CHARLOTTESVILLE AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN

YEAR 2000 TRANSPORTATION PLAN

DEVELOPED BY
THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DIVISION OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
IN COOPERATION WITH THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, AND THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

1985

Adopted by the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization

on August 28, 1985

CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The transportation needs and recommended improvements in the Charlottesville Transportation Study Area have been determined based upon an analysis of existing conditions and a study and evaluation of projected growth within the city of Charlottesville and the continuous area of Albemarle County expected to be urbanized by the year 2000. The improvements that are recommended have been designed to improve the present level of transportation service and to meet, at a relatively high level of service, the transportation needs for the study area in the year 2000.

It is hoped that these recommendations will serve as a useful tool for making decisions concerning future development in the Charlottesville Transportation Study Area. It should not be interpreted however, that the Virginia Department of Transportation or the city of Charlottesville or Albemarle County by adopting this plan are required to initiate these improvements or that development is limited to those recommended.

Below is a brief summary of the recommendations for transportation improvements that will be necessary to satisfy existing and future demands placed on the local transportation systems. Recommendations are made in the areas of highway, public transportation, aviation, railroad, and bicycle facilities. More detailed information regarding each proposed improvement can be found in subsequent chapters of this document.

Highway Recommendations

Major highway improvements include both those projects that are already committed to being constructed (as listed in the VDH&T Six Year Improvement Program for fiscal year 1985-86 thru 1990-91) and those additional projects that are recommended to be built in phases by the year 2000.

Committed Projects

Phase I Projects

Phase II Projects

Phase III Projects
Phase IV Projects

* Denotes projects that were not in the Charlottesville/Albemarle Area Transportation Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 1989-1994.

TSM Projects

In addition to the major highway projects, a number of transportation system management (TSM) projects have been approved for implementation. These projects, which consist of improved signalization, improved intersection geometrics, etc., will be made at the following locations:

The county has completed a study of TSM projects which will be incorporated into update of plan.

Public Transportation Recommendations

Recommendations for the public transportation element were made for both the short and long term (five and ten years, respectively), and are too numerous to summarize here, but cover the following areas:

Aviation Recommendations


Major recommendations for air operations in the study area include:

Railroad Recommendations

Several steps should be taken to preserve the rail system as a complement and supplement to other transportation modes. These recommended steps include:

Bicycle Recommendations

Recommendations for improving bicycle transportation in the study area must address engineering, education, and enforcement needs. The recommendations for each area are summarized below:

Engineering
Enforcement
Education

CHAPTER 2 - INTRODUCTION


Purpose

The purpose of this study is to update and expand the Charlottesville area 1985 Major Arterial Street and Highway Plan to the year 2000, thus providing for a 20 year projection of future travel demands. Additional reasons for undertaking this study include the need to analyze modes of transportation other than highways, and the rapid growth of Albemarle County, which has precipitated transportation problems and needs in areas not considered in the 1965 study.

Study Area

The Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) area, which includes the City of Charlottesville and portions of Albemarle County, is depicted in Figures 1, 2 and 2A. The general boundaries of the study area, which is located in Central Virginia, are Mechums River to the west, the North Fork of the Rivanna River to the north and east, and Interstate 64 to the south. The study area encompasses 70 square miles, and has a 1980 population of 67,000. The city of Charlottesville is at the center of the study area, and contains approximately half of the region's urban development. The University of Virginia and its related educational and cultural complex; major historic and recreational sites; various light industrial areas; and a number of commercial and retail establishments are all located within the boundaries of the study area. The study area is located at the crossroads of major highway and rail facilities, and its continued economic growth and population make it the center of urbanized activity in Virginia's Central Piedmont area.

Previous Study

The 2000 Transportation Plan is an update for the 1985 Major Arterial Street and Highway Plan, prepared for the study area by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation in 1967. For the 1985 plan, traffic surveys were conducted to ascertain the travel patterns relative to the 1965 highway networks. From the collected socioeconomic and travel data, mathematical models were applied in order to reproduce the base year trips on the area's major roadway facilities. Assuming the trip making potential of the area's population, as correlated to its socioeconomic characteristics, remained relatively constant over time, traffic projections to the horizon year 1985 were made based upon the study area's anticipated growth and/or shifts in population.

In the spring of 1968, Charlottesville City Council and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors passed resolutions approving the 1985 plan, with the added provision that the Department restudy certain roadways segments.

On November 1, 1971, Charlottesville City Council passed a subsequent resolution that removed several projects from the 1967 plan, and also requested that the Department initiate a new study of the region's transportation needs. An agreement to conduct a new study was signed by the Department, Albemarle County, and the city of Charlottesville in June, 1975.

The Problem

Several developments prompted City Council's resolution requesting initiation of a restudy. From the period 1965 to 1971, the Charlottesville-Albemarle area experienced a combined population increase of 13 percent, and subsequent projections found that the trend was continuing. Areas which have experienced heavy development since the 1965 study include the Route 29 north corridor, and the 29/250 bypass corridor west and northwest of Charlottesville.

A subsequent amount of growth in these two areas has taken place in portions of Albemarle County which were outside the area delineated by the cordon line in the original study. Traffic generated on portions of the highway network in these two corridors, along with several other highway segments within the original study area have exceeded the original study's projections.

Employment growth in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area has also exceeded the forecasts of the original study. Data published by the Virginia Employment Commission shows that employment in Charlottesville increased by 29.3 percent between 1965 and 1971. In Albemarle, the corresponding figure was 28.1 percent. Since the original transportation study was completed, many manufacturers have moved into the area, and the University of Virginia, which is the area's largest employer, has experienced substantial increases in employment.

In light of the substantial changes that have occurred in the character of the area since the original study, this study was initiated with the concurrence of the Federal Highway Administration, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, Albemarle County, and the city of Charlottesville.

Committee's Structure

Work on all stages of this study has been closely guided by two committees, a policy committee and a technical committee, established at the onset of the study.

Responsibilities of the Policy Committee include the establishment of policy governing the execution of the study; the review and approval of work developed by the Department; the establishment of policy for citizen participation; the final acceptance of this study; and the continuance of the transportation planning process. Voting membership of the committee includes four representatives from the city; three from the county; one from the Department; and one from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. A non-voting member was designated by and represented the Federal Highway Administration.

The Technical Committee is comprised of persons trained or who, by knowledgeable in transportation planning, or who, by their position, have an interest and responsibility in the local transportation planning process. In addition to serving in an advisory capacity to the Policy Committee, the Technical Committee reviewed the procedures used in collecting land use, socioeconomic, and travel data. Furthermore, the Technical Committee suggested to the Policy Committee alternative transportation systems to be tested, and strategies for citizen participation. Voting members of the Technical Committee included four representatives from the city of Charlottesville, three from Albemarle County, one from the Department, and one from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. Non-voting representatives from the University of Virginia, the Federal Highway Administration, the Charlottesville Transportation Task Force, the Virginia Highways and Transportation Research Council, and special interest groups (cyclists, transit company, etc.) completed the Technical Committee's membership.

Goals, Objectives, and Measures of Evaluation

The Department, working in concert with the Policy and Technical Committees, established a set of nine objectives for the purpose of guiding the selection and evaluation of alternatives. These goals, objectives, and measures of evaluation are listed below:

GOALS
  1. To develop a safe, efficient, and balanced transportation system for the movement of people, goods, and services into, out of, through and within the area, that is consistent with the desired land use and sound in regard to fiscal considerations.
  2. To promote the social, economic, physical and environmental objectives of the area jurisdictions.
  3. To promote inter-jurisdictional cooperation in order to achieve the Study's objectives.
OBJECTIVES AND MEASURES OF EVALUATION
  1. To accommodate the anticipated transportation needs of the study area at Levels of Service suitable to the area, reducing congestion where possible, and considering the needs of the total community.
  2. To provide a transportation system which is safer for motorized vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
  3. To reduce pollution caused by motorized vehicles.
  4. To encourage energy conservation.
  5. To promote the mobility of the elderly, handicapped and economically disadvantaged.
  6. To provide and encourage opportunities for transportation by means other than the automobile.
  7. To evaluate fiscal considerations of each alternative.
  8. To be compatible with the comprehensive plans of each jurisdiction.
  9. To consider the views of citizens and to keep them informed.

CHAPTER 3 - HIGHWAYS

Existing Conditions

The highway analysis portion of this document will be limited to those roadways which collectively constitute the major travelways of the study area. This system of highways generally includes all the State primary routes, the major secondary routes in the county, and the principal streets within the city of Charlottesville. These highways delineate the existing thoroughfare system; a listing of these facilities is found in Appendix A. Figure 3 and 3A depicts the existing thoroughfare system and current traffic volumes.

1984 daily traffic volumes on the existing thoroughfare system range from a high of 50,100 vehicles per day (vpd) on Route 29 north to a low of 100 vpd on Route 637. Higher volumes were observed on Route 250 (31,200 vpd), Preston Avenue (19,200 vpd) and University Avenue (15,400); lower volumes were counted on Route 676 (300 vpd), Route 677 (400 vpd), and Route 743 (600 vpd). Volumes for each facility are also listed in Appendix A.

Study Methodology

The process of forecasting future highway travel is based upon the correlation of socioeconomic variables to the trip producing and attracting characteristics of the study area. The goals which guided the transportation modeling process included:
The elements of the modeling procedure are illustrated in flow chart form in Figure 4. A brief overview of the procedure is presented below, and a more detailed discussion can be found in the Technical Report, a separate document which accompanies this report.

Establish Cordon Line

The location of the CATS cordon line was selected such that all areas of Albemarle County which will exhibit urban characteristics by the year 2000 are within the bounds of the study area. This was accomplished by extending the north fork of the Rivanna River, eastward to Shadwell, and southward to two miles south of I-64. This study area is depicted in Figure 2.

Delineate Traffic Zone

For purposes of trip generation, distribution, and assignment, the study area was divided into internal traffic zones. The criteria used in establishing a zone include homogeneous land use, and easily identifiable boundaries (limited access highway, ravine, valley, waterway, railroad, etc.). Wherever possible, traffic zone boundaries were selected to conform to census tract, census block, and enumeration district boundaries. After the preliminary delineation of traffic zones was completed, they were appraised as to reasonableness in reproduction of actual traffic loading characteristics. The delineation of the zones is illustrated in Figures 5 and 5A.

Produce Socioeconomic Data

Trip productions and attractions within an urban area are directly related to the location and intensity of its various socioeconomic characteristics. Thus, an accurate forecast and distribution of these characteristics is essential in the determination of future travel patterns. The variables that have been found to be valid indicators of trip making propensities include population, housing units, auto ownership, employment, students, and acres of land by type of use. Forecasts of each of these variables for the year 2000 were prepared for each zone, and are listed in Table 1. The forecast data was developed as a cooperative effort of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, the Department, the city of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, the Policy Committee, and the Technical Committee. In developing these forecasts, it was not the intent of the study to recommend a future land use plan, but rather to determine the likely development of the area, based upon past trends and existing as well as anticipated future conditions.

Generate Trips

The process of relating trips, either produced or attracted, to various land use activities at their point of origin and destination is known as trip generation. In this study, a cross-classification model was used to develop trip generation data. The cross-classification model develops the number of trips as a function of mean household income and household auto ownership. As input to the cross-class model, household income and auto ownership produce zonal trip production rates for home-to-work, home-to-other, and non-home based person and auto-driver trips. Attraction rates for these trips, as well as production rates for truck and taxi trips, were developed directly from observed land use and socio-economic data. A detailed review and discussion of the trip generation procedure can be found in the Technical Report.

Distribute Trips

The second step in the trip modeling process is the distribution of trips originating in one zone to other zones in the study area. Because of its inherent simplicity and widespread use, the gravity model was used for this purpose. The gravity model distributes trips from zones of production to zones of attraction in direct proportion to the relative attraction of each zone, and in inverse proportion to the distance between zones. Thus, given two equal size shopping centers, a shopping trip would be made to the closest center.

The gravity model was calibrated by first using it to reproduce a known number of trips. Once calibrated, and based on the assumption that the relationships synthesized by the gravity model would remain constant over time, the model was applied to the 2000 generated productions and attractions, producing a forecast year zonal distribution of trips.

Split Trips Among Modes

Prior to assigning the trips between zones to the highway network, the percentage of total person trips using each mode of transportation must be determined. This is usually accomplished by forecasting the proportion of future travel by transit, based on current usage. The methods frequently used include tip interchange models, trip-end models, and direction generation. Because of the small size of the study area, and the low number of transit trips as a percentage of total person trips, all of the conventional modal split models were deemed inappropriate for determining future transit use. As an alternative, a set of higher-than-average occupancy rates were applied to the total 2000 person trips.

Assign Trips

As the final step in the trip modeling process, traffic assignment is a systematic and reproducible technique that is used to predict the probable traffic loads on various sections of a transportation network. The procedure places each zone's trips to all other zones on the roadways that provide the shortest travel times. This procedure is termed the "minimum time path" method of traffic assignment. The summation of all zonal trips placed on the entire highway network constitutes the traffic assignment.

The total number of zone-to-zone trips is unchanged by the assignment procedure. Thus, changes in the highway network and the resultant minimum time paths and traffic assignments can be evaluated by successive iterations of the assignment procedure.

Analysis/Findings

In using the trip modeling process to develop forecasts of future travel, a determination of its accuracy was made by examining how well it reproduces base year travel. Base year socioeconomic data is input, and the resulting traffic volumes synthesized by the model are compared to actual traffic counts. The model is considered satisfactory when synthesized base year volumes are within + 5 percent or 10 percent of actual ground counts, depending on the location where the comparison is made. Additional information on calibrating the model can be found in the Technical Report.

Following calibration of the model with base year socioeconomic data, it was run with forecast year socioeconomic data to produce future travel patterns, which were in turn assigned to the existing plus committed highway network. The existing plus committed (as of 1979) network consisted of the 1979 system of roads, plus those sections that were being designed and constructed and were slated for completion by the year 2000. These projects included:
  1. Hydraulic Road between Route 29 and Route 631 (Rio Road) - Widen to 4 lanes.
  2. McIntire Road between Preston Avenue and Route 250 Bypass - Widen to 4 lanes.
  3. McIntire Road Extension between Route 250 Bypass and Route 631 (Rio Road) - Construct new 4 lane partially controlled access facility.
  4. Route 29 North (Emmett Street) between Hydraulic Road and Route 250 Bypass - Widen to 6 lanes divided (TSM Project).
  5. Route 250 Bypass (Long Street) between St. Clair Avenue and E. High Street - Widen to 4 lanes divided (TSM Project).
Having defined and assigned future trips to the existing plus committed network, an analysis was made of its traffic carrying capabilities, compared to the future trips assigned. At locations where the capacity of the roadway section is exceeded by the volume of future traffic assigned, a deficiency is noted. Figure 6 and 6A depicts those roadway segments of the existing plus committed network that would be deficient in the year 2000 in no additional improvements were made.

Two levels of service were used in the identification of these deficiencies (for a detailed description of level of service techniques for capacity analysis refer to the Highway Capacity Manual). Within the area bounded by I-64, Route 250 Bypass and Emmett Street, a level of service "D" was used. This level of service is characterized by flows approaching instability, and intolerable operating conditions. Fluctuations in volume and temporary restrictions to flow may cause substantial drops in operating speeds. Drivers have little freedom to maneuver, and comfort and convenience are low, but conditions can be tolerated for short periods of time.

Elsewhere in the study area (see Figure 7), a level of service "C" was used in the analysis of flow conditions. Level of service "C" is the zone of stable flow, but speeds and maneuverability are closely controlled by the higher volumes. Most of the drivers are restricted in their freedom to select their own speed, change lanes, or pass. However, a relatively satisfactory operating speed is still obtained.

Following the assignment of forecast trips to and the analysis of deficiencies in the existing plus committed network, alternative improvements to relieve these deficiencies were tested. The combinations of analyzed improvements are too numerous to describe in this report, so discussion will be limited to the recommended improvements, and the major alternatives that were tested but not recommended.

The following alternatives were tested and analyzed, but were not recommended for implementation:
  1. Madison Avenue Connection between Rose Hill Drive and McIntire Road.
  2. Emmett Street widening between University Avenue and the C&O Railroad.
  3. Brandywine Drive Extension to Rio Road.
  4. Rugby Road-University Avenue Connector.
  5. Route 659 Extension to Route 29.
  6. Park Place Extension to Patton Street.
  7. Western Bypass - between Route 29 North and Route 29/250 Bypass - on new location.
  8. Eastern Bypass - between Route 29 North and Route 250 East.
  9. Route 20 Extension between E. High Street and Route 250 East.
  10. High density transit service.
  11. Rail based commuter service.
See Figures 8 and 8A for locations of alternatives not recommended.

Recommendations

Deficiencies in the road network can be eliminated through the application of capital-intensive and TSM projects. Capital-intensive reconstruction and new construction projects are intended to eliminate deficiencies along entire sections of the transportation system, while TSM projects are low capital improvements at specific locations, designed to increase flow and capacity in the immediate area of the project. TSM projects are low capital improvements at specific locations, designed to increase flow and capacity in the immediate area of the project. TSM projects generally relieve intersection or location bottlenecks, and typically include the installation/improvement of traffic signals and the installation/modification of through and turn lanes.

The recommended TSM and capital-intensive projects are depicted in Figures 9, 10 and 10A and are listed below. These recommendations are the result of an extensive analysis and testing process and represent the best combination of projects for alleviating current and future highway problems. A listing of these recommendations with more detailed information on specific projects features can be found in Appendix B. Inasmuch as these projects are considered long range recommendations, as they are closer to implementation, their alignment, right-of-way requirements, cross section, and other design features will be finalized during the project development and design process, and will be the subject of location and design hearings.

Following the development of these recommendations, they were subsequently grouped into one of four construction phases. The designation of construction phases was established through the committee structures, and is based on the determination of immediacy of need. Figure 11 and 11A illustrates the recommended project phasing. Implementation of these projects will be subject to the Department's ability to finance them.

Committed Projects

Phase I Projects

Phase II Projects

Phase III Projects
Phase IV Projects

* Denotes projects that were not in the Charlottesville/Albemarle Area Transportation Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 1989-1994.

TSM Projects

In addition to the major highway projects, a number of transportation system management (TSM) projects have been approved for implementation. These projects, which consist of improved signalization, improved intersection geometrics, etc., will be made at the following locations:

The county has completed a study of TSM projects which will be incorporated into update of plan.

Pedestrian Considerations

Sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian overpasses, pedestrian signals and signs, lighting, and other pedestrian safety treatments are located in the study area at points with heavy foot travel. Locations with such treatment include the downtown commercial area, the grounds areas adjacent to the University of Virginia, and public schools. Generally, the need for additional pedestrian safety treatment is determined at the project design stage, with the construction of or the provision of right-of-way for future construction of pedestrian facilities included as an incidental project feature.

Criteria for determining the need and priority for sidewalk construction within the city of Charlottesville include:
All CATS projects within the city will be given careful review to ascertain the need for and type of pedestrian treatment required. Particular attention will be given to the following CATS projects, since the city plan calls for sidewalks along these routes:
The need for sidewalks on the CATS county projects will be determined at the project design stage.

Systems Level Environmental Assessment

Introduction

The effects on the environment associated with the proposed projects involving some form of highway construction (either widening or construction on a new location) are analyzed in this section. The environmental data contained in this section was obtained through on-site inspections and solicitation of information from Federal, State, and local government agencies. The on-site inspections were carried out by Environmental Quality personnel to collect base information (i.e. right-of-way displacements, property damage, etc.). The environmental analyses utilized in this document are carried to sufficient depth to identify and quantify significant impacts of both a beneficial and an adverse nature.

This analysis is a preliminary examination of the anticipated environmental impacts of the proposed projects. Its purpose is to identify early in the planning and development stages those projects requiring special environmental considerations. Additional environmental related studies will be made for each project as it moves closer to implementation.

Effects of the Projects on the Environment

The environmental effects associated with the construction of the recommended improvements were assessed for the following areas: socio-economic; conservation and preservation; air, noise, and water quality; and special document requirements. The findings of this analysis are summarized below.

Socio-economic - Existing development adjacent to the improvements consists of low and high-density residential, public/semi-public (churches, schools, etc.), industrial, and commercial properties. Future development is likely to include growth in all of these land uses. Table 2 summarizes the number of residential units and businesses that would be displaced or encroached upon by the proposed projects.

There are a number of churches and schools located adjacent to the proposed facilities. While the churches and schools would lose a certain amount of property, there will be no displacements. Listed below are the proposed projects and the affected churches and schools:

Proposed Project
 Affected Church or School
Rio Road
 Church of God
The Church of Our Savior
The Church of the Brethren
Northside Baptist Church
Aldersgate Church
250 Bypass (Long Street)
 Burnley Moran School
Ridge Street
 Mount Zion Baptist Church
Rio Road - Route 250 Connector
 Lighthouse Church
McIntire Road Extension
 Full Gospel Chapel
Maple Grove Christian Church

The proposed Rio Road - Route 250 Connector will pass close to Penn Park, however, the anticipated alignment will avoid any encroachment upon the park property.

The City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County were contacted concerning the proposed projects. Their responses are summarized below:

The City of Charlottesville indicated that the East High Street and Ridge Street improvements would have an adverse effect upon the elderly and the infirm with the Ridge Street project requiring an encroachment upon the Midway Manor home for the elderly. In the past, the Charlottesville City Council has been opposed to any disruption of this site. The roadway alignment cannot be shifted to the opposite side due to the Ridge Street Historic District which has been nominated to the National Register of Historic Places. All possible care, however, should be taken by the Department to avoid significant disruption of the Midway Manor property.

Albemarle County has indicated that all precautions should be taken with the Route 656 (Georgetown Road) and Route 631, projects to avoid any detrimental effects on the Southern Branch Rivanna River watershed area (this is discussed in more detail in the water quality section).

The county further recommended that care should be taken with the McIntire Road Extension crossing of the Rivanna River (this is discussed in more detail in the water quality section).

County staff also recommends that in the natural areas traversed by the Rio Road - Route 250 Connector, Route 637 and McIntire Road Extension projects, care be taken to protect the wildlife.

A cursory analysis of transportation impacts on minority groups has been made for the City of Charlottesville. This analysis was based upon an examination of the 1970 Census Block Statistics for the City of Charlottesville. Table 3 indicates the facilities contained in the transportation plan within the City of Charlottesville and the percentage of affected housing occupied by minorities. As indicated in the table, several of the proposed facilities would traverse areas with high concentrations of minorities. However, only one of the facilities would actually displace any minority families. Ninth Street would displace seven families, all of which are minorities. All possible measures will be taken to reduce adverse effects upon these minority families. Both the Ridge Street and Madison Avenue Extension projects would affect minorities through encroachment; however, there would be no displacements.

Conservation and Preservation - The proposed projects would not affect any Society of American forests Natural Areas or any trees on the Virginia or National Social Register of Big Trees. No state of federally owned forests would be impacted by the proposed improvements.

There is the possibility that urban shade trees (yard or street) would be removed if some of the proposed street widenings are carried out. While it is not always easy to quantify the monetary and environmental impacts of their loss, urban trees generally enhance both the environmental quality of an area as well as property values. Efforts should be made during individual project development to minimize the taking of shade trees, especially healthy, well-formed ones.

The McIntire Road Extension may encourage development to leapfrog into the natural areas adjacent to the corridor. By potentially hastening development in this area, future forest or agricultural management options for lands east of the Southern Railway tracks may be closed out. The McIntire Road Extension, would also aid in the movement of forest fire fighting equipment.

From an overall forest management standpoint, the proposals included in the transportation study would not seriously impact the forest resource management stature of Albemarle County. The proposed improvements will not affect any potential or existing National Natural Landmarks, and a review indicates that the proposed projects would not affect any plants on or proposed for state or Federal endangered species lists.

The Rivanna River from its confluence with the James River to near the Charlottesville airport has been included by the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Services (HCRS) in their Final List of Potential National, Wild and Scenic Rivers. Rivers on this list are being evaluated for Wild and Scenic River status. Recently Federal guidelines require that an evaluation be made of any Federal actions which might impact rivers on this list. This evaluation process is currently being developed and will be utilized in the project environmental review process.

It appears that Section 4(f) requirements do not apply unless a stream and adjacent land areas are added to the system as a recreational river area. Thus, any publicly owned land within the recreational river boundaries would be protected under Section 4(f). Furthermore, ownership does not have to be in fee simple. Any long term, irrevocable easements on private property, such as for scenic access, are sufficient to establish protection under Section 4(f). Under the current regulations, the following proposed projects will require a further determination of Section 4(f) applicability at the project implementation stage: (1) McIntire Road Extension; (2) Rio Road - Route 250 Connector; (3) 250 Bypass (Long Street); (4) East High Street.

There is a large amount of good pastureland and grassland in the study area, and constructing a new roadway through managed areas can adversely affect these lands. Besides converting productive land to highway right of way, the roadway complicates management of the property by acting as a barrier to the movement of equipment. Further, depending upon the size and ownership of the tract affected, a project may isolate parcels of land which are economically infeasible to manage. Therefore, from an agricultural management standpoint, it is preferable not to bisect those properties.

A cursory review was made of the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission's files and historic site records. This review indicated that there are no historic sites of local, state, and national significance immediately adjacent to any of the proposed facilities. An additional check with local officials also found no historic sites immediately adjacent to any of the proposed projects with the exception of Ridge Street, where a four block residential area just south of downtown Charlottesville has been designated the Ridge Street Historical District. This area has been nominated to the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, any displacement of and/or encroachment upon any of these historic properties will constitute a Section 4(f) involvement. Should there be any direct and/or indirect impacts (noise, air quality, etc.) in excess of Federal standards, a Section 106 document will also be necessary.

Because of its proximity to the roadway, the Ridge Street Historical District would be subject to disruption by the Ridge Street Project. Replacement of the bridge over the C&O tracks would impact the Midway Manor Home for the Elderly on the east side and Mt. Zion Baptist Church on the west. Mt. Zion Baptist Church is considered historically significant by the city of Charlottesville, and is contained in the Ridge Street Historic District, which abuts the C&O tracks and the bridge. Any encroachment or displacement upon this historic site for district will constitute a Section 4(f) involvement, and any direct and/or indirect impacts will require a Section 106 document as stated in the preceding paragraph.

An archaeological map survey of the study area located a number of sites that would either be close to or impacted by certain projects. The specific projects and the sites they would impact include:

Project
 Affected Site Number
Greenbrier Drive Extension
 44AB54
44AB55
Madison Avenue Extension
 44AB58
44AB59
Rio Road - Route 250 Extension

These sites will require a Phase II Archaeological Significance Survey to determine their eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. The Madison Avenue Extension project will also require a Section 4(f) document at the project implementation stage and under some circumstances, this project could be stopped. If these projects are Federally funded and the affected sites are eligible for or are currently on the National Register of Historic Places, a  Section 106 Report will be required to determine direct and indirect project impacts. State regulations governing archaeological sites would also result in major delays of non-federally funded projects. Thus, the Phase II Archaeological Significance Survey should be conducted well in advance of final planning in order to avoid or shorten project delays.

Due to the excellent prehistoric and historic potential of this area, all other projects in this overview will require a Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey well in advance of the development of any final plans.

Air, Noise and Water Quality - The proposed facilities are located in Air Quality Control Region IV, Northeastern Interstate Air Quality Control Region. The study area currently has carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur oxides (SOX), and suspended particulates concentration levels below the primary and secondary standards. The State Air Pollution Control Board (SAPCB)) has designated the Charlottesville Area as attainment for CO, O3, NOX, SOX, and particulates. Due to the attainment status, the area will not require the implementation of transportation control measures. However, the continued coordination of air quality and transportation planning, complemented by stationary source controls, will be necessary in order to maintain the standards in this region.

Carbon monoxide concentrations are used to determine the air quality impact of individual highways on the public. The current state of the art of highway air quality modeling can predict concentrations adjacent to such facilities.

Although the proposed projects are in the proximity of air sensitive receptors, air quality would not be adversely affected by the projected traffic volumes for most of the proposed facilities. These include:

Rio Road
250 Bypass (Long Street)
East High Street
9th Street
Route 250 West
Greenbrier Drive Extension
Rio Road - Route 250 Connector
 Madison Avenue Extension
Georgetown Road
Fontaine Avenue
Route 637
Route 631 South
McIntire Road Extension

High traffic volumes on the remaining proposed projects and their intersecting roadways could result in potential violation of intersection CO standards. Consequently, a more detailed air quality analysis should be performed during the construction plan phase for the remaining facilities:

Route 29 North
Ivy Road
Ridge Road
 Rio Road - Route 29 North Intersection
Hydraulic Road - Route 29 North Intersection
Hydraulic Road - 250 Bypass Intersection

A preliminary traffic noise study was performed for each of the proposed improvements. A FHWA approved nomograph was utilized to determine existing and design year peak hour Leq noise levels. The findings of the noise analysis are summarized in Table 4.

Several noise abatement measures were investigated for these projects. Sound barriers cannot be constructed for the majority of the proposed facilities due to controlled access. If a continuous barrier was constructed, access to and from the properties along these proposed facilities would be blocked. If a discontinuous barrier was constructed with openings for access, it would be acoustically ineffective. Depressing the roadway would not be effective for the same reasons. There are however, several projects which will have either full or partially controlled access, making the construction of sound barriers feasible. The projects include the Rio Road - Route 250 Connector, and McIntire Road Extension.

If Federal dollars are used in funding the recommended projects, a detailed sound barrier analysis will be required during the project location and design stage to determine aesthetic and economic feasibility. However, noting that such sound barriers can be very costly, it may be of benefit to study shifting the roadway alignments away from noise sensitive land uses during the early stages of project development.

The proposed improvements of the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study will impact the following streams, reservoir, and several tributaries associated with them: South Fork of the Rivanna River, North Fork of the Rivanna River, the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir (the only impact will be to several small tributaries; not to the reservoir proper), and the Rivanna River proper. Following is a list of the proposed projects and the specific streams and/or rivers which they will impact:

Proposed Project
 Affected Stream/River
McIntire Road Extension
 South Fork of the Rivanna River and one unnamed tributary, Powell Creek and three unnamed tributaries, Town Branch, and one unnamed tributary of the Rivanna River.
Rio Road - Route 250 Connector
 Rivanna River and three unnamed tributaries.
Route 250 Bypass (Long Street)
 Rivanna River

The State Water Control Board classifies the streams in the Charlottesville area as Class III Free Flowing Streams (Piedmont Zone to the Crest of the Mountains) with the waters generally satisfactory for use as a public or municipal water supply, secondary contact recreation, propagation of fish and aquatic life, and other beneficial uses. There are no endangered or threatened aquatic species or critical habitats for aquatic plants or animals believed to be found in the area.

Depending on the type and extent of construction (dredge and fill), only tentative water quality control permits can be determined. Nationwide Permits will probably be necessary for the McIntire Road Extension, and the Rio Road - Route 250 Connector. A Nationwide Permit is a blanket permit which is needed for minor highway construction. In order to qualify, a highway project must not affect environmentally sensitive areas and will usually have a drainage area of less than five square miles.

The State Water Control Board Quality Certificate (401) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit (404) will probably be needed for: McIntire Road Extension, the Rio Road - Route 250 Connector, and the Route 250 Bypass (Long Street). The 401 Permit is a prerequisite for the 404 Permit, which will not be fully considered by the reviewing agencies prior to being furnished the 401 Permit. A 404 Permit covers all fill or dredge material placed in Waters of the United States or the wetlands adjacent to these waters, and it must cover all work done in these areas in conjunction with or necessitated by filling and dredging operations. In general, those bodies of water which require 401-404 Permits drain areas of greater than five square miles.

Each of the above permit approvals takes approximately six months from the date of application. Therefore, this time element should be considered when scheduling these projects.

The McIntire Road Extension, and the Rio Road - Route 250 Connector, projects will possibly involve the 100 Year Critical Floodplain area. In these cases, any construction within the Critical Floodplain should be held to a minimum. Should there be a need for dredge or fill operations within the Critical Floodplain, it will be necessary to comply with Executive Order 11988, which seeks to avoid adverse impacts due to occupancy and/or alteration of floodplains. Prudent and feasible alternatives to encroachment upon a floodplain area must be investigated should any Federal funding be utilized in project construction. Further study of these areas must be undertaken when site-specific projects are initiated.

A cursory map and field survey found that there are no wetlands which would be affected by any of the proposed facilities.

A map survey of the geology of the Charlottesville area found that the potential for large amounts of groundwater is generally quite low (avg. 20 +gpm), although higher than average yields (up to 100 gpm) have been produced from deep wells where favorable structural features exist. Therefore, it is anticipated that there will not be any significant groundwater impacts. If groundwater is encountered, sufficient measures must be implemented to abate any possible adverse impacts.

A cursory map survey also found that the soils in the vicinity of the proposed projects are somewhat thin and highly erodible. This trait, combined with the steep terrain of the area, increases the potential for significant erosion once the soils are disturbed. Because of this high erosion potential, there has been some concern expressed on how the Rio Road, Greenbrier Drive Extension (critical area for storm water drainage) and Georgetown Road projects will impact the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir, which is already experiencing problems with sedimentation as a result of erosion. Extreme care must be exercised during construction by strict adherence to the Department's Silt and Erosion Control Measures.

Strict adherence to erosion controls must also be maintained when constructing crossings of the Rivanna River in conjunction with Rio Road - Route 250 Connector, and the McIntire Road Extension projects.

There are no existing or proposed State Scenic Rivers in the vicinity of the proposed projects; however, the Rivanna River from its confluence with the James River to near the Charlottesville Airport has been included by the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service in their Final List of Potential National Wild and Scenic Rivers. Rivers on this list are being evaluated for Wild and Scenic Rivers status (see Conservation and Preservation Section).

The only public water supply in the area is the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir. While there will be no construction directly in the Reservoir, as was previously noted, there are several proposed projects within its watershed which may temporarily create minor adverse impacts. Therefore, any construction within the Reservoir's (or any other public or private water supply) limits must be conducted in such a manner as to minimize or eliminate any adverse impacts (especially those of sedimentation, erosion, and runoff) to the supply. It is also recommended that any hydraulic stream modifications be performed in accordance with the Best Management Practice Handbooks.

Special Documents - Whenever Federal funding is to be used for a highway facility, Section 4(f) Statement is required when there is a taking of land from a significant National or State historic site or publicly owned park, wildlife refuge, or recreational area. [Note: If a site is of local significance, a determination will be made by the Federal Highway Administration as whether or not a Section 4(f) Statement is required.] A Section 106 report is required when there are direct or indirect impacts to a site eligible for nomination to or listed on the National Register of Historic Places. A Section 4(f) Statement or Section 106 Report could result in a six month delay in project approval.

There are several facilities which will require a more in-depth survey at the time of project implementation to determine whether or not a Section 4(f) Statement is required. The Rio Road - Route 250 Connector, the Greenbrier Road Extension, and the Madison Avenue Extension projects will require a Phase II Archaeological Significance Survey. If this survey finds that these sites are eligible for or are on the National Register of Historic Places, Section 106 Reports may be required. Additionally, Madison Avenue may also require a Section 4(f) Statement.

Recommendations and Comments

Based upon a careful review of the various analyses performed for each of the proposed facilities, a study of both existing and future land use maps, on-site inspections, contact with local officials, and a study of aerial photographs of the area, the following comments are offered.

The construction of the majority of the proposed improvements included in this report should not have any significant adverse impacts upon the environment and therefore, should only require a Finding of No Significant Impact document (see Table 5). Ther are, however, five facilities which would have significant adverse impacts upon the environment: Rio Road, 9th Street, Rio Road - Route 250 Connector, McIntire Road Extension, and Ridge Street will all require an Environmental Impact Statement.


--start text here from p. 56 or report--


SECTIONS NOT YET INCLUDED IN THIS ONLINE DOCUMENT

NO GRAPHICS OR NUMBERED TABLES ARE YET INCLUDED

ACKNOWLDEGEMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 4 - PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
CHAPTER 5 - AVIATION
CHAPTER 6 - RAILROADS
CHAPTER 7 - BICYCLES
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX A - INVENTORY OF EXISTING THOROUGHFARE SYSTEM
APPENDIX B - RECOMMENDED THOROUGHFARE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
APPENDIX C- HIGHWAY FUNCTIONAL PLANS