| Action | Promulgation of new Secondary Street Acceptance Req. (24 VAC 30-92) Pursuant to Legislative Mandate |
| Stage | Proposed |
| Comment Period | Ended on 6/30/2008 |
 |
4 comments
The current regulations appear to focus interconnectivity too heavily on what is within each development but less on how one development can, where practical, be connected with another. The measures seem to put more emphasis on internal pavement needs as well as what appears to be over providing for pedestrian traffic. It is important to provide for pedestrian or bike accessability, but not to the extreme of requiring more pavement than necessary to meet those goal.
Provisions are made for design standard waivers, however, it appears that based on these requirements potential to be contrary with environmental conservation and drainage run-off minimization goals, waiver requests could become the norm rather than an alternative for the occational relief from extenuating circumstances. As you know, this will only add to the time requirements through delays and costs to developments.
The stated objective of the regulatory action is to "ensure the connectivity of road and pedestrian networks with the existing and future transportation network". The regulations as currently proposed go well beyond that goal by creating requirements for internal connectivity within residential neighborhoods. It is unclear how achieving the required connectivity index within an individual neighborhood meets the stated goals of the regulations or benefits the public in any way. This is especially true when a new development is surrounded by existing neighborhoods that do not meet the new standard. In fact, should these unproven standard be implemented the resulting effect would be increased housing costs and increased stormwater runoff (this is in direct conflict with the stated goals of the regulations) due to increased road footage and sidewalks. Finally, the connectivity requirement ignores the reality that a great number of residential buyers consider homes on cul-de-sacs to be desirable and safer for children by virtually requiring the elimination of cul-de-sac streets to meet the connectivity index standard.
June 17, 2008
The Honorable Pierce Homer
Secretary of Transportation
c/o
Dear Secretary Homer:
I have reviewed the proposed standards and have a great deal of concern about both the process followed and the ability of these standards as currently drafted to achieve their stated goals.
These regulations are being promulgated in response to the addition last year of section 33.1-70.3 to the Code of
1. requirements to ensure the connectivity of road and pedestrian networks with the existing and future transportation network;
2. provisions to minimize stormwater runoff and impervious surface area, and,
3. provisions for performance bonding of new secondary streets and associated cost recovery fees.
Over the years the connectivity between communities has been reduced as an existing community will object to the residents of a new community driving through the older neighborhood. As a result, the final zoning conditions frequently limit connectivity. This situation should be corrected. However, the regulations being distributed by the Secretary of Transportation to address the issue of connectivity, (item 1, above) go well beyond the purpose intended by Senate Bill 1181 (2007). The discussion surrounding this bill was on the connectivity “between” neighborhoods – not within. Notwithstanding the intent of the bill, the connectivity ratio of 1.6 is appropriate for Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) techniques with new development. Local government regulations are not in place to accommodate such techniques and densities. Those states that specify a connectivity ratio – specify a ratio of 1.4 or lower which is more appropriate than the 1.6 being proposed.
The regulations fail to address the second item, minimizing stormwater runoff and impervious surface area, in any meaningful way. In fact, with the increased street and sidewalk requirements, the effect of these changes will be to increase the amount of impervious surface area and runoff.
When we meet with your representative, he indicated that funds were not available to evaluate the impact these regulations will have on the environment, on the proportional increase in the amount of roadway built per lot or in the increased maintenance costs associated with the proposal.
In a time when the VDOT budget is severely stressed, when the
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Clement “Kim” Tingley, PE
June 27, 2008
The Honorable Pierce Homer
Secretary of Transportation
c/o
Dear Secretary Homer,
On behalf of the Virginia Chamber of Commerce, please accept the following comments on the proposed Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Regulation (24 VAC 30-92-10 et seq.) related to the acceptance of subdivision streets into the VDOT secondary street system.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important issue because of its potential effect on housing affordability and efficient land use patterns.
The authorizing statute centered on three items: connectivity, stormwater management and changes in the surety process. Our concerns center on connectivity and stormwater management.
The language of Senate Bill 1181, specifically language referencing “requirements to ensure the connectivity of road and pedestrian networks with the existing and future transportation network,” makes clear that the connectivity referred to in the legislation is between neighborhoods, not the streets within a neighborhood. In other words, the measure should be how well a neighborhood connects to the external road network and adjoining neighborhoods, not how well internal subdivision streets connect to each other. The desired result should be multiple connections to the network that provide different options for dispersing traffic flow.
With its reliance on link-node ratio, the proposed process creates too much focus on how internal subdivision streets connect to each other. While a developer can
gain an exception to the required link-node ratio with additional external connections, it seems to us that this process is not at all necessary as the focus should lay on external connections in the first place. Internal subdivision street layout should be based on consumer demand, not the regulatory whim of government, especially when the proposed designs could lead to more asphalt and additional maintenance costs.
With regard to stormwater management, the development industry is already subject to onerous regulation with regard to runoff. As such, it makes no sense whatsoever to foist a larger burden on their backs by enacting additional pedestrian access requirements that make no offsetting allowance for narrower streets to help reduce the impervious cover in a neighborhood. In and of themselves, sidewalks and other pedestrian access features are great, and they are part of what the General Assembly has directed the Commonwealth Transportation Board to consider. The problem is that sidewalk widths of five to eight feet are excessive; these widths create unnecessary expense and generate additional impervious cover. When combined with fact that there is no street width reduction that takes the sidewalk mandate into consideration and the additional pavement needed to comply with the prescribed link-node ratio, the result is additional runoff and added compliance costs for developers.
As written, these proposed regulations would yield a reduction in the number of buildable lots because more land would have to be used for either streets or sidewalks for the neighborhood to be in compliance for street acceptance.
To us, that is troublesome in three ways. First, a reduction in lots affects a project’s profitability, something that is quite disconcerting when it is for no other reason than to comply with a governmental diktat. This is crucial given the important role that housing-related economic activity plays in
Second, fewer lots means higher home prices for each home in the neighborhood at a time when we need a wider range of affordable housing choices near job centers, not lesser. In addition to being a quality of life issue, this is important from an economic development perspective. Employers want to know that their employees will be able to live near work.
Finally, policies that lead to lower lot yields do nothing to affect housing demand. Thus, more land must be developed in order to meet the demand for housing, leading to less efficient land use patterns, a phenomenon known to some by the pejorative term of “sprawl.” While the Chamber vigorously supports the notion that Virginians should be able to live where they choose, we do not believe it is sound policy to push development further from job centers simply to comply with government regulations.
In summary, we urge you to reject the proposed regulations and send them back to the drawing board with a clear mandate to focus the connectivity requirements on external connectivity to roads of minor arterial or greater status and to reexamine the proposal with regard to street widths and pedestrian access to address concerns about stormwater runoff management.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal
With kind regards, I am
Sincerely,
Director of Government Affairs
Virginia Chamber of Commerce