HD15 - Feasibility of Developing and Staffing A Tourist Information Center in the Route 29 Corridor

  • Published: 1989
  • Author: Department of Transportation
  • Enabling Authority: House Joint Resolution 39 (Regular Session, 1988)

Executive Summary:
House Joint Resolution 39 (HJR39) directs the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and Division of Tourism (VDT) to study the feasibility of developing and establishing a welcome center in the Route 29 corridor as an adjunct to existing welcome centers. These centers include the 10 located on Virginia's interstate highway system and the 26 local/regional tourist information centers statewide that are recognized and supported by VDOT. A task force comprised of VDOT and VDT staff was assembled to address this resolution from the standpoints of feasibility, desirability, and economics.

Based on the language contained in the resolution, the task force made several assumptions regarding the site. First, it was assumed that this arterial welcome center would be generally similar in design and configuration to those located on Virginia's interstate system. Second, it was assumed that the proposed center would be staffed and maintained jointly by VDOT and VDT. Third, it was assumed that the center would be constructed during the next six years and that the source of funding would be from Primary System Allocations. Finally, it was assumed that a sufficient tract of land could be located and purchased to accommodate the welcome center facility.

Based on past welcome center construction five acres were determined to be the minimum needed for center site development; however, once the site location is pinpointed, its topography could dictate the need for a tract in excess of five acres. Cost estimates and the feasibility of constructing parking and the means of ingress and egress and obtaining the necessary utilities were calculated; estimates of the staffing and annual maintenance costs of the center were projected; and the potential impact of the center on tourist activities in Virginia was assessed. To arrive at the latter, a one-day travel survey of out-of-state motorists traveling the routes adjacent to the center site was conducted In August 1988. Finally, information regarding welcome center site development underway in states bordering Virginia was also obtained.

Although land for the site does appear to be available, it is not known whether or not landowners exist who are willing to part with it. VDOT may, therefore, be faced with the need to exercise its power of eminent domain to acquire this land. Before this power could be exercised without challenge, the question would have to be resolved as to whether welcome centers are used for transportation information, and are thus incidental to public highways, or whether they are used for economic development within the state. This issue could be resolved by a legislative enactment authorizing VDOT to establish welcome centers as an incident to public highways.

The task force is aware of a tract of land in the Route 29/265 corridor, which is owned by the City of Danville, that may be suitable for the proposed center. Further study would be needed to determine the suitability of this site.

There is little question that welcome centers are desirable components of a highway system. The task force sought to determine whether or not the Route 29 center might prove desirable to the Commonwealth. Since the major purpose of such centers would be to serve the needs of tourists, the volume of tourist vehicles traversing the location was determined. Tourist vehicles were defined as those from out of state that were commuting in excess of 50 miles within the Commonwealth. A survey of vehicles revealed that 22% of the vehicles were from out of state and that 38% of those were tourist cars. Based on 1987 traffic data, this would mean that of the 9,730 total vehicles, 2,100 were out-of-state cars, and 798 of these were tourist cars. Using statistics from a 1987 study conducted for VDT-by The College of William and Mary, the financial contribution that would accrue to the Commonwealth as a result of this site was determined. Results showed that construction of the site could yield direct tax revenues, as a result of increased tourism, of $40,606 annually, and by the year 2010, this figure could increase to $56,339.

It is estimated that the welcome center would cost about $2.5 million to construct. The high construction costs at this site are due chiefly to the cost of land and site development. Annual costs for maintaining and staffing the center would be $218,000, of which VDOT and VDT would each bear roughly $109,000. It is not anticipated that this project would entail any federal requirements, such as an environmental impact assessment or water quality permits, due to its location and potential sources of funding.

While options other than state funding should be thoroughly explored, it is useful to determine the impact on construction allocations, were VDOT to build the welcome center. Since construction allocation funds are allocated by district, these allocations would be affected in the Lynchburg District if the center was constructed. If the funds necessary for the construction of this center were drawn from the Primary Allocation for the Lynchburg district, certain programmed projects would likely have to be delayed. It is also estimated that to staff and maintain these centers adequately, an additional seven VDOT and four VDT employees would be necessary. Labor costs for these additional employees are included in the $218,000 annual expenditure for staffing and maintenance. The cost of construction and operation could be reduced to the extent that the local jurisdictional entitles were required to participate in these expenses.

Although the potential for such local participation as well as joint ventures between the VDOT, VDT, and local jurisdictional entitles may exist and should be explored, such activities are thus far unprecedented in the Commonwealth.

In conclusion, the Route 29/265 welcome center site was evaluated along with 10 other candidate welcome center sites in the Commonwealth. The feasibility, financial impact, and desirability of constructing the 11 centers was assessed. Although no attempt was made to prioritize the candidate sites, the following criteria were presented as ones that should be considered by the General Assembly in making decisions about whether or not to build the center:

1. The cost of construction.
2. The impact of construction cost on district primary allocations.
3. The percentage of tourist traffic traversing the site.
4. The current and projected volume of tourist cars traversing the site (thus the number of tourists that may stop).
5. The projected revenue to be generated by the site.
6. The current and projected average dally traffic at the site.
7. The proximity of the site to existing welcome centers.

Using these criteria as guidelines, the Route 29/265 site, compared to the other 10 candidate sites, would likely fall somewhere near the midpoint of a prioritized rating.

Although the report will enable the General Assembly to assess the advantages and disadvantages of constructing the candidate center, a more sophisticated analysis should be initiated before final determinations are made. Such an analysis would result in the development of a computer model that could ultimately be used to prioritize candidate sites accurately.