0 $0
235 I-895 I-95 Henrico C.L. New Facility (4L) 0.00 $0 $0
P/L Total $343,314
P/L (SECONDARY)
Chesterfield 6/21/01

Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
67 Ashlake Parkway Ext. Ashlake Pwky Beach Rd (Rt. 655) New Facility (4L) 2.13 $0 $0
69 Beach Rd (Rt. 655) Winterpock Rd (Rt. 621) Second Branch Rd (Rt. 653) Reconstruction 3.32 $0 $0
75 Belmont Rd (Rt. 651) Turner Rd (Rt. 650) Chippenham Pkwy (VA 150) Widen to 4 Lanes 0.00 $0 $0
76 Bermuda Orchard Lane Ext. Bermuda Orchard Lane Enon Church Rd (Rt. 746) New Facility (4L) 0.00 $0 $0
87 Cogbill Road (Rt. 638) Belmont Rd (Rt. 651) Newbys Bridge Rd (Rt. 649) New Facility (4L) 1.09 $0 $0
93 Courthouse Road Ext. (Rt. 604) L.C. Bird H.S Salem Church Rd (Rt. 642) New Facility (4L) 0.39 $0 $0
98 E/W Arterial Happy Hill Rd (Rt. 619) Harrowgate Road (VA 144) New Facility (4L) 0.48 $0 $0
110 E/W Collector Qualla Rd (Rt. 653) N/S Collector New Facility (4L) 2.50 $0 $0
111 E/W Collector Winterfield Rd Reloc. (Rt. 714) N/S Collector New Facility (4L) 1.05 $0 $0
112 E/W Collector (North of Hull St.) N/S Arterial Woodlake Village Pwky New Facility (4L) 2.86 $0 $0
113 E/W Collector (S of Woolridge) Otterdale Rd (Rt. 667) Timber Bluff Pkwy New Facility (4L) 2.10 $0 $0
114 Five Forks Lane Belmont Rd (Rt. 651) Cogbill Road (Rt. 638) New Facility (4L) 1.22 $0 $0
120 Grove Road Ext. Grove Rd Courthouse Rd (Rt. 653) New Facility (4L) 0.39 $0 $0
121 Hopkins Rd (Rt. 637) Beulah Rd (Rt. 641) Inca Dr (Rt. 2440) Reconstruction 1.20 $0 $0
123 Iron Bridge Blvd Iron Bridge Rd (VA 10) Centralia Rd (VA 145) New Facility (4L) 1.48 $0 $0
129 Mall Drive Ext. W Koger Rd Robious Rd (Rt. 675) New Facility (4L) 0.58 $0 $0
131 Mt Hermon Rd Ext. (Rt. 684) Genito Rd (Rt. 604) Duvall Rd (Rt. 668) New Facility (4L) 2.90 $0 $0
137 N/S Arterial Powhite Pwky Ext. (VA 76) Coalfield Rd Reloc. (Rt. 754) New Facility (4L) 0.90 $0 $0
139 N/S Arterial Midlothian Tnpk (US 60) Woolridge Rd Ext. N (Rt. 668) New Facility 0.32 $0 $0
142 N/S Arterial Access Rd Meadowville Rd (Rt. 618) Bermuda Hundred Road (Rt. 697) New Facility (4L) 2.51 $0 $0
143 N/S Collector Centralia Rd (VA 145) N/S Arterial New Facility (4L) 1.48 $0 $0
144 N/S Collector Hensley Rd (Rt. 659) Beach Rd (Rt. 655) New Facility (4L) 1.22 $0 $0
145 N/S Collector Hull Street Rd (US 360) Bailey Bridge Rd (Rt. 654) New Facility (4L) 1.55 $0 $0
146 N/S Collector Woolridge Rd (Rt. 668) Hull Street Rd (US 360) New Facility (4L) 1.35 $0 $0
147 N/S Collector (N of Rte 60) Midlothian Tnpk (US 60) Powhatan C.L. New Facility (4L) 0.84 $0 $0
156 Otterdale Rd (Rt. 667) N/S Arterial (label 138) Old Hundred Rd (Rt. 652) Reconstruction 3.05 $0 $0
157 Otterdale Rd (Rt. 667) Old Hundred Rd Woolridge Rd (Rt. 668) Reconstruction 5.60 $0 $0
159 Price Club Blvd Hull Street Rd (US 360) Genito Rd (Rt. 604) Reconstruction 0.64 $0 $0
162 Ridgedale Parkway Iron Bridge Rd (VA 10) Turner Rd (Rt. 650) New Facility (4L) 1.35 $0 $0
163 Rivers Bend Blvd S Hundred Rd (VA 10) Bermuda Orchard Lane New Facility (4L) 1.42 $0 $0
171 South Chalkley Rd (Rt. 632) Iron Bridge Rd (VA 10) Bradley Bridge Rd (Rt. 631) New Facility (4L) 1.16 $0 $0
172 Speeks Dr Ext Hull Street Rd (US 360) Price Club Blvd New Facility (4L) 0.39 $0 $0
179 Walkes Quarter Rd (Rt. 658) Riverway Rd (Rt. 659) River Rd (Rt. 602) Reconstruction 0.45 $0 $0
187 Whitepine Rd Ext. Belmont Rd (Rt. 651) Courthouse Rd (Rt. 604) New Facility (4L) 1.16 $0 $0
188 Winterfield Rd Reloc. (Rt. 714) Winterfield Rd (Rt. 714) Elmstead Rd New Facility (4L) 0.64 $0 $0
190 Woolridge Rd (Rt. 668) Otterdale Rd (Rt. 667) Genito Rd (Rt. 604) Widen to 4 Lanes 3.16 $0 $0
191 Woolridge Rd Ext S (Rt. 668) Otterdale Rd (Rt. 667) N/S Arterial New Facility (4L) 1.87 $0 $0
195 Woolridge Rd Ext. (Rt. 668) Reloc. Coalfield Rd (Rt. 754) Coalfield Rd (Rt. 754) Widen 2 to 4 0.37 $0 $0
197 Beach Road (Rt. 655) Bundle Rd. (Rt. 654) Spring Run Rd. (Rt. 662) Reconstruct/Intersect. Improv. 0.10 $0 $0
200 Charter Colony Pkwy N. Woolridge Extension Le Gordon Dr. (Rt. 707) Widen to 4 lanes 5.00 $0 $0
202 Courthouse Rd. (Rt. 653) Providence Road Smoketree Drive Widen to 6 lanes 1.70 $0 $0
203 Genito Road (604) Mt. Hermon Road Powhite Pkwy. Extensio. Reconstruction 6.30 $0 $0
205 Hopkins Rd (Rt 637) Chippenham Pkwy Richmond CL Reconstruction 1.70 $0 $0
208 Rivers Bend Blvd. Kinston Ave. (Rt4841) I-295 New 4 lane alignment 0.50 $0 $0
209 Nash Rd. (Rt. 636) River Rd. (rt. 602) Cattail Rd. (Rt 634) Reconstruction 0.30 $0 $0
212 Old Hundred Rd. (Rt. 652) Midlothian Tpke. (Rt. 60) Mt. Hermon Rd. (Rt 684) Reconstruction 0.40 $0 $0
Chesterfield 6/21/01

213 Old Hundred Rd. (Rt. 652) Woolridge Rd. Ext. Powhite Parkway Reconstruction 3.20 $0 $0
215 Old Lane (rt. 2001) Hopkins Rd. (Rt 637) Chester Rd. (Rt. 145) Reconstruction 0.30 $0 $0
217 Salem Church Rd. Gatesgreen Dr. (Rt. 2013) Kingland Rd. (Rt. 611) Reconstruction 2.00 $0 $0
218 Spring Run Rd. (Rt 662) Hensley Rd. (Rt. 659) Bailey Bridge Rd. Reconstruction 1.00 $0 $0
219 River Rd. (Rt. 602) Bundle Rd. (Rt. 654) Hickory Rd. (Rt. 628) Reconstruction 3.60 $0 $0
222 Coalfield Connector Coalfield Rd (Rt. 754) Charter Colony Pkwy. New Alignment - 2 lanes 0.25 $0 $0
232 Park and Ride Lots Various Locations New Facility NA $0 $0
236 N/S Arterial Old Bermuda Hundred Rd (Rt. 618) Ruffin Mill Rd. (Rt. 746) New Facility NA $0 $0
237 Meadowville Rd. (Rt. 618) I-295 N/S Access Rd. Widen 2 to 4 NA $0 $0
P/L Total $ 547,964
Chesterfield 6/21/01

VISION:
VISION (P/L-PRIMARY)
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
8 Centralia Rd (VA 145) Iron Bridge Rd (VA 10) Chester Rd (VA 144) Widen to 4 Lanes 2.81 $0 $0
9 Chester Rd (VA 144) Iron Bridge Rd (VA 10) Centralia Rd (VA 145) Widen to 4 Lanes 1.77 $0 $0
10 Chester Rd (VA 144) VA 288 Jefferson Davis Hwy (US 1/301) Widen to 4 Lanes 1.99 $0 $0
20 Harrowgate Road (VA 144) Iron Bridge Rd (VA 10) Happy Hill Rd (Rt. 619) Widen to 4 Lanes 1.49 $0 $0
VISION (P/L-SECONDARY)
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
72 Belmont Rd (Rt. 651) Courthouse Rd (Rt. 604) Whitepine Rd Widen to 4 Lanes 0.41 $0 $0
80 Center Pointe Pkwy Old Hundred Rd (Rt. 652) Reloc. Coalfield Rd (Rt. 754) New Facility (4L) 1.75 $0 $0
83 Coalboro Rd Ext. (Rt. 664) Beach Rd (Rt. 655) Hull Street Rd (US 360) New Facility (2L) 1.61 $0 $0
85 Coalfield Rd (Rt. 754) Lucks Lane (Rt. 720) Woolridge Rd Ext. (Rt. 668) Widen to 4 Lanes 0.91 $0 $0
86 Coalfield Rd (Rt. 754) Woolridge Rd Ext. (Rt. 668) Midlothian Tnpk (US 60) Widen to 4 Lanes 1.07 $0 $0
100 E/W Arterial Nash Rd (Rt. 636) Lewis Rd (Rt. 632) New Facility (4L) 1.45 $0 $0
102 E/W Arterial Winterpock Rd (Rt. 621) Hensley Rd (Rt. 659) New Facility (4L) 1.20 $0 $0
103 E/W Arterial Hull Street Rd (US 360) VA 288 Interchange New Facility (4L) 1.00 $0 $0
104 E/W Arterial Otterdale Rd (Rt. 667) Moseley Rd (Rt. 605) New Facility (4L) 3.24 $0 $0
105 E/W Arterial Midlothian Tnpk (US 60) Charter Colony Pkwy New Facility (4L) 0.66 $0 $0
106 E/W Arterial (Loop Road) Otterdale Rd (Rt. 667) Old Hundred Rd (Rt. 652) New Facility (4L) 0.75 $0 $0
107 E/W Arterial (N of US 60) Midlothian Tnpk (US 60) VA 288 New Facility (4L) 1.20 $0 $0
108 E/W Arterial (S of US 360) Baldwin Creek Rd (Rt. 730) N Spring Run Rd (Rt. 662) New Facility (4L) 3.65 $0 $0
109 E/W Arterial (S of US 60) County Line Rd (Rt. 606) Midlothian Tnpk (US 60) New Facility (4L) 3.25 $0 $0
115 Forest Hill Ave (Rt. 683) Buford Rd (Rt. 678) Richmond C.L. Reconstruction (4L) 0.84 $0 $0
133 N/S Arterial Nash Rd (Rt. 636) Woodpecker Rd (Rt. 626) New Facility (4L) 2.96 $0 $0
134 N/S Arterial Iron Bridge Rd (VA 10) Chester Rd (VA 144) New Facility (4L) 1.16 $0 $0
135 N/S Arterial Hull Street Rd (US 360) Woolridge Rd Ext. (Rt. 668) New Facility (4L) 1.03 $0 $0
136 N/S Arterial Hull Street Rd (US 360) Moseley Rd (Rt. 605) New Facility (4L) 3.48 $0 $0
138 N/S Arterial Otterdale Rd (Rt. 667) Midlothian Tnpk (US 60) New Facility (4L) 1.74 $0 $0
140 N/S Arterial (East) E/W Arterial Hull Street Rd (US 360) New Facility (4L) 0.39 $0 $0
141 N/S Arterial (West) E/W Arterial Hull Street Rd (US 360) New Facility (4L) 0.32 $0 $0
153 Newbys Bridge Rd Ext. (Rt. 649) Walmsley Blvd (Rt. 647) Hull Street Rd (US 360) New Facility (4L) 0.32 $0 $0
158 Otterdale Rd (Rt. 667) Woolridge Rd (Rt. 668) Hull Street Rd (US 360) Widen to 4 Lanes 1.30 $0 $0
165 Robious Rd (Rt. 711) James River Drive Salisbury Rd Widen to 4 Lanes 1.16 $0 $0
186 Whitepine Rd Reycan Rd Iron Bridge Rd (VA 10) Widen to 4 Lanes 1.43 $0 $0
189 Winterpock Rd (Rt. 621) Hull Street Rd (US 360) Beach Rd (Rt. 655) Widen to 4 Lanes 3.02 $0 $0
192 Woolridge Rd Ext. (Rt. 668) Genito Rd. Powhite Pkwy Ext. (VA 76) New Facility (4L) 1.43 $0 $0
193 Woolridge Rd Ext. (Rt. 668) Powhite Pkwy Ext. (VA 76) VA 288 New Facility (4L) 1.71 $0 $0
Chesterfield 6/21/01

194 Woolridge Rd Ext. (Rt. 668) VA 288 Reloc. Coalfield Rd (Rt. 754) New Facility (4L) 0.85 $0 $0
198 Beach Road (Rt. 655) Woodland Pnd. Pkwy Nash Rd. (Rt. 636) Widen to 4 lanes 2.00 $0 $0
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
199 Belmont Rd. (Rt.651) Turner Rd. (Rt 650) Barkbridge Rd. (Rt. 2159) Widen to 4 lanes 1.30 $0 $0
201 Coalfield Rd. Genito Rd. (Rt. 604) Charter Colony Pkwy. Widen to 6 lanes 2.00 $0 $0
207 Lucks Lane Rt. 288 Spirea Rd. Widen to 6 lanes 1.30 $0 $0
Chesterfield 6/21/01

Goochland County
ð
%a
Ú
r
â
#³
Projects
Bridge Improvement
Interchange
Intersection Improvement
Rail Crossing Improvement
Signal Improvement
Other Improvement
New Facility
Realignment
Reconstruction
Widen
Other Improvement
#
18
#
33
#
#
# #
#
17
ð
34
31
Label corresponds to project number
on jurisdiction's constrained project list
Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, December 2000
W
N
S
E
21
1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Miles
#
26
35
#
2
#
#
#
# #
10 Ú###
#
#
%a # #
12
11
9
#
#
13
#
19 3
24
8
%a
7
%a #
#
# # # #
#
36
23
1
#
30
1
16
27

The 2023 Long-Range Plan Highway List for Goochland County
($000)
INTERSTATE
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
1 I-64 Interchange at VA 288 (includes I-64-Rt 250) New Facility 0.57 $35,008 $13,050 $21,958
27 I-64 Rt 288 Henrico CL Widen to 6 lanes 0.82 $3,100 $3,100
36 I-64 Rt 288 1.6 km W Rt 623 Widen to 6 lanes Unk. Unk.
INTERSTATE TOTAL 1.39 $38,108 $13,050 $25,058
PRIMARY
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
2 Broad St (US 250) Manakin Rd (Rt. 621) Ashland Rd (Rt. 623) Widen to 4 Lanes 0.50 $2,189 $380 $1,809
3 Broad St (US 250) Ashland Rd (Rt. 623) Henrico C.L. Widen to 6 lanes 1.80 $10,088 $4,743 $5,345
5 Ridgefield Parkway Ext. VA 288 Henrico C.L. New Facility (4L) 0.67 $5,500 $5,500
7 VA 288 Broad St (US 250) West Creek Pkwy New Facility (6L) 3.81 $38,489 $0 $38,489
8 VA 288 West Creek Pkwy Patterson Ave (VA 6) New Facility (6L) 0.73 $7,300 $0 $7,300
9 VA 288 Patterson Ave (VA 6) Powhatan C.L. New Facility (6L) 1.99 $20,572 $0 $20,572
10 VA 288 Interchange at Broad St (US 250) New Facility NA $10,500 $0 $10,500
11 VA 288 Interchange Ridgefield Parkway Ext. New Facility NA $10,500 $0 $10,500
12 VA 288 Interchange at Patterson Ave (VA 6) New Facility NA $10,500 $0 $10,500
30 Patterson Ave. (Rt. 6) Rt. 288 Henrico CL Widen to 6 lanes 2.55 $14,500 $14,500
31 Patterson Ave. (Rt. 6) Bridge at Genito Creek Widen to 4 lanes NA $600 $600
33 Route 250 Oilville Rd. (Rt 617) Fairground Rd. (Rt. 632) Widen to 4 lanes 0.80 $5,479 $5,479
PRIMARY TOTAL 12.85 $136,217 $5,123 $131,094
SECONDARY
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
13 Ashland Rd (Rt. 623) I-64 Broad St (US 250) Widen to 4 Lanes 1.17 $1,650 $1,650
16 Blair Rd (Rt. 649) Patterson Ave (VA 6) River Rd (Rt. 650) Reconstruction 1.00 $1,100 $1,100
17 Cardwell Rd (Rt. 670) Broad St (US 250) Patterson Ave (VA 6) Reconstruction 4.50 $1,255 $1,255
18 Fairground Rd (Rt. 632) Broad St (US 250) Beaverdam Creek Reconstruction 1.50 $776 $776
19 Hockett Rd (Rt. 623) Broad St (US 250) .25 miles south Broad St (US 250) Reconstruction 0.25 $550 $550
20 Manakin Rd (Rt. 621) Broad St (US 250) Three Chopt Rd (Rt. 612) Reconstruction 1.30 $437 $80 $357
Goochland 6/21/01

21 Manakin Rd (Rt. 621) Three Chopt Rd (Rt. 612) Patterson Ave (VA 6) Reconstruction 6.50 $4,375 $4,375
23 Pagebrook Dr (Rt. 647) Patterson Ave (VA 6) River Rd (Rt. 650) Reconstruction 1.15 $1,265 $1,265
26 Rockville Rd (Rt. 622) Hanover C.L. Ashland Rd (Rt. 623) Reconstruction 2.40 $625 $625
34 Oilville Rd. (Rt. 617) Route 250 I--64 Widen to 4 lanes 0.60 $1,901 $1,901
SECONDARY TOTAL 20.37 $13,934 $80 $13,854
PRIVATE/LOCAL (P/L) PROJECTS:
P/L (SECONDARY)
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
24 Ridgefield Parkway Ext. Hockett Rd (Rt. 623) VA 288 New Facility (4L) 1.23 $0 $0 $0
35 Ridgefield Parkway Ext. Hockett Road (Rt .623) Hermitage Rd. (Rt 676) New 4 lane facility 1.20 $0 $0 $0
VISION:
VISION (PRIMARY)
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
29 Patterson Ave. (Rt. 6) Beaverdam Creek Rt. 288 Widen to 4 lanes 6.25 $0 $0
VISION (SECONDARY)
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
32 New Genito Link Beaverdam Creek Rd Taylor Rd. New 2 lane facility 1.00 $0 $0
Goochland 6/21/01

DELETED PROJECTS:
PRIMARY
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
4 Broad St (US 250) VA 288 Henrico C.L. Widen 0.00 $0 $0
6 VA 288 I-64 Broad St (US 250) New Facility 0.00 $0 $0
28 Patterson Ave. (Rt. 6) Rt. 676 Rt. 628 Widen to 4 lanes 0.00 $0 $0
Goochland 6/21/01

Hanover County and Town of Ashland
#
#
8
#
r
#
12
3
10 # Ú
# # 9
#
6 # 2
# # #
5
#
55
56
#
#
#
7
4
ð
%a
Ú
r
â
#³
Projects
Bridge Improvement
Interchange
Intersection Improvement
Rail Crossing Improvement
Signal Improvement
Other Improvement
New Facility
Realignment
Reconstruction
Widen
Other Improvement
16
3
#
##
13
62 71
# 19 #
54 %a # #
## 23
72
#
89 #
2
30 #
##
# 5#
# 18 # %a #
#
##
Label corresponds to project number
on jurisdiction's constrained project list
W
N
S
E
37
45
25
38
41
24
#
# #
39 # #
# # #
95 #
11
#
# ## # 32
#
#
#
#
29 9 # 94 85
#
31
#
0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles
Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, December 2000
1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Miles

The 2023 Long-Range Plan Highway List for Hanover County
($000)
INTERSTATE
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
5 I-95 Interchange at Atlee-Elmont New Facility (2L) NA $59,868 $40,400 $19,468
54 I-95 Interchange at Lewistown Rd. Upgrade cloverleaf NA $3,500 $3,500
INTERSTATE TOTAL 0.00 $63,368 $40,400 $22,968
PRIMARY
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
9 Mechanicsville Tnpk (US 360) I-295 Winbrook Ln Widen to 8 lanes 1.26 $3,600 $800 $2,800
11 Mechanicsville Tnpk (US 360) Winbrook Ln Walnut Grove Rd (Rt. 615) Widen to 6 lanes 2.94 $8,300 $1,800 $6,500
13 Mountain Rd (US 33)-REVISED Ashland Road Henrico CL Widen to 4 Lanes 3.30 $11,300 $11,300 $0
16 Pouncey Tract Rd (VA 271) Ashland Rd (Rt. 623) Rockville Rd (Rt. 622) Reconstruction 2.90 $4,209 $3,796 $413
18 Washington Hwy (US 1) Sliding Hill Rd (Rt. 656) Cedar Lane (Rt. 623) Widen to 6 Lanes 0.51 $2,221 $2,021 $200
19 Washington Hwy (US 1) Cedar Lane (Rt. 623) Ashland C.L. Widen to 6 Lanes 2.56 $3,300 $200 $3,100
55 Mountain Rd. (Rt. 33) Ashland Rd. (Rt. 623) Patrick Henry Rd. (Rt. 54) Widen to 4 lanes 7.33 $19,200 $19,200
56 Patrick Henry Rd. (Rt. 54) Mountain Road Ashland T.L. Reconstruction 12.00 $12,000 $12,000
PRIMARY TOTAL 32.80 $64,130 $19,917 $44,213
SECONDARY
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
23 Ashcake Rd. Ext. Virginia Precast Rd (Rt 812) New Ashcake Rd (Rt. 643) New Facility (2L) 1.50 $1,650 $1,650
25 Atlee Station Rd (Rt. 637) Sliding Hill Rd (Rt. 656) Chamberlayne Rd (US 301) Reconstruction 3.80 $10,500 $10,500 $0
29 Bell Creek Rd South Mechanicsville Tnpk (US 360) Rt. 642 (S of US 360) Reconstruction 0.30 $8,200 $1,000 $7,200
30 Cedar Ln Ext. 0.2 mi W of Washington Hwy (US 1) Lakeridge Pkwy (Rt. 782) New Facility (2L) 0.80 $1,678 $1,678
31 Creighton Rd (Rt. 615) Henrico C.L Cold Harbor Rd (VA 156) Widen to 4 Lanes 1.30 $2,985 $310 $2,675
32 Creighton Rd Ext. Cold Harbor Rd (VA 156) Mechanicsville Tnpk (US 360) New Facility (2L) 1.14 $3,009 $2,000 $1,009
37 Lakeridge Pkwy Reloc. (Rt. 782) Sliding Hill Rd Reloc. Lakeridge Pkwy (Rt. 782) New Facility 0.74 $859 $859 $0
39 Pole Green Rd (Rt. 627) I-295 Walnut Grove Rd (Rt. 615) Widen 4 lane divided 4.17 $5,888 $2,000 $3,888
41 Richfood Rd Connector Meadowbridge Rd (Rt. 627) Mechanicsville Tnpk (US 360) New Facility (2L) 3.10 $1,848 $1,848
71 Ashcake Rd. (Rt. 657) I-95 Little Egypt Rd. (Rt. 671) Widen to 4 lanes divided 2.20 $11,300 $11,300
72 Lewistown Rd. (Rt. 802) I-95 Ashcake Rd (Rt. 657) Widen to 4 lanes divided 0.50 $2,600 $2,600
85 Walnut Grove Rd. (Rt. 636) Creighton Rd. (Rt. 615) Colts Neck Rd. (Rt. 1507) Widen to 4 lanes divided 1.90 $2,000 $2,000
94 Lee Davis Rd. (Rt. 643) Walnut Grove Rte. 360 Widen to 4 lanes divided 1.00 $2,500 $2,500 $0
95 Lee Davis Rd. (Rt. 643) Rte. 360 Pole Green Road Widen to 4 lanes divided 2.00 $5,000 $5,000 $0
PRIVATE $35,847
SECONDARY TOTAL 24.45 60,016 24,169 35,847
COUNTY TOTAL 57.25
Hanover 6/21/01

REGIONAL STP:
RSTP (SECONDARY)
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
24 Atlee Rd Ext. Chamberlayne Rd (US 301) 0.25 mi W Cool Spring Rd New Facility (2L) 0.40 $440 $0 $440
33 Creighton Rd Ext. Mechanicsville Tnpk (US 360) Pole Green Rd (Rt. 627) New Facility (2L) 1.50 $1,650 $0 $1,650
38 Meadowbridge Rd (Rt. 627) Henrico C.L. Shady Grove Rd (Rt. 640) Widen to 5 Lanes 2.09 $3,112 $3,112 $0
45 Sliding Hill Rd (Rt. 656) Washington Hwy (US 1) Sliding Hill Rd Reloc. Widen to 4 Lanes 1.15 $1,480 $0 $1,480
47 Sliding Hill Rd (Rt. 656) Atlee Station Rd (Rt. 637) New Ashcake Rd (Rt. 643) Widen to 4 Lanes 1.20 $6,990 $1,657 $5,333
RSTP TOTAL 6.34 $13,672 $4,769 $8,903
P/L (SECONDARY)
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
96 Telegraph Road (Rt. 633) Sliding Hill Road Henrico C.L. New Facility (4L) 0.50 $2,000 $2,000 $0
97 Johnson Road Ext. Rte. 1 Lakeridge Parkway New Facility (2L) 0.50 $800 $800 $0
98 Lakeridge Parkway 1.29 N. of Lakeridge Parkway 1 mile N. of Lewistown Rd. New Facility (2L) 2.25 $2,000 $2,000 $0
P/L Total 3.25 $4,800 $4,800 $0
Hanover 6/21/01

The 2023 Long-Range Plan Highway List for Hanover County
($000)
VISION:
VISION (INTERSTATE)
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
1 I-95 Henrico C.L. Sliding Hill Rd (Rt. 656) Widen to 8 Lanes 0.25 $928 $928
2 I-95 Sliding Hill Rd (Rt. 656) Lewistown Rd (Rt. 802) Widen to 8 Lanes 2.65 $9,838 $9,838
3 I-95 Lewistown Rd (Rt. 802) Ashcake Rd (Rt. 657) Widen to 8 Lanes 0.93 $3,453 $3,453
4 I-95 Ashcake Rd (Rt. 657) Ashland C.L. Widen to 8 Lanes 1.11 $4,083 $4,083
52 I-95 Patrick Henry Rd (Rt. 54) Kings Dominion Blvd (R 30) Widen to 8 lanes 4.85 $16,000 $16,000
53 I-95 Kings Dominion Blvd (R. 30) Caroline Co. Line Widen to 8 lanes 3.17 $12,400 $12,400
Vision Total 12.96 $46,703 $46,703
VISION (PRIMARY)
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
6 Chamberlayne Rd (US 301) Atlee Station Rd (Rt. 637) New Ashcake Rd (Rt. 643) Widen to 6 lanes 2.51 $0 $0 $0
7 King's Dominion Blvd (VA 30) Washington Hwy (US 1) I-95 Widen to 4 lanes divided 0.67 $1,843 $0 $1,843
66 W. Patrick Henry (Rt. 54) Scotchtown Rd. (Rt. 681) Elmont Rd. (Rt. 626) Widen to 4 lanes divided 7.11 $0 $0
76 E. Patrick Henry Rd (US 54) Ashland CL Hanover Courthouse Rd. (US301) Widen to 4 lanes divided 3.50 $11,800 $11,800
80 Hanover Courthouse Rd. (US 301) Caroline CL Whippoorwill Rd. (Rt. 653) Widen to 4 lanes divided 7.10 $18,600 $18,600
88 Cold Harbor Rd. (Rt.156) Market Rd. (Rt. 630) Henrico CL Widen to 4 lanes divided 0.50 $2,600 $2,600
92 Mechanicsville Trpke. (US 360) Henrico CL Elm Dr (Rt 1108) Widen to 6 lanes divided 0.40 $0 $0
93 Mechanicsville Trpke. (US 360) Cold Harbor Rd. Bell Creek Rd (Rt. 642) Widen to 6 lanes divided 1.00 $0 $0
99 Cold Harbor Rd. (Rt.156) Rte. 360 Lee Davis Road Widen to 6 lanes divided 2.80 $5,000 $5,000
Vision Primary Total 25.59 $39,843 $0 $39,843
VISION (SECONDARY)
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
20 Ashcake Rd (Rt. 657) Blanton Rd (Rt. 666) Elmont Rd (Rt. 626) Widen to 4 lanes 0.00 $0 $0
21 Ashcake Rd (Rt. 657)-REVISE Elmont Rd (Rt. 626) Center Street Road Widen to 4 lanes 0.00 $0 $0
22 Ashcake Rd (Rt. 657) Ashland C.L. I-95 Widen to 4 lanes 0.00 $0 $0
28 Bell Creek Rd Relocated (Rt. 642) Rt. 642 (N of US 360) Pole Green Rd (Rt. 627) New Facility 0.00 $0 $0
35 Elm Drive Ext. Mechanicsville Tnpk (US 360) Creighton Rd (Rt. 615) New Facility 0.00 $0 $0
40 Pole Green Rd (Rt. 627) Walnut Grove Rd (Rt. 615) Mechanicsville Tnpk (US 360) Widen 4 lane divided 2.23 $6,133 $0 $6,133
42 Richfood Rd Ext. Existing Richfood Rd Meadowbridge Rd (Rt. 627) New Facility 0.00 $0 $0
43 Sandy Valley Rd (Rt. 635) Creighton Rd (Rt. 615) Beulah Church Rd (Rt. 633) Widen to 4 lanes 0.00 $0 $0
Hanover 6/21/01

44 Sandy Valley Rd (Rt. 635) Beulah Church Rd (Rt. 633) Beatties Mill Rd (Rt. 634) Widen to 4 lanes 0.00 $0 $0
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
60 Linderwood Dr. Ext.(Rt. 1217) Atlee Station Rd. (Rt. 637) New Ashcake Rd. (Rt. 643) New 2 lane facility 0.00 $0 $0
63 Verdon Rd. (Rt. 684) Beaverdam Rd. (Rt. 715) Washington Hwy (US 1) Widen to 4 lanes divided 12.70 $0 $0
65 Rockville Rd (Rt. 622) Franklin Hills La. Goochland CL Widen to 4 lanes divided 1.10 $0 $0
67 Howards Mill Rd. (Rt. 673) Rocky Mill La. Henrico CL Widen to 4 lanes divided 2.50 $0 $0
68 Ashland Rd. (Rt. 623) Henrico CL Cauthorne Rd. Widen to 4 lanes divided 0.00 $0 $0
69 Ashland Rd. (Rt. 623) Greenwood Rd. (Rt. 625) Blanton Rd. (Rt. 666) Widen to 4 lanes divided 0.00 $0 $0
70 Greenwood Rd. (Rt. 625) Winns Church Rd. (Rt. 660) Henrico CL Widen to 4 lanes divided 1.70 $0 $0
74 Cedar La. (Rt. 623) Elmont Rd. (Rt 626) Washington Hwy (US 1) Widen to 4 lanes divided 1.80 $9,200 $9,200
75 Old Washington Hwy. (Rt. 626) Cedar La. (Rt. 623) Henrico CL Widen to 4 lanes divided 0.80 $0 $0
77 Sliding Hill Rd. (Rt. 656) E. Patrick Henry Rd. (US54) New Ashcake Rd (Rt. 643) Widen to 4 lanes divided 6.60 $34,000 $34,000
83 Shady Grove Rd. (Rt. 640) Studley Rd. (Rt. 606) I-295 Widen to 4 lanes divided 1.40 $7,200 $7,200
87 Crown Hill Rd. (Rt 632) Cold Harbor Rd. Old Church Rd. (Rt. 606) Widen to 4 lanes divided 5.20 $0 $0
89 Lakeridge Prkwy. (Rt. 782) Sliding Hill Rd. (Rt. 656) Terminus Widen to 4 lanes divided 1.50 $7,700 $7,700
90 Atlee Rd. (Rt.638) Chamberlayne Ave. Cold Harbor Rd. (Rt. 156) Widen to 4 lanes divided 3.90 $20,000 $20,000
91 Rural Point Rd.(Rt 643) Chamberlayne Ave. Pole Green Rd (Rt. 627) Widen to 4 lanes divided 4.80 $24,600 $24,600
97 Johnson Road Extension Rte. 1 Lakeridge Parkway Widen to 4 lanes 0.50 $500 $500
98 Lakeridge Prkwy. (Rt. 782) 1.29 N. of Lakeridge Parkway 1 mile N. of Lewistown Road Widen to 4 lanes divided 2.25 $1,000 $1,000
100 Walnut Grove Road Cold Harbor Rd. Rte. 360 Widen to 4 lanes divided 3.00 $7,000 $7,000
101 Lakeridge Prkwy. (Rt. 782) Lakeridge Prkway 1.29 N. of Lakeridge Parkway New Facility (4 lanes divided) 1.29 $2,000 $2,000
102 Lakeridge Prkwy. (Rt. 782) 1 mile N. of Lewistown Road Ashcake Road New Facility (4 lanes divided) 0.80 $1,000 $1,000
Vision Total 54.07 $120,333 $0 $120,333
Hanover 6/21/01

Henrico County
ð
%a
Ú
r
â
#³
Projects
73 74
# #
51
#
# #
# 62
13
#
65
85
%a
40 # #
#
# ð#
42
108
#
%a
83
103
63
#
#
# 6 41
69
# ð #
# # 64
#
# #
#
# 75
44
76
94 59 82 #
#
100
52
# ð
#
77 #
58
78
# # #
# 56
53
54 # 100
#
# # 70 # # 105
#
#
# #
39
# 3
91
Ú # # %a #
90
# #
88 89
79
#
# # #
37
20
92
61 # 106 #
#
#
# 99
#
#
107
21
32 33
#
#
#
95 34
22
96 # %a # 7
4
#
45 23
5
# # # ##
%a #
102
# #
36
46
47 #
#
# 86
87
72
#
# # 48
25
93
# 10
%a # %a #
25
# 12 # #
24 # 86
49
# 26
27
# #
11
# 28
# 29
#
Bridge Improvement
Interchange
Intersection Improvement
Rail Crossing Improvement
Signal Improvement
Other Improvement
New Facility
Realignment
Reconstruction
Widen
Other Improvement
Label corresponds to project number
on jurisdiction's constrained project list
W
N
S
E
30
#
31
#
Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, December 2000
1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Miles

The 2023 Long-Range Plan Highway List for Henrico County
($000)
INTERSTATE
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
3 I-64 Staples Mill Rd (US 33) Richmond C.L. Widen to 8 Lanes 0.92 $10,225 $3,000 $7,225
4 I-64 Airport Dr (VA 156) I-295 Widen to 6 Lanes 3.15 $20,525 $12,325 $8,200
5 I-64 I-295 New Kent C.L. Widen to 8 Lanes 3.53 $19,265 $8,585 $10,680
6 I-64 Bridge at Cox Rd Rehabilitation (4L) NA $11,000 $0 $11,000
7 I-64 Interchange at Laburnum Ave Modification NA $2,831 $0 $2,831
10 I-295 Interchange at Charles City Rd New Facility NA $8,800 $0 $8,800
85 I-64 at N. Gayton Rd Extension New Interchange NA $25,000 $0 $25,000
100 I-95 Richmond CL Parham Rd. Widen to 8 lanes 3.25 $18,500 $0 $18,500
102 I-64 Interchange At I-64 E. of Richmond Modification NA $13,401 $13,401 $0
103 I-64 Interchange At I-295 W. of Richmond Modification NA $10,500 $10,500 $0
105 I-95 Hermitage Road Ramps Dumbarton Road Modification NA $4,680 $0 $4,680
108 I-64 1.0 km W Rt 295(Short PumP) Goochland CL Widen to 6 Lanes NA NA $0
INTERSTATE TOTAL 10.85 $144,727 $47,811 $96,916
PRIMARY
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
13 Brook Rd (US 1) Hanover C.L. I-295 Widen to 6 lanes 1.54 $9,438 $6,925 $2,513
18 John Rolfe Pkwy Ridgefield Pkwy Broad St (US 250) New Facility 3.00 $18,000 $18,000
20 Laburnum Ave Mechanicsville Tnpk (US 360) Creighton Rd (VA 615) Widen to 6 lanes 1.67 $14,402 $14,402
21 Laburnum Ave Creighton Rd (VA 615) Nine Mile Rd (VA 33) Widen to 6 lanes 1.27 $10,953 $10,953
22 Laburnum Ave Nine Mile Rd (VA 33) I-64 Widen to 6 lanes 0.72 $6,210 $6,210
23 Laburnum Ave I-64 Williamsburg Rd (US 60) Widen to 6 lanes 1.11 $9,572 $9,572
25 New Market Rd (VA 5) New Osborne Tpk Laburnum Ave Widen to 4 Lanes 2.42 $16,184 $16,184
26 New Market Rd (VA 5) Laburnum Ave Mill Rd Widen to 4 Lanes 1.85 $1,236 $1,236
27 New Market Rd (VA 5) Mill Rd Strath Rd Widen to 4 Lanes 0.38 $254 $254
28 New Market Rd (VA 5) Strath Rd I-295 Widen to 4 Lanes 0.99 $661 $661
29 New Market Rd (VA 5) I-295 Kingsland Rd Widen to 4 Lanes 1.52 $10,166 $10,166
30 New Market Rd (VA 5) Kingsland Rd Willis Church Rd (VA 156) Widen to 4 Lanes 2.97 $19,864 $19,864
31 New Market Rd (VA 5) Willis Church Rd (VA 156) Charles City C.L. Widen to 4 Lanes 1.72 $4,730 $4,730
32 Nine Mile Rd (VA 33) I-64 Masonic Home Ln Widen to 6 Lanes 0.99 $8,106 $8,106
33 Nine Mile Rd (VA 33) Masonic Home La Laburnum Ave Widen to 6 Lanes 0.46 $3,967 $3,967
36 Osborne Tnpk (VA 5) Richmond C.L. New Osborne Tpk Widen to 4 Lanes 1.45 $9,698 $9,698
37 Patterson Ave (VA 6) Parham Rd Forest Ave Widen to 6 Lanes 0.95 $8,193 $8,193
39 Patterson Ave (VA 6) Interchange at Parham Rd New Facility NA $33,000 $33,000
40 Pouncey Tract Rd (VA 271) Bridge at I-64 Rehabilitation (4L) 0.99 $9,559 $9,559
41 Springfield Rd (VA 157) Broad St (US 250) Hungary Rd Widen to 4 Lanes 0.63 $3,322 $3,322
42 Springfield Rd (VA 157) Hungary Rd Nuckols Rd Widen to 4 Lanes 0.94 $4,983 $4,983
44 Pemberton Rd (VA 157) Bridge at I-64 Rehabilitation NA $1,672 $1,672
Henrico 6/21/01

Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
45 Williamsburg Rd (US 60) E.C.L. Richmond Charles City Rd Widen to 4 Lanes 0.96 $6,420 $6,420
46 Williamsburg Rd (US 60) Charles City Rd Glen Alden Dr Widen to 4 Lanes 1.03 $6,888 $6,888
87 Williamsburg Rd (US 60) Route 156 New Kent CL 4 lane divided facility 2.00 $6,800 $6,800
88 Patterson Ave (Rt. 6) Goochland CL Pump Rd. Widen to 6 Lanes 1.04 $6,000 $6,000
89 Patterson Ave (Rt. 6) Pump Rd. Parham Rd. Widen to 6 Lanes 2.25 $12,800 $12,800
107 Huguenot Bridge Westham Station Rd. Richmond C.L. Bridge Rehabilitation 1.00 $25,000 $25,000
PRIMARY TOTAL 35.84 $268,077 $6,925 $261,152
SECONDARY
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
47 Charles City Rd Williamsburg Rd (US 60) Laburnum Ave Widen to 4 Lanes 1.82 $12,261 $12,261
48 Charles City Rd Laburnum Ave I-295 Widen to 4 Lanes 2.42 $14,001 $14,001
49 Charles City Rd I-295 Gill Dale Rd Widen to 4 Lanes 2.40 $15,941 $15,941
51 N. Gayton Rd Extension Broad St (US 250) Pouncey Tract Rd (VA 271) New Facility (4L) 1.33 $5,558 $5,558
52 Gayton Rd Lauderdale Dr Ridgefield Pkwy Widen to 4 Lanes 0.57 $3,812 $3,812
53 Gayton Rd Ridgefield Pkwy Pump Rd Widen to 4 Lanes 2.50 $16,719 $16,719
54 Gayton Rd Pump Rd Quioccasin Rd / Gayton Rd Widen to 4 Lanes 0.61 $4,080 $4,080
56 Hermitage Rd Woodman Rd Hilliard Rd (VA 356) Widen to 4 Lanes 0.23 $1,539 $1,539
58 Hungary Spring Rd Skipwith Rd Yardley Rd Widen to 4 Lanes 0.34 $2,274 $2,274
59 Hungary Spring Rd W Broad St (US 250) Staples Mill Rd (US 33) Widen to 4 Lanes 1.50 $3,739 $3,279 $460
61 Laburnum Ave Richmond C.L. Carolina Ave Widen to 6 Lanes 1.27 $4,449 $2,970 $1,479
62 Mountain Rd Staples Mill Rd (US 33) Woodman Rd Widen to 4 Lanes 3.17 $17,196 $17,196
63 Mountain Rd Woodman Rd Greenwood Rd (VA 625) Widen to 4 Lanes 1.29 $6,997 $6,997
64 Mountain Rd Greenwood Rd (VA 625) Brook Rd (US 1) Widen to 4 Lanes 0.90 $3,819 $3,819
65 Nuckols Rd Cox Rd Springfield Rd (VA 157) Widen to 4 Lanes 0.76 $2,849 $1,879 $970
69 Pump Rd S of Church Rd N of Church Rd Modification NA $0 PART OF $0
70 Quioccasin Rd Pemberton Rd (VA 157) Blue Jay Ln Widen to 4 Lanes 0.37 $2,458 $1,749 $709
72 Seven Hills Blvd Ext. Laburnum Ave Charles City Rd Widen to 4 Lanes 1.17 $2,203 $2,203
73 Shady Grove Rd Pouncey Tract Rd (VA 271) Shady Grove Rd Ext. Widen to 4 Lanes 0.52 $2,174 $2,174
74 Shady Grove Rd Ext. Shady Grove Rd Nuckols Rd New Facility (4L) 1.14 $4,765 $4,765
75 Three Chopt Rd Three Chopt Ext. Cox Rd Widen to 4 Lanes 0.68 $4,547 $4,547
76 Three Chopt Rd Cox Rd Gaskins Rd Widen to 4 Lanes 0.72 $2,162 $1,762 $400
77 Three Chopt Rd Gaskins Rd Pemberton Rd (VA 157) Widen to 4 Lanes 0.40 $3,812 $3,812
78 Three Chopt Rd Pemberton Rd (VA 157) Parham Rd Widen to 4 Lanes 1.33 $8,895 $8,895
79 Three Chopt Rd Horsepen Rd Richmond C.L. Widen to 6 Lanes 0.17 $1,466 $1,466
82 Woodman Rd Parham Rd Hermitage Rd Widen to 4 Lanes 1.59 $10,634 $10,634
83 Woodman Rd Mountain Rd Hungary Rd Widen to 4 Lanes 1.59 $3,972 $3,972
84 Woodman Rd. Ext. Greenwood Rd (VA 625) Jeb Stuart Pkway New Facility 1.50 $0 $0
90 Carolina Avenue Laburnum Avenue Richmond/Henrico Trnpk. Widen to 5 lanes 1.60 $5,600 $861 $4,739
91 Richmond/Henrico Trnpk Laburnum Avenue Azalea Ave. Widen to 5 lanes 1.30 $8,000 $8,000
Henrico 6/21/01

Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
92 Parham Road Derbyshire Rd. Three Chopt Rd. Widen to 6 lanes 1.80 $10,300 $10,300
93 Darbytown Rd Laburnum Avenue Monahan Rd. Widen to 4 lanes 1.50 $9,300 $9,300
94 Mayland Dr. Pemberton (VA 157) Parham Rd. New 4 lane facility 0.20 $930 $930 $0
95 Masonic Home La. Nine Mile Rd. (Rt. 33) Brittles la Widen to 4 lanes 0.46 $2,800 $2,800
96 Brittles Lane Masonic Home Ln. Williamsburg Rd. (US 60) Widen to 4 lanes 1.09 $11,700 $11,700
99 Creighton Rd Richmond CL Laburnum Ave Widen to 4 lanes 1.70 $10,500 $10,500
106 Creighton Rd Hanover CL 1.0 M W Hanover CL Widen to 4 lanes 1.00 $5,654 $5,654 $0
109 Richmond/Henrico Trnpk Azalea Ave. Hanover CL Widen to 4 lanes 1.16 $4,943 $4,943 $0
110 Dabbs House Road Nine Mile Rd. (Rt. 33) Creighton Road Widen to 4 Lanes 1.63 $4,727 $4,727
111 Saddler Road Dominion Blvd. Wonder Road Widen to 4 Lanes 1.08 $7,200 $7,200
112 Saddler Road Wonder Road Cedar Forest Road Reconstruction 0.74 $2,900 $2,900
113 White Oak Road Route 156 Route 60 Reconstruction 2.18 $6,325 $6,325
PRIVATE $45,750
SECONDARY TOTAL 49.73 $253,200 $24,027 $229,173
COUNTY TOTAL 96.42
PRIVATE/LOCAL PROJECTS:
P/L (INTERSTATE)
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
11 I-895 Chesterfield C.L. Laburnum Ave Conn. New Facility (4L) 2.30 $0 $0
12 I-895 Laburnum Ave Conn. I-295 New Facility (4L) 5.10 $0 $12,000 $0
86 I-895 Connector Extension I-64* I-895/Darbytown Rd. New 4 lane facility 0.00 $60,000 $0
*Connection at I-64 currently under review
P/L (PRIMARY)
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
24 Laburnum Ave Conn. I-895 Laburnum Ave New Facility (4L) 0.60 PPTA PPTA
P/L (SECONDARY)
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
114 Cedar Fork Extended New Cedar Fork Rd. Laburnum Ave Widen to 4 lanes NA $0 $0
Henrico 6/21/01

Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
The 2023 Long-Range Plan Highway List for Henrico County
($000)
VISION:
VISION (INTERSTATE)
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
1 I-64 Broad St (US 250) Dickens Rd Widen to 8 Lanes 0.83 $3,945 $3,945
2 I-64 Dickens Rd Staples Mill Rd (US 33) Widen to 8 Lanes 0.76 $3,611 $3,611
8 I-95 Hanover C.L. I-295 Widen to 8 Lanes 1.65 $7,841 $7,841
9 I-95 I-295 Parham Rd (VA 73) Widen to 8 Lanes 1.50 $7,128 $7,128
101 I-64 Broad Street (Rt. 250) I-295 Widen to 8 lanes 0.00 $0 $0
4.74 $22,525 $22,525
VISION (PRIMARY)
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
15 Brook Rd (US 1) Parham Rd (VA 73) Wilkinson Rd Widen to 6 lanes 0.48 $4,140 $4,140
16 Brook Rd (US 1) Wilkinson Rd Hilliard Rd (VA 161) Widen to 6 lanes 0.73 $6,295 $6,295
17 Brook Rd (US 1) Hilliard Rd (VA 161) I-95 Widen to 6 lanes 0.74 $6,382 $6,382
34 Nine Mile Rd (VA 33) Laburnum Ave Airport Dr (VA 156) Widen to 6 Lanes 3.37 $29,063 $29,063
35 Nine Mile Rd (VA 33) Airport Dr (VA 156) Williamsburg Rd (US 60) Widen to 4 Lanes 1.58 $10,568 $10,568
38 Patterson Ave (VA 6) Forest Ave Richmond C.L. Widen to 6 Lanes 0.96 $8,279 $8,279
43 Springfield Rd (VA 157) Francistown Rd Staples Mill Rd (US 33) Widen to 4 Lanes 0.25 $1,672 $1,672
8.11 $66,399 $66,399
VISION (SECONDARY)
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
55 Glenside Dr Horsepen Rd Forest Ave Widen to 6 lanes 0.46 $3,967 $3,967
57 Horsepen Rd Three Chopt Rd Glenside Dr Widen to 6 Lanes 0.23 $1,984 $1,984
66 Nuckols Rd. Ext. Springfield Rd (VA 157) Francistown Rd. New Facility (4L) 1.02 $6,827 $6,827
67 Nuckols Rd. Ext. Francistown Rd. Staples Mill Rd (US 33) New Facility (4L) 0.83 $5,551 $5,551
97 Springfield Rd Opaca Ln. Ext. Francistown Rd. Widen to 4 lanes 0.18 $1,100 $1,100
98 Springfield Extn. Nuckols Rd. Francistown Rd. New 4 lane facility 2.25 $18,500 $18,500
4.97 $37,928 $37,928
Henrico 6/21/01

New Kent County
#
9
ð
%a
Ú
r
â
#³
Projects
Bridge Improvement
Interchange
Intersection Improvement
Rail Crossing Improvement
Signal Improvement
Other Improvement
New Facility
Realignment
Reconstruction
Widen
Other Improvement
1
1
%a
# # #³ #
4
%a
#
11
5
8
#
10
Label corresponds to project number
on jurisdiction's constrained project list
#
6
#
W
N
S
E
#
2
7
#
#
12
#
Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, December 2000
1 0 1 2 3 4 Miles

The 2023 Long-Range Plan Highway List for New Kent County
($000)
INTERSTATE
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
1 I-64 New Kent C.L. New Kent Hwy (VA 249) Widen to 8 Lanes (Inc. interchg mod at 249) 1.77 $4,816 $2,146 $2,670
2 I-64 New Kent Hwy (VA 249) N Courthouse Rd (VA 155) Widen to 6 Lanes 9.25 $40,286 $6,415 $33,871
12 I-64 N Courthouse Rd (VA155) Diascund Creek Widen to 6 Lanes 1.95 $10,619 $626 $9,993
INTERSTATE TOTAL 12.97 $55,721 $9,187 $46,534
PRIMARY
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
4 Pocahontas Tr (US 60) US 60 and VA 33 Grade Separation Reconstruction NA $1,200 $677 $523
7 Route 106 Charles City CL Route 249 Reconstruct to improved 2 lane 5.70 $7,000 $7,000
11 Route 33 Route 60 I-64 Widen to 6 lanes 0.40 $1,500 $1,500
PRIMARY TOTAL 6.10 $9,700 $677 $9,023
SECONDARY
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
5 Dispatch Rd (Rt. 613) Interchange at Quaker Rd (Rt. 611) Modification NA $286 $286
6 Rt. 612 Quinton Rd (Rt. 640) New Kent Hwy (VA 249) Reconstruction 3.25 $2,750 $2,750
8 Route 611 Route 613 Route 249 Reconstruct to improved 2 lane 0.13 $1,265 $1,265
9 Route 613 Hanover County Line Route 611/Route 249 Reconstruct to improved 2 lane 3.50 $4,500 $4,500
10 Route 665 Route 611 Route 640 Reconstruct to improved 2 lane 3.00 $3,800 $3,800
9.88 $12,601 $12,601
New Kent 6/21/01

9
#
8
Ú
Powhatan County
18
Ú#
17
Ú
#
20
22
1
#
1
%a #
#
16
#
13
W
N
S
E
15
#
#
ð
14
#
21
Ú
19
6
#
#
5
#
#
#
1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles
#
Label corresponds to project number
on jurisdiction's constrained project list
ð
%a
Ú
r
â
#³
Projects
Bridge Improvement
Interchange
Intersection Improvement
Rail Crossing Improvement
Signal Improvement
Other Improvement
New Facility
Realignment
Reconstruction
Widen
Other Improvement
Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, December 2000

The 2023 Long-Range Plan Highway List for Powhatan County
($000)
PRIMARY
Estimated Cost (x $1,000)
Improvement Distance Total Previous Balance to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
1 VA 288 Goochland C.L. Chesterfield C.L. New Facility (6L) (inc. new interg. At 711) 2.38 $53,555 $6,313 $47,242
PRIMARY TOTAL 2.38 $53,555 $6,313 $47,242
SECONDARY
Estimated Cost (x $1,000)
Improvement Distance Total Previous Balance to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
5 Bradbury Rd (Rt. 672) Moseley Rd (Rt. 605) 1.1 mi N Moseley Rd (Rt. 605) Reconstruction (2L) 1.10 $387 $313 $74
6 Genito Rd (Rt. 604) Dorset Rd (Rt. 622) 1.15 mi E Dorset Rd (Rt. 622) Reconstruction (2L) 1.15 $1,777 $1,523 $254
9 Lee's Landing Rd (Rt. 628) Three Bridge Rd (Rt. 615) Huguenot Tr (Rt. 711) Reconstruction (2L) 1.00 $1,045 $1,045
13 Page Rd (Rt. 675) James Anderson Hwy W (US 60) James Anderson Hwy E (US 60) Reconstruction (2L) 2.00 $1,610 $545 $1,065
14 Petersburg Rd (Rt. 603) Pilkington Rd (Rt. 639) 2.7 mi N Pilkington Rd (Rt. 639) Reconstruction (2L) 2.70 $1,305 $405 $900
15 Rocky Ford Rd (Rt. 603) Genito Rd (Rt. 604) Old Buckingham Rd (VA 13) Reconstruction (2L) 6.40 $6,710 $6,710
16 Huguenot Trail (Rt. 711) Rt. 288 Chesterfield CL Widen to 4 lanes 1.20 $7,808 $7,808
17 Academy Road (Rt. 603) at Three Bridge Road Intersection Improvement NA $420 $127 $293
20 Judes Ferry Rd. (Rt. 614) at Rt. 1229 at Rt. 1230 Intersection Improvements NA $175 $175
21 Petersburg Rd. (Rt. 603) at Butterwood Creek Bridge Replacement NA $330 $30 $300
22 Huguenot Trail (Rt. 711) Rt. 628 Chesterfield CL Install Guardrails 9.96 $55 $55
SECONDARY TOTAL 25.51 $21,622 $2,943 $18,679
COUNTY TOTAL 27.89
REGIONAL STP:
RSTP (SECONDRY)
Estimated Cost (x $1,000)
Improvement Distance Total Previous Balance to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
8 Huguenot Tr (Rt. 711) Intersection at Judes Ferry Rd (Rt. 614) Modification NA $716 $118 $598
18 Rocky Ford Rd.(Rt. 603) at Route 13 Intersection Improvement NA $440 $440 $0
19 Dorset Road (Rt. 622) at Shroeder Rd. Intersection Improvement NA $440 $440 $0
$1,596 $998 $598
Powhatan 6/21/01

Label corresponds to project number
on jurisdiction's constrained project list
r
40
118
Citywide Projects
99 Light Rail on Broad Street
100 James River Greenway
110 Grove Ave / Cary St - Signal Enhancements
131 Downtown Signal System
132 Bus Shelters / Benches / Trash Cans
134 Traffic System Management System
135 Signalization Enhancements
136 Signal System Upgrade
140 - Bicycle Facilites
93
103
64
ð
36 ð
%a ðr
rr r
19 82 23
Ú
42
33
77
34 121
123
â
115 122
ð â
â 18 81
38 117
124 â 114
#³ %a 116
125
%a
%a ð
24
129
rð
#³
ð â
ð ð 26 57
88
8
101 133 ð
105 113
111 #³ %a
32 36
106
41
20
46
22
48
8
137
ð
92
62
91
94
103
95
36
ð
Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, December 2000
W
98
59
N
S
102
E
47
71
75
36
ðr
52
120
â
40
83
1
40
86
%a
36
79
58
3
%a 11
ð
109
9 17
ð 7ð%a
ðð ð
ð 14
6
9
139
13 139 23
rr
12 138
ð
139 ð
56
Úð%a
r 139
rr r
77
â
ð â
â
#³ %a
ð
r
%a#³
ð ð
ð â
#³ ð%a
126 57
49
71
60
66
72
84
104
29 30 31
r
128
73
50
90
109
119
1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Miles
68
27
â
53
63
105
130
43
ð
r
44
127
106
111
138
16
r%a ð
89
137
61
5
ð
Richmond City
78
45
54
76
ð
ð
%a
Ú
r
â
#³
Projects
Bridge Improvement
Interchange
Intersection Improvement
Rail Crossing Improvement
Signal Improvement
Other Improvement
New Facility
Realignment
Reconstruction
Widen
Other Improvement

The 2023 Long-Range Plan Highway List for the City of Richmond
($000)
INTERSTATE
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
1 I-64 Richmond W.C.L. I-95 Widen to 8 Lanes 0.25 $1,663 $1,663
2 I-95 I-64 Hermitage Rd (VA 161) on-ramp Widen to 8 Lanes 0.91 $4,324 $4,324
3 I-95 Hermitage Rd (VA 161) on-ramp Henrico C.L. off-ramp Widen to 8 Lanes 0.10 $475 $475
5 I-95 Bridge at Bells Rd (VA 161) Rehabilitation NA $2,232 $1,417 $815
6 I-95 Bridge at Boulevard Rehabilitation NA $12,880 $12,880
7 I-95 Bridge at Boulevard Ramp Rehabilitation NA $12,880 $12,880
8 I-95 Bridge at James River & Broad St ramps Rehabilitation NA $56,961 $22,000 $34,961
141 I-95 Bridge Broad St Ramp to Upham Brook Run Rehabilitation NA $65,000 $5,000 $60,000
9 I-95 Bridge at Westwood/Hermitage Rd (VA 161), ramp Rehabilitation NA $5,434 $2,400 $3,034
11 I-95 Bridge at Laburnum Ave (VA 197) Rehabilitation NA $12,880 $12,880
12 I-95 Bridge at Lombardy St & CSX RR Rehabilitation NA $3,805 $1,305 $2,500
13 I-95 Bridge at Overbrook Rd Rehabilitation NA $12,880 $12,880
14 I-95 Bridge at Sherwood Ave Rehabilitation NA $12,880 $12,880
16 I-95 Interchange at Bellemeade Rd New Facility NA $16,500 $16,500
17 I-95 Interchange at Boulevard (VA 161) Modification NA $4,400 $4,400
18 I-95 Interchange at Broad St (US 250) and 14th St Modification NA $22,000 $22,000
19 I-95 Interchange at Duval St Modification NA $5,500 $5,500
20 I-95 Interchange at Franklin St Modification NA $1,650 $1,650
22 I-95 Interchange at Maury St Modification NA $5,500 $5,500
NA I-95 Intelligent Transportation Systems New Facility NA $2,200 $2,200
77 I-64 I-64/I-95 SE Interchange 2nd Street Widen to 8 lanes 1.92 $30,000 $30,000
78 I-64 Richmond NW CL Richmond NE CL Widen to 8 lanes 0.24 $3,000 $3,000
79 I-95 Interchange at I-95/I-64 W Modification (Option 11B) NA $45,000 $45,000
81 I-95 Interchange at I-95/Broad Street Modification NA $30,000 $30,000
INTERSTATE TOTAL 3.42 $370,044 $32,122 $337,922
URBAN
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
23 1st St Bridge over CSX RR & Bacon St Rehabilitation NA $9,352 $9,352 $0
24 7th St Interchange at Byrd St Modification NA $110 $110
25 14th St Main St (VA 147) Dock St Reconstruction (4L) 0.15 $1,000 $1,000 $0
26 14th St (US 360) Mayo Bridge Rehabilitation NA $5,500 $5,500
27 Azalea Ave Chamberlayne Ave (US 1/301) Richmond E.C.L. Widen to 6 Lanes 0.13 $1,104 $1,104
29 Bellemeade Ext. Broad Rock Rd (VA 10) Hopkins Rd (Rt. 637) New Facility (4L) 0.57 $3,813 $3,813
30 Bellemeade Ext. Hopkins Rd (Rt. 637) Cofer Rd New Facility (4L) 0.46 $3,077 $3,077
31 Bellemeade Ext. Cofer Rd Jefferson Davis Hwy (US 1/301) New Facility (4L) 0.46 $3,077 $3,077
32 Belvidere St (US 1/301) Lee Bridge Rehabilitation NA $1,200 $700 $500
33 Belvidere St (US 1/301) Intersection at Broad St (US 250) Modification NA $750 $750 $0
34 Belvidere St (US 1/301) Intersection at Marshall St Modification NA $150 $150 $0
36 Bridge Painting Belvidere St/I-195, CSX RR/Acca, Forest Hill/Rt 150, Manchester/James River Painting and rehabilitation NA $11,400 $5,700 $5,700
Richmond 6/21/01

Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
40 Broad St (US 250) Belvidere St (US 1/301) Richmond W.C.L. Rehabilitation (6L) 3.85 $9,900 $9,900
41 Broad St (US 250) Bridge at I-95 Overpass Rehabilitation NA $6,600 $6,600
42 Chamberlayne Ave (US 1/301) Leigh St (VA 33) Brook Rd Rehabilitation (6L) NA $5,500 $5,500
43 Commerce Rd Bells Rd (VA 161) Bellemeade Rd Widen to 4 Lanes 1.98 $11,443 $1,184 $10,259
44 Commerce Rd Bellemeade Rd I-95 New Facility (2L) 0.30 $1,650 $1,650
45 Darbytown Rd Williamsburg Rd (US 60) Richmond E.C.L. Widen to 4 Lanes 0.22 $1,436 $1,436
46 15th Street I-95 / Franklin Street Main Street Reconstruction NA $1,971 $326 $1,645
47 German School Rd Glenway Dr Warwick Rd Widen to 4 Lanes 1.40 $8,745 $2,512 $6,233
48 Huguenot Road Chesterfield C.L. Chippenham Pkwy (VA 150) Widen to 6 Lanes 0.13 $1,104 $1,104
49 Hull Street Rd (US 360) Elkhardt Rd (Rt. 663) Dixon Dr Widen to 6 Lanes 2.10 $7,166 $1,780 $5,386
50 Hull Street Rd (US 360) Belt Blvd 20th St Widen to 4 Lanes 1.60 $9,350 $9,350
52 Jahnke Rd (Rt. 686) Blakemore Rd Clarence St. Widen to 4 Lanes 1.26 $13,718 $100 $13,618
53 Jefferson Davis Hwy (US 1/301) Chesterman Ave Decatur St Widen to 6 Lanes 1.10 $5,949 $1,700 $4,249
54 Jennie Scher Rd Bridge at Gillies Creek Replacement NA $820 $390 $430
56 Lombardy St Broad St (US 250) Brook Rd Reconstruction (2L) 0.75 $3,300 $3,300
57 Main St (VA 147) Bridge at NS Railroad Replacement NA $9,500 $6,956 $2,544
58 Midlothian Tnpk (US 60) Broad Rock Blvd (VA 10) Belt Blvd Widen to 3 Lanes 1.31 $6,050 $6,050
59 Midlothian Tnpk (US 60) Belt Blvd Chippenham Pkwy (VA 150) Reconstruction (6L) 2.16 $10,200 $3,446 $6,754
60 Midlothian Tnpk (US 60) Interchange at Belt Blvd Modification (study) NA $400 $0 $400
61 Old Bells Rd/inc vertical Clear Deepwater Terminal Rd Under I-95 Rehabilitation NA $2,200 $2,200
62 Patterson Ave (VA 6) Henrico C.L. Three Chopt Rd Widen to 6 Lanes 0.10 $862 $862
63 Royall Ave Lynnhaven Ave Commerce Rd Reconstruction (2L) 0.50 $532 $532 $0
64 Stony Point Pkwy Existing Stony Point Pkwy to 600 ft W New Facility (6L) 0.10 $885 $343 $542
66 Walmsley Blvd (Rt. 647) Chesterfield C.L. Belmont Rd (Rt. 651) Widen to 4 Lanes 1.07 $1,440 $1,440 $0
67 Walmsley Blvd (Rt. 647) Broad Rock Blvd (VA 10) Commerce Rd Widen to 4 Lanes 3.44 $31,000 $31,000
71 Warwick Rd Midlothian Tnpk (US 60) Hull Street Rd (US 360) Widen to 4 Lanes 1.69 $12,421 $12,421 $0
72 Warwick Rd Hull Street Rd (US 360) Broad Rock Blvd (VA 10) Widen to 4 Lanes 1.20 $16,497 $16,497
73 Warwick Rd Broad Rock Blvd (VA 10) Bells Rd Widen to 4 Lanes 1.54 $13,724 $13,724 $0
75 Whitehead Rd Warwick Rd Elkhardt Rd (Rt. 663) Widen to 4 Lanes 1.19 $6,941 $704 $6,237
76 Williamsburg Rd (US 60) Government Rd (US 60) Richmond E.C.L. Widen to 4 Lanes 0.40 $3,300 $3,300
NA Gateway Enhancements Enhancements NA $3,190 $3,190
NA Signalization Greater Richmond New Facilies/Upgrades NA $4,137 $4,137
82 Broad St. (Rt. 250) 8th St 2nd Street Remove median/Reconstruct 0.37 $4,000 $4,000
83 Broad St. (Rt. 250) I-195/landscaping Staples Mill Rd (Rt. 33) Reconstruction 1.14 $9,800 $9,800
84 Forest Hill Ave (Rt. 683) Westover Hills Blvd. Semmes Ave. Widen to 4 lanes 0.08 $800 $800
86 Grant Street Boulevard Blanton Ave. Widen to 4 lanes 0.13 $1,300 $1,300
88 9th Street (Rt. 60) Manchester Bridge Semmes Ave. Reconstruction NA $2,000 $2,000
89 Meadowbridge Rd. (Rt. 627) Valley Rd/sidewalk/curb Richmond CL Reconstruction 0.92 $6,600 $6,600
90 Midlothian Tpke. (Rt. 60) Hull Street Rd (Rt. 360) Broad Rock Blvd. (Rt. 10) Widen to 4 lanes 0.44 $4,200 $4,200
93 Chippenham Pkwy (Rt. 150) Henrico CL Huguenot Rd. (Rt. 147) Widen to 6 lanes 1.43 $8,900 $8,900
94 Chippenham Pkwy (Rt. 150) Huguenot Rd. (Rt. 147) Forest Hill Ave. Widen to 6 lanes 1.51 $9,400 $9,400
95 Chippenham Pkwy (Rt. 150) Forest Hill Rd. Chesterfield CL Widen to 6 lanes 0.39 $2,500 $2,500
99 Light Rail on Broad Street Main Street Station Science Museum New Facility 2.80
100 James River Greenway Northside New Facility NA
101 Cowardin Ave Cowardin Ave Corridor Signal System NA $330 $330 $0
102 Patterson Avenue (Rt. 6) Malvern Ave. Richmond CL Signal Enhancements 3.00 $400 $400
Richmond 6/21/01

Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
103 Chippenham Pkwy (Rt. 150) Forest Hill Rd. Willey Bridge Slope Stabilization 2.75 $765 $765 $0
104 Boulevard Broad St. (Rt. 250) Westwood Ave Median Improvements 1.25 $1,601 $1,601
105 Hull Street & Bainbridge St. 20th Street 7th Street Make into one-way pair (4L) 0.70 $400 $400
106 Maury Street I-95 ramp Commerce Rd. Corridor Improvements 0.20 $525 $250 $275
108 Forest Hill Avenue Hathaway Rd. E. Junc. Powhite Pkwy Widen to 5 lanes 0.80 $6,700 $200 $6,500
109 Brook Rd/Chamberlayne Ave Azalea Ave Admiral/School St Signal Enhancements 3.25 $321 $321
110 Grove Ave/Cary St Three Chopt Rd I-95 Signal Enhancements 8.00 $500 $500
111 Commerce Rd. Bainbridge St. Gordon Ave. Signal and Channeliz. Enhanc. 0.80 $450 $430 $20
112 James River and Kanawha Can. Triple Cross Connector Enhancements NA $8,725 $8,725
113 Hull Street Pass. Station Hull St. Station Station Rehab. Into Museum NA $525 $525
114 Tredegar Visitors Center at Tredegar Visitor Center Provide map at center/Enhan. NA $150 $150
115 Main St (Rt. 147) First St. Eighth St. Upgrade signals/ped indicators NA $216 $216
116 Main St (Rt. 147) 15th Street Laurel St. Upgrade signals NA $412 $412
117 Cary St. (Rt. 147) First Street Ninth Street Upgrade signals/ped indicators NA $288 $288
118 Cary St. (Rt. 147) at Cherry Street Install new signals NA $61 $61
119 Castlewood Rd. (Rt. 161) at Bells Rd. Install new signals NA $70 $70
120 Hull St. Rd. (Rt. 360) at Derwent Rd/Hey Rd. Install new signals NA $155 $155
121 3rd Street at Grace Street Signal modernization NA $62 $62
122 7th Street at Marshall St. Signal modernization NA $62 $62
123 7th Street at Franklin Street Signal modernization NA $62 $62
124 8th Street Clay St Franklin St. Upgrade signals/ped indicators NA $202 $202
125 9th Steet Clay Street Bank Street Signal modification NA $356 $356
126 Forest Hill Ave at .04 mi S of Powhite Add RR gates/intercon w/sign. NA $100 $100
127 Bells Rd. at .07 mi E Commerce Interconnect sign. W/pre-emp. NA $20 $20
128 Broad Rock Road at .008 mi W of Rt. 161 RR Crossing improvements NA $100 $100
129 14th Street at Byrd Street RR crossing intercon. Signal NA $18 $18
130 Commerce Rd. at 0.17 mi. S of Bellemeade Install 150' median barr/ea.app. NA $27 $27
131 Downtown Signal System Signal Enhancements NA $230 $230 $0
132 Bus Shelters/benches/trashcans Citywide Enhancements $300 0 $300
133 Mayo Bridge Over James River New Rehabilitation Bridge Structure NA $40,000 0 $40,000
134 Traffic System Management System Citywide Sign Enhancement NA $2,000 0 $2,000
135 Signalization Enhancements Citywide New facilities and Enhancements NA 6137 4137 $2,000
136 Richmond Signal System Upgrade Citywide Signal Enhancements NA $8,000 0 $8,000
137 17th St. and 18th Street one-way pairs Broad Street Dock Street Enhancements NA $1,000 0 $1,000
138 Valley Street/St. James St. connection Valley Street at grade crossing St. James Street grade crossing New Facility (2L) NA $1,000 0 $1,000
139 Grade crossing improvements Main Street Station C.L. RR Crossing improvements NA $39,024 0 $39,024
140 Bicycle facilities Citywide Enhancements NA $1,000 0 $1,000
URBAN TOATAL 61.12 $424,257 $71,552 $352,705
Richmond 6/21/01

Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
The 2023 Long-Range Plan Highway List for the City of Richmond
($000)
VISION:
VISION (INTERSTATE)
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
21 I-95 Interchange at I-95/I-64 S Junction Modification NA $0 $0
VISION (URBAN)
Balance
Improvement Distance Total Previous to
Label Project Description From To Type (mi) Cost Funding Complete
96 Stoney Run Dr. Government Rd. (Rt. 60) NS Railroad Widen to 4 lanes 0.45 $3,200 $3,200
97 Three Chopt Rd. Patterson Ave (Rt. 6) Kensington Ave. Widen to 6 lanes 0.11 $836 $836
98 Three Chopt Rd. Richmond CL Patterson Ave (Rt. 6) Widen to 6 lanes 0.04 $304 $304
Richmond 6/21/01

2023 LRTP
Chapter XI
Transit Element
162

Chapter XI-Richmond Area Transit Element
Items Beyond MPO Control That, If Addressed, Could Enhance Plan
Success
! A dedicated, long-term funding source for operating expenses must be identified and
made available for Richmond area public transportation services.
! A dedicated, long-term funding source for capital improvements beyond the limited
state and federal funds must be identified and made available for Richmond area
public transportation services.
! It may be necessary to place a greater emphasis on transit provisions within
jurisdictions.
! Large private sector employers and/or large scale developments that opt for suburban
locations should be aware of, and may need to provide financial support for,
employee transportation services so that all employees will then have a reliable means
of travel to work.
! Site plans and office developments should better understand the space requirements
for transit vehicles, including turning radii and cul-de-sac size. They should also
make accommodations for transit patrons by providing transit site amenities and
locating transit stops at or near the entrance to buildings.
! Funding formula local match requirements at the state and federal level should be
changed to provide the same financial participation rates for roads and transit.
! Transit facilities and adjacent areas must be planned now to integrate pedestrian, bike,
commuter linkages, and mixed commercial, office, and residential developments.
Introduction
The Richmond area is at a cross roads when examining the future of public transportation
provision in the region. While the Greater Richmond Transit Company Systems
(GRTCS) is to be applauded for its regular appearance on the list of most efficient transit
systems in America; the residential, commercial, and office development that has
occurred in the region over the last twenty years makes efficient bus route/service
expansion difficult. The region is left with four major choices for the future of transit in
the Richmond area. The first is to maintain efficient bus service and experiment with
transit techniques such as route deviation, on-demand service and the like in selected
outlying corridors. The second is to expand GRTCS coverage in suburbs and reduce
headways. This would necessitate increased financial support from an as yet
undetermined funding source. The third is for local governments to provide incentives to
encourage more compact development around activity centers, and embrace urban and
163

older suburban (so called first ring suburbs) infill and revitalization. This would allow
GRTCS to operate more efficiently in an expanded service area by linking the highdensity
activity centers to existing transit routes. The fourth possibility is a combination
of the first two, with some areas designated for more compact development and others for
“traditional” suburban development. GRTCS would then only add services to the
compact development areas.
The benefits of compact and in-fill development are immediately recognizable for transit.
The more compact development is and the higher its density, the greater the likelihood it
can be served well by transit. Compact, mixed-use, neo-traditional, and transit-oriented
design has undergone somewhat of a rebirth in the last ten years, as many younger
couples and older “empty-nesters” prefer to live-work-shop and access other services
close to home. With several of these activity centers in an urban area, transit linkages are
reinforced. However, many residents of Richmond prefer the typical suburb and exurb
types of development. The perceived inherent risk associated with compact, mixed-use,
neo-traditional, and transit-oriented design leads both developers and their financers to
try and maintain the status quo, although neo-traditional and transit-oriented
developments in other urban areas have been shown to have a higher than average profit
margin (Source: ULI: SmartGrowth Myth and Fact).
Public Transportation Element Plan Components
There are eight recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of transit
system service and performance over the next twenty years.
! Develop a list of transit projects that will serve the Richmond area for the next twenty
years and assist in meeting the air quality, environmental justice, and requirements
mandated by federal transportation regulations and the Chesapeake 2000 agreement.
! Continue to expand the Greater Richmond Transit Company System into a “onestop”
agency for all forms of transportation. In addition, increase regional coverage
and improve headways on existing routes.
! Examine ways in which new revenue streams can be developed as a dedicated
funding source for regional public transportation services in the Richmond region.
! Develop a low cost, simple prioritization process to assist in the creation of the
MPO’s regional priority projects.
! Ensure transfers from one mode to another mode are seamless throughout the
Richmond region so that residents can make personal trips via multiple modes as
efficiently as they would by using one mode.
! Begin the analysis and planning for light rail and commuter rail by examining
population density, corridor availability, future areas of population growth targeted
for compact/in-fill development, and existing connections between modes.
164

! Prepare for changing regional demographics by developing an elderly and disabled
transportation network that can serve our projected large elderly and disabled
population.
! Improve Richmond’s linkages with communities and regions to the north, south, east,
and west by aggressively pursuing high-speed rail service and higher-speed rail
service.
Each of these components is discussed in further detail below.
Develop a list of transit projects that will serve the Richmond area for the next twenty
years and assist in meeting the air quality, environmental justice, and requirements
mandated by federal transportation regulations and the Chesapeake 2000 agreement.
The project lists and maps are contained in Figure XI-1: Map and Charts of Proposed
Transit Improvents at the end of this chapter and represent the MPO’s proposal for
development of the region’s network of public transportation services.
Continue to expand the Greater Richmond Transit Company System into a “one-stop”
agency for all forms of transportation. In addition, move away from an emphasis on a
financially-efficient transit network and instead place a priority on customer service
through increased regional coverage and improved headways on existing routes.
Currently, GRTCS provides transit service in Richmond, Henrico County, and
Chesterfield County. In addition, GRTCS has under its administrative wing Ridefinders,
the region’s ridesharing agency, and oversees contracts for elderly and disabled services.
GRTCS’s role should continue to expand and evolve by also providing real time
transportation information, personalized transportation services, downtown circulators,
bus stop amenities, and incorporate new types of service for a larger percentage of its
routes. Support should also be continued and improved for the Capital Region Taxi
Commission, which is supported by GRTCS and ensures uniform fare and operational
policies.
The region continues to grow in a manner that makes GRTCS transit service provision
difficult. Under the Executive Order granting USDOT the ability to more aggressively
pursue environmental justice requirements, transit services should be more responsive to
the needs of low-income and minority populations throughout the region.
As discussed in the environmental justice section and transit section of the existing
conditions review portion of this plan, there are concerns about meeting federal
requirements in this area. The LRTP appears to place a greater emphasis on providing
new or expanded roadways in new growth areas of surrounding counties than on meeting
basic transportation needs of minority and low-income residents of the region. To
remedy this problem, the MPO should consider adoption of the following:
165

! Identify areas made up of large percentages of minority and low-income residents and
provide service identified in the transit data collection portion of this plan. For future
service, much of the available data is too dated to be of significant use to extrapolate
where future needs may be. When 2000 Census data is available, MPO staff can
better assess existing areas of critical concern and extrapolate to 2023 where future
areas of concern will be located.
! Ensure that transit routes within the Richmond area have improved headways.
However, unless additional operating funds are identified, specific routes within the
expanded system should be examined annually to determine where improved
headways are necessary.
While these two provisions may seem excessive, the environmental justice provisions
require that adequate and equal access to the transportation system be made available to
low-income and minority populations. The term equal access, as defined by FHWA, is
access to transportation services, facilities, and public input processes that are
comparable to those enjoyed by a higher percentage of the regional population. This
recommendation therefore is the first step in the MPO’s achievement of environmental
justice provisions.
Other service enhancements that should be considered by GRTCS and local jurisdictions
are:
! Connecting workforces to business areas not served or well-served by transit (i.e.,
Innsbrook)
! Improved tourist services
! Downtown circulator systems
! Cultural event shuttles from outlying areas
! Special event shuttles from urbanized areas to events not along existing or planned
transit routes
Examine ways in which new revenue streams can be developed as a dedicated funding
source for regional public transportation services in the Richmond region.
It is recommended that the MPO study ways in which federal, state, and local funds can
be developed into a long-term dedicated funding source for regional public transportation
services. Currently, Richmond is in need of a dedicated source of local funding, other
than the general fund, to support operating expenses for transit services and to encourage
the provision of regional transit service. The Counties of Chesterfield and Henrico have,
or soon will have, limited public transportation services. However, their current general
fund cannot support long-term operational and capital expenses for public transportation
without cutting funding for schools and other public services.
In other areas of the country, numerous communities have identified funding streams
beyond local government general funds. These include:
! Earmarked federal funds for innovative transit services
166

! State funding for specialized transit services to meet the needs of specific market
segments (i.e., use of economic development funds to link areas with high
unemployment to areas where businesses are suffering from a reduced labor pool)
! Public/private partnerships
! Revisions to state funding formulas
! Development of regional transportation authorities or commissions
! Local option gas taxes earmarked for transit
! Congestion pricing with revenues dedicated to improved transit services
! Referendum approved sales tax increases
Important issues for the study to address include:
! Long-term viability of each revenue stream identified
! Level of service coverage for each revenue stream
! Required state and federal legislation to make the stream available
! Likelihood that the revenue streams identified will become a reality
! What types of transportation services should be included (i.e., transit, taxi, rail, Main
Street Station)
The MPO should undertake and complete the study over the next two years. This will
allow the next LRTP update to be better tailored to the needs of each individual
jurisdiction while ensuring that regional priorities are not ignored.
Develop a low cost, simple prioritization process to assist in the creation of the MPO’s
top priority projects.
The MPO annually conducts a review and submission of its top priority projects to the
Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB). The MPO’s comments and
recommendations, along with comments from area local governments, citizens, groups,
and organizations are considered by the CTB as part of the state’s public review process
for selecting transportation projects for state and federal funding. To assist the MPO in
the creation of the MPO’s top priority projects, the MPO should develop a low cost,
simple prioritization process.
Ensure transfers from one mode to another mode are seamless throughout the Richmond
region so that residents can make personal trips via multiple modes as efficiently as they
would by using one mode.
To access transit facilities, patrons may walk, bike, drive to, or be driven to transit stops.
To accommodate the needs of these patrons, the MPO should make provisions to ensure
that regardless of access mode, transfers to transit are as seamless as possible. To
achieve this, the following amenities or operational characteristics should be given
thorough consideration:
! Bus stop amenities at most stop locations. This may include enclosed or covered
benches, trash receptacles, lights, and bike racks.
167

! Bike racks on all buses so that cyclists can place their bicycle on the bus, remove it at
their stop and finish their trip via bicycle.
! Timed transfer provisions for buses, as well as those that may access a particular stop
by rail or taxi, so that the longest any patron must endure out-of-vehicle time is no
more than a few minutes.
! Use of ITS such as GPS and signal interruption apparatus so that patrons can track
bus locations and drivers can ensure that schedules are rigorously adhered to.
Bus stop amenities have been shown to improve transit use by those who have multiple
mode choices. Coverage from inclement weather and lighting for added security can
induce some patrons to use transit when they may not otherwise consider it. Bike racks
on buses have also been shown to increase transit ridership by improving cyclists travel
times over distances greater than five miles. Timed transfers remove one of the major
barriers to transit patronage, so-called out-of-vehicle time. Studies by FHWA, FTA and
ITE have shown that out-of vehicle time is twice as onerous as in vehicle travel time.
Finally, ITS technology allows transit patrons and potential transit patrons to track
vehicle locations and determine if transit is an option when making trip decisions. Signal
interruption technology allows drivers to travel corridors under continuous green light
conditions if necessary to make up delay time somewhere along the route.
Begin the analysis and planning for light rail and commuter rail by examining population
density, future areas of population growth targeted for compact/in-fill development, and
existing connections between modes.
Included in the project list for public transportation are programs for light rail and
commuter rail. While these two types of rail services differ greatly in such areas as travel
speeds, right-of-way needs, carrying capacity, and service population, the MPO should
study how light rail and commuter rail can best be utilized in the Richmond region. The
study should include the following:
! Examination of the 1990 and 2000 Census, and localities’ comprehensive plans to
identify areas with appropriate densities to support each type of rail service and to
project where requisite densities will be located in 2023.
! Connections between light rail services, commuter rail services, other public
transportation services, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and links with the highway
network.
! An analysis, including cost/benefit, safety and environmental concerns, of whether
commuter rail, dedicated bus lanes, or roadway expansion best serves the Richmond
region.
! Condition of existing trackage, rail rights-of-way, and necessary right-of-way space
for both light rail and commuter rail.
168

! Differentiate between the markets that will be served by both types of rail.
! Fare structures.
! Light rail’s and commuter rail’s place in the regional priority lists.
Because of the highly specialized nature of these two public transportation types, it is
recommended that the MPO obtain assistance with consultants that specialize in rail
development studies. MPO staff can provide assistance to these consultants to reduce the
projects cost.
Prepare for changing regional demographics by developing an elderly and disabled
transportation network that can serve our projected large elderly and disabled
population.
According to projections made in the socioeconomic factors portion of this plan, it is
expected that the region’s elderly and disabled population will increase significantly
between now and 2023. As the regional public transportation system network expands,
new elderly and disabled populations will be entitled to services. By 2023, the existing
network will not suffice to meet the needs of either segment being discussed here.
As a result, the MPO should explore elderly and disabled transportation needs
extrapolated to the year 2023 and begin to design a system that can respond to the
projected need. Such a study could be overseen by the Elderly and Disabled Advisory
Committee or a special task force formed which includes multiple representatives of
EDAC. Focus of the study should be on developing both baseline service needs and
enhanced service programs along with costs so that the region’s elderly and disabled
population can best be served.
Improve Richmond’s linkages with other metropolitan areas to the north, south, east, and
west by aggressively pursuing high-speed rail service.
With the recent groundbreaking ceremony for Main Street Station, the City of Richmond
has taken the first steps in linking the city to other parts of the country via high-speed rail.
The first leg, and highest priority for the MPO, has been the development of high speed
rail to Washington, D.C. and points north. Points to the south, east, and west should also
be included. To that end, the Richmond MPO should adopt a resolution to express its
interest in ensuring true high-speed rail connections to D.C. and higher speed rail
connections to the south, east, and west. The MPO should also work closely with CSX
and AMTRAK representatives, and the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB), to
facilitate these connections by collectively seeking out necessary funding sources.
Working with AMTRAK, CSX, and the CTB, the MPO should consider diverting
interstate and other MPO controlled funds to assist in the development of high-speed rail
connections to the east and south. Both the Tidewater area and the state of North
Carolina have shown a great deal of interest in obtaining high-speed rail connections.
169

The state of North Carolina in particular has aggressively pursued connections to
Washington, D.C. and has set aside millions of dollars to ensure this connection will be a
reality.
Finally, the Richmond MPO, in association with the Virginia Department Rail of Public
Transportation, should continue to monitor closely the progress of the high-speed rail
connection between Washington, D.C. and Richmond so that any potential obstacles can
be addressed quickly and efficiently. Currently, the focus is on higher speed service
through improved track quality, grade crossings, and the like. During the next twenty
years, dedicated tracking and grade crossing/grade separation improvements will need to
be pursued to ensure true high-speed rail service.
Considerations For Local Governments
! For transit to meet service requirements and be more financially efficient,
jurisdictions may need to examine flexible zoning ordinances that either facilitate or
require compact and/or in-fill development.
! Environmental justice and air-quality concerns may have to be a more important
consideration in transportation decision-making.
! Those jurisdictions that will have high-speed rail service should consider making
financial contributions for improvements to the high-speed rail facilities in their
communities.
! Those communities not on the high-speed rail corridor need to consider planning now
for how they will link up via transit with the high-speed rail network.
! Jurisdictions should look at the transportation network as one integrated system and
submit projects for long-range plan and MPO consideration as one set of requests not
divided by mode.
! Whenever feasible, local governments should pursue transportation enhancement
funds to better integrate transit projects and transit systems with the surrounding
community.
170

Constrained Transit Projects
A
B
Æb 37
13
15
1
20
20
18
1
2
4
4
6
4
21
3
r
24
25
6
r
5
5
3
36
Æb
r
26
18
15
8
27 7
18
r
35
30
Æa 31
7
23 Æa ÆbÆb
9
22
16
32
17
33
10
12
8
29
To Colonial Downs &
White Oak Semiconductor
r
10
10
34
19
1
7
11
14
To Providence Forge
r
28
2
11
2
9
16
11
To Petersburg
Æa 43 23
A
Richmond CBD
Æa
22
30
Æb
Æb
B
2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles
W
N
S
E
r
Existing Bus
Service
Transfer Centers
Circulator / Feeder
Route Area
Æa
GRTC Maintenance
Facility
Æa Transit Plaza
Æb
Main Street Station
CBD Trolleys &
Electric Streetcars
Æb
Æb
Æb
Ashland Amtrak
Greendale Amtrak
Bus Rapid Transit/
Light Rail Transit
Commuter Rail
Trunk Route
Expansion
Crosstown Bus
Express Bus
Prepared by:
Richmond Regional Planning District Commission
December, 2000

2023 Transit Project List
($000)
Distance Number of Total Capital Previous Committed Balance to
Type Label Tile Project Description Location Phasing (mi) Vehicles Cost Funding Funding Complete
Regional Bus Service Improvements
1 A-2 US 60 Trunk Route Expansion
Patterson Av Trunk Route
2 A-1 Expansion
West Henrico County
3 A-1 Circulator/Feeder Service
4 A-1/A-2
5 A-1/B-1
Richmond C.L. west to Courthouse
Road 0-5 Years 5.10 3 $825 $0 $0 $825
Terminus of routes 1,2, and 41 west
to Gaskins Rd 0-5 Years 3.60 2 $550 $0 $0 $550
Areas north of Parham Rd and
South of Broad Street 0-5 Years NA 2 $550 $0 $0 $550
US 60 Area Circulator/Feeder
Service Cloverleaf Mall/Courthouse Rd area 0-5 Years NA 2 $550 $0 $0 $550
Parham Rd Crosstown
Connection
Azalea Mall to Broad St Corridor
with Virginia Center Commons
Connector in Henrico County 0-5 Years 7.04 4 $1,100 $0 $0 $1,100
Broad St Corridor in Henrico Co. to
US 60 in Chesterfield Co. 0-5 Years 11.76 5 $1,375 $0 $0 $1,375
6 A-1/A-2 Westside Crosstown
7 A-1/A-2 Route 76 Express Route 288 to CBD 5-10 Years 18.29 2 $550 $0 $0 $550
8 B-1/B-2 Laburnum Av Crosstown RIC Airport to Azalea Mall 5-10 Years 10.12 5 $1,375 $0 $0 $1,375
9 A-2/B-2
10 B-1/B-2
11 A-2/B-2
12 B-1
US 1 South Trunk Route
Expansion
East Henrico County Circulator /
Feeder Service
US 1 / Rt. 10 Circulator / Feeder
Service
Mechanicsville Circulator /
Feeder Service
Ashland Circulator / Feeder
Service
City of Richmond south to Rt. 10 in
Chesterfield County 0-5 Years 16.68 4 $1,100 $0 $0 $1,100
Nine Mile Rd / Williamsburg Rd east
of RIC Airport 5-10 Years NA 2 $550 $0 $0 $550
US 1 / Rt. 288 / Rt. 10 area south of
Richmond 0-5 Years NA 2 $550 $0 $0 $550
Mechanicsville are of Hanover
County 5-10 Years NA 2 $550 $0 $0 $550
Hanover County near Ashland and
industrial park areas 5-10 Years NA 2 $550 $0 $0 $550
13 A-1/B-1
Cloverleaf Mall / Chippenham-I 95
14 A-2/B-2 Southside Crosstown Connection intersection 0-5 Years 7.12 5 $1,375 $0 $0 $1,375
15 B-1 I-95 N Express Bus Downtown to Ashland 10-15 Years 17.59 4 $1,100 $0 $0 $1,100
16 B-2 I-95 S Express Bus Downtown to Petersburg 10-15 Years 17.96 2 $550 $0 $0 $550
17 B-1/B-2 I-64 E Express Bus Downtown to Richmond Airport 10-15 Years 7.54 2 $550 $0 $0 $550
18 A-1/B-1 West Creek Express Bus Downtown to West Creek 5-10 Years 21.00 2 $550 $0 $0 $550
Colonial Downs/Infineon
19 B-2
Technologies- Richmond
Express Bus
Downtown to Colonial Downs with
stop at White Oak 0-5 Years 28.00 2 $550 $0 $0 $550
20 A-1/A-2 288 Express Bus Powhite to I-64 0-5 Years 16.00 1 $275 $0 $0 $275
21 A-1 Broad St Trunk Route Downtown to Short Pump 0-5 Years 13.57 3 $825 $0 $0 $825
Subtotal $15,950 $0 $0 $15,950

2023 Transit Project List
($000)
Distance Number of Total Capital Previous Committed Balance to
Type Label Project Description Location Phasing (mi) Vehicles Cost Funding Funding Complete
Commuter Rail Light Rail
Multi-Modal
22 B-2
Main St. Station Multi-Modal
Center Downtown Richmond 0-5 Years NA NA $46,000 $250 $20,940 $24,810
22 B-2 Main St. Station Super Stop Main Street Station 0-5 Years NA NA $22 $0 $0 $22
23 B-1 Transfer Station CBD 0-5 Years NA NA $6,000 $0 $0 $6,000
24 A-1 Broad St / Parham Rd 0-5 Years NA NA $550 $0 $0 $550
25 A-2 US 60 / Route 150 0-5 Years NA NA $550 $0 $0 $550
26 B-1 Transfer Centers
Azalea Mall Area 5-10 Years NA NA $550 $0 $0 $550
27 B-1 Broad St / Powhite Parkway 5-10 Years NA NA $550 $0 $0 $550
28 B-2 US 1 S / Chippenham Parkway 0-5 Years NA NA $550 $0 $0 $550
29 B-2 Transfer Centers
I 64 E / RIC Airport 5-10 Years NA NA $550 $0 $0 $550
Subtotal $55,322 $250 $20,940 $34,132
Distance Number of Total Capital Previous Committed Balance to
Type Label Project Description Location Phasing (mi) Vehicles Cost Funding Funding Complete
30 B-1 Electric Street Car System CBD 5-10 Years NA $44,000 $0 $0 $44,000
NA LRT System Planning NA 5-10 Years NA NA $880 $0 $0 $880
Main Street Station to Science
31 B-1 Light Rail Transit Broad Street Museum of Virginia 10-15 Years 2.65 $60,500 $0 $0 $60,500
32 B-2 Light Rail Transit Broad Street Main Street Station to Church Hill 10-15 Years 1.20 $27,397 $0 $0 $27,397
33 A-1/B-1 Light Rail Transit Broad Street
34 B-2 Light Rail Transit Southern Ext.
35 A-2/B-2 Light Rail Transit Southern Ext.
Broad St Corridor from CBD to
Parham Rd Area Vision 6.26 $264,000 $0 $0 $0
Main Street Station to Midlothian
Turnpike Town Center Vision 2.07 $101,200 $0 $0 $0
Main Street Station to Cloverleaf
Mall Vision 5.84 $58,300 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal $132,777 $0 $0 $132,777
Distance Number of Total Capital Previous Committed Balance to
Type Label Project Description Location Phasing (mi) Vehicles Cost Funding Funding Complete
36 B-2 Regional Commuter Rail Main St. Station to RIC Airport 5-10 Years 7.56 $1,980 $0 $0 $1,980
37 B-2 Regional Commuter Rail RIC Airport to Providence Forge 5-10 Years 16.00 $5,940 $0 $0 $5,940
38 A-1 Regional Commuter Rail Stratford to Acca Yard Vision 3.80 $1,320 $0 $0 $0
39 B-1 Regional Commuter Rail Main St. Station to Strawberry Hill Vision 4.09 $1,320 $0 $0 $0
40 A-2/B-2 Regional Commuter Rail
Main St. Station to Bon Air /
Midlothian and Beyond Vision 13.16 $4,840 $0 $0 $0
41 A-1/B-1 Regional Commuter Rail
Main St. Station to Glen Allen /
Ashland Vision 17.53 $5,940 $0 $0 $0
42 B-2 Regional Commuter Rail Main St. Station to Petersburg Vision 19.47 $7,920 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal $7,920 $0 $0 $7,920

2023 Transit Project List
($000)
Distance Number of Total Capital Previous Committed Balance to
Type Label Project Description Location Phasing (mi) Vehicles Cost Funding Funding Complete
Other Transit Related
New Projects for 2023 Plan Projects
Park & Ride
NA Commuter Parking Lot Town Center-150 spaces Ashland 5-10 Years NA NA $2,200 $0 $0 $2,200
NA Park & Ride Facilities Various Locations-Chesterfield 5-10 Years NA NA $3,300 $0 $0 $3,300
NA Park & Ride Facilities Route 288 / Route 76 5-10 Years NA NA $550 $0 $0 $550
NA Park & Ride Facilities Route 150 / Route 76 5-10 Years NA NA $550 $0 $0 $550
NA Park & Ride Facilities I 95 @ Ashland 5-10 Years NA NA $550 $0 $0 $550
NA Park & Ride Facilities I 95 @ I 295 5-10 Years NA NA $550 $0 $0 $550
NA Park & Ride Facilities I 95 @ Rt. 10 Southside 5-10 Years NA NA $550 $0 $0 $550
NA Park & Ride Facilities I 95 @ Chippenham Southside 5-10 Years NA NA $550 $0 $0 $550
Subtotal $8,800 $0 $0 $8,800
Distance Number of Total Capital Previous Committed Balance to
Type Label Project Description Location Phasing (mi) Vehicles Cost Funding Funding Complete
NA Bus Shelters Various Locations 5-10 Years NA NA $1,100 $1,000 $0 $100
43 B-1 New GRTC Maint. Facility Existing GRTC Facility 5-10 Years NA NA $24,200 $0 $0 $24,200
NA Expand Marketing Research NA 5-10 Years NA NA $0 $0 $0 $0
NA Enhance TDM Program NA Ongoing NA NA $0 $0 $0 $0
NA Paratransit Coordination NA 5-10 Years NA NA $55 $0 $0 $55
NA Intelligent Farebox NA 5-10 Years NA NA $2,200 $0 $0 $2,200
44 A-1 Amtrak Station Improvements Greendale (Staples Mill) 0-5 Years NA NA $2,200 $0 $0 $2,200
45 A-1/B-1 Amtrak Station Improvements Ashland 0-5 Years NA NA $2,200 $0 $0 $2,200
NA Lobbying Group NA 0-5 Years NA NA $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal $31,955 $1,000 $0 $30,955
Distance Number of Total Capital Previous Committed Balance to
Type Label Project Description Location Phasing (mi) Vehicles Cost Funding Funding Complete
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Various Locations 5-10 Years NA NA $12,000 $0 $0 $12,000
Vanpool Project by Ridefinders Various Locations 0-10 Years $1,000 $0 $0 $1,000
Subtotal $13,000 $0 $0 $13,000
Transit Total $265,724 $1,250 $20,940 $243,534

2023 LRTP
Chapter XII
TDM Element
172

Chapter XII-Richmond Area Transportation Demand
Management Element
Items Beyond MPO Control That, If Addressed, Could Enhance Plan
Success
! Success of most TDM programs lies in the hands of employers who cannot be
mandated to follow large portions of this plan.
! Private providers supply most TDM services and many of these providers have their
own boards and or other motives that influence their participation.
! Successful TDM programs require many citizens to think about trying something that
is different or alien in comparison to their typical commuting behavior.
! Some TDM measures require changes to State Law and or Virginia Department of
Transportation policies.
! Alternative funding sources including private sector financial participation, will be
need to be identified and used for many of the TDM programs described below.
! Measuring the effectiveness of TDM programs is extremely difficult which makes it
difficult to demonstrate success.
! Reductions in traffic congestion from TDM programs do not make a visible
contribution to the problem unless support and funding are provided.
Introduction
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies are attempts to increase the
efficiency of the transportation network by reducing the demand for travel trips in general
or along specific corridors. Recognizable TDM programs include carpooling and
vanpooling as well as alternative work hours and teleworking. Others not so
recognizable, but included in this definition, are bicycle and pedestrian programs, realtime
traffic information systems, high occupancy vehicle lanes, congestion pricing,
transit, passenger rail, and some forms of intelligent transportation systems.
As the region developed further away from the urban core, transit provision became too
expensive and inefficient to operate. Because carpools and vanpools provide a way to
share a ride along a common travel path with fewer people necessary to make the trip
efficient and convenient, carpooling and vanpooling became better recognized as a viable
alternative to SOV travel. Two major obstacles exist to the success of TDM programs,
loss of convenience afforded by the private vehicle, and extra travel time to work to pick
up other pooling members.
173

Studies completed by FHWA, FTA, and ITE showed that for TDM to reach greater
acceptance in the United States, two things must occur to entice private citizens to leave
their SOVs behind. The first is an average perceived travel timesavings of seven minutes
for each commuter attempting to switch travel modes. The second is that the TDM
strategy selected must also provide some type of value-added convenience, such as
reduced parking need or better located parking spaces, door-to-door service, or financial
incentives such as employee-provided subsidies to offset the above mentioned
inconveniences. Studies conducted by Ridefinders here in Richmond also showed that
commuter willingness to try TDM programs/strategies was due to perceived financial
savings and environmental benefits. As FHWA, FTA, and ITE noted however, much of
the potential convenience incentives are under control of the private sector (i.e., parking
lot owners in downtown) or employers. This has led many jurisdictions to pursue ways
to provide travel timesavings. The federal government revised the tax law, so that
vanpoolers and transit riders (including commuter rail) could receive tax free subsidies up
to $65 per month from their employers for using transit and vanpools for commuting,
comparing the subsidy to employer paid parking which was also non-taxable.
In Northern Virginia, the first HOV lanes were developed in 1967 along portions of
Shirley Highway. These lanes provided a timesavings in excess of seven minutes.
Today, the timesavings can be as much as 20 minutes. As an added benefit, the HOV
lanes carry more passengers per hour (1900) than adjacent general flow lanes (1200
passengers per hour). Some employers have recognized the benefits of travel
timesavings by adopting teleworking programs so that employees do not have to travel at
all to work, or staggered work hours so that employees do not necessarily have to travel
congested corridors during peak periods.
The greatest obstacle to wider-use of commute alternatives in the minds of some
commuters is the common misconception that participation requires a five-day a week
commitment. In fact, most TDM strategies are most effective when used only two or
three days a week, allowing greater flexibility in travel choices to and from work. For
example, many commuters need to make stops at dry cleaners, gas stations, banks, etc. on
their way to and from work. By being involved in a carpool that only operates two or
three days a week, the commuter can use the non-pooling days for these extra trips. In
addition, most employers contacted by the Association for Commuter Transportation
reported that their teleworking program was most effective when employees were limited
to teleworking one or two days per week. Under the one or two day limit, employers
reported a noticeable increase in employee productivity, while arrangements that allowed
for five day teleworking did not increase productivity.
Employer-based TDM programs in the Richmond area are effective in the short-term and
long-term. To improve long-term benefits, the region must more proactively establish
public-sector led TDM strategies and programs that improve travel times and/or
convenience for the Richmond area commuter. If every commuter chose an alternative
mode of transportation one day a week, the Richmond area would net an average 20
percent (20%) reduction in commute-based VMT which would greatly assist our regional
efforts for air quality attainment and reduced congestion.
174

Plan Component- Transportation Demand Management
The following eleven recommendations are intended to improve transportation demand
management strategies/programs in the Richmond region.
! Expand Ridefinders into a “one stop” regional commuter transportation information
source that continues to facilitate and broker TDM services.
! Implement, through Ridefinders, a regional alternative transportation marketing
program that is developed by a local marketing/advertising firm and implemented by
a professional media buyer.
! Undertake an educational outreach program for employers, jurisdictions, and private
citizens on the benefits and costs of TDM strategies.
! Local jurisdictions, the MPO, and the Greater Richmond Chamber of Commerce
should follow the lead of Ridefinders and develop closer working relationships with
major employers so that they can assist the employer in developing TDM programs
(including teleworking and Commuter Choice) at employment sites.
! Strengthen existing pool matching activities and vanpool creation activities with
private providers.
! Within the next five years, examine roadway facilities that may be candidates for
HOV lanes.
! Upon completion, carefully review and consider partial or full adoption of the VDOT
funded Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
! Develop, in association with local colleges and universities, a series of regional
events to foster the idea of land use planning as a long-term TDM strategy.
! Better recognize the efforts of the region’s employers and employee transportation
Coordinators (ETCs) by recognizing their achievements at the jurisdictional and
regional level, not just through Ridefinders.
! Strongly support Park and Ride Lot Development in the region.
Each of these components will be discussed below in greater detail.
Expand Ridefinders into a “one stop” regional commuter transportation information
source that continues to facilitate and broker TDM services.
Historically, Ridefinders has been the regional TDM agency for the Richmond area.
Their focus has been on carpool and vanpool formation as well as working with local
employers to establish TDM programs within companies/agencies. However,
175

Ridefinders has undergone somewhat of a revolution in recent years and has revised its
goals to reduce VMT and meet the needs of all commuters in Central Virginia. The
problem has been that Ridefinders has lacked adequate staff and resources to be able to
serve as a true “one-stop” shop for commute services in the region.
Ridefinders new charge would be to provide not only traditional TDM services, but serve
as an information source for all commuters. With VDOT pursuing real-time information
systems to aid commuters in travel making decisions, the MPO should support making
Ridefinders the clearinghouse for all commuter information. Ridefinders would therefore
evolve into a commuter assistance program instead of a TDM agency. All commuters,
including those using an SOV, could contact Ridefinders and instantaneously obtain
travel and/or mode change information. This would effectively create a hook for
Ridefinders to inform SOV commuters about TDM strategies and their potential to
facilitate commutes for the drive alone commuter. VDOT would make the information
available to Ridefinders and Ridefinders would develop an information dissemination
technique (i.e., set-up a website). In addition, Ridefinders would work with VDOT to use
variable message signs to identify potential unhealthy air quality days.
Along with the need for additional staff will be the need for Ridefinders to pursue
operating and capital grants; to seek funding from state and federal sources for continuing
funding; and to seek RSTP, CMAQ, and flexible highway funds for new programs. In
order for Ridefinders to achieve the goals of this plan, additional funding and private
sector and local government support is important for new and existing programs.
Finally, while Ridefinders has done commendable work in the areas of vanpool and
carpool formation, it is suggested that the agency communicate and work with companies
that provide services to TDM customers to seek their input on how to improve services.
There are many options for funding and developing vanpools, usually through a national
firm called VPSI. VPSI has an office in Richmond and working with Ridefinders can
establish innovative vanpool services to increase vanpool usage in central Virginia.
Implement through Ridefinders, a regional alternative transportation marketing program
that is developed by a local marketing/advertising firm and implemented by a
professional media buyer.
The success of most TDM programs around the country requires an aggressive and
effective marketing program that includes special strategies by mode and time of year as
well as an on-going awareness campaign. Coupled with support from local elected
officials and the business community, TDM becomes a much more recognizable and
viable commute alternative. The MPO should assist Ridefinders by providing funds or
by allowing staff to pursue grants for the marketing of TDM services throughout the
region. In addition, the MPO’s elected officials should be a part of the marketing
campaign, showing that they are willing to use alternative transportation.
As a kick-off to the advertising campaign, and to provide an annual “shot-in-the-arm” to
the campaign, local jurisdictions and Ridefinders should conduct a commute alternative
176

event. For example, such an event is held annually in Tampa with each member of a
jurisdiction’s Council or Board of Supervisors, arriving at Board or Council chambers
using an alternative mode of transportation. This event draws all major local networks,
newspapers, and radio stations. The event is used as a forum to promote transportation
alternatives and the local rideshare agency. Last year, the event was televised live for the
first time and resulted in a 35 percent (35%) increase in inquiry rate for the rideshare
agency.
Undertake an educational outreach program for employers, jurisdictions, and private
citizens on the benefits and costs of TDM programs.
One of the obstacles to increased use of commute alternative is a general lack of
knowledge about what options are available and what benefits accrue to the user. As was
stated previously, one drawback is that many commuters who are interested in commute
alternatives assume that it is a five-day-a-week commitment. The MPO should publicly
support an educational program that shows the real benefits and costs of TDM programs.
A Ridefinders study shows that Central Virginia users include cost savings, a feeling that
they are bettering their community, and potential convenience benefits as a reason for
using commute alternatives. Central Virginia employers felt that TDM program benefits
include cost savings from reduced turnover rates, that such programs are a strong
recruitment tool, that employees are more productive, and that substantial cost reductions
are possible through the reduced need for expanding parking infrastructure. For the
jurisdiction, benefits can include less congested roadways, reduced need to spend money
on roadway infrastructure, improved transportation services for their community, and
perhaps most importantly, assistance in meeting air quality standards. Costs can include
lost convenience and/or time for the user, additional expenses for setting up the program
for employers, and potential complaints from citizens about lack of support for
alternative transportation programs.
Partners to include in the educational program include:
! Greater Richmond Chamber of Commerce
! Greater Richmond Retail Merchants Association
! Greater Richmond Partnership
! Richmond Renaissance
! Local business and Chamber councils
! Local governments
Local jurisdictions, the MPO, and the Greater Richmond Chamber of Commerce should
follow Ridefinders’ lead and develop closer working relationships with major employers
so that they can assist the employer in developing TDM programs (including teleworking
and Commuter Choice) at employment sites.
Nationally, demonstration projects have shown that the most effective way to get
employers involved in developing their own TDM programs is to hear about the benefits
177

from peers and then work closely with local jurisdictions and the local rideshare agency.
To follow this model, the MPO, in association with Ridefinders, the Greater Richmond
Chamber of Commerce, and localities should develop employer outreach teams to meet
with Chief Executive Officers and public sector directors and discuss with them, peer-topeer,
that TDM programs should be adopted.
After the initial meeting, Ridefinders would then work directly with the company’s
designated contact to develop an effective TDM program and to ensure that tax codes and
benefit packages are not negatively affected. Any other follow-up would be between
Ridefinders and the company, including working on internal management teams to set-up
programs and prepare materials for employee distribution.
Two of the more important TDM programs that employers should be encouraged to
implement are teleworking and Commuter Choice. Allowing employees the flexibility to
work at home one or two days a week can improve morale, productivity, and reduce
operating costs. The VMT reduction that would accrue to the region would also be
beneficial. Teleworking is not limited to office employees. Plumbing, electrical, and
HVAC service companies in California have instituted a program to allow employees to
take their service vehicles home with them, then call-in in the morning to get their day’s
assignments. Commuter Choice allows employers to provide tax-free subsidies to
employees who use transit or vanpools to get to work. The Ridefinders Commuter
Choice program includes discount fare media if purchased by the employer on the
employees’ behalf. Both of these programs need to be strongly pursued by Ridefinders in
working with employers.
Strengthen existing carpool matching activities and vanpool creation activities with
private providers.
Ridefinders has the capability to provide personalized match lists of potential poolers that
live and work in close proximity to each other. They are also able to provide scatter plot
maps to employers showing where their employees live and assists in identifying areas
where potential vanpools and carpools can be formed. During the past year, Ridefinders
has begun to assist people requesting service by making some introductory phone calls on
their behalf. Ridefinders should continue this trend of upgrading personalization services
as much as feasible within their current staff limitations because it removes first time user
fears of contacting a stranger.
To also improve personalization, no active registered client record should exceed six
months without follow-up by Ridefinders. While call screening can eliminate the
frustration of trying to match someone who has already found a pool partner or who has
switched home or office locations, the six-month update allows Ridefinders to further
customize matching information as updates are made and reduces the likelihood that
uninterested persons will continue to show up on match lists. The names and information
should not be purged. Instead, they should be kept in a separate database that allows
Ridefinders to tap an existing market when new products or services are added.
178

Finally, an Internet based ridematch system should be instituted by Ridefinders. A 1995
study by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments revealed that the use of
matchlists increases the less delay there is in receiving the list. The Internet matching
program would provide real-time data for people interested in pooling and those desiring
more personalized services could follow-up with Ridefinders.
Within the next five years, examine roadway facilities that may be candidates for HOV
lanes.
Although the Virginia Department of Transportation is responsible for spending on
interstates, HOV lanes have been shown to be extremely effective in Northern Virginia.
As stated previously, these lanes average 1900 passengers per lane per hour v. 1200
passengers per lane per hour in general purpose lanes. This greatly improves roadway
efficiency and has strong air quality benefits as well.
Three major drawbacks to HOV lanes in other areas of the country and in Hampton
Roads, is that HOV lanes have been incorporated into existing highways by removing a
general purpose lane and converting it to HOV lane use. This leads to significant citizen
and political opposition. The most effective new HOV lanes in the country are those that
are added to existing facilities. Therefore, the MPO should identify those roadways
where HOV lanes would support regional ridesharing programs and provide those
poolers a times savings for travel to and from work. HOV lanes would then be developed
when capacity is expanded and would not take away SOV capacity from existing
facilities.
Virginia state law states that HOV lane violators shall be guilty of a traffic infraction
which shall not be a moving violation and on conviction shall be fined fifty dollars. The
Virginia law provisions negate the second drawback other states have had with HOV lane
violators: the judge’s reluctance to convict because demerit points were added to the
driver’s record.
The third drawback is design of the HOV lane itself. Some HOV lanes have been added
without regard to safe locations for enforcement operations to take place. State troopers
have been reluctant to risk citing motorists for HOV lane violations because there is
inadequate shoulder width to make the pullover safely. As HOV lanes are added, safe
design features must be incorporated. Enforcement has been shown to be one of the most
important factors in HOV lane success. For example, on Shirley Highway where
aggressive enforcement takes place, the violation rate is 5 percent (5%). In Orlando,
where enforcement is minimal, the violation rate is 65 percent (65%).
Marketing of the new HOV lanes would be carried out by Ridefinders, using the
marketing strategy employed in the Northern Virginia area. The Virginia Department of
Rail and Public Transportation has received numerous awards for its HOV marketing
campaign which was started three months prior to new HOV lanes being added to
Interstate 66. VDRPT used a Richmond based marketing company to develop the
campaign, including a timing plan, media selection, and variable message content.
179

Upon completion, carefully review and consider partial or full adoption of the VDOT
funded Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
The MPO, in association with VDOT, has just begun a two-year study on developing a
regional bicycle and pedestrian plan for the Richmond region. The plan is intended to
serve as a model for the rest of the state to follow and includes both commuter and
recreational needs. Once the plan is completed, careful review of plan recommendations
should be done by each jurisdiction, and the jurisdictions could adopt those elements
most in keeping with their local comprehensive plans.
Under the existing work scope which is under VDOT review, major components of the
implementation plan will be to strengthen existing bicycle routes and paths with better
signage and striping, linking bicycle routes throughout the region by developing new
facilities or retrofitting existing roadways to create those linkages, determining bicycle
and pedestrian needs and “lane” mile requirements to make bicycle and pedestrian
movements easier throughout the region, and developing a regional bicycle and
pedestrian network to provide multiple travel options for residents of the region. The
study will also examine existing barriers and how they can be removed, develop
strategies for better linking bicycle and pedestrian paths in residential areas to
commercial and office development, and ways to make bicycling a more viable
transportation alternative for a greater percentage of Richmond residents. Until the plan
is adopted, the MPO should ensure that existing facilities are properly maintained and
where necessary, improved. Enhancement and CMAQ funds should be pursued to
maintain and improve these facilities. MPO staff can assist local governments in
developing enhancement applications.
Develop, in association with local colleges and universities, a series of regional events to
foster the idea of land use planning as a long-term TDM strategy.
The MPO should adopt a resolution to develop a series of land use transportation linkages
events that help citizens, engineers and the planning community better understand the
importance of these land use strategies. In developing this series, the MPO should work
closely with the local colleges and universities.
These colleges and universities provide the MPO access to some of the nation’s most
recognized leaders in the transportation profession. This resource is local and readily
available to the MPO for assistance. In addition, the colleges and universities have
shown a willingness to participate in MPO events of this type, instituting discussion with
staff on how to proceed with a regional land use-transportation planning symposium.
180

Better recognize the efforts of the region’s employers and employee transportation
coordinators (ETCs) by recognizing their achievements at the jurisdictional and regional
level, not just through Ridefinders.
The employee transportation coordinators network in the Richmond area is the backbone
of the current success of Ridefinders. These individuals facilitate the establishment of
TDM programs at their employers’ worksite, and assist on a one-on-one basis, individual
employees in solving their commuting problems. Their efforts are made possible through
the corporate culture of their employer, a culture that recognizes the benefits TDM
strategies can bring to their organization. While Ridefinders recognizes these companies
and individuals on an annual basis, their efforts make important contributions to the
region’s air quality attainment goals, help alleviate congestion, and provide important
community services.
The MPO, in working with Ridefinders, should develop a regional recognition program
for outstanding employers and ETCs. The MPO could provide a certificate or plaque to
recognize these companies and individuals, and present them their award at either a
regular MPO meeting or at the RRPDC annual dinner. In addition, the MPO should
encourage local jurisdictions to recognize employers and ETCs that make contributions
within their own jurisdictions. Recognition could be done at a regularly scheduled Board
or Council meeting. This recognition of employers and ETCs is one of the most effective
motivational tools for other companies and individuals to participate.
This recognition will assist both the MPO and Ridefinders in reaching out to more
employers to develop TDM programs that can mitigate air pollution and congestion
concerns. It will also provide assistance to employers by helping them find employees to
fill some low-wage jobs by providing transportation options to the worksite. Finally, the
employer and ETC recognition program will assist Ridefinders in recruiting more
volunteers to participate in the program.
Strongly support Park and Ride Lot Development in the region.
Park and Ride lots are necessary to increase the use of commute alternatives because they
provide convenience and timesaving incentive for poolers through a central location to
meet. They are also effective for transit stops, especially for express bus services.
However, the geographic dispersion of vanpool origin points and the lack of formal
places for poolers to meet can create barriers to new pool formation. Therefore, the MPO
should encourage VDOT and localities to incorporate park and ride lots and pool signage
as part of future road construction programs.
Considerations For Local Governments
! To ensure the long-term viability of our transportation network, local governments
may need to re-examine their development patterns and land-use strategies to ensure
citizen mobility.
181

! The importance of bicycle and pedestrian transportation is increasing, as is the need
to ensure that these types of travelers can safely use these modes. Local jurisdictions
should consider how they want to improve linkages of these facilities, improve safety,
and make the decision to increase road construction costs to accommodate bicycle
and pedestrian facilities.
! Ridefinders will need to expand in order to meet the growing TDM needs of our
region. Local jurisdictions may need to consider financial contributions and
additional forms of local support to assist Ridefinders in their efforts.
! Whenever feasible, local jurisdictions should pursue enhancement funds to provide
funding for some TDM strategies and to better integrate transportation projects into
the surrounding community.
182

2023 LRTP
Chapter XIII
Intermodal Element
183

Chapter XIII-Richmond Area Intermodal Element
Items Beyond MPO Control That, If Addressed, Could Enhance Plan
Success
! A funding source or sources beyond the limited private dollars must be identified
before many of the facilities and actions can take place.
! The movement of freight must be perceived by civic leaders and transportation
planners as equivalent to the movement of people.
! Significant improvements will be necessary to improve freight movement through
and to the Richmond region.
! Identification of adequate land area (vacant land or unused but built on parcels) will
be necessary to improve freight movement.
! A balance must be struck between the needs of freight utilizing the James River and
environmental concerns about the river.
! Enabling legislation from the Virginia General Assembly needs to be obtained so that
revenue sources can be obtained for intermodal system improvements.
Introduction
By definition, intermodal transportation, not to be confused with multi-modal
transportation, enables cargo and/or goods to be consolidated into economically large
units optimizing use of specialized intermodal handling equipment to effect high-speed
cargo transfer between ships, barges, railcars, and truck chassis using a minimum of labor
to increase logistic flexibility, reduce consignment times, and minimize operating costs to
efficiently move goods from one point (point of origin) to another point (final
destination).
Nationally, public funding for intermodal transportation, particularly rails and ports, has
often taken a backseat to passenger movements. As a result, members of the freight
movement community expect truck travel to significantly increase on our major
roadways during the next 20 years. A recent state report completed by the Virginia
Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) suggests that state investment in
intermodal infrastructure is better spent in Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia, and
not in Richmond where intermodal facilities are over capacity or altogether lacking.
As an example, five of Richmond area’s largest distributors, UPS, DuPont, Defense
Supply Center, and two others who asked to remain anonymous, who use rail for major
shipments, fill trucks and send them to locations outside the Richmond area to be
184

transferred to rail. This is done because the distributors do not believe adequate rail
facilities for shipment of goods are available in the Richmond region. One company
trucks major shipments to a rail ramp in North Carolina, another to Pennsylvania, a third
to Northern Virginia for rail transfer and two companies truck shipments to Norfolk for
loading on to rail cars. This constitutes approximately 25% of all outbound cargo flows
in the Richmond area and represents approximately 1,281 truckload equivalents per day.
(Source: CRAC Intermodal Study, and Port of Richmond.) Removal of these trucks
from the I-95 and I-64 corridors could have significant impacts on roadway safety in
these corridors. It may also reduce the need for further expansion since the removal of
these truck trips would improve capacity and reduce volume.
Intermodal Element Plan Components
There are five recommendations to improve intermodal transportation in the Richmond
region over the next twenty years.
! VDOT should be requested to meet with a group of representatives from the trucking
industry to review design standards and hear their concerns.
! Re-establish and recharge the MPO’s Intermodal Committee to facilitate
public/private partnerships for such issues as funding, environmental/economic
trade-offs, and development of additional intermodal opportunities in the Richmond
region.
! Develop an intermodal rail facility in the Richmond/Petersburg Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA).
! Work with the intermodal task force and environmental groups to study and facilitate
the widening and deepening of the James River Navigation Channel. In addition,
examine the costs and benefits of barge travel along the James River as a way of
shipping goods manufactured in Richmond to other markets.
! Improve smaller county airports to divert private plane traffic from Richmond
International Airport so that cargo carrying and scheduled passenger airline service
capacity of RIC is expanded.
Each of these components is discussed below in further detail.
VDOT should be requested to meet with a group of representatives from the trucking
industry to review design standards and hear their concerns.
The major concern of trucking firms in the Richmond area, according to task force
members familiar with their operations, is the inadequate turning radii and roadway
surface needed to accommodate trucks at interstate off-ramps and along interior access
roads leading to the interstates. Another concern is the need of delivery trucks in urban
185

areas where off-street parking is limited. These trucks making deliveries must either
double park, utilize loading zones that are too small or taken by passenger vehicles, or
block bus stops. As changes, upgrades, or expansions are made the trucking industry
must be involved in the decision-making process. Off-ramps and nearby interior road
turn lanes must be of sufficient width and radii to allow vehicles measuring 71 feet in
length to safely and efficiently make turns.
To alleviate these problems, it is suggested that the MPO ask VDOT, who has
responsibility for roadway planning and design, to review designs with the trucking
industry. In addition to the efficient movement of goods throughout Richmond, this
approach will reduce repair costs on sidewalks and curbs, improve traffic movement of
all vehicles, and improve safety.
Re-establish and recharge the MPO’s Intermodal Committee to facilitate public/private
partnerships for such issues as funding, environmental/economics trade-offs, and
development of additional intermodal opportunities in the Richmond region.
An important first step in improving intermodal options in the Richmond area is to
develop a public and private oversight task force to ensure that all avenues for intermodal
transportation improvements are exhausted. This task committee should be made up of
representatives from CSX and Norfolk Southern railroads, the Virginia Trucking
Association, the Port of Richmond and other port directors, local distributors who rely on
the intermodal network to get goods to market, local chambers of commerce, VDOT,
VDRPT, and any local governments that believe they have a financial stake in the efforts
of the committee.
One of the first obstacles will be selecting an intermodal transfer site and funding the
necessary infrastructure to make the facility a reality. Funding options may be limited,
and the intermodal committee would have the best ideas on how to raise the necessary
funds. Therefore, it is recommended the committee be charged with identifying funding
sources. As the need arises the task force could also meet to deal with such diverse issues
as cost/benefit analysis for new or improved rail facilities, examining economic and
environmental costs and benefits with specific intermodal projects (i.e., widening and
deepening of the James River Navigation channel), and other topics as the committee
deems appropriate.
As a first step, the Richmond area MPO should affirm the need to re-establish the
intermodal committee and direct MPO staff to put together the task force and first
meeting agenda, and host the meeting.
Develop an intermodal rail facility in the Richmond/Petersburg Metropolitan Statistical
Area (MSA).
To ensure that the Richmond region can have an economic development edge for the
future, it is necessary for the Richmond area MPO and the Tri-Cities MPO to work
together in establishing an intermodal facility in the MSA. A facility, like the one
186

suggested at Collier Yard south of Petersburg, would be an ideal facility for distribution
of goods manufactured in the Richmond area.
While consultants have suggested the Collier Yard as an ideal location for an intermodal
facility, it is not beyond the realm of possibility to find an adequate site nearer to
Richmond. Such a facility would allow containerized cargo to be transferred from truck
or boat to rail or vice versa in an efficient manner. It would also reduce long-haul truck
movements along the I-64 and northern portion of the I-95 corridors
Whether or not the intermodal facility becomes a reality, it is a priority of local
distributors/shippers and manufacturers that some type of intermodal rail ramp be
established in the Richmond area. Although the intermodal facility would be an ideal
location, its existence should not preclude the development of the rail ramp. In order for
the Richmond area to remain competitive, an intermodal rail ramp would encourage
distributors to consider the ease of movement of freight from water or rail to truck and
vice versa. In addition, in intermodal ramp located near the port of Richmond would help
reduce truck traffic on both the I-95 and I-64 highway corridors.
Finally, to improve truck maneuverability around the site, recommendations from the
first plan component above should apply to this intermodal ramp. This includes adequate
turning radii, adequate maneuvering space, and quality loading and unloading facilities.
Again, such items can use flexible MPO funds, local government funds, and private
entrepreneur funds to ensure adequate truck standards are made available at the
intermodal ramp.
Work with the intermodal task force and environmental groups to study and facilitate the
widening and deepening of the James River Navigation Channel. In addition, examine
the costs and benefits of barge travel along the James River as a way of shipping goods
manufactured in Richmond to other markets.
Since Virginia was first settled, the James River has played an important role in the
transporting of goods from Richmond and points further westward to various markets
around the world. Today, the Port of Richmond is, by comparison, one of the smaller
port facilities for intermodal movements along the east coast. The terminals and
roadways in and around Tidewater are quickly becoming congested and distributors are
looking for other alternatives to these bustling ports. Because of the depth associated
with the river channel, most ocean-going vessels cannot make this journey. But such
improvements to the channel width and depth do not come without significant
environmental concerns. Advocates of a stronger intermodal transportation network in
the Richmond area will argue that making the James River an intermodal highway is a
key component of long-range economic development efforts. Environmentalists argue
that the destruction of ecological systems and the disturbance of natural habitat are
significant costs that make changes to the channel too expensive to consider. Therefore,
it is recommended that the intermodal task force develop a subcommittee that is made up
of equal numbers of intermodal advocates and environmental advocates to oversee an
187

environmental impact study on the widening and deepening of the navigation channel.
Some questions that will need to be answered include:
! Placement of river dredge
! Impact on oyster beds
! Turbidity of water
! Water quality
! Impact on historic wrecks
Some economic questions to be answered include:
! Cost/benefit analysis of channel widening
! Future economic development opportunities that a widened/deepened channel will
bring to the Richmond area
! Potential harm to the Richmond areas economic base if improvements are not made
! Multiplier and/or ripple effect of widening/deepening on other industries in the
Richmond area
! Cost of improvements and their impacts on recreational activities
Another potential solution is the use of barges to ship containers to and from Baltimore,
Philadelphia, and Norfolk to Richmond and thus alleviate some of the space and time
constraints associated with those facilities. Paying for such a study should be handled
similarly to the financing of the intermodal facility project. Any land acquisition would
be handled by local governments and improvement costs borne by users. The Army
Corps of Engineers is currently examining the channel to determine the feasibility of
widening and deepening the James River.
Improve smaller county airports to divert private plane traffic from Richmond
International Airport so that cargo carrying and scheduled passenger airline service
capacity of RIC is expanded.
The cargo that moves through Richmond International Airport (RIC) falls primarily into
two major categories. Those that move through the belly of commercial passenger
aircraft within the cargo or luggage hold and those that move through private commercial
cargo airplane operations (i.e., UPS). With the capacity of RIC expected to be reached
during the twenty-year life of the plan, it is imperative that private passenger aircraft be
diverted to other airports located in the Richmond region (Source: Richmond
International Airport Master Plan). These include facilities in Chesterfield County,
Hanover County and New Kent County. These airports are better positioned to handle
the growing amount of private passenger charters and privately-flown personal aircraft
than RIC from a cost/benefit perspective.
To divert private passenger traffic away from RIC it will be necessary for Chesterfield,
Hanover and New Kent counties to improve the capacity and ground service facilities at
these airports. While MPO controlled funds are not available for airport improvements,
188

the intermodal task force, with support and staff assistance from the MPO, can seek
federal and state grants to make the necessary improvements.
Each of these airports has developed their own master plan or airport layout plan for
airport improvements. Hanover and New Kent have completed or partially completed
their plans in the last two years. Chesterfield completed their last update in 1995, but
have provided the airport with excellent expansion potential and good regional
connectivity with easy access to Route 288 which will ultimately connect the airport to
locations in Goochland and western Henrico.
Considerations for Local Governments
While the Intermodal plan element relies heavily on the private sector’s commitment to
improving intermodal conditions, local governments in the Richmond area should
consider the following needs and impacts which may ultimately be public responsibility.
! Land acquisition for intermodal facilities may be best done through jurisdictions
rather than the private sector. This provides the public incentive necessary to lead the
private sector to spend funds to improve facilities. By definition this is a true
public/private partnership.
! As stated in Goal One, Objective A, roadways make up the backbone of our
transportation system. Jurisdictions will need to determine the best source of MPO
funds to retrofit existing roadways to facilitate intermodal truck movements, and to
ensure future expansions can safely accommodate freight vehicles.
! Ultimately, local governments along the James River may have to “weigh-in” on the
issue of the James River Navigation Channel and its potential improvement.
! The counties of Chesterfield, Hanover, and New Kent will need to consider what role
they want each of their airports to play in the future. Depending on that role, these
jurisdictions will need to consider how they can best utilize MPO funds to assist the
airports in making the improvements they envision.
! Whenever feasible, transportation enhancement funding should be sought to better
integrate intermodal facilities with the surrounding community.
! Lastly, the MPO and all of its jurisdictions must decide if they want to make
intermodal transportation a higher priority in the regional transportation network.
189

2023 LRTP
Chapter XIV
CMS
190

Chapter XIV-Congestion Management System (CMS) Element
This element is taken from the Executive Summary of the CMS document. Therefore,
the format is not consistent with the other elements of the plan. For more detailed
information on this CMS element, refer to the CMS document.
Purpose
TEA-21 requires states and larger MPOs to utilize a congestion management system as
part of the planning process. The purposes of the CMS are:
! To identify strategies that provide the most efficient and effective use of existing and
future transportation facilities.
! To manage congestion and enhance mobility in the region.
! To provide an effective tool for decision-making.
Background
Congestion Management System (CMS) is a systematic process for managing congestion
that provides information on transportation system performance and alternative strategies
for alleviating congestion and enhancing the mobility of persons and goods. The
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) established the CMS
as an integral component of the metropolitan planning process. In 1996, the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued
final regulations, which allowed states and local officials greater flexibility in
determining the parameters for developing the CMS including performance measures and
their acceptable levels.
Because the Transportation Efficiency Act of the 21 st Century (TEA-21) requires a CMS
in maintenance or non-attainment urbanized areas with populations over 200,000, the
CMS has become an ongoing activity in the Richmond region for identifying, developing,
evaluating, and implementing transportation strategies to reduce congestion and enhance
mobility and safety throughout the region.
The Richmond Area MPO initiated the development of its first regional CMS program
through a CMS Advisory Task Force. The Task Force goal was to develop the CMS,
fulfilling the Interim Final Rule requirements by the October 1, 1995 deadline. The CMS
Advisory Task Force made recommendations for adopting the CMS boundary, highway
network, parameters for evaluation, and strategies to consider for implementation. The
MPO approved its first regional CMS in October 1997. In July of 1999, the MPO
approved the CMS update. This update documented changes that have occurred since the
approval of the 1997 CMS.
191

Area of Application
The MPO study area boundary serves as the boundary for the CMS roadway network.
Under federal requirements, the study area for the Richmond Area must, at a minimum,
encompass both the existing urbanized area and the contiguous area expected to be
urbanized during the period covered by the 2023 Long-Range Transportation Plan. It
must also cover areas designated as part of the non-attainment/maintenance area for
ozone air quality standards. To ensure that the plan covers all urbanized areas, all areas
expected to urbanize by 2023, and the regions ozone non-attainment/maintenance area,
the study area has been defined to include Hanover County, Henrico County, Town of
Ashland, City of Richmond, a majority of Chesterfield County, and portions of Charles
City, Goochland, New Kent, and Powhatan counties.
CMS Network
Highway Network
The National Highway System (NHS) provides the foundation for the CMS highway
network in the Richmond region. The NHS routes serve facilities that are considered to
be of national importance to the transportation network, such as ports, airports,
intermodal facilities, and strategic defense facilities. All interstates and expressways are
included in the NHS as well as selected non-limited access controlled principal arterials.
These routes include portions of State Routes 60, 360, and 250; and 33 (Staple Mills
Road), 197 (Laburnum Avenue), 156 (Airport Drive), and Parham Road.
There are also other routes in the CMS highway network that are not part of the NHS.
These include facilities that are parallel to the interstate highway system and routes that
connect two interstate facilities. These facilities are an important part of the CMS
network since they are used for emergency routing of interstate traffic when needed (e.g.,
an accident on an interstate highway may block all through traffic in one or both
directions, major interstate construction requiring rerouting of traffic, etc.) The non-NHS
corridors include:
US 1: From VA 54 in the Town of Ashland to the south urban area
boundary in Chesterfield County
! US 250: From Parham Road to the west MPO study area boundary in
Goochland County
! US 301: From I-295 to U.S. 1
! US 60: From East New Kent County MPO study area boundary to 14 th
Street in the City of Richmond
! US 60: From Powhatan County MPO study area boundary to VA 288.
! US 360: From Rt. 627 (Pole Green Road) to I-295
! US 360: From I-295 to southwest Chesterfield County MPO study area
boundary
! VA 5: From US 60 (Main St) to the Charles City MPO boundary
192

If a facility does not fall into the NHS or non-NHS category, but has been identified as a
congested facility, consideration may be given to include that facility in the CMS.
However, the proposed facility is subject to approval by the CMS Advisory Committee.
Regional Transit Network
Public transit can provide for congestion relief; therefore, the entire transit network will
be considered part of the CMS. Nearly all bus routes operated by the Greater Richmond
Transit Company (GRTCS) travel along some portion of the CMS highway network.
Major emphasis is placed on routes, which travel significant distances (at least five miles)
along the network.
Two AMTRAK stations (Richmond and Ashland) are also on the transit network.
Construction is also underway for the Main Street Station in downtown Richmond, which
is also on the transit network.
Chesterfield will be expanding GRTCS bus service with vans that would travel along
three routes on the CMS network (Routes 1, 10 and 60). The plans would also establish
park and ride lots and an express service to carry commuters to and from downtown
Richmond.
Other Regional Modes
Other regional components of the network include:
! Port of Richmond (Commerce Road, Connector Road, and Deepwater Terminal)
! Richmond International Airport (VA Route 156, Airport Road South, and Fox Road)
! CSX Railroad Company
! Norfolk Southern Railroad Company
! Bicycle Facilities on Highway Network
Performance Measures
Performance measures are a central element of the Congestion Management System and
should provide the basis for identifying the amount, severity, and exact locations of
congestion problems in a region. Performance measures can also be used to identify
causes of congestion and to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies which are
implemented.
The final rule requires that the State and MPO cooperatively identify performance
measures that will provide the measure of the extent of traffic congestion in the
metropolitan planning area. The CMS parameters selected by the MPO and VDOT
evaluate existing and future congestion on the regional network. These performance
measures provide a means for the MPO and VDOT to evaluate the effectiveness of
congestion reduction and mobility enhancement strategies for the movement of people
193

and goods. Both VDOT and the MPO are required to monitor and assess strategy
effectiveness based on the parameters identified and adopted.
The following congestion performance parameters are used in the CMS:
! Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratios- V/C is a conventional level of service measure
for roadways, comparing roadway demand (vehicle volumes) with roadway supply
(carrying capacity). This measure is used to determine existing and future capacity
deficiencies and to alert transportation providers to areas where traffic mitigation
measures should be considered.
! Vehicle Occupancy Rates (VOR)- The VOR is the performance component that is
used to evaluate the efficiency of moving people as compared to moving vehicles.
Traffic observers collect car occupancy data for various locations around the region.
This data consist of counts of the actual number of vehicles and the actual number of
occupants in each vehicle in a given lane. VOR data will be used to monitor the
success of CMS strategies that support ridesharing activities.
! Speed/Travel-time Data- Travel time-based measures provide credible estimates of
system performances and reliability by examining how efficiently persons and
vehicles can move through the transportation system. These measures can also be
used to validate other system planning tools and is particularly useful because the
traveling public easily understands speed and time.
Data Collection and Monitoring Plan
The data collection and monitoring plan is the mechanism for collecting the data needed
to evaluate the performance measures as well as to track congestion over a period of time.
Data collected for this CMS includes V/C ratios on the highway network, vehicle
occupancy counts at pre-selected survey stations, and travel and speed data using the
Global Positioning System (GPS) on selected arterials. The frequency of the collection
effort will depend on the data. For example, V/C ratios and vehicle occupancy counts
will be collected every three years consistent with the Long-Range Transportation Plan.
Travel and speed data using the GPS will be collected annually.
CMS Strategies
In 1996, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) issued final regulations, which allowed states and local officials
greater flexibility in determining the parameters for developing the CMS including
performance measures and their acceptable levels. In addition, the rule outlines the
following five categories of strategies that should be considered in the CMS:
! Transportation demand management measures
! Traffic operational improvements
194

! Public transportation improvements
! Intelligent transportation systems
! Additional capacity where necessary
TEA-21 requires, in an MPO that is a non-attainment area for air quality and/or a TMA,
that these strategies receive consideration as congestion management techniques. Ideally,
these strategies would be analyzed during the planning process. As the long-range
transportation plan and the TIP are developed by the MPO, input from the strategy
analysis would lead to appropriate investment decisions.
Implementation of Strategies
In the Richmond region, many CMS strategies are currently being implemented and/or
being planned for implementation in the future. Although strategies have been identified
by various means such as task forces, committees, or in the UWP, the TIP and Long-
Range Transportation Plan remain as the main avenues for implementation.
The TIP documents decisions by the MPO, state/regional agencies, and local
governments for funding transportation projects and programs including CMS projects.
Congestion relief projects are an important component of the TIP submission. CMS
strategies are evaluated within the planning process through the CTAC, TAC and MPO
for inclusion in the transportation plan and the TIP/STIP. The planning process is the
focal point for consideration of other factors, such as the Clean Air Act requirements,
growth management, high capacity transit, travel reduction, economic and environmental
factors, funding and social factors. The planning process coordinates the strategic
recommendations of the CMS into the transportation plan. The planning process also
leads to decisions on which projects are programmed for implementation. Compliance
with the requirements that the MPO planning process include a CMS is addressed during
FHWA/FTA certification reviews.
The CMS supports long-term transportation goals established by the planning process
and provides guidance on how these goals can be achieved through strategies to alleviate
congestion. As a result, the CMS provides long-term benefits to the planning process
through project implementation. The long-range plan is used to determine if any of the
long-term congestion segments are controlled or eliminated by long-range projects or
programs.
The CMS process will operate on a three-year cycle, consistent with the long-range
transportation planning process.
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Implemented Strategies
Once a congestion reduction strategy has been implemented, continued monitoring
efforts are necessary to evaluate whether the implemented strategy has been effective.
195

The objective is to assess its effectiveness on both the specific congestion problem and
the system as a whole. The VDOT travel forecasting model, vehicle occupancy surveys
and travel-speed data are important tools to assess an implemented strategy’s success in
reducing region wide congestion. Based on the data collected, other tools may be used to
determine a strategy’s success in relieving congestion at a specific site or along a
corridor. Benefits may include decrease delay, reduced travel time, reduction in
accidents, etc.
Recommendations for Future CMS
1. Re-activate the CMS Task Force to update the process. This CMS report is
based on the 1995 CMS Advisory Task Force’s recommendations for adopting
the CMS boundary, highway network, parameters for evaluation, and
strategies to consider for implementation. This group should be reestablished
to revisit and reevaluate decisions made regarding the CMS in the region.
Also consideration should be given to expand this group to include more
stakeholders.
2. Establish measurable goals and objectives for the CMS in order to better
monitor and evaluate progress in addressing congestion. The task force could
consider goals such as:
! Reducing congestion on the interstate system by a certain percentage.
! Setting a target Vehicle Occupancy Rate (VOR) for the region.
! Maintaining or improving average speeds on arterials.
! Setting goals for vehicle distribution during peak hours.
These goals could be easily measured by the performance indicators (V/C
ratios, vehicle occupancy counts, speed and travel time runs using the GPS)
already in place.
3. Because of the positive effect that transit has on reducing congestion,
implement transit projects identified in the 2023 Long-Range Transportation
Plan as local support is determined and funding becomes available.
4. Consider other transportation alternatives than building new roads and major
widening projects on the interstate and arterial systems. Analyses show that
congestion will continue on interstates and arterials even with planned
highway improvements. The region has already studied and reviewed other
measures such as ITS strategies and Arterial Access Management. Local
support of these strategies is needed for them to be effective. Also
consideration should be given to High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes on arterials.
This measure increases the person-carrying capacity on the arterial and defers
the need to widen the road.
196

5. Continue to support Ridefinders, Inc. to promote ridesharing activities.
Ridesharing can reduce commute costs, energy consumption per passenger,
highway congestion and air pollution. Evidence exists to show that wellconceived
and aggressively promoted TDM measures can decrease peak
period traffic over the short-term by as much as 10 to 15 percent (10-15%).
6. Provide for more congestion studies, transportation demand analysis, growth
pattern analysis, and data collection activities as part of the Unified Work Plan.
This will result in a more detailed CMS for the region.
197

2023 LRTP
Chapter XV
Financial Plan
198

Chapter XV-Financial Element
Purpose
Prior to ISTEA, many long-range plans have identified transportation projects based on
an analysis of needs with little to no consideration given to the amount of available funds.
Under ISTEA and TEA-21, all MPOs must now demonstrate that projects and activities
included in transportation improvement programs can be funded. MPOs must also
demonstrate financial commitments to projects and activities in long-range plans.
In order to comply with TEA-21 requirements, the financial element must not only
identify funding sources and revenues but also whether these resources will be available
within the period established by the TIP and long-range plan.
Background
VDOT has the responsibility for maintaining and constructing the state’s interstate,
primary and secondary systems. VDOT has jurisdiction over these systems in the
Richmond region except for Henrico County, the City of Richmond, and the Town of
Ashland. Henrico County has jurisdiction over the maintenance and construction of the
secondary system. The City of Richmond and the Town of Ashland are responsible for
roads within the city/town limits and receives maintenance funding from VDOT for
streets that meet state standards.
Funding Projections/ Cost Estimates
Titles 33.1 and 58.2 of the Code of Virginia, along with the State Appropriation Act, set
forth the revenues dedicated to transportation and how they are allocated. The projected
allocations for interstate, primary, secondary, and urban funds were determined by
VDOT, which were based on the most recent federal and state legislation in regard to
transportation allocations. The totals are given on the Table 1. Allocations for these
funding categories and Transit totaled $2,963,944,000. VDOT also provided figures for
Regional STP, CMAQ, Statewide STP, Safety and Enhancement funds. These funding
categories were not included in the total allocation available and therefore not used in the
constraining the Long-range Transportation Plan. Transit figures were provided by
VDRPT.
The cost estimates for the “constrained” Long-range Transportation Plan projects are
summarized on Table 2. Each jurisdiction selected projects to include in the
“constrained” list. Cost estimates for these projects were provided by VDOT.
Table 2 shows that the primary and transit categories have zero balances. However, a
total of $113,910,000 had to be transferred from interstate funds to primary and transit to
make up for shortfalls in both of these categories. Table 2 also shows that three of the
funding categories have funding surpluses as follows:
199

! Interstate $ 53,053,000
! Secondary $ 39,331,000
! Urban $ 58,180,000
Total Surplus $150,564,000
Financial Summary
The first step in constraining the Long-range Transportation Plan is to identify the
region’s transportation needs and how to fund these needs. The financial analysis
demonstrates that the 2023 Long-Range Transportation Plan can be implemented based
on resources from private and public sources. The total surplus of over $150 million in
regional funds dedicated for interstate, secondary and urban facilities, can provide for
future amendments to the Plan that may result in additional funding requirements. It
should be noted that although the region shows surpluses in the interstate, secondary, and
urban categories, some of the projects that were listed on the “constrained” list had to be
moved to the “vision” list in order to for the region to meet air quality conformity.
200

Table XV-1: Estimated Available Funds for Richmond Area Transportation Projects
Richmond Regional
2023 Long-Range Transportation Plan
Estimated Funds ($1,000’s)
Funding Source
Estimated Funds
NHS/Interstate $726,910
Primary System $1,033,290
Secondary System $570,530
Urban System $426,590
CMAQ $107,155
STP Regional $299,140
Statewide STP $ 46,000
Safety $ 5,750
Enhancements $ 5,750
Transit Capital $206,624*
Source: VDOT
*VDRPT (Transit total)
201

Table XV-2: Projected Cost Versus Projected Allocations
(IN 000)
Jurisdiction Interstate Primary Secondary Urban Transit Total
Ashland $15,704 $15,704
Ashland PRIV $143 $143
Charles City $31,670 $13,902 $45,572
Charles City PRIV $451 $451
Chesterfield $22,192 $419,923 $207,143 $649,258
Chesterfield PRIV $343,314 $547,964 $891,278
Chesterfield 288 $118,000 $118,000
Goochland $25,058 $33,233 $13,854 $72,145
Goochland 288 $106,000 $106,000
Hanover $22,968 $44,213 $35,847 $103,028
Hanover PRIV $0
Henrico $96,916 $261,152 $229,173 $587,241
Henrico PRIV $45,750 $45,750
New Kent $46,534 $9,023 $12,601 $68,158
New Kent PRIV $0
Powhatan $47,242 $18,679 $65,921
Powhatan 288 $12,000 $12,000
Richmond $337,922 $352,706 $690,628
Richmond PRIV $0
CRAC $16,000 $16,000
GRTCS $8,000 $12,191 $242,534 $262,725
Ridefinders $1,000 $1,000
Projected Cost $559,590 $1,454,961 $1,125,364 $368,553 $242,534 $3,751,002
(Private) $343,314 $594,165 $143 $937,622
$2,813,380 $559,590 $1,111,647 $531,199 $368,410 $242,534 $2,813,380
Projected
Allocations $0
$2,963,944 $612,643 $1,111,647 $570,530 $426,590 $242,534 $2,963,944
Balance $53,053 $0 $39,331 $58,180 $0 $150,564
RT 288 Total
Chesterfield Goochland Powhatan
Assumptions: Cost: $236,000,000 50% of cost 45% of Cost 5% of Cost
*Note: $35,910 in Interstate shifted to Transit and $78,000 in Interstate shifted to Primary so that projects
may be realized in the 20-year timeframe.
202

2023 LRTP
Chapter XVI
Appendices
203

Chapter XVI-Appendices
204

Appendix A – Final Draft LRTP Public Review Process Documentation
Overview
Major components of the public review process for the LRTP are as follows:
Initial Public Review Meetings and Citizen Comment Surveys
LRTP Task Force
Final Public Review Period and Meetings
An overview of the MPO’s public participation program is provided in Chapter I. Initial
public input for the LRTP is provided in Chapter IV. On-going citizen input was
provided through the LRTP Task Force. A membership list of the task force is included
at the end of this chapter. Periodic updates on the progress of the LRTP were made on
three occasions to the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) and on three
occasions to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Completion of the public review
process was through a final public review period and submission of comments received
for MPO review and comment.
Final Public Review Period and Meetings
Staff initiated the final phase of the LRTP’s public review process in late February of
2001. Final public review activities included the following:
Notice for the March 5 th and 6 th Public open house meetings were advertised in the
February 20 th edition of the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the February 21 st edition of
the Richmond Free-Press. These announcements were also submitted to area news
media, members of TAC and CTAC, and interested parties included in the MPO, TAC
and CTAC mailing lists, and to approximately 150 area human/social service agencies.
An article titled “Draft Road Plan Includes Gayton” printed in the February 27, 2001
addition of the Richmond-Times Dispatch (page B4). This article included notice with
times, dates, location information for the public open house meetings (article sidebar).
Draft LRTP documents and summary hand-out information was distributed to 11 local
libraries (these libraries were identified in the meeting notices printed in the paper and
notices distributed to the groups listed above); the document and information was also
available at Ridefinders and the RRPDC offices.
Notice for the public open house meetings and the review period were posted on the
RRPDC website and mailed to the local transit union, local transportation providers, and
area transportation freight operators.
During the open house public meetings staff was available to address questions. A total
of 22 citizens attended these two meetings.
205

Long-Range Transportation Plan Task Force
The Long-Range Transportation Task Force consisted of members of the TAC, CTAC,
and representatives of transportation user groups and environmental advocates. The task
force met 11 times to review existing data, draft goals and objectives, and develop the
long-range plan recommendations. The task force was made up of the following
individuals:
Vickey Badger, Task Force Chair
Principal Planner, City of Richmond
William Britton
Director of Planning, Charles City Co.
Tim Doll
Capital Region Airport Commission
Paul Grasewicz
Director of Planning, Powhatan County
James Kennedy
Director of Operations, RMA
Eric Millirons
Trans. Engineer, Henrico County
Herbert Pegram
Trans. Planning Div., VDOT
Herbert Richwine
CTAC member, Chesterfield
Ivan Rucker
Community Planner, FHWA
David Whitlow
Town Manager, Town of Ashland
Felicia Woodruff
Executive Director, Ridefinders
Robert Basham
CTAC member, Henrico County
Bambi Davidson
Greater Richmond Chamber of Commerce
Rebecca Draper
Director, Public Works Dept., Hanover Co.
Robert Hammond
Director of Planning, Goochland County
John McCracken
Director of Transportation, Chesterfield Co.
Martin Moynihan
Executive Director, Port of Richmond
James Ponticello
Environmental Engineer, VDEQ
Mark Rickards
Senior Transportation Engineer, VDRPT
Lloyd Vye
Richmond Area Bicycle Association
Julien Williams
CTAC member, City of Richmond
John Zuegner
CTAC member, City of Richmond
Alternates
Jill Hunger, Town of Ashland
Barbara Smith, Chesterfield County
Walter Johnson, VDOT
Kimberly Spence, VDOT
206

Citizen Comments on Draft Long Range Transportation Plan
Comment 1: Mr. Rodney Sobin writes: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on
the draft 2023 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Transportation Improvement
Program Amendments, Congestion Management System, and Air Quality Conformity
Analysis.
I am a resident of the Wellesley community near Short Pump. While many of my
comments focus on this area, I strongly believe that they apply throughout the
suburban areas of our region. Therefore I hope that you will consider my specific
comments also in terms of the general characteristics, issues, and problems of
transportation in Richmond’s suburban communities.
I am a motorist and also a customer of the Greater Richmond Transit Company’s bus
service so of course I have a strong interest in efficient and safe highway
transportation in our region. However, the issue that most concerned me as I reviewed
the LRTP and associated documents is the inadequate attention to pedestrian and
bicycle modes of transportation.
The section of the LRTP entitled “Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities and Site
Improvements” (starting at p. 112) describes many of the issues, benefits, and
impediments to pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Yet the section mentions sidewalks only
twice. And there is no mention at all of how traffic signals can promote or inhibit
pedestrian and bicycle transport. In perusing the various road expansion plans I saw
no mention of sidewalks, pedestrian signals, pedestrian/bike overpasses, or other
mechanisms to accommodate, much less encourage, pedestrian and bicycle transport.
The sporadic presence of sidewalks and the design of many traffic signals in my
neighborhood (and I’m sure in other suburban areas) impede walking. It almost
forces people to drive (and pollute the air) in order to visit friends, parks, playgrounds,
schools, and businesses that would otherwise be in walking or bicycling distance. It is
a particularly strong impediment to walking for senior citizens, those with small
children, and the disabled who find it arduous or dangerous to negotiate road
shoulders and inadequately signaled intersections. Furthermore, there is evidence that
walkable communities are considered more attractive and better retain or enhance
property values relative to similar pedestrian unfriendly communities.
With the rapid development of a major shopping mall and other retail centers at Short
Pump, there is an urgent need for improved pedestrian and bicycle access. The
planned Short Pump mall is billed as being designed as a pedestrian-friendly open-air
shopping center. Would it not be sadly ironic if those living within a mile or so of the
mall were unable to walk or bicycle there because of lack of pedestrian signals across
Broad St. and lack of sidewalks on Lauderdale and North Gayton?
207

The forced reliance on automobiles increases congestion for commuters, shoppers, and
those making local short trips alike. Also, as you are probably aware, the majority of
automotive emissions of VOCs and NOx occur during the first eight minutes of a trip
before the engine and catalytic converter get hot. Pedestrian and bicycle friendliness
of suburban communities could significantly mitigate air pollution by reducing the
number of short local vehicle trips taken. Indeed, reducing numerous short trips can
be more effective at reducing air pollution than some park-and-ride mass transit
schemes in which commuters still have to drive. (I.e., driving 13 miles to downtown is
not much more polluting than driving five miles to the park-and-ride. However,
reducing the number of times a person starts their engine per day because they can
walk or bicycle between home, playground, stores, restaurants, friends, etc. can
significant reduce VOC and NOx releases.)
My specific recommendations for the LRTP are:
Explicitly acknowledge the importance of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrianfriendly
traffic signals for community livability, vehicle traffic reduction, and air
pollution mitigation.
Assure that planned extension, widening, and refurbishment projects for such roads as
Gayton, North Gayton,, Three Chopt, Pouncey Tract, Springfield, Pemberton, Shady
Grove, etc. include adequate sidewalks and pedestrian signals.
Assure that traffic signals and crosswalks across Broad Street can accommodate
pedestrians. (I invite member of the MPO to join me on a stroll across the intersection
of Pump and Broad to try to cross in the time allotted by the green signal.) (Similarly
for Patterson Avenue.)
Add sidewalks to roads such as Lauderdale that are not on the LRTP list of highway
projects but serve as important conduits linking residential areas to retail, office,
school, park, and other locations (as well as to each other). Similarly, extend sidewalk
coverage for Pump, Church, Gaskins, and other primary and secondary thoroughfares
that have disjointed (even haphazard) sidewalk coverage.
The map for the proposed Broad Street Trunk Route bus service between Downtown
and Short Pump seems to end at Pump Road. This should be extended at least to
Lauderdale where the planned mall will be; consider an option to extend further west
as continued development of Broad Street toward West Creek occurs.
Again, I note specific roads in my neighborhood but please consider these comments to
be broadly applicable to Richmond’s suburbs.
I’d like to conclude my comments with a quote from a recent article by University of
Virginia Urban and Environmental Planning Professors William Lucy and David
Phillips (in “Suburban Decline: The Next Urban Crisis,” Issues in Science and
Technology (online edition), Fall 2000 at http://www.nap.edu/issues/17.1/lucy.htm ):
208

“Transportation and settlement patterns. Transportation should support the development of
and reinvestment in viable settlements. Such settlements require transportation alternatives for
diverse purposes, from automobiles to public transport to walking and bicycling. Because many
people are located (perhaps trapped is a better term) in disconnected settlements from which
they can function moderately well only by using automobiles, too many people assume that
more highways and continued auto dependence constitute the best practices. But viable
settlements cannot be achieved by responding to the current preferences of a dispersed majority
of affluent and semi-affluent households. Hence this dilemma: Policies favoring highway
construction are self-defeating and perpetuate the recurring processes of settlement decline in
outward rolling waves, but they are the policies with the greatest short-range political support. .
. . Transportation should be viewed as a community development function at least as much as
a means of moving individuals quickly from home to work or from one metropolitan area to
another.”
Again thank you for the opportunity to comment, and thank you for your kind
attention.
Sincerely yours,
Rodney Sobin
13204 Autumn Chase Place
Richmond, VA 23233-1061
(Staff Response: The Long-Range Transportation Plan does discuss the idea of
sustainable communities (often referred to as walkable or livable communities) but does
not go into great detail about the components that make up such communities. Sidewalks
are an important element in making communities sustainable and increasing the
attractiveness of neighborhoods. Staff supports efforts by local governments to consider
the provision of sidewalks during road construction and considering their necessity
during site plan review activities. The MPO should consider a more detailed
consideration of sidewalks during roadway construction as part of the next LRTP update.
The MPO is currently conducting (through a consultant under contract to VDOT) a
Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan that will result in a detailed draft plan for each
participating jurisdiction that it can consider for adoption as part of its comprehensive
plan. The plan will also be considered in the region’s long-range transportation plan as
part of the LRTP Transportation Demand Management Element. Staff will also provide a
copy of Mr. Sobin’s letter to the MPO Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Study Advisory
Committee for their review and consideration.)
Comment 2: Diana Parker, Legislative Chair, Falls of the James Virginia Chapter of
the Sierra Club writes: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the vision and
the plan for the Richmond region which includes clean air, water, and land protection.
Having reviewed your Richmond Regional Long Range Transportation Plan, Vision,
Projects, and attended transportation hearings of the Virginia Transportation Board, I
see and hear from the counties affected that the major need for the future will be
funded safety and maintenance for our crumbling bridges, core infrastructure built
along our roads (water,sewer, gas lines replacement), and the widening of our
rural/urban roads that are carrying too much traffic for conditions. Rural roads are
often built along stage or walking trails of the past. Many roads are crowned, with
209

depths of asphalt and no shoulders. Drop off and over-correction on these roads result
in "head-ons".
The state, county, and Richmond transportation budgets are going to be unfavorably
impacted by cutbacks and personnel shortages due to shortfall in state and federal
funds. I consider major priority projects taking mega millions to fund such as Rt.
288/RT895 and others to be sprawl producers, even though rated top priority by several
counties. Other county requirements are interchanges, to guide traffic through current
backups onto our major thoroughfares. Strategic placement of these limited
interchanges should not displace our greenways and blueways, and should be
pedestrian, bike, and habitat friendly. Loop traffic to interchanges is most beneficial
and often cheaper than interchanges.
Public transportation initiatives are the wave of the future. Studies indicate that we
cannot expect favored future economic status when employees are jammed in traffic, a
current reality. The Commission should increase funding demands for initiatives that
will decrease dependence on the automobile and increase alternative transportation. I
fully appreciate efforts to establish bike transportation lanes in our inner cities to the
regional counties parks and schools, and alternate van public transportation along
regional corridors to our hospitals, schools, major employment centers, and shops. The
vision should include cooperative rail service linking with major lines.
Respectfully submitted,
Diana Parker, Legislative Chair
Falls of the James Group
Virginia Chapter Sierra Club
10700 Chalkley Road
Richmond, VA 23237
(Staff Response: The long-range plan has made an effort to identify transportation
alternatives and incorporate their increased use in the Richmond area. The staff
recommends that further efforts be made by area local governments and transportation
agencies to find ways to fund and implement many of the transportation alternatives
identified in the LRTP. Staff also suggests that the next LRTP update should include a
list of alternative transportation projects and include them in the financial constraint
element of the plan.)
Comment 3: Ms. Ingrid Stenbjorn via e-mail states: Don't spend more on roads to
increase sprawl. Spend more on improving mass transit like GRTC and Ridefinders
instead!!!!!
(Staff response: See CTAC Comments and draft LRTP response II.1.)
Comment 4: Ms Patricia A. DeZern writes: I appreciate your assistance in submitting
these comments on the Richmond Regional Long-Range Transportation Plan.
210

I commend you on your hard-won progress, but I am concerned that we have not gone
far enough to improve citizen access to public transportation or to protect our region
from sprawl development.
The amount of spending for public transportation has increased by only 5% in the last
20 years. We must reverse this pattern and spend much more on mass transit and less
on uncontrolled highway development.
I for one do not want to subsidize these highways and destruction of our open spaces,
which decrease the quality of all our lives through environmental impacts, time lost in
traffic, increased illness from air pollution.
We must also take responsibility for community sustainability, particularly of our inner
city and older suburbs. We must improve mass transit so that these resident can have
access to services and jobs.
Finally, at the very least, I urge you to adopt the recommendations of the Citizen
Advisory Committee related to the above issues and for the management of regional
growth.
Thank you for your consideration,
Patricia A. DeZern
7345 Longview Drive
Richmond, VA 23225
(Staff response: The issue of sustainability has been covered in previous comments. The
CTAC comments and staff response have been provided as a separate document. The
role of mass transit in the region’s future was a topic of considerable debate during the
many meetings of the Task Force. The Supreme Court decision of February 27 regarding
EPA’s new air quality standards, and the need for the Richmond region to take federal
credits to attain air quality limits under the old less-stringent standard could have a long
term impact on road construction, transit spending, and implementation of other
transportation alternatives. Without knowing the new air pollution budget, staff cannot
comment on the appropriate funding split between alternatives and road construction.
The MPO may want to consider amending the plan in the future to adjust the funding
split once the EPA implementation requirements are known.)
Comment 5: Mr. John Richmond writes: This evening I attended the Public Meeting
concerning the 2023 Transportation Plan and I was very impressed with the quality of
the work the team did to summarize the details of the plan, break it down into
understandable chunks, and supply the rationale behind the various facets of the plan.
I would now like to tell you my story as a resident of Richmond from the point of view
of transportation options.
211

When I first moved to Richmond in 1999 to teach students with autism at Henrico
High School, I was thrilled to find an apartment complex right behind the school that
would shorten my morning commute. However, I soon found that transportation and
life were about more than the morning commute. I found that I had to drive
everywhere, even to do laundry. The nearest grocery store was a 15 minute walk away,
and the closest Ukrop's was 45 minutes away on foot, 10 minutes on bike along roads
decidedly unfriendly to pedestrians and bicycles. The nearest library was the same
distance away; the closest movie theater, 5 miles. Even the neighborhood park was not
within reasonable walking distance. At that time I saw the impact on me as being
budgetary. Every mile I drive in my car costs me 15 cents (the rest of the cost comes
from owning it). Therefore transportation costs added about 60 cents to the cost of
every library book, load of laundry, and gallon of milk I purchased. I also had to work
a lot harder to get exercise.
These were among the factors that led me to move to the Museum District this summer.
I had decided not to purchase a house in Brookland Park on the Northside in part
because the same situation as above prevailed. The neighborhood is nowhere near
most amenities and services because zoning rules encourage large swaths of single-use
development and because the demographics in the neighborhood are unfavorable to
most retail establishments. Both decisions turned out to be very good ones.
Eleven days after I moved into my new apartment, I was returning from a weeklong
vacation in West Virginia. I had gone about 30 feet when I lost my concentration and
drove into a telephone pole at 12 mph. I managed to get my car fixed up there so I
could drive it home, but it was totaled. Once I found a body shop here I didn't see my
car again for 7 weeks and ended up paying almost $700 out of pocket for a rental car.
I finally got my car back and had been driving it for 9 days when I rear-ended a vehicle
in stop-and-go traffic on I-95 just past the Boulevard. Once again I lost my
concentration, my eyes literally darted from left to right rapidly, and I couldn't
prioritize what was important at the moment. I finally determined job stress to be the
cause of this mental state. I totaled my car again. This time I vowed not to rent a car.
But my job was now over 5 miles away. How was I going to get there?
By riding my bike. For 32 days I got by without a car, something I could not have done
in any other neighborhood in Richmond and in only a few neighborhoods in the state.
How could I pull that off? The Byrd Theater, the library, and my bike shop are a 10-
minute walk from my house, the Museum of Fine Arts 7 minutes, the Historical
Museum five, the Science Museum less than 20. Ukrop's is 12 minutes away on foot,
and Broad Street is about ten minutes the other way. The only thing not within walking
distance was my job. So I rode up Cleveland Street to Grace, thence to the Boulevard
(the scariest part of the trip) until Westwood, turning there until reaching the Union
Theological Seminary. I then cut through the campus to Seminary Road, taking that
up to and across the Brookhill Azalea shopping center. From there Wilmer Ave,
Tamiani Rd, and Windomere took me to the back entrance to the school.
212

I finally got my car back, and it still runs well, even having been totaled twice. I still
drive to work, though I may change that again as the weather gets warmer. A few items
to consider:
1. Sprawl is not merely an environmental issue, but also one of public safety. As people
drive more miles to and from work and make a higher percentage of trips in their cars,
there will be more accidents. If I'm stressed out from my job and not able to
concentrate on the road, how many others are driving the same way? Sprawl itself
causes some of the stress as traffic becomes more congested and drivers compete more
fiercely for space on the road. A lot of people need to drive a lot less and ride a lot
more.
2. Why did I use such an indirect route to work? The main thoroughfares are mostly
un-rideable. I would not ride a bike along Azalea Ave., Dumbarton Rd., Hilliard Rd, or
Staples Mill in the northside except on the sidewalk, which itself disappears in places.
Broad Street is un-rideable past Glenside because all the sidewalks go away. This
points to the need for more bike trails and bicycle lanes. But what are we doing?
Widening the Parham Speedway, for example. I have never observed widening a road
to reduce congestion. I calculated that over $1.8 billion will be spent just in the
Richmond area (not including Hanover) for new roads or widening projects, and
almost 70% of that will go toward new roads or widening roads with 4 or more lanes
already. That is money wasted and will not solve any traffic problems. We should be
spending that money on bicyclists and mass transit, pausing only to do whatever work
is needed to keep those roads that do exist safe for all drivers.
3. We look back at the year 1900 and count our blessings that we don't have to scoop
up any more horse dung from the streets. When 2101 rolls around, we will look back at
2001 and wonder how we let our politicians spend so much money on something that
kills over 40,000 Americans and injures 300,000 every year, more than the toll from
guns and almost that of the last full year of the Vietnam War. This plan, as well
presented as it is, perpetuates all the worst aspects of development in the Richmond
area. It needs to be reworked until there is a 50-50 split between roads and other forms
of transport.
Thank you for your time in reading this:
John Richmond
3210 C Stuart Ave.
Richmond VA 23221
(Staff Response: Staff sincerely appreciates the time Mr. Richmond spent in coming to
our public meeting, to discuss the draft plan with staff and to present his experiences and
concerns. All of the issues raised in this letter have been discussed in previous staff
responses.)
Comment 6: Mr. Christopher Lloyd writes: Last night, I attended the public hearing
on the Richmond MPO 2023 LRTP and I offer the following comments on the various
213

plans for transportation improvements in this region. I am submitting these comments
as a citizen of Henrico County and not in my capacity at McGuireWoods Consulting
(this is how I signed in last night).
1. Mountain Road widening project in Henrico County (Project 62) - as this road is
widened, can accommodations be made for bike lanes/paths? It is one of the few
connections from the Glen Allen to the US Bike Route 1 that begins on Old
Washington Highway.
2. Gayton Road connector to I-64 (project 85) - This is an excellent idea that should
move forward.
3. Improvements to the Bryan Park Interchange (Project 79) - I am interested in
seeing more information about the specific plans, but this is also a much needed
improvement. The weave movements from 64 West onto 95 South are very dangerous
and need to be improved.
4. The earlier project list on your web site included a new route for Springfield Road
from Nuckols to Francistown Road. That is no longer in the 2023 plan made available
last night. What happened to that project?
Thank you.
Chris Lloyd
4921 Merlin Lane
Glen Allen, VA 23060
(Staff Response: As stated in an earlier staff response, staff suggests that local
governments and the MPO consider sidewalks and bike paths during road construction
projects and that further discussion on this topic be included in the next LRTP update. In
respect to the third item, VDOT, their consultant, and a local citizens group reviewed and
developed several alternatives for the Bryan Park Interchange. The alternative selected
was a joint decision between VDOT and the citizens group. The LRTP lists the selected
alternative in the project list for Richmond and the alternative can be found in the Bryan
Park Interchange Study. In regards to point #4, the project was deleted by Henrico
County.)
Comment 7: Mr. Urchie Ellis writes: The Huguenot Bridge, Route 147, may not have
been renovated and/or replaced by 2023, the way things are going, and it should be at
the top of the list of projects. There presently are about 30,000 vpd passing over the
bridge, and they are split between residents of Chesterfield, Richmond, and Henrico.
The Bridge has a peculiar relationship, being largely in Henrico, and partly in
Richmond, and maintained by VDOT, thus it has been “no-body’s baby”.
The current estimated cost of the project is about $30 million, which is small compared
to other projects in the area---but the cost benefit from the expenditure on the
Huguenot Bridge would probably be far better than the other projects. The Bridge also
desperately needs a paint job to carry it through the interim period which is obviously
in prospect for at least five years.
214

Respectfully Yours,
Urchie Ellis
7900 Marilea Road
Richmond, VA 23225
P.S. Having seen the plans—the proposal to widen Huguenot Road north of the bridge
is wrong—the road is 4 lanes now—Bridge plan is two lanes (and should be 4). I also
object to widening of Chippenham to 6 lanes in City.
(Staff response: The Huguenot Bridge has been discussed many times by both the LRTP
Task Force and the TAC. The project has yet to be defined though many feel it is time to
reconstruct the bridge. According to a VDOT report, the Huguenot Bridge is the least
safe bridge in the region from a structural standpoint. In regards to the Huguenot Road
widening, Mr. Ellis is correct in noting that the segment of Huguenot Road between the
Henrico County line and Cherokee Road is currently a four lane facility and should not
be shown in the plan as a “widen to four lanes” project. Staff correction to the LRTP will
be made.)
Comment 8: Mr. Randy Slovic writes: The plan for public transportation is so weak as
to be ridiculous. Raising the percentage expended on transit to 17.5% in 20 years is an
embarrassment.
Charlotte, NC, which has the same population as the metro Richmond area has moved
aggressively towards public transportation. Recently, they passed a referendum to
charge an extra one cent in sales tax to fund transportation. The MPO needs to go
back to the Citizens Advisory Committee recommendation at the very least!
Plan also lacks any action in regard to land use planning. Good land use planning
would help with transportation congestion problems.
Randy Slovic
4604 Coventry Road
Richmond, VA 23221
(Staff response: Previous staff comments have addressed the funding split between roads
and other alternatives. The LRTP does advocate land-use planning as an effective longterm
traffic congestion relief tool. The LRTP still includes examples of alternative land
development techniques, makes recommendations for local governments to consider in
regards to the link between land planning and transportation, and advocates compact and
in-fill development concentrated around activity centers that could support transit service.
Recent reports by the Transportation Research Board, Urban Land Institute, the Transit
Cooperative Research Board, the Institute for Transportation Engineers, and the
American Planning Association all suggest that the most effective way to deal with
congestion is through better land use planning.)
215

Comments by CTAC Members on Draft Long Range Transportation Plan
Staff received comments from members of the Citizens Transportation Advisory
Committee (CTAC) following staff presentations and discussions at the January 4, 2001
and the February 27, 2001 CTAC meetings. Staff distributed a comments form for
CTAC members to complete and return to staff with any comments or concerns. Staff
also took notes of any verbal comments and discussion and included these as part of the
submitted CTAC comments.
The CTAC expressed one major comment at the February 27, 2001 meeting (i.e. LRTP
Process Comment). Staff received a total of 23 additional verbal or written comments
from the CTAC on the LRTP. On the following pages, the CTAC comments are shown
in bold and italicized text with staff response shown as normal text.
LRTP Process Comment
1. The CTAC would like to express its displeasure with the way in which the Long-
Range Transportation Plan process was handled. By allowing TAC to make
changes to what was agreed to by a joint TAC-CTAC Task Force, the
impression CTAC is left with is that the MPO considers TAC more important
than citizen and CTAC comment. If CTAC is to be continued, we would like it
to be made clear to the TAC that the MPO considers TAC and CTAC actions
equally and that both committees are of equal weight and importance in the
decision making process. For the next LRTP update, equal numbers of CTAC
and TAC representatives should be on the Task Force and the Task Force
should be a subcommittee of the MPO so that it must answer to both TAC and
CTAC. (Staff response: The MPO took action at its July 13, 2000 meeting to
authorize the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to review and take action
authorizing the draft LRTP for the final phase of public review. Once the public
review phase was initiated, draft LRTP documents were distributed to all CTAC
(and EDAC) members and alternates for review, discussion, and recommendation
action at the February 27,2001 CTAC meeting (EDAC members were invited to
attend this CTAC meeting). This final phase of public review was initiated on
February 20, 2001 and ended with two public meetings on March 5 and March 6
with all comments due by 10:00 AM, March 6. An important part of the public
review process has been the active participation of CTAC members and others on
the LRTP task force. Staff has provided regular monthly reports on the status of
various work activities, including information on the various task force meetings
to the MPO. Comments received from the public and CTAC, and the staff
response will be presented to the MPO for review and consideration prior to
action by the MPO on the draft LRTP. For the next LRTP update, the staff
recommends that another joint CTAC/TAC LRTP Task Force be established and
that the task force report directly to the MPO and be authorized to take action to
authorize the final draft LRTP for its final phase of public review and comment.
216

Part One Comments
1. Page 51. The original discussion on land use was much more comprehensive
and indicative of the problems facing the Richmond region. The original
language, which included strong references to the linkages between land-use,
transportation, and sprawl, was softened by TAC. We feel this is inappropriate
and does not allow citizens to see the well-thought out discussion of conditions
in our region. We therefore recommend that the original language approved by
the task force be re-inserted into the document. We also would like the
following sentences added; Roads determine how people work and live, they
alter the landscape. The transportation land use connection must be pursued.
(Staff response: The Task Force approved language was stronger and did include
more references to sprawl. However, the final draft LRTP retained most of the
discussion on sprawl as well as the map showing Future Land Use vs. 2023 LRTP
Constrained Projects. The draft plan also retained discussion of some new land
use patterns {i.e. neo-traditional development, transit-oriented development, and
other techniques}. The draft plan goals and objectives notes as Goal 6, Objective
E, the need to reduce harmful sprawl by 30% in the year 2010 as per the
Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. The Highway Element Plan Component section
was strengthened with the modification to one element which now reads as
follows:
“Work towards local and regional land use/transportation planning by
promoting as a regional body, amendments to the Code of Virginia to
provide local governments the authority to approve or disapprove land
development requests based on the adequacy of the surrounding
transportation facilities.”
The staff does not object to the sentences “Roads determined…pursued” be added
into the draft LRTP as requested by CTAC.)
2. Page 58. The environmental justice discussion does not adequately address the
fact that outlying area road projects are given priority over improving access to
the transportation network for low income and minority populations. This
section should be revised to discuss GRTC’s inability to develop service in
outlying counties because local governments claim to not want transit service.
This is in violation of federal law in regards to environmental justice. (Staff
response: The discussion of GRTC service in outlying areas often centers around
funding service operations. Staff has not received federal guidance to date to
determine if a local jurisdiction’s decision not to provide bus service to all areas
of its jurisdiction including its low income and minority populations constitutes a
violation of federal law. Staff also notes that that as part of the recent
FHWA/FTA Certification Review submitted to the MPO by letter dated January
17, 2001, that the MPO has been granted conditional certification. The
conditional certification is subject to five corrective actions of which two issues
217

address environmental justice requirements, identified as issues 3 and 5 as
follows:
“ (3) The documentation of current activities in place to assess the distribution of
impacts on different socio-economic groups for investments identified in the
Long-Range Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program…(5)
The implementation of specific comprehensive Environmental Justice planning
activities.”
The FHWA/FTA has advised that the MPO is to address these and the other three
corrective actions and that the FHWA and FTA will re-examine the Richmond
planning process twelve months from the date of the report.)
3. Page 60. While CTAC is encouraged by the inclusion of public comments in
the actual text of the Long-Range Transportation Plan, we feel that a synopsis
of comments received, which asked that we move away from road-building and
focus on transit and supporting land use, be included as an introduction to the
full set of comments. (Staff response: Staff can easily prepare a synopsis of
comments and believes this should be included in the final plan document. Staff
will prepare and submit this information for CTAC review and comment and for
MPO review, action and incorporation into the final plan document.)
4. Page 106. CTAC is glad to see the discussion of alternative transportation
modes in the LRTP. We would like to see Ridefinders goals and objectives as
well as their techniques for measuring effectiveness included in this section.
(Staff response: Staff has contacted Ridefinders and has requested their goals and
objectives for MPO review and consideration to incorporate into the plan. Once
this information has been received, it will be submitted for MPO review,
discussion, and action for inclusion in the LRTP.)
Part Two Comments
1. Page 157, Goal One Objective A: The objective says we want a balanced
transportation system, then the first objective under that goal says roads are a
priority. This is wrong. If we are going to have a balanced transportation
system then no mode should be given priority over another. This objective
should be removed since it runs counter to the goal it is attached to. If retained,
it should be reworded to say: Maintain the existing roadway network with an
emphasis on maximizing efficiency and safety through TSM, ITS, and TDM
improvements with widening a course of last resort. (Staff response: The vote
to include this addition was approved by a voice vote. Many of the votes taken by
the LRTP task force in reviewing, discussing, and establishing the proposed goals
and objectives were recorded as approved by majority voice vote. However,
many of these votes were by a slim majority and staff believes that this was one of
the close votes. On all of these close votes, the staff voted to abstain and
therefore staff offers no further comment on this CTAC request.)
218

2. Page 157, Goal One, Objective B: For a truly balanced transportation system,
the Richmond area will have to do far better than an 82.5%-17.5% split on
roads v. other alternatives. Given the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to
uphold EPA’s more stringent air quality attainment standards, the 82.5-17.5
split will not help Richmond achieve air quality conformity at any time in the
future. CTAC suggests that this objective be revised to a minimum 70-30 split
as originally proposed by staff with strong consideration given to approaching a
50-50 split. (Staff response: See staff response comment number II 1. Staff also
notes that as part of the conformity analysis process, some federal emission
reduction credits were used and and that some other federal credits should be
available for the next LRTP plan conformity analysis. Credits used for this
analysis will be figured in to our new emissions budget. It is also important to
note that the recent Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to uphold EPA’s more
stringent air quality attainment standard will likely make it much more difficult to
achieve attainment status. The MPO should carefully consider these requirements
once the implementation guidelines are issued by EPA.)
3. Page 163, Recommendation Two. The original recommendation was to have all
projects selected and prioritized based on evaluation criteria developed by the
LRTP task force. TAC weakened the recommendation by saying that it should
be simple, only used for the MPO priority projects, with criteria developed by
the MPO. The CTAC believes the recommendation as written does not
adequately provide accountability or consideration for making funding choices
based on a regional context for a balanced transportation system. The original
recommendation should be retained. (Staff response: The TAC was concerned
that ranking all projects in the LRTP would be too time-consuming and would be
based on some as yet to be determined criteria. Staff is currently contacting other
MPOs to determine how project prioritization is accomplished.)
4. Page 163, Recommendation Three. CTAC does not like the way that the
regional growth assessment/sprawl measurement document was de-emphasized.
This should be a very high priority for the MPO and RRPDC and should be
completed within one year. (Staff response: See Staff response to CTAC
comment II.1.)
5. Page 163 and 165, Recommendation Five. CTAC objects to the change in
wording of this recommendation. The original recommendation stated that we
should place greater emphasis on ITS, TSM, and TDM measures to address
congestion, with road widening or new capacity being the course of last resort.
The original recommendation clearly states the intent of the plan to have a
balanced transportation system and the original recommendation mirrors the
recommendation in the CMS. The re-wording makes it too easy for VDOT and
others to continue the old highway construction mentality. (Staff Response:
The CMS, by federal requirement, does call for an emphasis on ITS, TDM, and
TSM with highway expansion only able to be considered after previous strategies
have been examined.)
219

6. Project inserts containing list of highway projects. There is too much highway
building proposed in the region, at the expense of improved alternatives. This
needs to be rectified. The current 20 year list of highway projects v. the 20 year
list of transit projects does not equal an 82.5-17.5% funding split. In reviewing
the public input the call was for more transit spending not less. The call was
for less highway spending not more. The lists should move us towards a more
balanced transportation system not away from it. TEA-21 allows us to flex
highway funds to alternatives. Our twenty year plan should do that. (Staff
response: During the consideration of transportation projects following public
review and comment on the initial list of highway and transit projects, the LRTP
task force addressed these comments and considered the initial air quality
conformity analysis. As a result of these task force meetings, a significant
amount of proposed funding for highway projects was shifted over to proposed
transit projects. It is also important to note that the predominate mode of
transportation in the Richmond region is currently by a car on a roadway. The
approach that staff has taken in developing the draft 2023 LRTP is that the region
needs a balanced transportation system, and given the current heavy reliance on
automobiles, a change will take a lot of time and effort for the region to adjust to a
more balanced system.)
7. Page 168, bullet three under Items Beyond MPO Control. The wording of the
original bullet out of the task force is preferred. It stated that based upon input
at long-range transportation plan public meetings, it may be necessary for local
government officials to place a greater emphasis on transit provisions within
their jurisdictions. (Staff response: See staff response to CTAC comment III.1.)
8. Page 169 and 171. CTAC prefers the original wording of Recommendation
Three which called for a regional transportation commission. We need to move
beyond studying everything to death in regards to transit and implement it now.
The Regional Transportation Commission was recommended back in 1988 and
now we want to again study how to finance transit. Let the Commission figure
out the best way to fund regional transit and then implement it. (Staff response:
The recommendation was changed at the last task force meeting, so that all
potential revenue streams could be considered. Some task force members were
afraid that the Commission would have taxing authority and would tax local
jurisdictions to pay for transit. Under Virginia law, a Transportation Commission
can be formed by one or more area local governments, however, it would not have
taxing authority as does other transportation commissions in Northern Virginia.)
9. Page 169 and 172, Recommendation Four. The original wording, tie
transportation funding for roads and transit into one prioritized project list,
with priority given to projects that encourage growth management, should be
retained. (Staff response: The wording was changed to match the
recommendation from the highway element regarding prioritization. This change
was made by the TAC.)
220

10. Page 169 and 172, Recommendation Five. CTAC would like for the second
sentence of this recommendation be re-inserted. Successful transit systems do
not require patrons to transfer to other vehicles just because they are crossing
into another jurisdiction. This is a problem whenever routes cross from
Richmond into Chesterfield. Either GRTC uses the smaller vehicle on the
entire route or Chesterfield accepts that larger buses will run through their
community. Deleting this sentence makes it appear that Chesterfield County is
trying to make transit fail and because the issue is not raised in the LRTP it
must be o.k. with everyone. CTAC does not believe it is o.k. (Staff response: It
is staff’s understanding that GRTC provides transit service to area jurisdictions
based on the request of the local jurisdiction on how, where, and at what times the
service should operate. The funding for such service falls primarily on area local
governments and therefore, it will ultimately be up to Chesterfield County to
decide how such services should operate.)
11. Page 173, Recommendation Six. CTAC suggests that after studying light-rail
and commuter rail, we implement light-rail and commuter rail once the study is
completed. The impacts of the Tuesday, February 27 Supreme Court ruling
means we will have to start building transit facilities to meet air quality
guidelines. (Staff response: Staff can insert a paragraph at the end of the
recommendation stating that once the study is complete, that we begin transit
project development and facilities construction contingent on available funds.)
12. Page 174, Bullet one under Considerations for Local Governments. This bullet
was changed to say local governments may need to examine flexible zoning
ordinances. CTAC prefers the original bullet which state that local
governments will need to adopt flexible zoning ordinances that encourage or
facilitate infill/compact and other transit-oriented design. CTAC also believes
that local governments should initiate land planning to develop transit centers
within their jurisdictions. (Staff response: Discussion of this bullet centered on
whether the MPO has the right to tell jurisdictions to revise their land
development codes and staff supports the revised wording as presented in the
draft document.)
13. Page 175. CTAC would like to see the bullet that was removed be re-inserted
into the plan. (Staff response: The deleted bullet reads; “The relocation of
office, retail, and service developments throughout suburban locations is difficult
for public transit to serve in a financially-efficient manner. Jurisdictions may
have to consider transit funding as part of the public costs they must bear to meet
the needs of their citizens and the federal environmental justice requirements”.
The staff agrees with CTAC’s concern over the need to have this point made,
however, the way that this point on “Considerations For Local Government” was
worded was not acceptable nor did some of the members agree with the statement
that jurisdictions may have to consider transit funding as part of the public costs
they must bear to meet the needs of their citizens and the federal environmental
221

justice requirements, and therefore the entire bullet statement was deleted. Staff
recommends this issue be addressed as part of the next LRTP update.)
14. Page 175. The deleted bullet on local governments having to refocus their
transportation beliefs and reduce emphasis on road building in outlying areas
and refocus on transit service closer to the urban core, should be reinserted.
(Staff response: This bullet was removed at the request of the TAC and staff
supports this revision.)
15. Overall CTAC comment on transit element. There is not enough emphasis on
transit in the LRTP. What was there has been weakened by the road building
interests. As the Supreme Court has shown, transit cannot be ignored, nor will
it go away. We need stronger language about transit facilities and provisions in
the LRTP and it needs to promote and require a regional system, not one that
just serves Richmond and small parts of Henrico and Chesterfield. Future
UWP’s for the MPO should have a heavy emphasis on transit studies not on
road construction modeling or road building study projects. (Staff response:
Considerable debate about a regional transit system was heard at the task force
and TAC level. No action was taken by either group to add wording that
specifically calls for a regional transportation system, though several members of
both groups were interested in a regional transit system.)
16. Page 179 and 183, Recommendation Six. The TAC changed the
recommendation for HOV lanes from “Identify regional roadway facilities that
are good candidates for HOV lanes” to “ within the next five years examine
roadway facilities that may be candidates for HOV lanes”. The CTAC believes
that providing alternative transportation mode with a times saving will help
reduce the region’s dependency on building roads. CTAC recommends that the
original wording be retained. (Staff response: The original wording was deleted
at the task force meeting but reintroduced at the TAC meeting in its revised form.)
17. Page 179 and 185, Recommendation 10 strongly supports park and ride lot
development in the region. CTAC strongly supports this recommendation,
however, the original plan draft also called for a study to identify where future
park and ride lots should be located. CTAC would like this recommendation to
be revised to include a plan that can assist jurisdictions in securing land needed
for park and ride lots during the proffer process. (Staff response: The draft plan
presented at the task force meeting included a recommendation to study where
park and ride lots should be located. The task force revised the recommendation
to develop park and ride lots with the hope that local jurisdictions would try and
establish as many park and ride lots as were possible.)
18. Page 206. (Two comments are combined here about the same subject.)
Chesterfield County’s projections for available private local funds for road
construction are unrealistic. The next closest jurisdiction using private/local
funds is Henrico. The difference between the two $ 890 million for Chesterfield
222

and $45 million for Henrico makes Chesterfield’s total look like a way to get
around the financial constraint requirements of the plan. CTAC would like to
see a quantifiable, scientific analysis that proves that raising this amount of
funds is realistic. When you consider that Chesterfield is receiving $650 million
in federal and state funds, it is difficult to believe that Chesterfield can raise
almost $250 million more dollars than that on their own. CTAC would like to
see a verifiable analysis (i.e. trend analysis) to prove the figure is realistic.
(Staff response: Staff has contacted Chesterfield County and requested that such
an analysis be provided. Staff will include this information as part of the LRTP
financial capacity analysis documentation when it is provided to staff.)
19. Page 206. CTAC notes that of the $2.5 billion dollar investment/subsidy in the
Richmond Transportation network only $263 million is shown for alternatives.
This does not approach an 82.5 – 17.5% funding split. Does this mean that all
projected CMAQ and Statewide and Regional STP funds automatically go to
alternatives? Either funds need to be flexed from road projects to transit and
TDM projects or the MPO must consider a resolution to require that all annual
MPO funding allocations received for CMAQ and RSTP be automatically be
given to transit and TDM only. (Staff response: CTAC’s observation that the
funding splits currently shown do not achieve the LRTP’s objective of and 82.5-
17.5% funding split is accurate. However, it is important to note that this is a new
standard to be addressed, and it will be up to the CTB, area local governments,
and others, with more authority and greater funding resources to allow the
Richmond area to achieve this goal. Staff notes that a significant amount of
projected funds were flexed to transit after the initial project list was developed,
and further shifts can be made as part of the next LRTP update.)
Comments Received From the Southern Environmental Law Center
The following pages contain correspondence that the Richmond Area MPO staff received
from the Southern Environmental Law Center regarding the draft LRTP. These
comments were received electronically via e-mail. Although the e-mail arrived ten
minutes after the comment deadline, the MPO voted to accept the comments and
requested that staff draft a response to these comments.
223

Appendix B: Chesterfield County Private and Local Funds Justification
233

Staff Analysis
During the public review of the final draft LRTP document, several members of the
Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee questioned the ability of Chesterfield
County to raise over $890 million in private local funds (see Appendix A, page 222). To
respond to this question, Chesterfield County made available several documents that trace
a 14 year history of privately-funded infrastructure for the County’s primary and
secondary road systems. Of primary importance are two local ordinances. The first is
titled, Chesterfield County Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 19, Development Standards
Manual. In this ordinance:
! The Transportation Department of Chesterfield County determines transportation
improvements needed to accommodate the proposed development;
! Makes the developer responsible for all needed improvements;
! Requires developments to conform to the County’s thoroughfare plan or other
planned transportation facilities;
! Requires the developer to mitigate the traffic impact of their development by
providing such transportation facilities as designated in the thoroughfare plan
! Provide safe and efficient access.
The second document is the Chesterfield County Subdivision Ordinance. Article III,
Standards, requires that all subdivision plats comply with the requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation and the County Transportation Department
including access control, rights-of-way dedication and construction of mitigating street
improvements as relating to safety and the preservation of public interest.
Collectively, the two documents have led to the following sample of roadway
improvements committed by developers:
! Construction of a portion of Route 288 including ramps at Powhite Parkway and at
Coalfield Road;
! Additional lanes of pavement, turn lanes, and signalized intersections along major
arterials such as Route 360, Route 10, Route 60, etc.;
! Right-of-way dedications for major arterials and limited access facilities such as the
Powhite Parkway Extension;
! Construction of the Powhite Parkway Extension that crosses the properties of
Greensprings and Magnolia Green projects;
! Construction of improvements on Woolridge, Otterdale, Genito, Old Hundred and
other roads;
! Construction of on-off ramps at the Meadowville/I-295 interchange;
! Dedication of right-of-way and construction of new roads identified on the
Thoroughfare Plan.
In total, staff estimates that over the fourteen year period of development and the
development agreements submitted, Chesterfield County has obtained adequate private
funding to justify an $890 million estimate for proposed private/local funding. In
addition, all new roads listed in the Long-Range Plan under the private/local funding
heading lie along or within properties that are anticipated for development/redevelopment
234

and are shown on the Chesterfield County thoroughfare map. As such, all roads in the
Long-Range Plan under private/local funding are typically, through the use of proffers
provided by developers to address the projects impact or constructed to meet the
requirements of the County’s two ordinances.
235

Map B-1: Chesterfield County Thoroughfares
252

Appendix C – Air Quality Conformity Analysis Results
253