HD44 - Route 5 Corridor Study

  • Published: 1991
  • Author: Department of Transportation
  • Enabling Authority: House Joint Resolution 88 (Regular Session, 1990)

Executive Summary:
House Joint Resolution No. 88 (HJR 88) directed the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to conduct a study of various elements considered pertinent to the preservation of Virginia scenic Route 5 which connects Virginia's Colonial Capital, Williamsburg, to its present Capital, Richmond.

A committee comprised of representatives of VDOT and the local governing bodies of Henrico, Charles City and James City Counties; one citizen member from each jurisdiction, appointed by the Speaker of the House; one citizen member from each jurisdiction, appointed by the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections, was designated to address the elements in the resolution.

Regarding the provision of the resolution concerning the need to, ways of, and extent to which Virginia Route 5 can be preserved as a two-lane scenic byway, it was felt that VDOT should not lose sight of the importance of Route 5 as a tourist attraction and economic resource. Tourists come from all over the nation to drive from Richmond to Williamsburg on this Virginia byway. It is the consensus of the Committee that Route 5 should be maintained as a two-lane road as long as possible.

The adequacy of Route 5 to safely accommodate farm equipment, large trucks and other vehicles is a concern. According to a recent highway needs study, sections of the existing highway will require a four-lane divided facility in the future. A four-lane divided facility will be required for 18.14 miles from the east corporate limits of the City of Richmond to Route 156. Also, a four-lane divided facility will be required from Route 613 in James City County to Route 199, a distance of 6.21 miles. A 24.61-mile section in Charles City and James City Counties, between Route 156 east and Route 613, will require reconstruction to provide a minimum of 24-foot pavement. These improvements are recommended by the Committee. In making these improvements, the Committee feels that the scenic characteristics of the byway should be preserved. Additionally, the Committee recommends that the localities have input into a parkway-type design concept for these highway improvements. The Committee recommends that VDOT consider changing the Virginia byway designation of a section of Route 5 in Henrico County to follow Kingsland Road and Osborne Turnpike due to existing and future development. Finally, the Committee recommends that VDOT and the localities should decide how these future traffic needs will be accommodated so the localities can account for them in their decision making and comprehensive plans.

As to the feasibility and desirability of eliminating tractor-trailer truck traffic on Route 5, VDOT conducted a Special Truck Study over a three-month period which included monitoring the speed, length; width and weight of trucks. Three years of accident data were evaluated to determine cause, severity and accident experience relative to truck traffic. The effect of tractor trailers on safety and travel efficiency on Route 5 between the Cities of Richmond and Williamsburg was assessed in the study.

Weigh-in-motion (WIM) studies were conducted at three locations: two on Route 5 and one on Route 106. A total of 1,046 trucks was recorded at the three sites: 493, or 47 percent, were tractor trailers with 229, or 46 percent, being overweight. During the study, the interviews with the truckers indicated several reasons for taking Route 5 instead of I-64. One of the reasons given is that Route 5 is the shortest route to their destination. A second reason is they take Route 5 to avoid the scales. The third reason is a trucker can purchase a permit from VDOT to haul a one to five percent heavier load on Route 5 than they can haul on I-64.

Analysis of data from the truck study determined there is no significant indication that a safety problem exists with trucks using Route 5 as an alternate access route as opposed to the interstate facilities. Therefore, VDOT concluded the restriction of tractor trailers from Route 5 is not a viable solution.

There is no legislative authority to restrict trucks on the state's primary highways. Additionally, there would be legal and political ramifications with eliminating legal tractor-trailer trucks on Route 5 because it is a federal-aid primary route and due to the perceived negative impact it would have on industry and farming.

Additional information regarding the truck study is included in a summary of the "Special Truck Study" included at the end of this report.

The Committee does not recommend eliminating tractor-trailer trucks from Route 5 due to the perceived economic impact it would have on industry and farming.

The Committee recommends that additional signs be installed on Routes 199, I-64, 106 and 60 to encourage trucks to take alternate routes identified in the truck study. The alternate routing is I-295 West and I-64 East and along Route 199 (Williamsburg area) to Route 5.

Greater enforcement of existing laws to discourage illegal trucks from using Route 5 is also recommended.

It was concluded that localities in the corridor consider truck traffic generation in the decision of whether to approve land use plans.

It was recommended that VDOT and/or localities contact trucking industries to encourage them to use alternate routes for through truck traffic.

The Committee recommends VDOT consider the safety recommendations and capacity improvements for turn lanes, signing, pavement markers, reflectors, pavement and bridge widening, etc., set forth in the truck study as a means of further enhancing safety on Routes 5 and 106.

Regarding the need for eliminating billboards in the Virginia Route 5 corridor, VDOT conducted an inventory of off-premise bill-boards along the Route 5 corridor between the east corporate limits of the City of Richmond and the west corporate limits of the City of Williamsburg. The inventory identified 41 legal off-premise signs. They are less than 32 square feet in size, except one, and advertise the plantations or tourist-oriented businesses along Route 5.

This is a federal-aid highway and the signs are protected by state and federal laws. They cannot be required to be removed without payment of compensation for landowner rights and sign owner interests in the signs. There are no funds available for removing existing billboards. The local ordinances can be and are more restrictive than state and federal laws regarding the erection of new off-premise billboards. All three local jurisdictions have ordinances prohibiting the erection of new off-premise billboards.

Additional sanctions are not recommended by the Committee since ordinances prohibit new billboard-type signs in the Route 5 corridor.

As to the feasibility and appropriateness of granting to the local governments powers, or enhancing their current powers, needed to control commercial growth and development in the Virginia Route 5 corridor, the local governmental officials indicated that their current powers are adequate to control commercial growth and development. It was the consensus that no additional powers are needed. It was determined that in balancing the need for economic development and commercial growth, those powers may not always be enforced to their limits and that orderly economic growth and development is desired and is vital to the economy of local jurisdictions.

Concerning the desirability of establishing bicycle paths along the Route 5 corridor, the corridor is currently a part of the TransAmerica Bicycle Trail (Interstate Bicycle Route 76) from 12 miles east of Richmond at Route 156 to 3.5 miles west of the City of Williamsburg.

The Committee recommended any improvements to Route 5 include a minimum four-foot smooth-paved shoulder to accommodate a bicycle lane on each side of the roadway between the east corporate limits of the City of Richmond and Route 199 west of the City of Williamsburg.

Regarding the need to establish criteria to protect designated Virginia Byways, the Code of Virginia indicates preference shall be given to those corridors controlled by zoning or otherwise so as to reasonably protect the aesthetic or cultural value of the highway.

The Department of Conservation and Recreation determines that local zoning and comprehensive planning programs of a locality are consistent with the management objectives for scenic highways or Virginia byways before it recommends byway designation to VDOT.

VDOT is required to conduct annual inspections of byways and to work with the localities to achieve the management objectives.

The Committee recommends VDOT procedures/guidelines be revised to require demonstration by the localities requesting byway designation that an acceptable corridor plan has been developed which will maintain the characteristics of the byway.

The commitment to preserve a byway is presently shared by the state and local governments. The Committee recommends review of corridor plan compliance by VDOT during its annual review of byways.

Also recommended was for VDOT procedures to provide local jurisdictions an opportunity to participate in the design concept for road improvements to byways with the view of preserving and maintaining the byway characteristic to the fullest extent possible.

Committee Recommendations

• Any future road improvements should preserve the scenic character of Route 5 to the fullest extent possible.

• Local jurisdictions should participate in a parkway-type design concept that will maintain the integrity of Virginia byway Route 5.

• Twenty-four-foot clearance should be maintained from the centerline of the road to any obstruction.

• Construct a new four-lane divided highway in a separate corridor or add two parallel lanes to sections of Route 5 to minimize the disturbance to existing overhanging trees.

• VDOT should consider changing the Virginia byway designation of a section of Route 5 in Henrico County to follow Kingsland Road and Osborne Turnpike due to existing and future development.

• VDOT and the localities should decide how future traffic needs will be accommodated so the localities can account for them in their decision making and comprehensive plans.

• Consider the safety recommendations for turn lanes, signing, pavement markers, reflectors, pavement and Chickahominy Bridge widening, etc. set forth in the Special Truck Study as a means of further enhancing safety and increasing capacity on Routes 5 and 106.

• A full usable shoulder should be enhanced and maintained.

• Review the speed limits and speed limit policies of VDOT including speed limit of trucks in more highly developed areas.

• There should be more policing and enforcement of existing laws to discourage illegal trucks from using Route 5.

• Install additional signs on Routes I-64, 60, 106 and 199 to encourage trucks to take alternate routes.

• Localities in the corridor should consider truck traffic generation preparatory to approving their land use plans (not to prohibit trucks but to look at the truck traffic that will be generated as a result of land use.).

• Contact trucking industries and encourage them to use alternate routes such as Routes I-64 and 60 for through truck traffic.

• All three local jurisdictions have ordinances prohibiting the erection of new off-premise billboards; additional sanctions are not recommended by the Committee.

• No additional powers are needed to control commercial growth and development.

• Any improvements to Route 5 should include a minimum four-foot smooth paved shoulder to accommodate a bicycle lane on each side of the roadway between the east corporate limits of the City of Richmond and Route 199 west of the City of Williamsburg.

• VDOT should establish procedures/guidelines to require demonstration by the localities requesting byway designation that a corridor plan has been developed which will maintain characteristics of the byway.

• VDOT procedures/guidelines should be revised to require an acceptable corridor plan preparatory to designation of any highway as a Virginia byway.

• VDOT should review corridor plan compliance during its annual review of byways.

• VDOT procedures should provide local jurisdictions an opportunity to participate in the design concept for road improvements to byways with the view of preserving and maintaining byway characteristics to the fullest extent possible.