SD6 - Feasibility and Desirability of Establishing Welcome Centers on Non-Interstate Highways in Virginia

  • Published: 1989
  • Author: Department of Transportation
  • Enabling Authority: Senate Joint Resolution 38 (Regular Session, 1988)

Executive Summary:
Senate Joint Resolution 38 (SJR38) directs the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Division of Tourism (VDT) to consider the feasibility, desirability, and financial impact of establishing, partially supporting, or otherwise providing for welcome centers at points where multilane arterial highways extend from the borders of and into the Commonwealth and at the junction of the Blue Ridge Parkway, the Skyline Drive and Interstate 64. These centers would be in addition to the ten located on Virginia's interstate highway system and .the twenty-six local/regional tourist informational centers statewide that are recognized and supported by VDT. A task force comprised of VDOT and VDT staff was assembled to address this resolution.

Using the criteria specified by the Resolution, the task force identified eleven locations in the Commonwealth as candidates for these proposed arterial welcome centers. In conducting an in-depth analysis of each location, the task force made several assumptions. First, it was assumed that the arterial welcome center would be generally similar in design and configuration to those located on Virginia's interstate system. Second, it was assumed that these proposed centers would be staffed and maintained jointly by VDOT and VDT. Third, it was assumed that these centers would be constructed during the next six years and that the source of funding would be from primary System Allocations or from sources identified by the General Assembly. Finally, it was assumed that sufficient tracts of land could be located and successfully negotiated for to accommodate the welcome center facilities. The eleven locations chosen for analysis by the task force were as follows [listed by Site No., Route No./Location, Jurisdiction, and VDOT District]:

1, Rt. 29/265 @ NC/VA Border, Pittsylvania Co., Lynchburg

2, Rt. 220 @ NC/VA Border, Henry Co., Salem

3, Rt. 23 TN/VA Border, Scott Co., Bristol

4, Rt. 23 @ KY/VA Border, Wise Co., Bristol

5, Rt. 460 @WVA/VA Border, Tazewell Co., Bristol

6, Rt. 460 @ WVA/VA Border, Giles Co., Salem

7, Rt. 250 @ 1-64 Skyline Dr./Blue Ridge Pkwy./Afton Mtn., Nelson Co., Lynchburg

8, Rt. 301 @ MD/VA Border, King George Co., Fredericksburg

9, Rt. 522 @ WVA/VA Border, Frederick Co., Staunton

10, Rt. 168 @ NC/VA Border, City of Chesapeake, Suffolk

11, Rt. 17 @ NC/VA Border, City of Chesapeake, Suffolk

Source: SJR38 Task Force

For each of the eleven sites, the availability and cost of five-acre tracts of land were estimated. While five acres were determined to be the minimum needed for center site development, once site locations are pinpointed, topography could dictate the need for larger tracts. In addition, cost estimates and the feasibility of constructing parking, means of ingress and egress, and obtaining the necessary utilities were calculated; estimates of the staffing and annual maintenance costs of the centers were projected; and the potential impact of the eleven centers on tourist activities in Virginia was assessed. To arrive at the latter, a travel survey of out-of-state motorists traversing routes adjacent to each of the candidate center sites was conducted in August 1988. Finally, information regarding similar welcome center site development in states bordering Virginia was also obtained.

Land

Past practice would suggest that the ten candidate centers at points of entry should be located no more than two miles from the state's border. The study revealed that though varied in per acre cost, land appears to be available at ten sites. Sufficient land appears not to be available at site 7. At this location, the establishment of a welcome center might necessitate either purchasing a site in the Waynesboro area, redesigning and upgrading the existing rest area facility east of Afton Mountain on Interstate 64, or using U.S. Park Service land. Regardless of what is decided about site 7, water, sewage, and electrical services appear to be accessible at all eleven locations.

While land for ten of the sites appears to be available, it is not known whether landowners will be willing to part with it. VDOT may be faced with exercising its power of eminent domain to acquire some portion of this land. However, before this power could be exercised without challenge, a question would have to be resolved as to whether welcome centers are used for transportation information and are thus considered incidental to public highways or whether they are used for economic development. This issue could be clearly resolved by a legislative enactment authorizing VDOT to establish welcome centers as an incident to public highways.

Benefits

There is little question that welcome centers are desirable components of a highway system. The task force sought to determine whether any or all of the candidate centers might prove desirable to the Commonwealth. Since the major purpose of such centers would be to serve the needs of tourists, it was decided that the volume of tourist vehicles traversing the eleven candidate locations had to be determined. The VDT definition of a tourist vehicle is one that is from out of state and is commuting in excess of fifty miles within the Commonwealth. A survey of vehicles revealed the largest volume of tourist traffic to be at sites 8, 10, and 6, respectively, and the lowest at sites 7, 4, and 3, respectively (Table 6). Of the vehicles traversing these locations and responding to the survey, however, the greatest percentage of tourist traffic was found to occur at sites 7, 8, and 9, and the lowest at sites 3, 11, and 10. Applying 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 the construction of each candidate welcome center was determined. This showed that construction of all eleven sites could yield direct tax revenues resulting from increased tourism of $450,000 annually, and by the year 2010, this figure could increase to $816,000. Further projections indicate that the greatest potential tax revenue would be generated by sites 3, 5, and 10, and the least by sites 9 and 7.

Cost

It is estimated that the eleven welcome centers will cost about $31 million to construct--an average of $2.8 million per site. Construction costs would be greatest at sites 3, 8, and 10. High construction costs at these sites are due chiefly to the cost of land and site development. The least expensive centers to build would be those at sites 9 and 7, although the availability of land at the latter site remains in question. Annual costs for maintaining and staffing the centers are estimated at $2.4 million, of which, given current funding practices, VDOT and VDT would each bear roughly $1.2 million.

While options other than state funding should be thoroughly explored, it is useful to determine the impact these centers would have on construction allocations were VDOT to build them. Since construction funds are allocated by district, these allocations would be affected to the extent that proposed centers fall within the boundaries of specific districts. The construction costs for the three centers located in the Bristol District would be nearly $10 million; the two centers located in the Lynchburg District would cost $4.5 million; the two In the Suffolk District would cost $6 million; the two in the Salem District would cost $4.8 million; and the centers in the Fredericksburg and Staunton Districts would cost $4 million and $2 million, respectively. If the funds necessary for the construction of these centers were taken from the Primary Allocation for these six districts, certain programmed projects would likely have to be delayed.

It is also estimated that were the state to adequately staff and maintain these centers, as has traditionally been done, an additional 77 VDOT and 44 VDT employees would be necessary to provide an appropriate level of service. Labor costs for these additional employees are included in the $218,000 per site annual expenditure for staffing and maintenance. The cost to the Commonwealth for the construction and operation of these centers could be reduced to the extent that localities were required to participate in these expenses. Although the potential for such local participation, as well as joint ventures between VDOT, VDT, and local jurisdictional entities, may exist and should be explored, such activities are thus far unprecedented in the Commonwealth.

In conclusion, it appears that all eleven candidate welcome centers would benefit both the visitor to Virginia and the Commonwealth. Should a need arise to prioritize the candidate sites, the following criteria should be considered. They are listed in no particular order of importance.

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 daily traffic at the site.

7. The proximity of the site to existing welcome centers.

8. The willingness of local governments to participate in the venture.

While this report should enable the General Assembly to assess the viability of constructing the proposed centers, a more sophisticated analysis should be initiated before any final determinations are made. Such an analysis would result in the development of a computer model that could ultimately be used to accurately prioritize candidate sites.