Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Agency
Department of Transportation
 
Board
Department of Transportation
 
chapter
Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements [24 VAC 30 ‑ 92]
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
spacer
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
6/4/08  3:33 pm
Commenter: Charles Herr

We are opposed to the regulations as currently wirtten
 

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.

The addition of the length of surety requirements for 3 years is onerous and exceeds the requirement of any other governing body in the state to the best of our knowledge. Site contractors typically provide 1 year warranties to developers for roadways.
We are in favor of the stated objective of the regulations, but the regulations as proposed are not in accordance with the stated goals. Therefore, we oppose the regulations as currently written.
CommentID: 1545