HD38 - Virginia Route 5 Byway Corridor Study

  • Published: 1992
  • Author: Department of Historic Resources
  • Enabling Authority: House Joint Resolution 457 (Regular Session, 1991)

Executive Summary:
Pursuant to House Joint Resolution No. 457 (1991), the Department of Historic Resources completed further study of the need to and ways of preserving the historic, environmental and aesthetic integrity of the Virginia Route 5 Byway Corridor as a two-lane scenic byway. The Department evaluated the desirability and feasibility of using a range of possible policies and planning techniques for preserving the integrity of the byway corridor through analysis of existing studies, expert presentations, deliberations on study issues with citizen advisors and representatives of interested local governments, and solicitation of ideas and public comments at public hearings and in written form from various interested parties.

MAJOR FINDINGS

The Need to Preserve Route 5's Integrity is of Statewide Interest

• Route 5 and its immediate environs between Richmond and Williamsburg form a byway corridor of outstanding historical, cultural, scenic and environmental value. As a travel destination of international renown, the Route 5 corridor is an important economic as well as a historic and cultural asset of the Commonwealth deserving of effective conservation and promotion.

The Integrity of the Existing Route 5 Byway Corridor is at Risk

• The Virginia Department of Transportation is contemplating the addition of two more lanes at some indefinite future time. A recent estimated cost for these proposed modifications exceeds one hundred and sixty million dollars ($161,173,000).

• In order to preserve Route 5 as it is, increased transportation capacity must be provided by the construction or improvement of other roads. Byway designation by itself has proven to have little influence on alterations that a road may require because of traffic or safety, notwithstanding a county's planning and zoning along the road.

• In the face of increasing development pressures, existing protection techniques and policies are achieving and can be expected to achieve only limited success in protecting the historic, aesthetic and scenic integrity of the Route 5 Byway corridor.

• Unless existing state and local policies affecting the Byway are changed soon, the integrity of the Byway as a two-lane scenic byway will fall prey to insensitive development, too much development and more traffic than the road can safely handle.

Safeguarding Route 5 Requires Leadership and Citizen Participation

• Virginians have a civic responsibility to safeguard Route 5 and its resources so that residents, tourists and future generations can enjoy and transmit the rich heritage represented by and along the byway corridor.

• Route 5's preservation as a two-lane Virginia Byway will require a special initiative by the Commonwealth designed to encourage new intergovernmental relationships and responsibilities.

• State agencies should conduct their activities in such a way as to support and advance the protection of Route 5. Roads developed in the area should be designed to divert excessive traffic away from Route 5. Parks planned for the area should be designed to protect the Route 5 viewshed.

• The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 requires State Departments of Transportation to spend at least 10% of their allocation for enhancement projects. Virginia's share of transportation enhancement expenditures for 1992-1997 is estimated to be $45.6 million. A wide range of state-initiated conservation activities will now be eligible to receive federal transportation funds, including landscaping and other scenic beautification, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and acquisition of scenic easements.

• What is urgently needed at the local level is both a public forum to coordinate and encourage the separate conservation efforts of public and private agencies and groups and a collaborative planning initiative for wise management of resources in the Route 5 Byway Corridor.

• There is evidence of growing citizen and local government support for a more coordinated approach to planning for the future of Route 5 among different levels of public and private activity, provided it is respectful of local authority for land use decision-making, the particular needs of various communities, and the scenic and other attributes of the Byway and Byway Corridor.

• Growth along the Byway can be planned for and managed so that it does not overwhelm and destroy the outstanding values of the Route 5 Byway Corridor through promotion of policies and actions that address five basic needs:

1. The need to save what needs to be saved.
2. The need to build what needs to be built.
3: The need to deal fairly with the dollar interests of landowners.
4. The need for private sector as well as public sector involvement.
5. The need for planning initiatives, not simply regulatory reaction.

It is Feasible to Use Resource Easements to Protect Route 5

• The technique of obtaining open space, historic and other resource easements on properties along the Byway is one of the strongest and potentially most cost-effective ways of protecting the integrity of the Route 5 Corridor.

• Limited promotion of easements by state and local agencies has so far yielded few easement donations from property owners along Route 5, notwithstanding the economic and philanthropic advantages of easement donations both to the individual property owner and the Commonwealth.

• The most effective way of promoting resource protection through easement acquisition within the Route 5 Corridor is to create an instrument for purchasing open space or historic easements from willing property owners at a minimum of public expense.

• A concerted program for easement acquisition should not commence until after completion of a survey and visual assessment of the entire corridor.

It is possible to Establish a Foundation to Safeguard Route 5

• The role of private, voluntary initiatives in a concerted effort to preserve the integrity of the existing Route 5 Byway corridor is critical.

• Citizen initiative in safeguarding the Route 5 Byway will need to capitalize on such private sector resources as land rights acquisition, land banking, creative development, property planning and property disposition.

• There currently exists no single entity commissioned for the single purpose of safeguarding Route 5. There is nothing to prevent the organization of a Route 5 foundation by private citizens as a private, not-for-profit educational organization.

• A strategic aim of a special Route 5 foundation would be to attract funds from grants, bequests, and other sources to purchase easements. Such a foundation could also actively promote and coordinate a broad range of heritage education, heritage interpretation and heritage tourism efforts within the Byway corridor.

Better Local Coordination and Greater Flexibility Are Needed

• An examination of the local policies of Route 5 jurisdictions indicates that localities sharing the Route 5 Byway are not working together to protect the multiple values of the byway corridor.

• The integrity of the Route 5 Corridor would be better protected if localities addressed byway and greenbelt protection consistently and directly in their comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, zoning districts, sign regulations and transportation plans.

• It is appropriate that the Commonwealth grant local governments authority to enact local land use controls for aesthetic and scenic purposes along Route 5. Federal law does not permit the amortization of nonconforming signs.

It is Desirable to Establish A Four-Foot-Wide Bicycle Path Adjacent to the Byway

• Public hearings conducted by the Department revealed public support for the establishment of a bicycle path or paths adjacent to the Byway but safety remains of paramount importance to motorists and residents on Route 5.

• There is evidence of local government support for the establishment of bicycle paths adjacent to the Byway, provided interested localities are partners in decisions on path location and design.

• Opinion remains divided in communities along the Byway on what is the most safe, economical, conservative and feasible means to introduce bike paths along Route 5. The majority of the Department's citizen Advisors support the introduction of four-foot-wide paved shoulders on both sides of the Byway to accommodate bike paths and farm equipment and the planting of landscaping compatible with a parkway concept.

• There is widespread agreement that shared use of Route 5 by bicyclists and major truck traffic is incompatible and dangerous, especially with no bike lanes along the road at present. Dedicated bike paths will keep bikers out of the way of travelling motorists.

Stronger Byway Policy and Promotion are Needed to Safeguard Route 5

• The Department of Transportation needs at once to develop special byway maintenance standards or concepts that address directly the effects any road alterations will have on the integrity of Route 5 as a two-lane byway, including the design of bike paths.

• VDOT and the Department of Conservation and Recreation through mutual agreement could implement specific byway management criteria, a formal review process and revocation procedures.

• A mechanism for broader state environmental review of byway project planning is available through a recently established interagency environmental coordinating committee. Proposed impacts on Virginia Byways now qualify as major projects under these new procedures.

MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS

Create a Route 5 Advisory Board

• The Department recommends establishment of a special Virginia Route 5 Byway Advisory Board with consultative authority to advise federal, state and local governments and agencies on actions potentially affecting the designated Byway and Byway Corridor; to oversee completion of a survey and visual assessment of the Byway's historic, aesthetic, environmental and scenic values by June 30, 1993; and to develop management recommendations and design guidelines by June 30, 1994 for consideration by local governments in land use decision making.

• The Department recommends that Board membership be broadly representative of the various communities of interest along the Byway, including citizens who own land and property on the Byway, citizens residing in each of the five interested jurisdictions, and citizens with expertise or experience in byway corridor-related/scenic design issues.

• It is recommended that no fewer than 7 and no more than 12 citizens be appointed by the General Assembly at the time of the Board's creation to serve on the Board until June 30, 1996 before which time the Assembly will consider whether such a Board shall continue to function.

Strengthen Byway Policy, Management, Coordination and Promotion

• VDOT should immediately establish special design criteria for the Route 5 byway and adjacent bicycle paths for review and comment by the state's interagency environmental coordinating committee and interested local governments.

• As soon as practicable, the comments and concerns of the Route 5 Advisory Board should be taken into account in all state and federal undertakings with potential effects on the integrity of the Route 5 Corridor.

• VDOT and the Department of Conservation and Recreation through mutual agreement should implement specific byway management criteria, a formal review process and revocation procedures.

Increase Easement Promotion by State and Local Agencies

• A concerted program for easement acquisition should not commence until after the Advisory Board has overseen completion of the survey and visual assessment for the entire corridor.

• Consistent with that assessment, state agencies with a mandate to acquire conservation and other resource easements should increase promotional efforts to acquire resource easements within the Corridor in cooperation with interested property owners, local governments, the Route 5 Advisory Board and the Department of Transportation.

Establish a Special Route 5 Foundation

• The Department endorses the establishment of a special Route 5 Foundation dedicated to safeguard the Byway's integrity by acquiring protective easements from willing landowners within the Route 5 Byway corridor and by promoting the historic, educational, environmental, economic and other values of the Route 5 Byway Corridor.

Give Local Governments Flexibility to Protect Route 5

• The Department recommends enactment of stronger enabling legislation to make clear that local governments may act more flexibly in considering aesthetic and scenic values in managing growth and development along the byway.

• The Department also recommends granting local governments authority to permit the transfer of development rights of property owners along the Route 5 Byway to other areas more appropriate for development.

• The Department encourages each Route 5 jurisdiction to consider adoption of a Route 5 overlay district to reflect guidelines developed by a Route 5 Advisory Board.

Study Feasibility of Bicycle Path Alternatives

• The establishment of bicycle paths adjacent to the Byway is recommended with the advice and consent of localities as regards location and design.

• The Department recommends that VDOT and the Department of Conservation and Recreation jointly cooperate in examining the feasibility, cost effectiveness, safety and appropriateness of various alternatives for placing a four-foot-wide bicycle path adjacent to Route 5 and report on their findings to the Advisory Board as soon as such Board is established.

• This study should include consideration of designs which are sensitive to the existing canopy of trees along the Byway and which are most appropriate to the actual conditions of Route 5. Also to be addressed is the feasibility of adapting the rights of ways of existing utility lines such as transmission powerlines and the Colonial gas pipeline for use as dedicated bike paths.

Restrict Through Truck Traffic on Route 5

• Based on its deliberations with its Route 5 Citizen Advisory Committee, the Department recommends that through truck traffic on Route 5 be eliminated, provided that this prohibition not apply to local truck deliveries or trucks originating in the localities.

• In view of the recent finding by the Virginia Department of Transportation that possibly the majority of tractor-trucks are operating illegally on Route 5, the Department recommends vigorous and strong enforcement of existing laws restricting oversize and overweight trucks on Route 5.

• The Department requests that the section of the Code of Virginia which authorizes the purchase of a permit to allow trucks to carry excess weight on non-interstate roads be examined to determine the feasibility of its revision to exempt Virginia Byways such as Route 5 from the privilege, provided that local trucks and farm equipment be permitted to use the Byway for the welfare of the local community.