This document summarizes Virginia's new street connectivity policy. It provides background on transportation funding challenges in Virginia and outlines Governor Kaine's initiatives to improve coordination between transportation and land use planning. It describes the new subdivision street acceptance standards developed, which require street networks to connect to existing transportation infrastructure and minimize impervious surfaces. The document addresses concerns about the policy, such as impacts on traffic speeds, emergency response times, development costs, and local government approval of connections. It argues the policy improves safety, dispersal of traffic, and emergency access compared to conventional cul-de-sac designs.

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