HD7C - Virginia Commuter Study -- Roanoke Case Study
Executive Summary: The purpose of the Virginia Commuting Study is to assess the feasibility of alternative transportation modes for commuters working in metropolitan centers, while residing in outlying communities. The study was prompted by the General Assembly's concern over the problems facing such commuters in a state and national climate of declining transportation revenues, high costs of building and operating transportation facilities, and an uncertain energy future. Of particular concern is the desire to identify more cost- and energy-efficient modal alternatives to the single-occupant auto, which characterizes much of today's commuting in Virginia. Study Approach The approach to this study has followed three broad phases: 1. The identification of problems and issues associated with commuting in Virginia (with an emphasis upon longer-distance commuting from outlying suburbs and exurban areas) and the development of policy, program, and legislative options to address these issues. 2. The identification of available modal options for such commuting (as drawn from national experience) and the development of a planning methodology through which the applicability of these options can be determined for urban areas in Virginia. 3. A detailed analysis of three case study areas – Northern Virginia, Roanoke, and Martinsville – in which the methodology developed in the second phase will be applied to determine the viability of various commuter options in these areas. The case study areas were chosen by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation (VDH& T) to provide a cross-section of urban area size and commuting problems that is somewhat representative of commuting conditions across the state. An important feature of the study is the definition in Phase I of three future scenarios for commuter transportation in the 1980s and beyond, which reflect the uncertainties that exist with regard to energy availability and costs and financial resources for transportation improvements. The viability of alternative transportation actions in the case study areas (Phase 3) and alternative policy and program actions {Phase I) is considered within the context of the scenarios to define actions which appear appropriate under any of the scenarios {and thus, represent high-priority actions for implementation). Organization of this Report This report documents one of the three case studies in Phase 3. Other reports describe the analyses and results of Phase I (Commuting Problems, Issues, and Policy/Program Response) and Phase 2 (A Methodology for Evaluating Commuter Travel Options in Virginia Cities). An Executive Summary provides an overview of the entire study and highlights principal conclusions and recommendations. The presentation of case study analyses and conclusions basically follows the principal steps of the planning methodology that is detailed in the Phase 2 report. The case studies hove the dual objectives of identifying actions that can be token to improve commuting in each area and demonstrating the use of the planning methodology in a variety of commuting environments. The second objective requires that each step of the analysis be documented in detail so that subsequent users of the methodology can achieve maximum benefit from application in the case studies. Thus, the report contains more extensive tables, sample calculations, and description of assumptions than would ordinarily be found in a typical project feasibility study. While each case study report follows the general outline of the major steps in the planning methodology, there are important differences in the way in which material is presented and in the level and type of analysis for each case study. This results primarily from the vast differences in commuting conditions between a large urban region such as Northern Virginia, that is part of an even larger metropolitan area, and a smaller, free-standing urban area, such as Martinsville. The types and level of problems in two such contrasting areas obviously demand different planning and analytical techniques, and the resulting transportation solutions are likely to be quite different in form, cost, and impact. Finally, some of the variation in the case study discussions is the result of different analysts working on each area. While there was extensive communication between the three principal analysts during the study, each was given considerable flexibility in adapting and applying the basic methodology to conditions in his respective study areas. This had the benefit of producing three fairly independent tests of the planning methodology, reflecting not only differences among study areas, but differences in interpretation of the methodology, as well. CASE STUDY AREA DEFINITION The Roanoke Case Study area is centered on the Roanoke Valley, encompassing the independent cities of Roanoke and Salem and Roanoke County. Also included in the study area are the counties of Botetourt, Bedford, Craig, Floyd, Franklin, and Montgomery and the independent cities of Bedford and Radford. Figure 2.1 shows the area considered in the Roanoke Case Study and the 1970 commuting patterns into the Roanoke Valley. The Roanoke Valley had a 1980 employment base of 92,500 centered on manufacturing, transportation, wholesale and retail trade. Approximately sixty-five percent of employment in the Valley is located in the City of Roanoke. The City of Salem is estimated to have 1980 employment of almost 20,000 and about 17,500 jobs are located in Roanoke County. Figure 2.2 shows the location of firms in the Roanoke Valley employing more than 200 persons. Employment opportunities in the surrounding counties are somewhat limited. In the 1970 Census, only Montgomery County and the City of Radford had a net influx of commuters. This situation appears to be the case today. In terms of employment reported in County Business Patterns(*1), the Roanoke Valley has a ratio of about one job for every two residents. The surrounding counties, being more rural and agricultural, had much lower job-to-resident ratios. Montgomery County and the City of Radford together have a ratio of about two jobs for every seven residents. Franklin County and Bedford County, each had a ratio of about one job to every five residents. The remaining counties (Botetourt, Floyd and Craig), each had a ratio of less than one job for every ten residents. Despite the limited non-agricultural job opportunities outside the Roanoke Valley, it appears that the extent of in-commuting to the Valley is somewhat limited. As shown in Figure 2.1, in 1970 only about 12% of jobs in the Roanoke Valley were held by workers living outside the Valley. This may be due in part to the relative proximity of other major employment centers – Lynchburg to the east, Martinsville to the south and Montgomery County and Radford to the west. Of the surrounding counties, only Montgomery County has significant urban development. While this study focuses on the long-distance commuter, the 1970 Census revealed that only 1% of the total jobs in the Roanoke Valley were held by persons living beyond the first ring of counties. As can be seen from Figure 2.1, Bedford and Botetourt counties are the primary contributors to in-commuting to the Roanoke Valley, with Franklin and Montgomery counties comprising the bulk of the remaining in-commuters. Based on this analysis, the case study area was limited to the Roanoke Valley and the first ring of surrounding counties. This study area had a 1980 population of about 390,000 (of which just over fifty percent is in the Roanoke Valley) and encompasses a land area of over 3,400 square miles. ______________________________________ (*1) County Business Patterns, 1979 – Virginia, U.S. Department of the Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Note: The County Business Patterns publication of the Bureau of the Census excludes farmers, domestic service employees, self-employed persons, and government and railroad employees. |
Menu
Published Documents
