1. Virginia’s Street Connectivity Policy
Nick Donohue
Assistant Secretary of Transportation
Commonwealth of Virginia

2. Background
• Virginia, unlike most states, is responsible for the
maintenance of most local streets
• In Virginia transportation funding is a state responsibility
• Local governments are responsible for land development
and subdivision design
• General consensus that state transportation revenues are
not sufficient – the legislature has tried to address
transportation funding since 2002
• Since June 2008 more than $3 billion in highway
construction projects in six year plan have been cancelled
2

3. Background
• Governor Kaine went into office in
2006 – one term governor
• First priority was to address state’s
transportation needs
– New transportation revenues
– Improve coordination between
transportation and land use
– New delivery model
– Greater accountability
3

4. Legislative Environment
• Weak consensus on how to address transportation
funding. Strong resistance by majority party in one house
of legislature to any new taxes
– Abusive driver fees
– Use existing general fund revenues
– Allow local governments to impose taxes for
transportation (Dillon Rule)
– Impact fees
• Concern that providing new transportation funding without
addressing the disconnect between transportation and land
use would not provide long term solution
4

5. Transportation and Land Use
• Kaine Administration worked with legislature on six initiatives
to improve the coordination between transportation and land
use
– Traffic Impact Analysis: uniform, statewide standards to inform
citizens and decision makers
– Access Management: preserve public investment in existing
highways
– Road Impact Fees: assign road improvement costs based on site
design and location
– Urban Development Areas: promote compact development that
incorporate principles of new urbanism
– Regional Transportation and Land Use Performance Measures
– Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements …
5

6. Legislative Environment
Recognition of disconnect
between development approval
by local government and
perpetual state maintenance of
associated new streets
• Limited ability of state to
control number or layout
of new streets accepted
for maintenance
• Convention subdivision
layout increases congestion
on major highway network
6

7. Legislative Environment
• One group recommended that state discontinue practice of
maintaining subdivision streets and require local governments to
be responsible for maintenance of new streets
• Governor recommended that state establish standards to ensure
that streets accepted for perpetual public maintenance provide
adequate public benefit
• Governor’s proposal was unanimously adopted by the General
Assembly and addressed impact on major highway network
without un-funded street maintenance mandate to local
governments
7

8. Subdivision Street Acceptance
Standards
• Previously streets were only required to meet technical
standards to be accepted into the state system for
perpetual public maintenance
• Governor’s proposal directed the state transportation
policy board to develop new secondary street acceptance
requirements to ensure:
– Connectivity of road and pedestrian networks with the future
and existing transportation network
– Minimize impervious surface area and stormwater runoff
through reduced street widths
8

9. Subdivision Street Acceptance
Standards – Problem Today
Current development patterns often rely on isolated street
networks
• Increased congestion
• Wider local streets
• Discourages other modes
• Impacts on neighborhoods
• Unsustainable burden on
major roadways
9

10. Subdivision Street Acceptance Standards
0.25
mi
2.5 m
i
10

11. Subdivision Street Acceptance
Standards – Street Connectivity
11

12. Subdivision Street Acceptance
Standards – Overview
• Pedestrian accommodations required at urban
and suburban densities
• Allow use of low impact development techniques
• Reduced street widths
• Flexible parking requirements
36’
12

13. Moving from a Concept to Policy:
April 2007 to February 2009
• Initial public comment period held prior to drafting
• Secretary of Transportation established a policy committee to
review initial VDOT draft
– Developers, local government officials, consultants and other
stakeholders
• 20+ informal regional stakeholder meetings held across state
• Solicited public comment on proposed policy, held public
hearings
• State transportation policy board input sought throughout
process
13

14. Concerns with Policy
• My local street will become a high speed thoroughfare
• Cul-de-sacs are safer
• Market does not support connectivity
• Narrow streets hinder emergency response
• Sidewalks are unnecessary and costly
• Local governments will reject connections
14

15. Concern: Connectivity = High Speed
Thoroughfares
• Perception based on conditions on through streets today where
lack of connectivity forces all trips to use a single through street
• Through street of tomorrow will not be the same as the through
street of today as policy will create a network of local streets to
disperse traffic
– Network of connect, narrow streets will reduce traffic volumes and
speeds on through streets
• Connected street networks do not increase the number of trips
generated by development
– A detached single family house will generate ~10 trips regardless of
street network
15

16. Concern: Connectivity = High Speed
Thoroughfares
16

17. Concern: Cul-de-sacs are Safer
• Disconnected networks cause increased emergency
response times and costs
• According to federal government, the leading cause of
death for children in US is automobile accidents
• Disconnected street network requires most residential
through streets be designed with widths that encourage
higher vehicle speeds
• All vehicle trips and most pedestrian trips require use of
the these streets to reach a destination
17

18. Concern: Cul-de-sacs are Safer
Residential Street
Typology and Injury
Accident Frequency;
Peter Swift, P. E., Dan
Painter, AICP, Matthew
Goldstein
Wider Streets → Increased Speed & Crash Rates
18

19. Concern: Cul-de-sacs are Safer
Speed Impacts Safety in Neighborhoods
19

20. Concern: Cul-de-sacs are Safer
• Recent study by University of Virginia found that traffic
fatality rates were significantly higher in localities with
disconnected networks
• For the Richmond metropolitan area the study found:
– Rates in Chesterfield and Henrico Counties were
– 111% greater than the City of Colonial Heights
– 56% greater than City of Hopewell
– 9% greater than the City of Richmond
– Rates in Hanover County were
– 333% greater than Colonial Heights
– 210% greater than Hopewell
– 123% greater than Richmond
20

21. Concern: Market Does Not Support
Connectivity
• Market is regulated and previous policy provided indirect
financial support for cul-de-sacs
• New policy removes subsidy where streets that only provide
private benefit will be privately maintained
• Original street networks developed in a grid pattern
• Federal Housing Administration adopted policies in the 1930s
that influenced street network away from grid pattern
– ‘Cul-de-sacs are the most attractive street layout’ 1
– ‘Subdivisions that are regarded as specially good by FHA will
receive a more favorable loan rating’ 2
1. Michael Southward and Earn Ben-Joseph, Streets and the Shaping of Towns and Cities (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997), p. 84.
2. Marc A. Weiss, The Rise of the Community Builders (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987), p. 215.
21

22. Concern: Narrow Streets and
Emergency Responders
• All government agencies promote public safety
• More than 80% of incidents for emergency responders are non-
fires incidents such as accidents, medical emergencies, etc
• Disconnected, wide local streets encourage vehicle speeds that
result in more accidents and more severe accidents
• Connectivity improves emergency response times and reduces
costs
– Lack of connectivity can leave emergency responders stuck in traffic
– Street design to promote appropriate vehicles speeds essential to
community acceptance of connected streets
• Bulb-outs and other design features can help address site specific
needs
22

23. Concern: Sidewalks and Pedestrian
Accommodations
• Walking accounts for 10% of all trips
nationally
• Appropriate accommodations are
often not provide as an area develops
or are discontinuous
• Experience has shown that demand
exists in developed and rapidly
developing areas
• Reduced street widths and flexible
parking requirements can offset cost
of facilities
23

24. Concern: Local Government Reaction
to Connectivity
• In the past, there were not any
consequences for removing long
planned connections from plans
• Improved connectivity and street
design will help address citizen
concerns related to through streets
• If a long planned connection is
removed from plans VDOT will make
that connection the #1 priority for
local highway funds
– Cheaper to build missing local street
connections than widen the major highway
network to accommodate the same traffic
24

25. Subdivision Street Acceptance
Requirements
• New policy is intended to improve coordination between
transportation and land use planning as well as:
– Reduce future construction needs and vehicle miles traveled
– Reduce future operational costs
– Improve emergency response
– Reduce stormwater runoff
– Improve safety for pedestrians and vehicles
• Policy represents a “first step” and implementation will
need to be monitored to identify deficiencies
• Committee has been established to review implementation
25

26. Lessons Learned
• Discuss and challenge long-standing perceptions
– Are residents concerned about the concept or existing
characteristics of through streets?
• Address and balance stakeholder concerns to the extent
possible
– Connectivity, street width, safety and emergency responders
• Do not let perfect be the enemy of good
– “Perfect” policy is not a sign of a balanced compromise
• Focus on policy goal
– ‘Ensure adequate public benefit for expenditure of taxpayer
funds’
26

27. Virginia’s Street Connectivity Policy
Nick Donohue
Assistant Secretary of Transportation
Commonwealth of Virginia