Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 01-10-94HARVEY 31825 REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL January 1 O, 1994 7:30 p.m. AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL Call to Order -- Roll Call. All Present. The Invocation was delivered by the Reverend Richard L. McNutt, Pastor, Melrose Avenue United Methodist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor Dfivid A. Bowers. The 1993 Citizen of the Year Award was presented to Ms. Pearl Fu. Presentation of plans for the Roanoke Sister Cities' 30th Anniversary Celebration. David K. Lisk, Chairperson, Wonju Committee, Spokesperson. The matter of a reception, transportation, housing and gifts in connection with the 30th Anniversary celebration of the Wonju Sister Cities relationship was referred to the City Manager and the City Clerk for study, report and recommendation to Council. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public hearing on the request of Cynthia A. Gardner that three tracts of land located at 143, 133 and 129 Norfolk Avenue, S. W., identified as Official Tax Nos. 1010301, 1010302 and 1010303, be rezoned from LM, Light Manufacturing District, to C-3, Central Business District. Edward A. Natt, Attorney. Adopted Ordinance No. 31825 on first reading. (7-0) Public hearing on the request of Donald R. Alouf that a tract of land located at 1910 McVitty Road, S. W., identified as Official Tax No. 5100809, be rezoned from RS-I, Residential Single-Family, Low Density District, to CN, Neighborhood Commercial District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. Edward A. Natt, Attorney. Adopted Ordinance No. 31826 on first reading. (7-0) Continuation of a public hearing on the request of the City Planning Commission that the proposed Roanoke City Thoroughfare Plan dated September, 1993, be approved and adopted as an element of the Roanoke Vision, the City's Official Comprehensive Plan for Roanoke. Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairperson, City Planning Commission. Adopled Resolution No. 31827-011094. (6-0, Mayor Bowers voted no.) CONSENT AGENDA (APPROVED 7-0) ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL AND WIlL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION IN THE FORM, OR FORMS, LISTED BELOW. 2 C-1 C-2 C-3 THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. Minutes of the regular meetings of Council held 'on Monday, November 1, 1993, November 8, 1993, November 15, 1993, and November 22, 1993. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Dispense with the reading thereof and approve as recorded. A communication from Mayor David A. Bowers requesting an Executive Session to discuss vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concur in request for Council to convene in Executive Session to discuss vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. A report of the City Manager requesting an Executive Session to discuss the location of a prospective business when no previous announcement has been made of the business' interest in locating in the community, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(5), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concur in request for Council to convene in Executive Session to discuss the location of a prospective business when no previous announcement has been made of the business' interest in locating in the community, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(5), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. 3 C-4 Qualification of John S. Edwards as a member of the Fifth Planning District Commission to fill the unexpired term of Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., resigned, ending June 30, 1994. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file. C-5 Qualification of John S. Edwards as a member of the Economic Development Commission for a term ending June 30, 1994. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file. C-6 Qualification of H. B. Ewert as a Commissioner of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners to fill the unexpired term of Jo Anne B. Justis, resigned, ending August 31, 1995. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file. C-7 Qualification of B. Gayle Graves as a member of the Roanoke Public Library Board to fill the unexpired term of Bonnie A. Nethery, resigned, ending June 30, 1995. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file. C-8 Qualification of I. B. Heinemann as a member of the Personnel and Employment Practices Commission for a term ending June 30, 1996. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file. REGULAR AGENDA 3. I AR1NG OF CITIZF. NS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: a. Request of Gary J. Foutz to address Council with regard to the Explore Project and the Mill Mountain Zoo. Received and filed. 4 4. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: None. 5. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: CITY MANAGER: BRIEFINGS: None. ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION: A report recommending acceptance of a grant, in the amount of $30,000.00, from the State Transportation Safety Board for a selective DUI enforcement effort; and appropriation of funds in connection therewith. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 31828-011094 and Resolution No. 31829-011094. (7-0) A report recommending acceptance of the bid submitted by DSI Transports, Inc., for transporting pickle liquor for the period of January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1994, with the option to renew for two additional one year periods. Adopted Resolution No. 31830-011094. (7-0) A report recommending execution of an agreement with The Arts Place at Old First, Inc., in connection with the rehabilitation of Old First Baptist Church located at 407 North Jefferson Street. Adopted Ordinance No. 31831-011094. (7-0) 5 6. REPORTS OF COMMI1WEES: e ao A report of the Water Resources Committee recommending execution of a lease agreement with Robert W. Hylton for fanning rights to the "Douthat Farm" portion of the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology, at a lease fee of $20.00 per acre per year, for a five year term. Council Member Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairperson. Adopted Ordinance No. 31832 on first reading. (7-0) A report of the committee appointed to tabulate bids received for construction of the Statesman Industrial Park Stormwater Management System, Contracts I and II, recommending award of contracts to Thomas Brothers, Inc., in the amount of $618,842.00, for Contract I, Stormwater Detention Basin, and to Aaron J. Conner, General Contractor, Inc., in the amount of $1,741,045.00, for Contract II, Storm Drainage System; and transfer of funds in connection therewith. Council Member William White, Sr., Chairperson. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 31833-011094 and Ordinance No. 31834-011094. (7-0) UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None. INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: OF Ordinance No. 31823, on second reading, authorizing and providing for the lease by the City of three parking spaces on the top deck of the Municipal Parking Garage at 117 West Church Avenue to the Roanoke Valley Graduate Center for installation of a satellite dish antenna, subject to certain terms and conditions. AdopW_xl Ordinance No. 31823-011094. (7-0) 6 10. bo Ordinance No. 31824, on second reading, authorizing the donation and conveyance of a 2,551 square foot portion of land and a 4,112 square foot temporary construction easement to the Commonwealth of Virginia for use in the Wells Avenue Street Improvement Project, upon certain terms and conditions. Adopted Ordinance No. 31824--011094. (7-0) MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: a. Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor and Members Council. of City b. Vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council. OTHER HEARINGS OF CITIZF NS: Ms. Helen E. Davis and Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., appeared before Council in opposition to construction of a stadium in historic Gainsboro. The remarks were received and filed. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. (7-0) Council authorized expansion of the membership of the Mill Mountain Development Commil~ee and appointed Ralph K. Smith. NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMPLY WYIlt THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. Reasonable efforts will be made to provide adaptations or accommodations, based on individual needs, for qualified individuals with disabilities in any program or service offered by the City Clerk's Office, provided that reasonable advanced notification has been received. 7 CITIZEN OF THE YEAR AWARD MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 1994 -- 7:30 P.M. ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAYOR DAVID A. BOWERS ON BEHALF OF THE MEMBERS OF THE ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL, IT IS MY PLEASURE THIS EVENING TO INTRODUCE ROANOKE'S 1993 CITIZEN OF THE YEAR. OUR HONOREE HAS DESCRIBED HERSELF AS FOLLOWS: "I HAVE TAKEN UPON MYSELF TO PROMOTE ROANOKE ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, AND CREATE OPPORTUNITIES TO DO SO. I AM PROUD TO BE A ROANOKER!" SHE HAS BEEN DESCRIBED BY OTHERS AS, "BUBBLY, WARM, TALKATIVE, CURIOUS, AND UNINHIBITED." "SHE IS A TIRELESS, UNDAUNTED AMBASSADOR OF ROANOKE AT-LARGE." THE RECIPIENT OF THIS SPECIAL AWARD HAS BEEN A RESIDENT OF ROANOKE FOR SIX YEARS, AND DURING THAT TIME, SHE HAS DEDICATED HERSELF TO MAKING ROANOKE A CITY THAT IS LOOKING OUT ACROSS THE HORIZONS OF THE WORLD. SHE HAS ENERGIZED THE CHINESE-AMERICAN COMMUNITY, AND SHE HAS BEEN ACTIVE IN THE FOLLOWING ORGANIZATIONS: MILL MOUNTAIN THEATER ROANOKE HISTORICAL SOCIETY AND HISTORY MUSEUM ROANOKE MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS ROANOKE SISTER CITIES NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CHRISTIANS AND JEWS ATHENIAN ASSOCIATION VOLUNTEER AND FUND RAISER FOR ROANOKE AREA MINISTRIES FUND RAISER FOR UNITED WAY ROANOKE CHINESE ASSOCIATION NEWCOMER'S CLUB 2 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY GUESSED BY NOW, I AM PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THAT THE CITY OF ROANOKE'S 1993 CITIZEN OF THE YEAR IS MRS. PEARL FU. PEARL, WOULD YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND JOIN ME AT THE PODIUM. AS OF THIS EVENING, PEARL'S NAME WILL JOIN THE RANKS OF OTHER OUTSTANDING ROANOKERS WHO HAVE BEEN HONORED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS THEY HAVE MADE TO THE TOTAL LIFE OF THE COMMUNITY BY DEMONSTRATING A PERSONAL CONCERN FOR THE CITY'S WELL-BEING AND PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS. OUR PAST HONOREES ARE: 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 ROBERT W. WOODY DOROTHY L. GIBBONEY HAZEL B. THOMPSON GEORGE B. CARTLEDGE, SR. G. FRANK CLEMENT WILLIAM "HAM" FLANNAGAN LEWIS W. PEERY 3 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 CLAY H. TURNER GEORGE F. POLLASH FLORINE L. THORNHILL GEORGE W. SANDERSON JOSEPH W. GAITHER PEARL HAS GIVEN LECTURES ON CHINESE CULTURE AND COOKING AT SCHOOLS AND CLUBS; SHE RESPONDS TO QUESTIONS FROM SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES FOR HELP WITH REFUGEE SETTLEMENT; AND SHE ORGANIZED THE EXHIBIT, "A GLIMPSE OF CHINA," FOR THE ROANOKE HISTORY MUSEUM WITH ARTIFACTS BORROWED FROM THE CHINESE EMBASSY AND THE TAIWANESE GOVERNMENT IN WASHINGTON, D.C. SHE IS ALSO A MOVIE STAR, HAVING APPEARED IN THE MOVIES, "CRAZY PEOPLE" AND "WHAT ABOUT BOB." BUT, ALONG WITH ALL OF THIS, HER BIGGEST COMMITMENT HAS BEEN TO BE THE NUMBER ONE CHEERLEADER FOR THE ROANOKE VALLEY COMMUNITY. PEARL, I AM HONORED THIS EVENING TO UNVEIL OUR CITIZEN OF THE YEAR PLAQUE WHICH DISPLAYS YOUR PHOTOGRAPH 4 AS ROANOKE'S 1993 CITIZEN OF THE YEAR. THIS PLAQUE WILL BE ON DISPLAY IN THE LOBBY OF THIS BUILDING FOR ALL TO OBSERVE THE HIGH HONOR THAT YOUR CITY HAS BESTOWED UPON YOU. ALSO, I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT YOU WITH YOUR OWN PERSONALIZED PLAQUE. AND FINALLY, IT IS MY PLEASURE, ON BEHALF OF THE MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL, TO PRESENT YOU WITH THE HIGHEST AND THE MOST IMPORTANT GIFT THAT THE CITY HAS TO BESTOW, OUR "KEY TO THE STAR CITY." PEARL, WE CONGRATULATE YOU, WE APPLAUD YOU, WE EXPRESS OUR APPRECIATION TO YOU, AND WE COUNT OURSELVES MOST FORTUNATE TO HAVE YOU AS A CITIZEN OF THE STAR CITY. M~RY F. PARKER City Clerk, CMC/AAE CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roal~ok¢, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk January 13, 1994 File #87-175-327 W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke on Monday, January 10, 1994, the matter of a reception, transportation, housing and gifts in connection with the 30th anniversary celebration of the Wonju Sister Cities relationship to be held on November 2 - 7, 1994, was referred to the City Manager and the City Clerk for study, report and recommendation to Council. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm Eno. pc: Robert F. Roth, President, Roanoke Sister Cities Corporate Board, 5011 Baisam Drive, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018 David K. Lisk, Chairperson, Wonju Committee, 909 Carrington Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015 Roanoke, Virginia United States of America Pskov, Russia 1992 Kisumu, Kenya 1976 1964 INDEX Part I Part II Part III Part IV Part V History Visit Between Roanoke & Wonju Projects by Wonju and Roanoke Plans for our 30th Anniversary Coming Events in 1996 Roanoke Sister Cities Post Office Box 136 Roanoke, Virginia 24002 PART I HISTORY It began, for Roanokers, on a beautiful April morning in 1964 as two young doctors - one a Korean and the other a native New Yorker - strolled across the grounds of a new hospital in Wonju, Korea. Dr. Young U. Kim was chief surgeon of the Wonju Union Christian Hospital and Dr. Robert Roth was a missionary doctor on the staff. Neither of them knew it at the time, but both men were about to set off a sister-city exchange program between Roanoke and Wonju. President Dwight D. Eisenhower had suggested such a program in September 1956, but only a handful of sister-city agreements had been formed. Neither knew that 25 years later, they would both be working at Roanoke hospitals, still involved with the sister-city program. In fact, Roth is chairman of the 25th-anniversary observance of Roanoke Sister Cities. Roanoke has a Friendship Fountain for its sister cities. It even has a street in Southwest Roanoke named after Wonju. The sister-city program has caught on around the world. Today there are more than 894 U.S. cities linked with more than 1,480 communities in 118 nations. As the program expands, nearly one new relationship develops somewhere in the world each week. The population of both places was about the same, near the 90,000 mark. Both cities share almost identical latitudes, which means they enjoy four seasons. Even the flowers and trees in both communities are nearly the same. Topographically, both are surrounded with mountains, and even their main industries are the same; railroad cars loaded with coal rumble through the streets of both cities. Kim wrote a letter to Trout and wheels began to turn in Roanoke. Trout took the idea to then-Mayor Murray Stoller, who presented it to City Council. After some discussion, council passed a resolution approving the project. By May 1964, planning for the opening ceremony was beginning in Wonju. Roth left Korea in 1964 to handle family affairs after his father died. While in the United States, he decided to go to Greenville, S.C., to visit his wife's parents. "I had to stop in Washington, D.C. That was so close to Roanoke, it seemed silly not to stop off and see this city I had heard so much about." Bill Poff, a Roanoke lawyer, and his wife, Mag, a newspaper reporter, met Roth in Roanoke. "Bill was with the Jaycees, and his group had done a tremendous job in pushing the sister- city idea. I didn't know them personally, but we had been in contact," Roth said. Kim said that for the January 1965 celebration, the Wonju committee wanted a representative from Roanoke, so they contacted the headquarters of the U.S. Army, who found Sgt. Melvin D. Massey, who now lives in Bedford. Roanoke held its first sister-city celebration two years later on Sept. 19, 1967. Since then Kim and Roth have moved to the area. Kim, an emergency-room physician at Community Hospital of Roanoke Valley, became a permanent resident in 1971. His three sons grew up mostly in America. Alan, 35, graduated from Virginia Tech and now works as a photographer for the Roanoke Times & World-News' New River bureau. John, 34, also graduated from Tech, majoring in electrical engineering and is employed by boeing Aircraft. David, 31, graduated from the University of Virginia with a major in mechanical engineering. He has made a career switch and now is enrolled at in medical school at Virginia Commonwealth University. PART II LIST OF VISITORS BETWEEN ROANOKE, VA AND WONJU, KOREA 1964-1991 Dec. 1964 - Dr. R. F. Roth visits Roanoke at invitation of Mr. & Mrs. Poff, representing the JAYCEES. Jan. 1965 - Sgt. Melvin D. Massie (MP, USA at Camp Long, Wonju) represented Roanoke in the first Roanoke Day program. He currently lives in Bedford, VA. 1966 - US Ambassador visits Wonju on Roanoke Day. 1966 - 67 - Dae Hoon Kim~ Social Service Worker at the WUCH, comes as a social worker trainee in Roanoke. She is now Chief Social & Medical Worker for the Holt Adoption Agency, Seoul, Korea, and Eugene, Oregon. 1967 - Sgt. Ray Goad, USAF represented Roanoke. (deceased, but wife and adopted Korean daughter still live in Roanoke. She (Ray-lee) has married the Henebry's son (Michael), and works at Roanoke Memorial Hospital in the Cancer Center. 1967 - Major Richard M. Hedrick, USA represented Roanoke on a tour of duty at Camp Long, Wonju, as Camp Chaplain. He is currently the Minister at the Christian Church, Church St., Roanoke. Jan. 1968 - Roanoke Day celebration in Wonju, to include visit from US Ambassador, was cancelled because the USS Pueblo was seized and taken to Wonsan. May 1970 - Corporal Don Richardson, USAF represented Roanoke at Roanoke Day festivities. Don later became the Treasurer of Roanoke Sister Cities. He just transferred to Richmond. May 1970 - Mr. and Mrs. Powhatan Baber (Administrator of 'the US Embassy in Seoul, Korea) represented the US Ambassador at Roanoke Day. Mr. Baber is from Va and his wife, Dorothy, from Clifton Forge. Mr. Baber was assigned in 1972 to set up the first US Embassy in Beijing, China. He is retired now and lives in Ivy, Va. June 1970 - Bill and Mag Poff of Roanoke visited Wonju as Chairman of the Roanoke Sister Cities. 1970 - Warrant Officer Earl Stovall visited Wonju. He had been part of the group that initiated the Mill Mountain Star and suggested a star on Pongsan in Wonju! This was never realized. He is currently a minister in Bedford, Va. May 1971 - Dr. Young U. Kim, former Superintendent of Wonju Christian Hospital (1962- 1971) came to live in Roanoke with his family. He is on the E.R. Staff at Community Hospital. He is an alumnus of the old Jefferson Hospital surgical residency program (1958). 1973 - Korean Ambassador from Wash., D.C. visited Roanoke. A Korean Tenor, Mr. Cho, sang with Roanoke Symphony. 1974 ~ Mr. Heedoe Ahn visited Roanoke as United Methodist Church Crusade Scholar. He studied Hospital Administration at MCV in Richmond, graduating with honors. He was my co-worker (1967-72) when I was a Methodist Med. Missionary in Korea (1961-72). July 1976 - Mayor Chung, Kee Hoon of Wonju, Dr. S.W. Kim, Superintendent of Wonju Christian Hospital, Mrs. Jeen (wife of Dr. T.H. Jeen, and internist in Wonju), and Mr. Heedoe Ahn (acting as Mayor Chung's interpreter) all participated in the Bicentennial Celebration, including the dedication of the Sister City Mural in the Roanoke City Civic Auditorium. 1976 - Mrs. Natalie Foster attended an international Presbyterian Women Meeting in Seoul; also visited Wonju. June 1977 - Mrs. Pat Tarplee, Wonju Group Chairperson led a group of 11 to Wonju (included 5 days in Hong Kong and 9 days in Korea): members of Group: Mr. and Mrs. Jack Goodykoontz (Exec. Dir. of Roanoke Chamber of Commerce and future Chairman RSC); Dr. and Mrs. Leon Jennings and two sons, Lee and Tom Jennings; Dr. R.F. Roth and son, Tom; Mrs. Belle Sommardahl (now a resident at the United Methodist Home in Roanoke); Ms. Ann Sommers-Bailey, (now a retired History Teacher from Roanoke High School). July 1982 - Mayor Seong, Kee Bahng of Wonju, Dr. S.W. Kim, Mr. Heedoe Ahn visited Roanoke. May-June 1983 - Mayor Noel C. Taylor, Mrs. Louise Musser, Ms. Marcia Larson (now retired as Principal of Huff-Lane School), and Dr. R.F. Roth visited Wonju. Included a 2 week tour of Korea. Dedicated Friendship Tower on front grounds of Wonju City Hall. Sept.-Dec 1984 - Roanoke-ITl' trained 12 engineers from Korea in fiberoptics. Mr. Ted Moseley, Personnel Director at ITl', supervised the program. Nov. 1984 - Wonju Chamber of Commerce delegation: Pres. Han, Sueng Ryong, and three business leaders... Mr. Pak (Corn oil plant), Mr. Klm and a Mr. Chung (Sporting Goods, etc.). 1985 - Rev. Yu, Kwang Sok, Minister of First Baptist Church Wonju, visited and preached at Roanoke's Rosalind Hills Baptist Church and High St. Baptist Church, Sister Churches. Nov. 1985 - Mayor Park., Jin Won, City Engineer Kim, and Mr. Heedoe Ahn (interpreter) came to celebrate with Roanoke Sister Cities. Groundbreaking ceremony for Friendship Fountain in Roanoke City Market. The "Flood of Nov. 5th '85" occurred during the first day of touring of the Mayor's delegation! May-June 1986 - Mrs. Sandra Daniels, Chairperson of the Wonju Group, lead a group of 21 to Korea for a two week tour. Included: Mr. and Mrs. Robert Daniels and 2 daughters (Ruth and Rachel), Mrs. Eva Dawes (Mother of Mrs. Daniels) & Mrs. Wilma Mabry (cousin) of Blacksburg; Dr. and Mrs. Roth and daughter (Joy); Mr. and Mrs. Richard Phelps and 2 children (Eric and Klm); Rev. & Mrs. Walter Lockett; Dr. and Mrs. Yoon, Hang Jin and daughter (Lorena); Mrs. Helen Wright (Nurse at Lewis-Gale Hospital), Mrs. Dorothy Trebilcock (Ludington, MI daughter of early 20th century Meth. Missionaries in Korea, and niece of..) Dr. J. Earnest Fisher of Bristol, VA. Dr. Fisher celebrated his 100th birthday in '86. He was the most remarkable member of this group. He knew all the leaders of Korea since 1914! He is a prolific writer and historian...still unbelievably clear of mind, and surprisingly steady on feet. Our visit included attending celebrations in Seoul of 100th Anniversary of the founding of Ehwa Womens' University, the largest womens' university in the world with 20,000 students. July 1986 - Mayor Cho, Sung Un, Mr. Yoo, Hong II (MBC-TV reporter) and Mr. Seo, Ok Soo (United Press International reporter). Outstanding ambassadors for modern Korea. 1989 - Dr. Moon, Ch'ang-Mo, Chairman of Wonju Committee in place of Mayor Klm. 1989 - 25th Anniversary of Wonju and Roanoke headed by David Lisk, Chairman, Sandra Daniels, Ron Coleman and WSLS-TV crew, NBC to cover trip. 1990 - Superintendent Klm, with teacher and 12 students. 1990 - Education Trip with Dr. Elizabeth Lee, Principal of Patrick Henry High School, and Mrs. Mag English, teacher from Breckenridge Junior High School. 1991 - Mayor Noel Taylor, Dr. Bob Roth, City officials and Roanoke-Wonju Committee member. 1991 - Roanoke High School delegation with Dr. Elizabeth, Principal, and David Lisk from our Sister City Committee. The students lived with Korean families for 12 days. PART III CITY PROJECTS BY WONJU AND ROANOKE City Projects in Wonju City Hall Display, Artifacts from both Cities. Friendship Tower, Dedicated to Mayor Taylor and Delegation from Roanoke. Tree planted at City Hall in Wonju. Tree planted by our students at Wonju High School and a Stone Monument. Roanoke Star Plaza, Park near river in Wonju. Sister City Festival, yearly. City Projects in Roanoke Large Mural at Roanoke Civic Center, Painted by Korean artist. City Hall Display of Artifacts from each of our Sister Cities. Virginia Western Community College display of artifacts from Wonju. Friendship Fountain and Flag Pole for Sister City flags. Wonju Street with 2 Korean pear trees from Wonju. Four trees planted at Mill Mountain. Mill Mountain Zoo project to be built, Korean gate and oriental landscaping. PART IV NEEDS FOR OUR 30TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION WITH WONJU, KOREA (1) (2) (3) (4) Reception for Wonju Mayor and Delegation Transportation for Delegation while in Roanoke Housing for Mayor and Delegation Gifts to be Given from Roanoke to the Mayor of Wonju and Delegation PART V COMING EVENTS Roanoke Sister Cities is biding for the 1996 International Sister City Conference, which will be the National Sister Cities 40th Anniversary. We expect about 1,280 people from over 30 countries around the world for five days. MARY F. PARKER City Clerk, CMC/AAE CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H, EAKIN Deputy City Clerk January 13, 1994 File #20-77=200-216-326 W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 31827-011094 approving and adopting the Roanoke City Thoroughfare Plan Element, dated September, 1993, as an element of Roanoke Vision, the City's Official Comprehensive Plan for Roanoke. Resolution No. 31827-011094 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 10, 1994. Sincerely, ~ Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm mnc, pc: Ava Howard, Chief of Transportation Planning, Fifth Planning District Commission, 313 Luck Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24011 John R. Kern, Director, Roanoke Regional Preservation Office, 1030 Penmar Avenue, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24013 Ashley C. Waldvogel, Marketing Manager, Downtown Roanoke, Inc., 310 First Street, S. W'., Roanoke, Virginia 24011 D. Kent Chrisman, President, Old Southwest, Inc., 421 King George Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney James D. Grisso, Director of Finance W. Robert Herbert January 13, 1994 Page2 pc: William F. Clark, Director, Public Works Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner William L. Stuart, Manager, Streets and Traffic Robert K. Bengtson, Traffic Engineer MARY F. PARKER City Clerk, CMC/AAE CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 21~ Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 2dO11 Telephone: ('/03) 981-2~41 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk January 13, 1994 File #20-77-200-216-326 Mr. Charles A. Price, Chairperson Mr. John P. Bradshaw, Jr. Mr. Paul C. Buford, Jr. Mr. Gilbert E. Butler, Jr. Ms. Barbara N. Duerk Ms. Carolyn Hayes-Coles Mr. Richard L. Jones Dear Mr. Price and Members of the City Planning Commission: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 31827-011094 approving and adopting the Roanoke City Thoroughfare Plan Element, dated September, 1993, as an element of Roanoke Vision, the City's Official Comprehensive Plan for Roanoke. Resolution No. 31827-011094 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 10, 1994. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm Eno. pc: John R. Marlles, Chief, Community Planning IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 10th day of January, 1994. No. 31827-011094. A RESOLUTION approving and adopting the Roanoke City Thoroughfare Plan Element, dated September, 1993, as an element of Roanoke Vision, the City's Official Comprehensive Plan for Roanoke. WHEREAS, the necessity has arisen to consider, revise and update the Roanoke City Thoroughfare Plan Element adopted in 1977; WHEREAS, the Roanoke City Thoroughfare Plan Element, prepared by the Fifth Planning District Commission for the City Pla~nning Commission September, 1993, is consistent with Roanoke Vision, the City's Official Comprehensive Plan adopted by Council in 1986; WHEREAS, the Roanoke City Thoroughfare Plan Element, dated September, 1993, was adopted by the City Planning Commission on October 13, 1993, after public hearing, and the Commission has requested by report that this Council adopt and endorse the aforementioned Plan, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of S15.1-431, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, a public hearing was held before this Council on December 13, 1993, on the question of adoption of this Plan, after notice of such public hearing was given as required by S15.1-431, at which hearing all citizens so desiring were given an opportunity to be heard and to present their views on such plan. THEREFORE, BE Roanoke as follows: 1. That this IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Council approves and adopts the Roanoke City Thoroughfare Plan Element, dated September, 1993, as an element of the City's Official Comprehensive Plan. 2. That the City Clerk is directed to forthwith transmit attested copies of this resolution to the City Planning Commission. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke, Virginia January 10, 1994 The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Roanoke City Thoroughfare Plan I. Backeround: City's existin~ Thorouehfare Plan Element was adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council in 1977. The existing plan is outdated and no longer serves as a useful guide for identifying needed highway improvements. Roanoke Vision, City's official comprehensive plan adopted by City Council in 1986, recommended that a Thoroughfare Plan Element for the City he prepared as part of the process for updating the Roanoke Valley Area Transportation Plan. Roanoke City Planning Commission recommended that the City's existing Thoroughfare Plan Element be updated in 1989. City administration requested that the Thoroughfare Plan Element update be incorporated into the Unified Transportation Work Program for the Fifth Planning District Commission for the 1990 fiscal year. Project request was continued for fiscal years 1991 and 1992. Work activities that were conducted by the Fifth Planning District Commission staff as part of the process to prepare the proposed Thoroughfare Plan Element included: Evaluating the capacity of the City's existing streets to accommodate projected traffic volumes. 2. Identifying congested intersections and street sections. 3. Identifying hazardous travel areas for safety analysis. Members of Council Page 2 January 10, 1994 Reviewing the City's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to develop a Thoroughfare Plan Element consistent with these documents. Reviewing proposed transportation improvements on the State Six-Year Improvement Program and soliciting proposals for new road improvements and alternatives. Roanoke City Planning Commission, by a vote of 6-0 (Mr. Price absent) recommended that City Council approve and adopt the proposed Thoroughfare Plan as an element of Roanoke Vision, the City's comprehensive plan. Fo Proposed Roanoke City Thoroughfare Plan was presented as a public hearing item on Roanoke City Council's agenda at its meeting on December 13, 1993. Concerns raised by Mayor David A. Bowers led to City Council deferring action on this plan, subject to review and response to these concerns. II. Current Situation: Proposal to widen the 1-581/L1.S. 220 Expressway corridor: The "Program of Projects" listed under Appendix C of the Plan noted one conceptual element that this project might include was to "move the southbound exit ramp onto Colonial Avenue from Wonju Street to Overland Road." The intent of that statement was no~t to relocate that exit ramp but rather to sum>lement the existing Wonju Street interchange with the additional exit ramp at Overland Road. There would be no change to the interchange at Wonju Street. The statement has been revised in Appendix C to more accurately reflect this concept (see attached). Su£~ested improvements to Route 116 be£innine at the Jefferson Street/Walnut Avenue intersection which would include Walnut Avenue, Piedmont Street, Riverland Road, and Mount Pleasant Boulevard, as it relates to improved access to Explore. Traffic data and projections listed in Table 3.3 of the proposed Thoroughfare Plan indicate that the Riverland Road (Route 116) traffic volume of 8,725 functions at an acceptable level of service (LOS C) and is projected to increase to 13,535 ADT by the year 2015 and would then function at LOS D. While LOS D is less than the desired LOS C, it is considered acceptable for an urban area. From a traffic capacity viewpoint, the need to improve this Route 116 corridor is not supported by this data, particularly when compared to the LOS E and LOS F that either exist or are projected to occur for projects listed as "Imminent Priority." Alternatively, an item has been added to the "Program Members of Council Page 3 January 10, 1994 of Projects" listed under Appendix C of the Plan calling for a study of this project suggestion. Improved ttraffic flow at major intersections along the above traffic corridor may be achieved by spot improvements which are considered local projects. If Council desires, a funding proposal for this purpose can be included in the City's Capital Improvement Program. III. IV. Issues: ^. Need. B. Timing. Alternatives: A. City Council aD~rove and adopt the Roanoke City Thorom, hfare Plan as an element of Roanoke Vision. 1. Need for this Thoroughfare Plan exists as a guideline for the selection of highway projects in the future. Existence of the plan provides the community with a sense of where Roanoke's roadway priorities are located. 2. Timing for adoption of this plan is important for use as an element of Roanoke Vision. It is anticipated that this Thoroughfare Plan will be updated every five (5) years to keep the information up to date. B. City Council not approve and adopt the Roanoke City Thoroughfare Plan as an element of Roanoke Vision. 1. Need for the Thorouehfare Plan as a guideline would continue to exist. 2. Timing is not an issue. Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council a~Drove and adopt the Roanoke City Thoroughfare Plan as an element of Roanoke Vision. Members of Council Page 4 January 10, 1994 WRH:RKB:mpf attachment cc: City Attorney Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager Director of Finance Manager, Office of Management and Budget Director of Public Works Chief of Planning and Community Development Traffic Engineer PROGRAM OF PROJECTS ROAI~OKE CITY THOROUGHFARE PLAN 1990-2015 Imminent Priority Improve the Elm Avenue/I-581 interchange. The initial concepts considered included an overpass for through traffic between Jefferson Str,eet and 4th Street, SE and/or clover-leaf ramps east of 1-581. Widen the Orange Avenue corridor as recommended in the Route 460 Corridor Study. This also includes improvements and si~ work to the Orange/Kimball and Kimball/Rutherford intersections to encourage through traffic to and from the CBD to use this route. Widen the 1-581/U.S. 220 Expressway corridor. Add a southbound exit ramp to, Overland. Provide for a full interchange at Route 419. Replace deficient Walnut Avenue bridge over the Roanoke River. Extend Wonju Street as a four lane facility to Brandon Avenue. Reconstruct the Williamson Road portion of the Hunter Viaduct to 3 southbound and two northbound lanes and remove the existing traffic signal at Shenandoah Avenue. e High Priority Widen two lane portion of Brambleton Avenue to provide either a three lane with reversible center lane or four lane facility between Brandon Avenue and the SCL. Specific safety deficiencies for various side street entrance locations would be inventoried and addressed at this time. Realign Brambleton Avenue to intersect Brandon Avenue at Main Street. Brandon Avenue would be realigned to the south between Brighton Road and Malcolm Street to separate the Brandon and Sherwood Avenue intersections. Widen Colonial Avenue between Wonju Street and the SCL in two phases. The first phase would include banning parallel parking and some widening in order to accommodate a four lane facility between Wonju Street and VWCC. The second phase provides either a three lane with reversible center lane or four lane facility between VWCC and the SCL. Both phases would employ side street entrance consolidation where practical and it is likely that improvements would be required at the Overland/Brambleton intersection as well. Widen two lane portions of Hershberger Road to four lane facilities in two phases. The first phase would widen the portion of Hershberger Road between Cove and Peters Creek Roads. The second phase would be a cooperative project with Roanoke County which would widen Hershberger Road east of Williamson Road and realign its intersection with Plantation Road in the county to provide a four way signalized inter- section with Route 601. widen two lane portions of Plantation Road along its present alignment between Kimball Avenue and the NCL. Medium Priority Widen Airport Road to four lanes north of Coulter Road. Widen and realign Airport Road to south of this location to join with Aviation Drive. Realign existing Airport and Municipal Road intersection to connect the existing Airport Road alignment with the new corridor. Realign the Bennington Street/Mount Pleasant Boulevard intersection to make Bennington and Mount Pleasant as well as Rutrough and Riverland Roads continuous facilities. widen Campbell and Norfolk Avenues east of Salem Avenue to four lanes and connect to Walnut Avenue in Vinton via a new bridge over Tinker Creek and the NS railroad. Divert traffic to and from the Main Street corridor off Elm Avenue to Campbell Avenue via the 8th Street or Ferdinand/ 10th Street corridors. Realign 24th Street, NW in the vicinity of Baker Avenue further west to join with a new four lane bridge over the NS railroad yard which would intersect Patterson Avenue at Bridge Street. Additional consideration should be given to realigning the existing Melrose Avenue intersection so that Lafayette Boulevard and 24th Street would be a continuous facility. Other Priority Study the feasibility of improving Route 116 beginning at the Jefferson Street (Walnut Avenue intersection) which would include Walnut Avenue, Piedmont Street, Riverland Road, and Mount Pleasant Boulevard. Prohibit parallel parking on McClanahan Street and restriD· to four lanes. Provide additional turning storage at Broadway. Post no left turn restrictions on Carolina Avenue at McClanahan Street. * Anu decision to proceed with this project should be accompanied _ z -==--~ ~ -~cure National Hiahway System funding with intent being to supplement or.take the place of the Urban fUnding allocation that is received from VDOT for highway projects. '93 llOV 11 P t :,~¢ Roanoke City Planning Commission December 13, 1993 The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Proposed Roanoke City Thoroughfare Plan Element I. Background: City's existing Thoroughfare Plan Element was adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council in 1977. The existing plan is outdated and no longer serves as a useful guide for identifying needed highway improvements. Roanoke Vision, City's official comprehensive plan adopted by City Council in 1986, recommended that a Thoroughfare Plan Element for the City be prepared as part of the process for updating the Roanoke Valley Area Transportation Plan. Roanoke City Planning Commission recommended that the City's existing Thoroughfare Plan Element be updated in 1989. City administration requested that the Thoroughfare Plan Element update be incorporated into the Unified Transportation Work Program for the Fifth Planning District Commission for the 1990 fiscal year. Project request was continued for fiscal years 1991 and 1992. Do Work activities that were conducted by the Fifth Planning District Commission staff as part of the process to prepare the proposed Thoroughfare Plan Element included: Evaluating the capacity of the City's existing streets to accommodate projected traffic volumes. 2. Identifying congested intersections and street sections. Room 162 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2344 II. 2 3. Identifying hazardous travel areas for safety analysis. Reviewing the City's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to develop a Thoroughfare Plan Element consistent with these documents. Reviewing proposed transportation improvements on the State Six-Year Improvement Program and soliciting proposals for new road improvements and alternatives. Technical Advisory_ Committee fl'AC) was appointed to assist Fifth Planning District Commission staff with preparation of the plan. City representatives on the TAC included John Marlles, Chief of Planning and Community Development; Robert Bengtson, City Traffic Engineer; and Charles Price, representing the Roanoke City Planning Commission. A complete list of the TAC members is part of the attached Thoroughfare Plan. Current Situation: Planning Commission was briefed on draft plan's content and recommendation on June 3, 1992. Draft plan was referred to the Commission's Transportation/ Utilities/Facilities Subcommittee for review and recommendation back to the full Commission. Transportation/Utilities/Facilities Subcommittee reviewed the plan at meetings held on March 13, 1992, January 14, 1993, January 19, 1993, May 5, 1993, and August 2, 1993. Subcommittee members requested that the draft be amended to incorporate additional transportation related policies outlined in Section 1.4 of the draft plan. Additional transportation policies recommend that: (1) the City pursue a balanced transportation system in order to meet the needs of all segments of the City's population, conserve energy, minimize the impact on the built and natural environments, encourage efficient use of existing facilities and maximize use of developable land within the City; and (2) recognize the problems associated with excessive through traffic in some residential areas in the City and to implement remedial traffic control measures whenever appropriate. Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership (RNP) Steering Committee was briefed on draft plan's contents and recommendations at their regular meeting on August 18, 1993. RNP member neighborhood organizations and other groups were notified of the public hearing on the proposed thoroughfare plan by letter on September 25, 1993. No comments had been received as of the writing of this report. 3 Recommended hiehway imt~rovements are prioritized according to the following four categories: Imminent Priority. These projects are of recognized importance intended to address immediate, critical needs and are the only ones ranked individually. High Priority. These projects are of recognized importance intended to address a current, though less critical need than those of imminent priodty. Medium Priority. These projects are considered less critical in the immediate future but will significantly deteriorate by the design year. Other Priority. Projects which are intended to address less critical needs which may best be handled as locally funded projects by the city. The list of highway projects included in each category is summarized in the attachment to this report. Planning Commission public hearin~ was held on October 6, 1993. Mr. John Marlles, Chief of Planning and Community Development, Mr. Robert Bengtson, City Traffic Engineer, and Mrs. Ava Howard, Chief of Transportation for the Fifth Planning District Commission, made presentations to the Commission summarizing the draft plan. Mr. Marlles noted that the Commission's Transportation Subcommittee had endorsed the draft plan after extensive review and discussion. Dr. John Kern, Director of the Roanoke Regional Preservation Office, appeared before the Commission. He noted that if state or federal funds were involved in planning or design of highway projects, then an environmental review would be required. He said he was concerned that if state and federal funds weren't involved, as they may not be on the projects listed in the other section, then no environmental review would be required. He noted there were some historical structures in the areas of some of the highway projects and he was concerned about that. He noted that cultural resources would have to be given consideration as would the traffic counts. Mr. Kim Kimbrough, Executive Director of Downtown Roanoke, Inc., appeared before the Commission and stated that as the management entity for marketing and economic development in the downtown area, he applauded the Technical Advisory Committee and those involved in this plan for their efforts. He discussed the great need to upgrade Elm Avenue/I-581 intersection and the current impact on development in the downtown areas caused by the bottleneck 4 problems. He also commented on the high priority item relative to the reconstruction of the Williamson Road section of the Hunter Viaduct as well as the other priority item relative to prohibition of parallel parking on Franklin Road. He said that he thought the recommendation relative to Franklin Road ran contrary to the urban planning efforts undertaken over the past few years and would like it removed from the plan. Mr. Kent Chrisman, president of Old Southwest, Inc., appeared before the Commission. He noted that Old Southwest, Inc., Board of Directors' had met and made several recommendations relative to the thoroughfare plan. He noted that the Board had passed a motion stating that "the plans for widening 1-581/U.S. 220 should include aesthetically designed sound baffles and other landscape elements to decrease the impact on the neighborhood. He said that the widening would increase traffic, thus increasing the sound level in their neighborhood. He also stated that the Board had moved that "the plan to increase the number of southbound lanes on Franklin Road should be removed from future consideration by the City." He said that there was historic opposition to this propsal and the neighborhood had been assured, during the Franklin Road widening process, that that proposal had been removed from consideration. Mr. Bradshaw expressed concern that several of the projects listed in the "Imminent" category benefited the entire region and indicated that the cost should be shared accordingly. He expressed concern that listing the projects in priority order without regard to funding sources would be a mistake. After extensive discussion, the draft plan was referred back to the Commission's Transportation Subcommittee for consideration of the comments made at the public hearing. planning Commission special meetin~ was held on October 13, 1993. Mr. Marlles presented the report of the Commission's Transportation Subcommittee which had recommended the following changes to the draft plan: (1) dropping the rankings of the projects listed in the "imminent priority" category; (2) shifting two projects formerly listed in the "high priority" category - extension of Wonju Street and reconstructing the Williamson Road portion of the Hunter Viaduct - to the "imminent" priority category; and (3) dropping the two projects proposed for Franklin Road which would have eliminated on-street parldng that was listed in the "other" priority category. Mr. Marlles also stated a footnote had been added to the list of recommended projects to identify these projects where an effort should be made to secure additional funding due to their "regional" nature. III. R ommendation: The Planning Commission, by a vote of 6-0, (Mr. Price absent) voted to endorse and recommend to City Council that they adopt the proposed Roanoke City Thoroughfare Plan Element as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Respectfully submitted, Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairman Roanoke City Planning Commission JRM:mpf attachment cc: City Manager Assistant City Manager Assistant City Attorney Director of Public Works City Engineer Building Commissioner Traffic Engineer Chief of Transportation Planning, 5PDC ROANOKE CITY THOROUGHFARE PLAN VIRGINIA, CHARTERED '1882 Prepared by the staff of the Fifth Planning District Commission September, 1993 This study was prepared by the staff .of the Fifth Planning District Commission through the assistance of the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and the Virginia Department of Transportation. The contents of this report reflect the view~ of the author who is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views nor the policy of the Federal Highway Administration or the Virginia Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Acceptance of this report by the Federal Highway Administration and the Virginia Department of Transportation as evidence of fulfillment of the objectives of this planning study does not constitute endorsement/approval of the need for any recommended improvements, nor does it constitute approval of their location and design, nor a commitment to fund any such improvements. Additional project level environmental impact assessments and/or studies of alternatives may be necessary. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The preparation of the Roanoke City Thoroughfare Plan is a joint effort of several individuals and organizations. The advice, assistance, and professional skills received were invaluable in the completion of this Plan. The author wishes to acknowledge and thank the following members of the Advisory Committee from each participating agency: Mr Mr Mr Mr Mr Mr Mr Mr Mr Mr Bob Bengtson, Roanoke City Richard Burrow Steve Buston, Virginia Department of Transportation Larry Caldwsll, Virginia Department of Transportation Scott Hodge, Virginia Department of Transportation Herman Hollins, Virginia Department of Transportation John Marlles, Roanoke City Sam McGhee Charles A. Price, Jr., Roanoke City Planning Commission Don Thorne Special appreciation is addressed to the Roanoke City Planning Commission and the City Council for their review and comment. With acknowledgement of the excellent assistance and support of the above mentioned individuals and organizations, any error or omission in this report is the responsibility of the author. Charles E. "Chip" Taylor Chief of Transportation (1989-1993) Completion and presentation of this report was carried out by Ava J. Howard, the current Chief of Transportation at the Fifth Planning District Commission. Questions or concerns regarding this report can be forwarded to her attention at the Fifth Planning District Commission. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background ...................................... 1 1.2 Research Approach ............................... 2 1.3 Transportation Goals and Objectives ............. 2 1.4 Related Transportation Policies ................. 3 2. EXISTING HIGHWAY NETWORK EVALUATION 2.1 City Geographic Characteristics ................. 4 2.2 City Highway Network ............................. 4 2.3 Functional Classification ....................... 5 3. EXISTING TRAVEL PATTERN EVALUATION 3.1 Traffic Volumes on Major Highways ....... ' ........ 9 3.2 Projecting Traffic Increases ................... 13 3.3 Service Quality Evaluations .................... 20 3.4 Sufficiency Criteria ........................... 31 3.5 Accident Record Information .................... 41 4. OVERALL STREET AND HIGHWAY PLANNING 4.1 Roanoke Vision Comprehensive Plan .............. 44 4.2 1995 Roanoke Valley Thoroughfare Plan .......... 46 4.3 Roanoke Valley Bikeway Plan - 1991 Update ...... 49 4.4 VDOT Six-Year Program .......................... 49 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Conclusions ......... 5.3 Recommendations ................................ 58 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C GLOSSARY TABLES PAGE Table 3.1 Commuting Patterns in 1980 Roanoke SMSA .... Table 3.2 VDOT Traffic Information-City of Roanoke... Table 3.3 MINUTP Traffic Projections ................. Table 3.4 Urban Route LOS Simplified Volumes ......... Table 3.5-9 Multilane Rural Daily Service Volumes ..... Table 3.10-14 Two Lane Rural Daily Service Volumes .... Table 3.15 1990 Thoroughfare Deficiencies ............. ...10 11,12 14,15 ...22 23,24 ...25 29,30 Table 3.16 2000 Thoroughfare Deficiencies .............. 34-36 Table 3.17 2015 Thoroughfare Deficiencies .............. 37-40 Table 4.1 1995 Valley Thoroughfare Plan Needs ......... 47,48 Table 4.2 VDOT Six-Year Plan for Roanoke City ............ 50 Table 5.1 Final Program of Projects - Alternative A...61,62 Table 5.2 Final Program of Projects - Alternative B...63,64 Table 5.3 MINUTP Traffic Projections (Alt. A & B) ..... 65-67 FIGURES PAGE Figure 2 1 Figure 2 2 Figure 3 1 Figure 3 2 Figure 3 3 Figure 3 4 Figure 3 5 Figure 3 6 Figure 3 7 Figure 3 8 Figure 3 9 Figure 5.1 Figure 5.2 Network Functional Classifications ............. 6 State Administrative Systems ................ Maximum Desireable Error for Link Volumes.. 1-581/US 220 ADT Projections, Page 1 ....... 1-581/US 220 ADT Projections, Page 2 ...... LOS Model Road Classifications ............ LOS Model Required Data ................... 1990 Levels of Service .................... 2000 Levels of Service .................... 2015 Levels of Service .................... 1989 Cumulative Accident Severity Index .... Alt. A Levels of Service ................... Alt. B Levels of Service ................... · .16 · .17 · .18 · .26 · .27 · .28 · .32 · .33 · .43 · .59 · .60 ROANOKE CITY THOROUGHFARE PLAN 1. Introduction 1.1 Background The purpose of this Study is to prepare a Thoroughfare Plan for the City of Roanoke to be adopted by the City Planning Commission and City Council as an element of Roanoke's Comprehensive Plan (entitled Roanoke Vision). The Thoroughfare Plan is intended to serve as a guide for future highway improvements which are consistent with Roanoke Vision, the City's official comprehensive plan adopted by City Council in 1986. The Study was initiated by the Roanoke City Planning Commission in 1989 and was subsequently incorporated into the Unified Transportation Work Program for the Fifth Planning District Commission (5PDC) for the 1990 fiscal year and was continued for fiscal years 1991 through 1993. Work activities that were conducted by the 5PDC staff included the following: Establishing a forum with representatives from elected officials, appointed officials, and citizen groups to discuss the needed transportation services in the City, and the mechanism and priority to implement the Plan. The forum identified the goals and objectives for development of the Thoroughfare Plan. Establishing a Technical Advisory Committee to assist with the study for the Thoroughfare Plan. 3. Evaluating service performance of existing streets to include projection of traffic volume. 4. Identifying the congested intersections and street sections for causal analysis. 5. Identifying hazardous travel areas for safety analysis. e Reviewing City Comprehensive Plan (Roanoke Vision), Land Use Plan, and Zoning Ordinance to develop a Thoroughfare Plan consistent with these documents. Reviewing proposed transportation improvements (State Six Year Improvement Program) and soliciting proposals for new road improvements and alternatives. 8. Preparing a draft Thoroughfare Plan. 1 The balance of the work required to finalize the Thoroughfare Plan was then determined by officials of the City of Roanoke depending on the status of their other planning activities. In the past, a similar study for the City of Salem was subsequently coordinated with their city's Land Use Plan before being adopted by the Salem City Planning Commission and City Council. 1.2 Research Approach An Advisory Committee was formed which included representa- tives from the City of Roanoke, the Virginia Department of Trans- portation, and the Federal Highway Administration to assist the Fifth Planning District Commission staff with the Study. Field observation and in-house system analysis were the basic approaches to reviewing the overall traffic operations in Roanoke. With assistance from this Committee, recommendations and proposals have been made to upgrade existing facilities and instigate new construction to meet the needs of future development. This study is the result of a coordinated, comprehensive, and potentially continuous (3-C) planning process. 1.3 Transportation Goals and Objectives' Transportation is a critical infrastructure of a development area, especially an urbanized area. The goal for the Roanoke City Thoroughfare Plan is to establish a highway network which will accomplish the following: 1. Promote efficiency and equality in mobility. 2. Improve service quality of travel. 3. Reduce negative impacts, with respect to safety, environment, and community. Preserve the viability (physical and financial) of the existing infrastructure. Address the growing concerns of residential cut-through traffic and the changing uses of the overall existing street network. 1.4 Related Transportation Policies In addition to encouraging a highway system that accomplishes the goals and objectives outlined in Section 1.3, the Roanoke City Planning Commission also recommends that the City of Roanoke adopt the following transportation-related policies: 1. Establish a balanced transportation system in order to: ® meet the needs of all segments of the City's population · conserve energy · minimize the impact on the built and natural environments · encourage efficient use of existing facilities · maximize use of developable land within the City Discourage cut-through traffic in residential areas and implement appropriate remedial measures whenever possible. 2. Existing Highway Network Evaluation 2.1 City Geographic Characteristics The City of Roanoke is located in the broad expanse of the Roanoke Valley between the ridge lines of the Blue Ridge Mountain chain to the east and the Appalachian Mountain chain to the west. The Roanoke River travels east through the city from its confluence with Mason Creek in Salem to the west to its confluence with Tinker Creek at the Town of Vinton to the east. Railroad lines of the Norfolk Southern Corporation follow the Roanoke River in both directions as well as proceed out radially to the north, northeast, and south from their service yards near downtown. The combination of the river, its tributaries and the aforementioned railroad lines present the principal barriers to highway network connectivity. Substantial infrastructure investment has already been made to overcome these inherent difficulties. Interstate 581 (I-581) provides a vital limited access corridor between the Roanoke central business district (CBD) and Interstate 81 (I-81), the principal intercity highway for the greater urbanized area. Additionally, several arterial highways which are not limited access provide vital through facilities to other areas. U.S. 460 heading east from Roanoke is a four lane divided facility which provides the most direct access to the Lynchburg, Richmond-Petersburg, and Tidewater urban areas. To the west, this facility links Roanoke with Salem's CBD and continues west to serve as a reliever for 1-81 traffic. U.S. 220 heading south from Roanoke provides the most direct access to the Greensboro, North Carolina area as well as points to the east south, and southwest. Beyond the City of Roanoke (as well as within the city for U.S. 220 & 460), residents, merchants, and other adjoining de- velopments use their driveways for direct access to the facil- ities. This factor stimulates diverse commercial activities, in addition to residential development, along the routes. 2.2 City Highway Network Roanoke's highway network consists primarily of 1-581 and several major arterials which connect the local streets to the surrounding communities as well as provide for intercity travel. Adjacent to the city to the south lies the Blue Ridge Parkway which serves mostly recreational travel while promoting tourist activities in the urban area. A spur of the Parkway connects this facility to the Roanoke CBD via Walnut Avenue as well as providing access to the city's Mill Mountain Park and Recreation Area. 1-81 lies to the north of the city as well as most of the u~banized area. Most travelers crossing the valley use this facility to avoid local traffic congestion. U.S. 460 and U.S. 220 are the primary arterials serving the city. Although the design standards of these roads are below the standard of an expressway, U.S. 460 and U.S. 220, in conjunction with roughly a dozen other arterials, forms the radial pattern of the city's highway network. Additional two to four lane boule- vards (such as Cove Road, Brandon Avenue, and 10th Street) serve to connect various elements of this radial network. There are nine bridge crossings of the Roanoke River within the city limits up to Bridge Street on the west and 13th Street, SE on the east. There are also roughly twenty grade separated crossings of main line railroad tracks within the city and a large number of at grade crossings as well. One particular grade separated crossing in the downtown area, the Jefferson Street leg of the Hunter Viaduct, has been demolished. Such a structure was deemed a redundancy by city officials who wished to use the space for other purposes. To handle the crossing traffic displaced by the closing of this structure, the city has been committed to replace an existing at grade crossing of the tracks at 2nd Street, SW with a four lane bridge span to be part of an inner loop road system featuring the Williamson Road leg of the Viaduct as the other track crossing. 2.3 Functional Classification The highway functional classification serves to identify the function of a road. The importance of the streets can be ascertained by the functional classification. Streets in Roanoke City are grouped according to the VDOT Functional Classification System as: Interstates, Principal Arterials, Other urban principal arterials, Minor arterials, Collectors, or Other local streets A map indicating the various functional classifications for city thoroughfares is shown in Figure 2.1. The state of Virginia, however, presently administers funds from its Transportation Trust Fund based on a separate classification system which is based on the former Federal-Aid classifications. The former federal system consisted of Federal-Aid Interstate, Federal-Aid Primary and Federal-Aid Urban highways in the city. These Interstate, Primary and Urban routes along with additional 5 non-federally aided routes and the Blue Ridge Parkway segments (which are maintained by the U.S. Department of the Interior) in the city are shown in Figure 2.2 as the "State Administrative System" of roads. Federal support for this system was superseded by the "National Highway System (or NHS)" and a "Surface Transportation Program (or STP)". The NHS consists Of the former Federal Aid Interstate system and all principal arterial routes (until 9/30/95 when final determination of non-Interstate routes is made). Principal Arterial routes in the city consist of:~ the Roy L. Webber Expressway, U.S. 220 between the Webber Expressway and SCL, the U.S. 11 corridor throughout the city, the U.S. 460 corridor throughout the city, Peters Creek Road throughout the city, and Hershberger Road between Peters Creek Road and Williamson Road The STP provides block grant funding to all other federal aid routes not covered by the NHS. Federal-Aid Interstate highways consist of those facilities meeting strict design criteria which are to be included in the national network of interstate and defense highways. In Roanoke City, the 1-581 facility from its Peters Creek Road interchange at the city corporate limit to its Elm Avenue interchange adjacent to the CBD is the only such designated facility within the City of Roanoke. It is widely accepted that this facility together with the Roy L. Webber Expressway (designated a Federal-Aid Primary facility) form the limited access corridor which links the four quadrants of the city. Figure 2.2 presents a complete illustration of routes in the former Federal-Aid Interstate, Primary, and Urban Systems as well as those thoroughfares identified which do not receive federal aid. Those routes in an urbanized area not included in the Federal-Aid Interstate, Primary, or Urban Systems are the local streets which serve the residential areas in order to provide access to principal or minor arterials. Construction and maintenance of these streets is the responsibility of the City. Roads in this category which are integral to the connectivity of the thoroughfare network have been included in this analysis. 7 8 3. Existing Travel Pattern Evaluation The travel pattern of an area reflects local socio-economic characteristics; examples are where people live, where people work, types of employment, work trip duration, and the generation of non-work trips. Access to this information relies on either the Census Study conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau every ten years, or the expensive and time consuming home interview and "origin-destination" survey designed specifically to gather this information. Table 3.1 lists the commuting demands to and from the City of Roanoke in 1980 within the 1980 limits of the Roanoke Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA). In addition, the 1989 figures for relevant socio-economic parameters (as well as their projected 2015 levels) were used to help determine the traffic volume levels for particular routes within the SMSA and, for the use of this report, within the City of Roanoke in particular. The reader is referred to the separate report of the 5PDC which deals specifically with this socio-economic data in order to find discussion as to how these figures were obtained. This study reviews traffic volumes on major highways in light of these socio-economic conditions. Through the careful application of the projected socio-economic and other relevant information in consultation with local planners and engineers, it was possible to develop sufficient information to conduct trip generation, distribution, and traffic assignment. 3.1 Traffic Volumes on Major Highways Table 3.2 inventories 24-hour and peak hour traffic condi- tions for VDOT survey stations in the City of Roanoke for the period 1980 to 1988. The rank of these values for the 1988 24-hour and peak hour counts is indicated as well. In general, we observe that the interstate system is carrying more traffic than the primary system which is carrying more traffic than the urban system which in turn is carrying more traffic than the non-aid routes. There are exceptions to this correlation but these are infrequent. By comparing the 24-hour and peak hour ranks, we may be able to draw some initial conclusions regarding the intensity of peak hour conditions relative to off peak conditions for individual roads (peak hour factors can also be consulted). Roads which exhibit high peak hour ranks relative to their 24-hour ranks (e.g., Wise Avenue between 14th and 16th Streets) incur substantial through traffic during the peak period beyond what the rest of the network experiences. Consequently, these roads would be prime candidates for time dependent traffic control measures which would acco~unodate additional through traffic without making additional 9 Table 3.1 Commuting Patterns in 1980 Roanoke SMS~ Live Work In Total In Bore- Craig Roanoke Roanoke Salem Vinton Live In tourt County** City CBD Other Bore- 3428 12 636 751 2517 762 116 8222 tourt Craig 14 618 126 56 225 305 -- 1344 Roanoke Co.*** 307 13 4044 3882 13311 6876 1357 29790 RoanoKe 500 -- 2496 5626 21682 5447 796 36547 City Salem 25 13 677 617 3052 5489 33 9906 Total Work In 4274 656 7979 10932 40787 18879 2302 85,809 * SMSA: Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area ** Excluding the Town of Vinton *** Including the Town of Vinton Source: Transportation and Commutin~ in Virginia, 1980 Center for Public Service (formerly Tayloe Murphy Institute) 10 Table 3.2 ivi~toee~ue Ld~/elteBIvd. a41h61'ea 16~10 38610 ~0~41 1~4% -~.4~% ~ F/~P 2,001 ~4 Grange Avenue I~ Road 6lb 91'eet 1~aam~ 17470 17~ 0.6"~ 0.64% 3? F,N· 1,379 47 ~r~ti3e Aveoue 17th 81wet l~th 8l~et 14170 16~ 16044 1,30% 1.08~ 47 F.~P 1,2C0 00 Me~eeAvenue 3EIhSIre~ 38~hSlmel 1~810 17~0 1106'/ -4.16%-1~.38~ 67 FAP 1,460 43 8ullt/Jaml~ E]mAver~e 8~et'eet ~ 307~) ~'~' 3,13~ -2.161;, Dail~'lue 14~rl~ 11~hSlre~ ~11a0 ~ ~ ~ -4.30% Wllllme~Roed Fu~Roacl Ch~Ol'eet ~1160 17~ 19600 -0.7~ 11 Fr81(lln Roacl D~/A~e~ue Elm Averse 9100 aeoo 9646 0.~b-% -1,19% 76 FAU ~ 77 Cove Roa:~ oreefl Ridge Rd. Pelere C~ Rc2ecl e6~0 7(M0 ~ 1.19% 11.10% 77 FAU ~l 81 Nork~ 61hSl'eet 10th81met 4880 9870 1~ ~.~8% 2D.91% 54 Nc~A~ 1,274 JdJereo~ 81. MIl 81'0~ C.J,~ A~e~Je 9~60 123~0 124~ 4,17% 0.00% 57 No~ ,NO 1,~.28 J~dlet'ao'~St. ~funSt, ~l~rL~'~e 0130 13770 10~ 3;34% -12.5~% 72 No~NcJ 1,197 61 K~ ml:~ll Avert(~ Wllenle~fl Rd. 4th hat 6430 ~ ~ 5,4,.~ 1.54% 70 Non ~ ~19 82 Avlallc~ Drive He~el-d3e~g~ Rd. Roanoke/dfT3~fl ~ I~10 6070 ?,72~ ~,21% 07 N~'~ Nd 016 ~0 WieeAver~Je 14th01reet 19thOlreet ~ ~ ~ 9.~ -1.(~ Ol&~ Non.Nd 1,170 8~l~n Average 10th Olree( 11th 9M 7~ ~ 9012 0.18~% 10.~0% 60 Non/~3 703 97 ~ 0tract K]~ Avenue C2uJn~ A~raJe ~ 6880 7746 2.51% 18.08% gGI NO~ Aid 81~ 86 ~Aver~e 17~sre~t 18t~81met 7'/'80 9040 ~ -0.08% -0.36% 1(30 NOflAJ<:I 700 101 ~81rmDcro Roect Ruthm'lard Ave. H~t~'t Ave. 403~ 46~0 4?40 2,23% 2.41% 112 NCX~ A~I 536 112 Cm-4~MI/wertue 91hSl'eel 10th81re~ 47~0 4~'-dO 444~ -0.SL~/~ -297% 113 Nofl/~l ~ 104 3rcl 61re~ Cl',.rc~ Aveflue !.t~ck Amt-a2o 4440 8640 41~8 - 0.~9% 7.1~% 115 NOflA~ 410 115 131A81r~el 881&'~.,Nm¢lJo PalMrm3flAvo. 4010 88~0 3~00 -1.28% -2.88% 117 NoflAJO 407 117 Perek~god'[:k)ad [3k~d~dRoacl Brsml3~lmlAv~. ~ ~140 ~ -0.14% -8.1~, 1~0 No~,N4:i ~ 121 lalSl'eet 8aIwn/wer~e MAtd~. ~ ~E,40 ~ =-1.~% -7,~1% 1~ Nofl,41cl 313 ~tgl~t rtmath umd wM Deoember 1gee) 12 investments which would expand the 24-hour through capacity and possibly inhibit local traffic circulation. These types of measures include such strategies as peak hour restrictions on left turn movements and use of continuous left turn median lanes as additional through lanes. Conversely, roads that exhibit low peak hour ranks relative to their 24-hour ranks (e.g., Hershberger Road between Cove Road and Shamrock Street) have more uniform demand over time and are less likely to benefit from such strategies than other roads in the Roanoke City network. 3.2 Projectin~ Traffic Increases Table 3.3 presents projected traffic increases for the same roadway sections reported in Table 3.2. Here the 1990 traffic count information is displayed followed by the simulated avera§e daily traffic as anticipated using the MINUTP forecasting software, existing roadway condition information, and existing aggregated so¢io-economic conditions. The first column of percentages indicates the relative discrepancy of these two 1990 traffic levels. Calibration of the model was achieved when all road segments modelled either exhibited a % error below a recognized threshold (see Figure 3.1) or had larger % errors which could be explained. Figures 3.2 and 3.3 indicate the relationship between the projected year 2000 traffic volumes and the historic count information for the various portions of 1-581 and the Webber Expressway. As can be seen from these figures, the projected volumes are in keeping with the previously experienced growth rates for the corridor. After the 1990 traffic information, columns indicating the MINUTP projected 2000 and 2015 traffic levels are furnished. While these figures indicate the relative growth rates in daily traffic of the various roads reported, they are not necessarily indicative of anticipated traffic levels for those areas that exhibited large, explainable % errors relative to the 1990 counts. Rather, the % change between the 1990 and projected year MINUTP simulated levels is used to adjust the count information to provide more reasonable year 2000 and 2015 projected volumes in these locations. In observing this data, we note that few locations in the city are anticipated to have declining levels of traffic over the design horizon. The only locations in the city which can be expected to exhibit an appreciable decline in traffic (i.e., greater than 1%) in the 2015 horizon year are: Jefferson Street between Campbell Avenue and Franklin Road, Shenandoah Avenue between 2nd and 5th Streets NW, and the First Street Bridge. In the first instance, this decline can be attributed to the deconstruction of the Hunter Viaduct which has already been accomplished. In the other two instances, the decline can be attributed to the anticipated completion of the proposed 2nd Street/Gainsboro Road connector which would grade separate the 2nd Street/Shenandoah Avenue intersection and circumvent the First Street Bridge. 13 Table 3.3 M~NOTPTm~IOP~OJ~I~ 14 Table 5.3 (cont.) ~l~nlx~o RQ~Cl Rutl~ro Ave, ~ AW. Pelenl CK. iRc)ed MMn3ee Avenue L~l.--elltt TI~II. (New Roacl) W 3e~7~ n/~ rVI n/I tva E F L]~I.--Mm. TI~g. ~ M (New RO~CI~ ~11~ ~ n~ r~ n~ rim E F 15 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 ~B According to the furnished information, the 1-581 corridor should continue to grow steadily in volume (2.9 to 3.7% per year). During this time period, traffic on the primary system should grow overall at a slightly lower rate with some short term declining levels observed along the Melrose Avenue corridor between Gun Club Road and the WCL as well as between Lafayette Boulevard and 24th Street,NW. The fastest growing primary route during this period is anticipated to be the U.S. 220 corridor between the Webber Expressway and the SCL. The urban system will exhibit localized areas of faster traffic growth most notably in the Peters Creek Road area as drivers divert onto this facility from the crowded State Route 419 corridor. This also includes growth along adjacent portions of intersecting routes which include: Brandon Avenue between Edgewood Street and Carter Road, and Cove Road between Peters Creek Road and Garstland Drive as well as between King Arthur Court and Peters Creek Road. Other fast growing portions of the urban system include: 1) Airport Road between Williamson Road and Town Square Boulevard, 2) Hollins Road between Orange Avenue and Rhodes Avenue (which is to be improved with a four lane railroad overpass), 3) Liberty Road between Courtland Avenue and Williamson Road as a function of the opening of the 2nd Street/ Gainsboro Road connection, 4) Mud Lick Road between Deyerle Road and Brandon Avenue, and 5) the 5th Street Bridge and Salem & Campbell Avenue corridors due to the additional capacity afforded by the bridge widening project. Roads not receiving federal aid which also compose a portion of the thoroughfare network also exhibit differing levels of projected traffic growth. The fastest short term growth of these non-aid routes is anticipated to be along Gainsboro Road between Rutherford Avenue and Harrison Avenue resulting from the 2nd Street/Gainsboro Road connection. The fastest long term growth corridor in the non-aid system is Aviation Drive between Hershberger Road and Town Square Boulevard. 19 3.3 Service Quality Evaluations AS one may surmise from the above discussion, the growth rate alone does not provide a sufficient indication of the relative need to improve a certain portion of the thoroughfare network. Evaluation of the highway service quality provides a mechanism to identify the locations with present and future deficiencies in a highway network. The most common approach to review service quality is through the performance evaluation of peak-hour travel and the analysis of highway Level-of-Service (LOS). The LOS analysis compares the hourly traffic volumes with the highway carrying capability (which is a function of the roadway width-both lane and shoulder, design speed, number of lanes, signalization, etc.). Employing the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, and with the assistance of the Highway Capacity Software developed by the McTrans Center at the University of Florida, the 1990 Level-of- Service for the 1-581 corridor and the Webber Expressway were obtained. The basic freeway section analyses did not consider the additional restrictions on traffic flow due to the two weaving sections (between Williamson Road and Orange Avenue as well as between Franklin Road and Wonju Street) and should be considered an underestimate of congestion in this regard for these sections. Because of the large number of roadway segments involved and the nature of the data required to determine the Levels-of-Service for the various other thoroughfares in the City of Roanoke, a means of providing rough approximations of the LOSs for these facilities had to be developed. The Virginia Department of Transportation, in consultation with the staff of the Fifth Planning District Commission, developed a simplified methodology for making LOS determinations at signalized intersections in the more urban portions of the thoroughfare network as well as a separate methodology for determining LOS along more rural and unsignalized corridors. The results of their simplifying assumptions was the creation of look up tables (Table 3.4 for the urban, signalized locations and Tables 3.5 through 3.14 for the rural, unsignalized locations). Figure 3.4 indicates those facilities which are considered freeways, those which are considered urban routes and intersections, and those which are considered rural routes. In this methodology, certain reasonable, simplifying assump- tions had to be made (which are outlined in Appendix A). For the more urban, signalized portion of the network, these assumptions translated the simulated daily traffic levels into peak hour volumes at signalized intersections of common characteristics. The remaining independent variables which stratify the look up table are number of lanes and percent of green time encountered by opposing approaches. The first parameter is readily obtainable. It should be noted here that no separate turn lanes are assumed in 20 the intersection modelling to be conservative. is assumed to be a function of the relative approach volumes. The second variable magnitudes of the In the case of the more rural, unsignalized locations, other simplifying assumptions are also made (which are also reported in Appendix A). AS a result of these assumptions, the remaining variables which stratify the look up tables are: number of lanes, terrain, and average lane width. All of these factors are obtainable from VDOT's 2010 Statewide Highway Plan for those facilities which are cataloged in this document. Other facilities are then conservatively approximated from this information. Field data was obtained when other sources proved inconclusive. The final inventory of LOS required data is shown in Figure 3.5 Applying these look up tables to the 1990 Thoroughfare Network, we are able to construct a map showing LOS for the MINUTP modelled network as shown in Figure 3.6. This LOS map is an indicator of the use of the Roanoke Valley's thoroughfares relative to the capacity of those thoroughfares from the least used (LOS A) to the heaviest used (LOS F). From this map, we can identify those routes in the limited access, urban and rural systems with LOS lower than C. These are listed in Table 3.15. It is important to keep the distinction between the urban and rural systems here as we observe that different LOSs may be obtained for the same segment using the urban and rural criteria (such was the case with Garden City Boulevard between Bandy and Riverland Roads). For a variety of reasons, these LOS levels also may not be sufficient indicators of the relative need to improve individual facilities (e.g., overly conservative assumptions used, roads not modelled serving as reliever facilities, etc.). As a result a code of explanations which identifies the perceived reason for the poor LOS ranking is included for each segment listed in order to inject some subjective interpretation of these results. 21 Table 3.4 URBAN ROUTE LEVEL OF SERVICE SIMPLIFIED THRESHOLD VOLUMES (see Figure 3.4) Priority Flow 1 LOS Number of Lanes (both directions) 2 4 6 8 C 12000 24000 36000 48000 D 14000 28000 42000 56000 E 18000 36000 54000 72000 Average Flow 2 LOS Number of Lanes 2 4 6 8 C 10000 20000 30000 40000 D 11700 23400 35100 46800 E 15000 30000 45000 60000 Subordinate Flow 3 LOS Number of Lanes 2 4 6 8 C 8000 16000 24000 32000 D 9300 18600 27900 37200 E 12000 24000 36000 48000 Assumes route receives roughly 60% of signal green time Assumes route receives roughly 50% of signal green time Assumes route receives roughly 40% of signal green time For a listing of applicable assumptions please see Appendix A. 22 RURAL ROUTE LEVEL OF SERVICE SIMPLIFIED THRESHOLD VOLUMES (see Figure 3.4) Multilane Rural Daily Service Volume Table 3.5 - LOS A Four Lane Facility - Arterial Six Lane Facility - Arterial Lane Width Lane Width <9' 9' 10' t1' 12+' <9' 9' 10' 11' 12+' L 11522 12674 14649 15637 16460 L 17283 19011 21974 23455 24690 R 7890 8679 10032 10708 11272 R 11835 13019 15047 16062 16907 M 5036 5546 6422 6860 7152 M 7554 8320 9634 10291 10728 Four Lane Facility - Collector Six Lane Facility - Collector Lane Width Lane Width <9' 9' 10' 11' 12+' <9' 9' 10' 11' 12+' L 10548 11603 13411 14315 15069 L 15822 17405 20117 21473 22603 R 7152 7867 9094 9707 10217 R 10728 11801 13640 14560 15326 M 5036 5546 6422 6860 7152 M 7554 8320 9634 10291 10728 Table 3.6 - LOS B Four Lane Facility - Arterial Six Lane Facility - Arterial Lane Width Lane Width <9' 9' 10' 11' 12+' <9' 9' 10' 11' 12+' L 17283 19011 21974 23455 24690 L 25925 28517 32961 35183 37035 R 11835 13019 15048 16062 16907 R 17753 19528 22571 24093 25361 M 7554 8320 9634 10290 10729 M 11331 12480 14450 15436 16093 Four Lane Facility - Collector Six Lane Facility - Collector Lane Width Lane Width <9' 9' 10' 11' 12+' <9' 9' 10' 11' 12+' L 12912 14204 16417 17524 18446 R 10729 11801 13640 14560 15326 M 7554 8320 9634 10290 10729 L 19369 R 16093 M 11331 21306 24626 17702 20460 12480 14450 26286 27670 21840 22990 15436 16093 Note: L = Level Terrain R = Rolling Terrain M = Mountainous Terrain For a listing of applicable assumptions, 23 please see Appendix B. Table 3.7 - LOS C Four Lane Facility - Arterial Lane Width <9' 9' 10' 11' 12+' L 22724 24996 28892 30839 32463 R 15561 17117 19785 21119 22230 M 9932 10939 12667 13530 14106 Six Lane Facility - Arterial Lane Width <9' 9' 10' 11' 12+' L 34086 37494 R 23342 25676 M 14898 16409 43,338 46259 48694 29677 31678 33345 18999 20295 21159 Four Lane Facility - Collector Lane Width <9' 9' 10' 11' 12+' L 20803 22884 26450 28233 29719 R 14106 15516 17934 19144 20151 M 9932 10939 12667 13530 14106 Six Lane Facility - Collector Lane Width <9' 9' 10' 11' 12+' L 31205 34326 R 21159 23275 M 14898 16409 39675 42350 44579 26902 28716 30227 18999 20295 21159 Table 3.8 - LOS D Four Lane Facility - Arterial Lane Width <9' 9' 10' 11' 12+' L 27845 30629 35403 37789 39779 R 19068 20974 24244 25878 27240 M 12170 13404 15521 16579 17285 Four Lane Facility - Collector Lane Width <9' 9' 10' 11' 12+' Six Lane Facility - Arterial Lane Width <9' 9' 10' 11' 12+' L 41767 45943 53104 56684 59667 R 28602 31462 36365 38817 40859 M 18255 20107 23281 24869 25927 Six Lane Facility - Collector Lane Width <9' 9' 10' 11' 12+' L 25491 28041 32411 R 17285 19013 21976 M 12170 13404 15521 34595 36416 23458 24692 16579 17285 L 38237 42061 48616 R 25927 28520 32964 M 18255 20107 23281 51894 54625 35187 37039 24869 25927 Table 3.9 - LOS E Four Lane Facility - Arterial Lane Width <9' 9' 10' 11' 12+' L 32005 35206 40693 R 23940 26334 30438 M 16013 17637 20422 43436 45722 32490 34200 21815 22743 Six Lane Facility - Arterial Lane Width <9' 9' 10' 11' 12+' L 48008 52809 61040 65154 68583 R 35910 39501 45657 48735 51300 M 24020' 26456 30633 32723 34115 Four Lane Facility - Collector Lane Width <9' 9' 10' 11' 12+' L 32005 35206 40693 R 22743 25017 28916 M 16013 17637 20422 43436 45722 30866 32490 21815 22743 Six Lane Facility - Collector Lane Width 9' 10' 11' 12+' L 48008 R 34115 M 24020 52809 61040 65154 68583 37526 43374 46298 48735 26456 30633 32723 34115 24 Two Lane Rural Daily Service Volume Table 3.10 - LOS A Arterial Table 3.11 - LOS B Arterial Lane Width Lane Width <9' 9' 10' 11' 12+' <9' 9' 10' 11' 12+' L 1807 2109 2530 2801 3012 L 2711 3163 3795 4202 4519 R 1178 1392 1649 1821 1971 R 1767 2089 2474 2731 2956 M 606 768 916 1010 1092 M 909 1152 1374 1516 1637 Collector Collector Lane Width Lane Width <9' 9' 10' 11' 12+' <9' 9' 10' 11' 12+' L 1565 1849 2190 2418 2617 L 1915 2264 2681 2960 3204 R 1131 1432 1709 1885 2035 R 1696 2148 2563 2827 3053 M 541 685 817 901 974 M 811 1027 1226 1352 1460 Table 3.12 - LOS C Table 3.13 - LOS D Arterial Arterial Lane Width Lane Width <9' 9' 10' 11' 12+' <9' 9' 10' 11' 12+' L 3564 4159 4990 5525 5941 L 4367 5096 6115 6770 7280 R 2323 2746 3253 3591 3887 R 2846 3365 3986 4400 4763 M 1196 1515 1807 1993 2153 M 1465 1856 2214 2442 2638 Collector Collector Lane Width Lane Width <9' 9' 10' 11' 12+' <9' 9' '10' 11' 12+' L 3086 3647 4320 4769 5162 L 3781 4469 5294 5844 6325 R 2230 2824 3370 3717 4014 R 2733 3461 4129 4555 4919 M 1067 1351 1612 1777 1920 M 1307 1655 1975 2178 2353 Table 3.14 - LOS E Arterial Lane Width <9' 9' 10' 11' 12+' L 5020 5858 7028 7782 8368 R 3272 3868 4582 5058 5475 M 1684 2133 2545 2807 3032 Collector Lane Width <9' 9' 10' 11' 12+' 4346 5137 6085 6717 7270 3141 3978 4746 5236 5654 1502 1902 2270 2503 2705 Note: L = Level Terrain R = Rolling Terrain M = Mountainous Terrain For a listing of applicable assumptions, please see Appendix B. 25 I~ I ~k I( I II I Table 3.15 Roanoke City 1990 Thoroughfare Deficiencies LOS F Facilities Facility From Highest To ADT* Code Brandon (W. Approach) Keagy Colonial Overland Ferdinand (W. Approach) Franklin (S. Approach) Garden City Hartsook Hershberger (E. Approach) King Gus Nicks Mt. Pleasant Riverland Old Rocky Mt. U.S. 220 Orange Hollins (W. Approach) Overland Brambleton Shaffer's Crossing Shenandoah (W. Approach) Williamson (N. Approach) (S. Approach) Grandin 16,835 3 Edgewood 20,960 4 Wonju 19,466 4 Elm 12,255 3 Elm 16,275 1 Riverland 7,975 8 Peters Ck. 14,309 3,4 Berkley 8,215 8 SCL 8,612 8 Welcome Vlly 8,070 3,8 Gus Nicks 41,649 4 10th (EB) 15,232 1 Colonial 12,328 3 18,068 4 24th 13,373 1 Jefferson 14,259 1 Elm 14,259 9 LOS E Facilities Facility From Brambleton Brandon Campbell Colonial Edgewood Electric Elm Brandon (E. Approach) Ross (E. Approach) WCL (N. Approach) WCL (W. Approach) 1-581 U.S. 220 (S. Approach) Westside Valley View 13th Massachusetts Winona Broadway (E. Approach) Franklin Grandin Hershberger Jamison Lafayette Main McClanahan McClanahan Highest To ADT* Code Persinger 10,491 3 Grandin 12,022 3 Brambleton 16,835 3 Williamson 11,857 3 Overland 14,833 4 Hrandon 9,435 1 U.S. 220 42,491 3,7 Franklin 13,539 1,5 (one way) Jamison/ 31,341 7 Bullitt Walnut 16,275 4 Memorial 16,001 4 Cove 14,309 1 Aviation 42,020 1,10 Dale 29,234 3 Melrose 9,750 9 Brandon 11,240 3 Franklin 12,869 1 Broadway 11,900 4 29 Table 3.15 (cont.) Orange Orange Plantation Salem Trnpke. U.S. 220 U.S. 220 Williamson 10th 1-581 Courtland Plantation Hollins Gus Nicks King Salem Trpke. 10th (EB) (N. Approach) Orange Whiteside Fieldale (W. Approach) 24th Franklin Wonju Valley Old Rocky Mt Jefferson Elm (N. Approach) Orange 44 823 43 831 31 632 15 232 11 392 15 169 10 054 58,170 31,845 14,259 13,181 4 4 4 5 1 5 1,5 6,10 4,11 5 3 LOS D Facilities Facility From Highest To ADT* Code Brambleton WCL Brandon Edgewood Ross Bullitt Elm (one way) Campbell Cove Dale Elm Franklin Grandin Gus Nicks Hershberger 1-581 Jamison (one way) King Norfolk Peters Creek Salem Shenandoah U.S. 220 Williamson 5th 10th Overland 13,649 4 Carlton 12,843 3 Grandin 12,022 4 13th 25,716'* 5 3rd Norfolk 12,710 4 Green Ridge Peters Creek 8,904 1 (S. Approach) Hershberger 8,939 1 Jamison ECL 27,958 5 Williamson 1-581 24,517 4,7 5th Franklin 13,539 4 (one way) (S. Approach) Wonju 20,546 1 Electric Townside 24,043 5 Guilford Brandon 11,683 3 Orange Richard 16,134 3 (E. Approach) Williamson 10,312 4 Orange Williamson 74,030 6,10 13th Elm 25,716'* 5 Berkley Orange 5,459 9 Campbell Wise 12,710 4 1-581 NCL 24,056 1 (W. Approach) 10th 8,183 1 22nd 24th 9,277 1 30th Westside 13,373 1 Old Rck¥. Mt. Hunting Hlls 25,465 4,11 Wells Viaduct 25,429 4 (S. Approach) Hershberger 20,293 1 (S. Approach) Shenandoah 8,913 1 Grayson Andrews 13,181 4 Note: Boldface values indicate locations where VDOT counts are referenced. ** Combined counts for Bullitt and Jamison Avenues. 30 3.4 Sufficiency Criteria In order to locate highway deficiencie= for future improve- ment, it is common to use a sufficiency system of satisfactory LOSs which would be applied to the current thoroughfare network. The following sufficiency system was employed in the recent study of the Salem Thoroughfare Network: Federal Aid Primary System A. Urban Location--LOS D B. Rural Location--LOS C II. Federal Aid Urban System A. Major Arterial--LOS D B. Other--LOS C III. Non-Federal Aid System--LOS C Using the MINUTP model, we are able to project future LOS for the thoroughfare network for the years 2000 and 2015. Maps are developed in the same fashion as the 1990 LOS map (see Figures 3.7 and 3.8). From these figures we extract tables of roadway segments which exhibit LOS levels below LOS C for these future conditions (Tables 3.16 and 3.17). Using this information, VDOT and Roanoke City officials can determine those facilities which should be preserved at LOS C and those which should be allowed to tolerate LOS D. For the purposes of this report, LOS C conditions are the design standard for all routes in rural settings as well as for the interstate and principal arterial routes in the urban setting. Minor arterial and collector routes in the urban setting will also be held to a LOS C standard although this assumption may be revised if a significant cost or community impact differential would exist between LOS C and D recommendations for these routes. 31 / 32 Table 3.16 Roanoke City 2000 Thoroughfare Deficiencies LOS F Facilities Facility From Brambleton Brandon Campbell Colonial Cove Edgewood Ferdinand Garden City Hershberger King Mt. Pleasant Old Mountain Old Rocky Mt. Orange Overland Peters Creek Plantation Shenandoah U.S. 220 Yellow Mtn. Williamson SCL (S. Approach) Edgewood (W. Approach) (E. Approach) Overland (N. Approach) (N. Approach) (W. Approach) Hartsook Ray Peters Creek Valley View Gus Nicks Riverland (N. Approach) U.S. 220 1-581 Rhodes 15th (E. Approach) (W. Approach) (N. Approach) (N. Approach) (N. Approach) Whiteside WCL (E. Approach) Electric Southern Garden City (S. Approach) (N. Approach) To Highest ADT+ Code Overland 17,673 4 Brandon 12,955 3 Brambleton 21,841 4 Edgewood 36,234 4 Williamson 13,738 9 Wonju 20,694 4 Peters Creek 13,948 1,4 Brandon 14,372 1,4 Elm 12,210 5,9 Riverland 9,155 3,8 Yellow Mtn. 6,181 8 Cove 19,444 4 Aviation 54,546 4,10 Orange 13,165 4 SCL 11,898 3,4 Liberty 8,027 5 Welcome Vlly 11,560 4 Williamson 62,258 4 Gus Nicks 47,910 4 10th (EB) 18,162' 5,9 Brambleton 15,232 1,5 Colonial 15,232 1,5 Melrose 35,147 1,4 Brandon 38,885 1,4 Orange 12,406 1 Fugate 18,341 5 Peters Creek 27,449 1,5 Peters Creek 12,712 1,5 Franklin 69,712 6,10 Old Rocky Mt 43,070 4,11 Welcome Vlly 7,109 8,11 Elm 16,503 3 Jefferson 16,503 3 34 Table 3.16 (cont.) LOS E Facilities F~cility From To Airport Brandon Bullitt (one way) Cove Cove Edgewood Elm Franklin Grandin Gus Nicks 1-581 Jamison NCL (N. Approach) Peters Creek Elm (N. Approach) (S. Approach) Memorial Jefferson Williamson 1-581 (E. Approach) (S. Approach) (N. Approach) U.S. 220 Guilford (S. Approach) Orange Dale 13th (W. Approach) Franklin Plantation Salem Trpke. King Brambleton Shenandoah (S. Approach) Shenandoah Hershberger Liberty (E. Approach) Electric Jefferson Liberty McClanahan Orange Overland Peters Creek Plantation Salem Trpke. U.S. 220 Williamson Highest ADT Code Coulter 17,336 4 Williamson 9,494 1 Edgewood 37,035 3,4 13th 30,904* 5 Hershberger Peters Creek Brandon Williamson 1-581 Jamison Franklin Elm Electric Walnut Brandon Orange Elm 13th Elm (one way) Williamson Broadway Rhodes 15th (EB) ECL Colonial Salem Trpke. Melrose Brandon Melrose Fugate Peters Creek Southern Elm 9,844 1 10,415 1 14,372 4 30,984 5,7 31,301 4,7 30,904 4,7 11,751 1 13,691' 1 28,760 1,5 15,845 5 14,943 3,4 18,996 3 86,243 6,10 32,196 4 30,904* 5 10,621 14,384 49,363 16 174' 39 905 15 232 29 112 26 383 33 967 35 147 17 738 10 245 43 070 16 503 3 4 4 5 4 5 1,4 1,4 1,4 1,4 5 1,5 4 5 35 Table 3.16 (cont.) LOS D Facilities Facility From Brambleton Brandon Burrell Colonial Cove Dale Electric Elm Ferdinand Franklin Grandin Hershberger 1-581 Lafayette Liberty Main Melrose Mud Lick Norfolk Orange Plantation Peters Creek Salem Salem Trpke. Shenandoah Williamson Wonju 5th Overland Brambleton (W. Approach (N. Approach 3rd, SE SCL (S. Approach Jamison WCL Main 10th Walnut (S. Approach Windsor (E. Approach Hershberger Massachusetts (E. Approach) (N. Approach) WCL (N. Approach) Campbell Williamson Liberty Salem Trpke. (W. Approach) (W. Approach) (W. Approach) (N. Approach) (S. Approach) 10th Colonial Elm Highest To ADT Code Brandon 12,955 3,4 Main 24,744 2 Franklin 20,057 1,4 Orange 8,487 1 Norfolk 13,738 4 Overland 12,936 4 Hershberger 8,320 1 ECL 27,669 4 U.S. 220 41,483 3,4,7 Franklin (EB)10,934' 5 Elm 12,210 3,5 Elm 13,691 5 Wonju 21,673 1 Memorial 13,260 5 Williamson 11,745 3 Orange 71,461 6 Melrose 8,353 1 Williamson 9,379 3 Brandon 9,369 1 Peters Creek 27,936 5 Grandin 9,000 1 Wise 13,738 5 Plantation 38,503 4 Orange 12,439 5 Melrose 26,383 1,4 10th 9,034 1 24th 8,616 1 24th 8,514 1 Hershberger 22,258 3,10 Hershberger 20,284 3,10 Fugate 24,344 4,7 U.S 220 20,771 3 Campbell 8,982 9 Note: Underlined values indicate locations where fit to count data was poor for whatever reason. Model growth factors were employed to adjust count data. Note: Model values in these locations are nondirectional. 36 Table 3.17 Roanoke City 2015 Thoroughfare Deficiencies LOS F Facilities Facility From Airport Aviation Brambleton Brandon Bullitt (one way) Campbell Colonial Cove Dale Edgewood Elm Ferdinand Franklin Garden City Grandin Hershberger Hollins 1-581 Jamison Jamison (one way) King Liberty Mt. Pleasant Mud Lick Municipal Old Mountain Old Rocky Mt. Orange Overland Peters Creek Plantation Salem Trpke. Shenandoah NCL Hershberger SCL Persinger Peters Creek Elm (E. Approach) Overland (W. Approach) (E. Approach) (N. Approach) Jamison (N. Approach) Jefferson (W. Approach) (S. Approach) Yellow Mtn. Guilford Peters Creek 1-581 (E. Approach) (S. Approach) Hershberger 13th 9th Gus Nicks (W. Approach) Riverland (S. Approach) Aviation (N. Approach) U.S. 220 1-581 Brambleton 1-581 Northlake Brandon (N. Approach) Liberty (E. Approach) WCL Highest To ADT+ Code Williamson 20,581 1,4 Municipal 36,621 4 Overland 22,075 4 Brandon 16,365 3,4 Main 47,418 1,2,3,4 9th 36,948* 5 Williamson 17,711 9 Wonju 26,896 4 Peters Creek 19,770 1,4 Peters Creek 15,784 1,4 Hershberger 12,937 1,4 Greenbrier 36,122 4 Brandon 17,498 1,4 Jamison 43,791 4,5,7 Elm 13,874 5,9 Elm 15,738 1,5 Riverland 12,518 3,4 Brandon 20,046 3,4 Cove 26,774 1,4 Aviation 73,283 4,10 Williamson 15,963 3,4 Orange 14,123 1 Elm 116,885 6,10 Dale 40,951 4 Elm 36,948* 5 Orange 18,433 4 Williamson 13,127 3,4 SCL 16,662 3,4 Brandon 12,050 1,4 Airport 16,207 3,4 Liberty 9,413 1,5 Welcome Vlly 16,878 4 ECL 77,735 4 Colonial 18,449 1,5 NCL 39,104 1,4 1-581 44,554 4 Hershberger 49,037 1,4 Orange 13,994 1,5 Whiteside 22,060 1,5 Peters Creek 12,748 1,5 Peters Creek 34,052 1,5 37 Table 3.17 (cont.) Tazewell U.S. 220 Walnut Welcome Valley Williamson Yellow Mtn. 13th (E. Approach) SCL (E. Approach) Old Rocky Mt. (S. Approach) (N. Approach) (S. Approach) (E. Approach) Welcome Valley (S. Approach) Williamson Elm Jefferson Yellow Mtn. Hershberger Hershberger Elm Jefferson Garden City Jamison 13 201 91 601 16 613 7 132 27 333 31 511 15,862 15,862 9,113 24,412 5,9 4,6,10,11 1,4 8,11 3,4,10 3,4,10 3 3 4,11 1 LOS E Facilities Facility From Brambleton Brandon Bullitt (one way) Burrell Campbell Colonial Cove Dale Edgewood Electric Elm Franklin Grandin Gus Nicks Hershberger Jamison (one way) Jefferson Lafayette Liberty Main McClanahan Melrose Mud Lick Norfolk Peters Creek Overland (W. Approach) WCL 9th (N. Approach) Norfolk SCL Garstland (S. Approach) Greenbrier Memorial WCL 2nd Townside (S. Approach) (N. Approach) Jeanette Garst Mill Windsor (S. Approach) ECL 1-581 13th (S. Approach) (N. Approach) (E. Approach) (W. Approach) (N. Approach) Franklin WCL (N. Approach) Campbell Cove Highest To ADT+ Code Persinger 12,692 4 Franklin 23,327 1,4 Peters Creek 31,031 1,4 13th 33,668* 5 Orange 10,185 1 Williamson 17,711 5 Overland 17,411 4 Peters Creek 15,784 1,4 Hershberger 11,276 1 ECL 35,113 4 Brandon 17,498 1,4 U.S. 220 51,829 3,4,7 Franklin 14,521 1,5 Electric 35,575 1,5 Wonju 27,280 1 McClanahan 24,569 1 Elm 17,799 1,5 Guilford 17,466 4 Memorial 15,840 5 Orange 19,218 3 Williamson 15,963 3,4 Ordway 45,839 4 9th 33,668* 5 Elm 20,548 3 Melrose 10,338 9 Williamson 11,727 3 Plantation 9,744 1 Brandon 10,811 1 Broadway 13,175 4 Peters Creek 35,687 5 Grandin 11,355 1,4 Wise 17,711 5 Hershberger 34,986 1,4 38 Table 3.17 (cont.) Plantation Riverland Salem Salem Trpke. Shenandoah Tazewell Walnt/Piedmont Williamson Wise Wonju Orange Walnut (W. Approach (W. Approach (W. Approach (W. Approach (E. Approach N. 9th Riverland 10th Airport (N. Approach Elm Norfolk (E. Approach Liberty 14,005 1,5 Garden City 15,842 4 10th 11,227 1 Peters Creek 10,131 1 24th 10,547 1 24th 9,763 1 Peters Creek 14,287 1 13th 15,576 5 Jefferson 16,613 3,4 Preston 28,654 4,7 Hershberger 31,511 4,7 Orange 23,246 9 Jefferson 15,862 1,5 13th 15,833 5 Colonial 26,993 3 LOS D Facilities Facility From Boulevard Salem Cove Green Ridge Garstland Ferdinand 10th Franklin Avenham Reserve Wiley 3rd H~rshberger Aviation Cove (W. Approach Hollins (N. Approach Hollins St. Orange 1-581 Peters Creek Jefferson Williamson Liberty Courtland Melrose Westside Mud Lick Deyerle Old Mountain Liberty Orange Burrell Patterson (W. Approach Peters Creek Cove Plantation Hollins Riverland Garden City Salem (E. Approach Salem Trpke. Westside (E. Approach Shaffer's Crossing Shenandoah (E. Approach) Highest To ADT+ Code Patterson 12,104 5 King Arthur 12,806 4 Hershberger 12,937 1,4 Elm 13,874 3,5 Wonju 27,280 1,5 McClanahan 24,569 1,5 Jeanette 21,716' 5 2nd 13,257 5 Rutgers 36,337 1,4 Ordway 41,973 1,4 Williamson 33,645 3 Orange 8,829 1 Rhodes 14,123 1 Hershberger 78,341 6 Walnut 26,407 2,4 Williamson 13,127 3,4 Peters Creek 24,935 1,5 Brandon 12,050 4 NCL 5,659 1,8 1-581 26,077 4 Boulevard 8,562 1 Northlake 24,861 1,4 Frontier 25,711 4 Mt. Pleasant 13,534 2 5th 22,948* 9 (one way) Peters Creek 12,748 1,5 24th 9,083 1 13,582 4 24th 8,971 5 39 Table 3.17 (cont.) Tazewell N. 9th Williamson 13,201 1,5 Wasena Terr. (E. Approach) Memorial 9,214 1 Williamson Airport NCL 24,661 4,7 Preston Hershberger 27,333 3,4,7 Salem Wells 26,278 1,4 Wonju (N. Approach) Franklin 22,673 1 5th Salem Campbell 10,943 9 13th Montrose Tazewell 24,412 1,4 Note: Underlined values indicate locations where fit to count data was poor for whatever reason. Model growth factors were employed to adjust count data. * Note: Model values in these locations are nondirectional. 40 3.5 Accident Record Information The City of Roanoke maintains computerized records of acci- dents reported to the City Police Department. While specific information regarding the amount of property damage is not obtain- able in the current format, the City does keep a record of a heuristic parameter called the "Severity Index". Reported acci- dents are ranked by a severity scale where a fatal accident is given a rating of six points, a personal injury accident is given a rating of four points, and a property damage only accident is given a rating of one point (note: rating points are not cumulative for individual accidents and the maximum points are always awarded based upon the outcome of the accident). In order to provide some indication of the relative likelihood of accidents occurring on various portions of the Roanoke City Thoroughfare Network, severity index data was accumulated for 1989 City Police records. Due to the problems in presenting large quantities of data required to incorporate every accident location, the top 100 cumulative severity index locations in the city were first considered. Next, the lowest index number (i.e., cumulative index of 12) were culled because of the probability that additional locations with the same cumulative index value were truncated by the listing in order to incorporate only 100 locations. At this point, Virginia State Police records were consulted for the same period so that additional severity index information for identified locations could be compiled. The vast majority of accidents reported by Virginia State Police occurred on the 1-581/Webber Expressway corridor with most of the remaining nine reports occurring along U.S. Primary Routes (U.S. 11, 221, and 460). Lastly, this information is stratified and presented on a map of the city's thoroughfare system (see Figure 3.9). There is no specific engineering application for the use of the severity index data. This is primarily due to the fact that no means of incorporating accident cause is given in this statistic plus the fact that it provides a subjective correlation between death, injury, and monetary damage. This information does, however, provide a possible starting .point for more detailed analysis of specific locations. In unsignalized locations, a traffic signal is warranted according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices if five or more correctable accidents involving injury or at least $100 damage occur for an intersection location of sufficient volume where other identified measures have already been employed. Since five such property damage accidents would result in a Cumulative Severity Index score of only five, it is reasonable to assume that all unsignalized locations identified in Figure 3.9 should be monitored for their design adequacy and sufficiency in meeting the signalization criteria. Beyond this application, the map is a good indicator of high accident intersections and corridors. By considering future transportation 41 improvements that deemphasize high accident locations and those which improve underdesigned facilities in such locations, improvements in the overall safety of the city thoroughfare system may be realized. 42 4. OVERALL STREET AND HIGHWAY PLANNING Before drawing conclusions regarding deficiencies in the current transportation network and desirable remedies, it is necessary to inventory previous documentation which include discussions regarding anticipated transportation improvements and the objectives that led to the acceptance of these documents. Existing documents which govern the transportation and land use decision making processes within the city were consulted and summarized below. 4.1 Roanoke Vision (Comprehensive Plan) The document, Roanoke Vision: Comprehensive Development Plan for Roanoke, Virginia 1985-2005 was first consulted and provides much useful information on the intentions of city residents r=garding future land use and transportation infrastructure decisions. Indeed, once completed, the Roanoke City Thoroughfare Plan is intended to be a refined transportation component of this comprehensive development plan and as such must be in accordance with the conclusions of its parent document. The first conclusion reached in the Roanoke Vision was that the city is a collection of neighborhoods which must be preserved. To this end, the city is divided into 45 separate, contiguous neighborhoods (see Vision p. 37) some of which straddle important thoroughfares (mostly in the Southwest portion of the city). Recognizing the damaging impact of multilane and/or high speed facilities on neighborhood integrity, it was intended to develop a thoroughfare system that was as much in harmony with these communities as possible. "Landscaped, well-lighted boulevards should lead from regional highways to attractive neighborhoods and a pedestrian-scaled downtown." (Vision pp. 7-8, see also p. 41) Several locations for such boulevards were targeted in the study (Vision pp. 71-72). These included but were not limited to: Shenandoah Avenue, N.W., Grandin Road/Memorial Avenue, S.W., Campbell Avenue, S.W., South Jefferson Street, Franklin Road, S.W., Brambleton Avenue/Main Street/Elm Avenue, Bullitt, Dale, and Jamison Avenues, S.E., 10th Street, N.W. & S.W., Colonial Avenue, S.W., Hershberger Road, N.E. & N.W., and Peters Creek Road, N.W.. 44 These concerns were not intended to protect these corridors from all future road improvements but rather that special consi- deration for neighborhood related concerns (e.g., noise, accessi- bility, pedestrian flow, etc.) be considered should improvements be required. From this approach we may gather that these corridors are particularly sensitive to such problems and require the consideration of low impact solutions. Specific roadway network improvements mentioned in the Vision included: Peters Creek Road Extension from Lee Highway to Melrose Avenue (p. 69), Franklin Road widening between Third Street and Elm Avenue (p. 69), Interstate 581 interchange at or near 10th Street, N.W. (p. 69), and Second Street/Gainsboro Road and Wells Avenue projects near downtown (p. 51). Another transportation system improvement recommended in the Vision document was the construction of the proposed Roanoke River Parkway between Dixie Caverns and Smith Mountain Lake which would provide access to the new Explore Park. Because of the political controversy over this project which developed following the publication of the Vision document, the scarcity of funds for such an undertaking, an-~ the lack of impact of such a circuitous facility upon the existing thoroughfare network, it is recommended that consideration of the proposed parkway be deemed outside the scope of the thoroughfare planning process. Site specific planning concerns were also addressed which would lead to better use of existing facilities. These concerns included the discouragement of strip commercial developments along thoroughfares (see p. 48), as well as the development of a parking and traffic management plan for the downtown area and major arterial highways (see p. 72). Lastly, the plan calls for continued support for public transit to areas with highest demand and special, transit dependent populations. The ongoing study of these needs and demands is called for with specific mention given to new routes, smaller vehicles, and expanded hours. 45 4.2 1995 Roanoke Valley Thoroughfare Plan One of the specific recommendations incorporated in the Roanoke Vision regarding transportation planning was to "be involved with initiating a review process for the State prepared Roanoke Valley Area Thoroughfare Plan" (Vision p. 72). Every five years the Virginia Department of Transportation prepares a comprehensive inventory of highway needs in the Roanoke Valley which is used for the initial programming of projects for im- provement. The last such study produced the document: Roanoke Valley Area 1975-1995 Transportation Plan. For a variety of reasons, this study has not been officially updated since 1978 and a new Valley Thoroughfare Plan is being developed which will have a year 2015 design horizon. For the present, the VDOT developed plan (which is ratified by the MPO) is considered to satisfy the requirements of 23 CFR Section 450.110(a) which calls for the MPO to develop a trans- portation plan that includes an "analysis of transportation system management strategies to make more efficient use Of existing transportation systems". Staff of the Fifth Planning District Commission has been working in close coordination with VDOT officials in the development of both the new Valley Thoroughfare Plan and this report. Socio-economic information compiled for this study was also used by VDOT in the development of their MINUTP model and the findings of these computer analyses have been critiqued by both VDOT and 5PDC staff and MPO Technical Committee representatives. Since this document is being developed independently of the VDOT effort, additional network modifications such as transportation system management (or TSM) improvements and transit facilities may also be considered. It is believed this study, once completed, will provide formal input from Roanoke City planning officials in the preparation of the Valley Thoroughfare Plan. Highway improvements outlined in the 1995 Plan have not been completely undertaken and, in all likelihood,-~l not be con- structed during this period. Because of the fluctuations in available funding, not all needed improvements are implemented but appear on the plan as they are recognized needs at both the state and local level. A listing of the various improvement projects in Roanoke City called for in this plan as amended is furnished in Table 4.1. This information is intended to provide one set of potential network improvements in those areas where this study identifies future deficiencies. 46 Table 4.1 - 1995 Valley Thoroughfare Plan Identified Needs for Roanoke City Existing Road Improvements Street From To New Section* Bennington Riverland Riverdale U4R Brambleton S.C.L. Brandon U4 Brandon W.C.L. Grandin U6R Brandon Grandin 23rd Ext U4R Campbell Norfolk Williamson U4 Colonial 23rd S.C.L. U4R Cove Peters Creek Andrews U4R Edgewood Brandon Memorial U4 Elm Main Jefferson U4R Franklin 3rd Jefferson U4 Franklin Expressway Elm U4R Garden City Ray Riverland U4R Garden City Danforth Yellow Mtn R2 Grandin Electric Brandon U4 Grandin Brandon Memorial U4R Hershberger Peters Creek Cove U6R Hollins Orange Liberty U4R Liberty Williamson Hollins U4 Loudon 24th 5th U4 Main Brandon Elm U4 McClanahan New Rosaland U4 Melrose 24th Salem Trpke U4R Memorial Edgewood Campbell U4 Mt. Pleasant Riverland S.C.L. U4R Mud Lick Grandin Lee Hwy U4 Ogden S.C.L. W.C.L. U4R Orange Salem Trpke Peach U6R Plantation Liberty Kanter U4R Peters Creek Melrose Hershberger U6R Riverdale Bennington E.C.L. U4 Riverland 9th Garden City U4 Riverland Garden City Mt. Pleasant U4R Salem Trpke W.C.L. 24th U4R Shenandoah W.C.L. 24th U4R Shenandoah .2 mi E 5th 1st U4 Tazewell Jefferson 13th U4 Wells Williamson 4th U4 Wells Orange Indiana U4R Plantation Wingfield Liberty U4R Williamson Orange N.C.L. U6R Yellow Mtn S.C.L. Jefferson R2 9th Riverland Industry U4 24th Patterson Westport U4R Airport Maitland Municipal U4 47 Table 4.1 (cont.) New Facilities Grandin Memorial Salem Hershberger Plantation Orange Hershberger W.C.L. Peters Creek Liberty Hollins Hershberger Peters Creek Melrose Lee Rwy 10th Memorial Main Andrews Cove 10th 9th Tazewell Campbell 23rd Brandon Colonial 2nd Street/Gainsboro Road Project Wells Avenue/Gilmer Avenue Project U.S. 460/Route 24 Connection * See Appendix B for section designs U4R R4D R4R R4R U4R Interchange Ramps U4 (mod.) U4 U4R U4 U4 R4D 48 4.3 Roanoke Valley Bikeway Plan - 1991 Update While the Roanoke City Thoroughfare Plan is not intended to be a comprehensive multi-modal plan, the Roanoke City Planning Commission wishes to recognize the importance of considering the needs of bicyclists in all transportation planning efforts. For this reason, the recommendations as presented in the 1991 Update of the Roanoke Valley Bikeway Plan were reviewed and considered during the development of this document. 4.4 VDOT Six-Year Program The VDOT Six-Year Plan provides the most current information on those projects in the adopted Valley Thoroughfare Plan which are scheduled for implementation. It was the expressed opinion of the Roanoke City Thoroughfare Advisory Committee that a year 2000 projection should be obtained for traffic volumes on the city's thoroughfare system assuming that those improvements scheduled for implementation in the current Six-Year plan are in operation. This would include only those projects for which construction funds would be budgeted in order to avoid including unfunded projects and those which would require the accrual of additional funds after this period. At the time of the analysis, the most current edition of the Six-Year Plan was the Final Allocation of Funds: Fiscal Year 1990-91. Since this time, VDOT has published the final Six- Year Plan for the following two fiscal years and Table 4.2 offers a comparison of the included projects. Funds that were intended to complete the 13th Street/Hollins Road connection were diverted to the 2nd Street/Gainsboro Road project to insure its short term completion. Preliminary engineering expenditures are still earmarked for the 13th Street/Hollins Road project so that future construction monies may be added beyond the six year horizon. Expenditure of the engineering funds may occur in the 1997 & 1998 fiscal years which may still allow for construction prior to the year 2000 (although the model does not include this project in the 2000 network). 49 Table 4.2 - VDOT Six-Year Plan for Roanoke City Piscal Year 1990-91 Final Edition Street From T__o Improvement Brandon Edgewood W.C.L. 5 lane Peters Creek Melrose Brandon 4 lane Franklin Elm 3rd 4 lane 10th Gilmer Williamson 4 lane 13th/Hollins Dale Orange 4 lane 2nd/Gainsboro Salem Orange 4 lane Wells Avenue 1st Williamson 4 lane 5th Gilmer Salem Bridge Replacement Fiscal Year 1992-1993 Final Edition Street From T_~o Improvement Brandon Edgewood W.C.L. 5 lane Peters Creek Melrose Brandon 4 lane Franklin Elm 3rd 4 lane 10th Gilmer Andrews 4 lane 2nd/Gainsboro Salem Orange 4 lane Wells Avenue 1st Williamson 4 lane 5th Gilmer Salem Bridge Replacement Fiscal Year 1993-1994 Final Edition Street From T_~o Improvement Brandon Edgewood W.C.L. 5 lane Peters Creek Melrose Brandon 4 lane 10th Gilmer Andrews 4 lane 2nd/Gainsboro Salem Orange 4 lane Wells Avenue 1st Williamson 4 lane 5th Gilmer Salem Bridge Replacement 50 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In order to properly address the transportation facility needs of Roanoke, it becomes necessary to review the analysis presented in Chapter 3 regarding present and future traffic volumes and the service quality levels they represent along with the various needs for safety improvements throughout the current network. Once the emerging nature of the traffic problems are determined, it will then become possible to hypothesize various strategies for the relief of these problems. These strategies would form overlay grids of overall network improvements and be overlaid on the year 2000 network to determine the benefit to travellers in the year 2015. Some of the improvement projects from the current Valley Thoroughfare Plan (Table 4.1) may be included as part of one or more of the overlay options. Although there is no mechanism in the current MINUTP modelling package to simulate its impact, certain transit related improvements (e.g., establishing transitways along certain corridors, etc.) and TSM improvements (e.g., HOV lanes, ramp metering, etc.) may also be considered. Joint participation in projects in other jurisdictions which may be of benefit to the city's network can also be evaluated although the actual implementation of these projects would require the approval of other localities. 5.1 Conclusions Table 3.1 affirms the observation that Roanoke City is the employment core of a much larger urban region. In 1980, the number of people working in Roanoke was 29 percent greater than Roanoke's working population. The survey also reaffirmed that the downtown area was the chief location for employment within the city with fully 21 percent of the city's employment level. During the intervening period between the 1980 Census information and this report, the downtown area has been able to retain its vitality as an employment center largely owing to its continued accessibility by way of the 1-581/U.S. 220 Expressway corridor. Other employment centers in the city and surrounding area have grown during this period, most prominent of which is the Roanoke Center for Industry and Technology, although none of these centers is of the magnitude of the CBD. Additional major commercial and service districts in and near the city have grown substantially during the past decade although their impact upon peak period traffic is usually less evident than upon off peak conditions. Consequently, the expressway and major arterials carrying traffic into and out of the CBD remain the heaviest travelled facilities and least apt to have suitable reliever routes. 51 In 1990, one section of the 1-581/U.S. 220 Expressway corridor exhibited LOS E conditions (Wonju Street to Elm Avenue) and one additional section (Williamson Road to Orange Avenue) exhibited LOS D conditions. These sections are two of the four heaviest travelled sections of road in the Roanoke Valley and are the major access roads into the CBD. Although not considered in the analysis, both sections have partial interchanges which lend themselves to weaving movements further reducing capacity. By the nature of the partial interchange at Franklin Road, the four lane Expressway segment between Wonju Street and Franklin Road will always be more heavily travelled than the six lane segment between Franklin Road and Elm Avenue. The 1-581 segment is currently six lanes. Also of concern are the LOS E & F sections of Orange Avenue (U.S. 460) between 1-581 and King Street. The four lane section of Orange Avenue between Rhodes Avenue and 20th Street is the heaviest travelled LOS F facility in the Roanoke Valley. Through capacity on this section appears to be the primary reason for the poor performance due to the importance of the facility and lack of availability of suitable reliever routes. To the east of this section lies the aforementioned Roanoke Center for Industry and Technology and the Statesman Industrial Park which make effective use of reverse commute capacity on Orange Avenue to the west but also help intensify peak period conditions on U.S. 460 to the east. West of Hollins Road, Orange Avenue exhibits LOS E conditions owing partly to the increased capacity of the six lane section and partly due to the access to the CBD afforded by Kimball Avenue. Kimball Avenue is not a completely usable relief route, however, as it does not afford access to 1-581. In the vicinity of the CBD, we note that the roads which: provide access from largely developed areas (e.g., S. Jefferson Street), have excess capacity (e.g., Kimball Avenue), or primarily provide downtown circulation (e.g., Third Street, SW) do not deteriorate in LOS over the planning horizon. Conversely, roads which do drop in LOS include access roads from the growing southwest portion of the urban area which include the two lane portions of Franklin Road and Elm Avenue. Another problem occurs at local bottleneck sections of through routes which include the Williamson Road bridge over the Norfolk Southern railroad. A third situation arises due to a combination of these problems when examining access to the CBD from the east. First, the under- designed diamond interchange of 1-581 and Elm Avenue restricts traffic flow from the Vinton and growing eastern Roanoke County/ western Bedford County area. Once this occurs, traffic diverts to the Tazewell and Wise/Campbell Avenue corridors which previously had been exhibiting LOS C and D conditions with LOS E at the Campbell Avenue signalized intersection with Williamson Road. Looking at Figure 3.8, we see that this corridor exhibits LOS E conditions by the year 2015 and the Tazewell Avenue corridor, in conjunction with 13th Street, SE, is reduced to LOS D and E 52 conditions. A strategic decision needs to be made in these areas as to which corridors of travel are to be improved and how they should be improved to meet these demands. In the southeast quadrant of the city, we note that, for the most part, the street network is considered to perform as rural arterials and collector routes. Rapidly deteriorating Levels of Service in this region are not due to explosive growth trends, but rather due to reportedly narrow width and rolling routes that were not intended to handle the incremental growth which is occurring. The need to improve terrain induced geometric conditions is further reduced by the low percentage of truck traffic in this area. It should be noted, however, that additional through trips from nearby areas may begin diverting onto Franklin Road, Riverland Road and the Welcome Valley Road/ Garden City Boulevard corridor as conges- tion increases on the Route 24 and U.S. 220 corridors. Possible remedial strategies in this area are probably limited to pavement widening due to cost considerations and existing development patterns. Lastly, the reduction in LOS on Walnut Avenue/Riverland Road must be seen as a function of the deterioration of the Jamison/Bullitt Avenue portion of the Route 24 corridor to process the increasing traffic volumes on Garden City and Mt. Pleasant Boulevards and not due to adjacent development because the 9th and 13th Street corridors remain unaffected. Since substantial excess capacity exists on these routes, it seems apparent that relieving congestion problems on the Route 24 corridor will have the desired effect of similarly alleviating a potential congestion problem in this area. Aside from the continued decline in LOS along Orange Avenue, continued growth in traffic in the Rollins Road and Shadwell Road portions of Roanoke County as well as lower Botetourt County will continue to impact the thoroughfare network in the northeastern quadrant of the city. The first evidence of this appears along bottleneck sections of existing facilities such as the two lane portion of Plantation Road and the Hershberger Road/Williamson Road intersection area. Later, this increase impacts the Airport Road and Williamson Road corridors in the city and multilane sections of Hershberger Road, Plantation Road and Aviation Drive while traffic increases on Old Mountain Road and diverts away from the busy Plantation Road and Williamson Road corridors. The Hershberger Road corridor will continue to experience traffic increases in response to increased development near Valley View Mall and the Roanoke Regional Airport. The inability of the existing signal system to process this increased traffic as well as the close proximity of the Aviation Drive and 1-581 interchanges make these increases difficult to accommodate. The opening of the Peters Creek Road extension project to traffic will significantly alter the use of existing roads in the northwest quadrant of the city. Some reduction in congestion will occur in the area of Shaffers Crossing and 24th Street between 53 Shenandoah and Melrose Avenues. At the same time, Shenandoah and Melrose Avenues west of the Extension will experience increased demand as traffic diverts from various portions of the Route 419 corridor. North of the Extension, traffic levels will also increase significantly on Hershberger and Peters Creek Roads because of the increased accessibility of these developing areas. This impact will be most noticeable on the Hershberger Road corridor which is already in need of additional capacity west of Cove Road. The potential exists for decreased LOS to be experi- enced at the new signalized intersections created by the Extension as can be seen occurring in Figures 3.7 and 3.8 for Salem Turnpike. The condition of the Peters Creek Road corridor itself will be dictated by the ability of these new signalized intersections to process the required amounts of traffic and this is made all the more critical because of the poor resulting LOSs on the cross streets. Strategic decisions must be made as to which corridors of travel are to be encouraged in this area and how the Peters Creek Road movements may be accommodated (e.g., prohibited turns during peak periods, etc.). One other problem area in the northwestern portion of the city concerns the Orange Avenue corridor between Salem Turnpike and 1- 581. The close proximity of the Gainsboro Road intersection and the 1-581 interchange encourage weaving movements in this area in similar fashion to the Williamson Road intersection on the other side of 1-581. This problem will be exacerbated by the planned 2nd Street/Gainsboro Road project which will encourage downtown traffic to use Gainsboro Road. Also, lack of right of way west of llth Street limits the corridor to one eastbound lane which will deteriorate to LOS F by the year 2015 while the two westbound lanes remain at LOS C. Current traffic problems in the southwest quadrant of the city concern existing two lane portions of Brandon, Overland and Colonial Avenues. The most pressing of these problems is the portion of Brandon Avenue between the Peters Creek Extension and Brambleton Avenue which is a two lane facility east of Edgewood Street. This represents the only available connecting route between several of the city's radial arterial routes between the CBD and the Route 419 corridor. Additional demand for this route will occur with the new connection to the Peters Creek Road corridor as can be seen by the congestion west of Edgewood Street. With the new terminus of Peters Creek Road on Brandon Avenue, the problem previously mentioned on Brandon Avenue will add to delays and congestion along Brandon Avenue's major cross street corridors: * Keagy Road (connection to Electric Road), * Edgewood Avenue/Mud Lick Road, * Grandin Road, 54 * Brambleton Avenue/Main Street * Franklin Road * Apperson Drive (up to Electric road in Salem) The poor LOS indicated for Overland Avenue is offset to some degree by the current use of Persinger Road in this area. Demand for this facility will increase as congestion increases on the Route 419 corridor and traffic from areas west of Brambleton Avenue use Overland Avenue to reach the Expressway at Wonju Street. In a similar fashion, declining LOS conditions on Colonial Avenue stem largely from the cumulative impact of traffic between locations in the Southwest Roanoke City and Roanoke County areas and the Wonju Street expressway interchange as congestion increases along Route 419 and the expressway south of Wonju Street. It should be noted that Colonial Avenue north of Wonju Street will not become congested in this manner. It is recognized that there are operational deficiencies in this area owing to the awkward configuration of the Wonju Street, 23rd Street and Expressway ramp intersections. Having reviewed traffic volume related concerns within the City itself, we note that certain developing problem locations in surrounding communities also may impact on the Roanoke City Thoroughfare System. One such development is the continued in- crease in traffic on Electric Road (Route 419) in Roanoke County. Originally, the Peters Creek Road extension project was to connect with Ogden Road in Roanoke County thus providing a parallel facility to Route 419 which acts as a loop road connecting all of the radial routes to the south and west of the city. Another is increasing demand between outlying portions of the Orange Avenue corridor and the Hershberger Road and Northeast County areas. The current Roanoke Valley Thoroughfare Plan does include an extension of Herhberger Road to the Orange Avenue corridor (see Table 4.1) to provide such access. In reviewing the findings of the accident record information as displayed in the Cumulative Accident Severity Index map (Figure 3.9), we note that it is reasonable to assume some degree of correlation between the cumulative severity index values and volume of traffic as well as average travel speed for individual facilities. This is to be expected as more vehicles would allow more opportunities for accidents to occur and higher travel speeds would tend to precipitate accidents of a more catastrophic nature. Having made this observation, we can indeed detect certain major thoroughfare corridors which can be defined by the high number of accident locations on them. These corridors include, but are not limited to: * 1-581/U.S. 220 Expressway at interchanges, * Orange Avenue/Melrose Avenue, * Elm Avenue/Jamison & Bullitt Avenues, 55 * Hershberger Road, * Williamson Road, * Peters Creek Road, * Franklin Road, * 24th Street/Boulevard * Liberty Road One observation from this information is the notable relatively minor cumulative severity index levels on Brandon, Grandin and Brambleton Avenues. This may be due to the relatively low travel speeds on these facilities as well as the lesser number of sig- nalized, high volume cross streets on these corridors. However, some direct relationship may also exist between the number of high volume turning movements occurring over a mile of roadway (i.e., commercial driveways, etc.) and the cumulative severity index levels. In any event, we note that some locations in the Roanoke City Thoroughfare Network do appear to be less safe. The expressway had the only locations in the Roanoke Valley with index levels greater than 60. These locations are the Electric Road, Elm Avenue, and Hershberger Road interchanges. For signalized locations, the highest recorded locations for the 1989 study period were in the 41 to 50 index range and were located at Williamson Road at Hershberger Road and two locations on the Orange Avenue corridor (King Street & 13th Street). AS was previously mentioned, specific causal analysis of the reported accidents at these locations would need to be conducted if the intention of the study was to alleviate such concerns. This not being the case, we are limited to consideration of possible safety improvements within the context of improving overall network performance. This may take the form of facility improvements or volume reduction through diversion strategies and/or multimodal considerations. 5.2 Alternative Testing Once presented with the assessment of projected traffic conditions for the year 2000 and 2015, the Advisory Committee presented a draft set of recommendations for improvement. The resulting draft Program of Projects took the form of four sets of project lists grouped by priority: 1) 2) Imminent Priority. These projects are Of recognized importance intended to address immediate, critical needs. High Priority. These projects are of recognized importance intended to address a current, though less critical need than those of imminent priority. 56 3) 4) Medium Priority. These projects are considered less critical in the immediate future but will significantly deteriorate by the design year.. Other Priority. These projects are intended to address less critical needs which may best be handled as locally funded projects by the City. In the initial consideration of a project's criticality, the grouping of projects was intended to reflect some measure of decreasing traffic impact from citywide to individual neighborhood. This approach was chosen to allow some measure of fluidity to the project selection process where unforeseen circumstances may require changes to individual project priority after the final Program is adopted. This also made it easier to model the incremental benefits of adopting different levels of support for improvements to the thoroughfare network by adding the lower priority sets incrementally (although each project was assessed for its intended impact individually when developing the final recommendations in this report). The draft program was then reviewed by City officials for comment prior to analysis. Having obtained the draft recommendations, the next step was to use MINUTP to model the effects of the proposed changes. Each set of projects was loaded incrementally beginning with the Imminent Priority projects and Levels of Service were determined. In some instances the carrying capacity (a function of roadway characteristics) and the number of lanes required to convey the expected demand had to be determined. Where suitable benefit was not achieved in an individual area, reasonable adjustments to posted speeds were considered to encourage the appropriate distribution of traffic over alternative routes. Where this was unproductive, draft recommendations had to be removed and additional alternatives developed. In these instances when it became necessary to develop additional strategies, emphasis was placed on the use of existing corridors with the highest existing functional classification. During this period, alternative alignments to the 10th Street corridor were considered north of the modeled widening between Gilmer Avenue and Andrews Road. Additionally, because of the aforementioned increasing demand from the outlying portions of Orange Avenue, the impact of the proposed Hershberger Road Extension to Orange Avenue found in the existing Roanoke Valley Thoroughfare Plan was also considered. This process was continued until LOS C conditions were achieved or LOS D where the incremental improvement required to achieve LOS C was extremely difficult to obtain. The resulting revised draft Program of Projects would be returned to the Advisory Committee so that comment could be received and the new projects 57 grouped/ranked by priority. The revised draft Program would then be submitted to the City administration for comment prior to action by the Planning Commission and City Council. 5.3 Recommendations Final recommendations are presented as a result of modeling the various improvements proposed in the draft program of projects. Final recommendations have also been adjusted as a result of comments received by the public and the Roanoke City Planning Commission. A summary of these recommendations and their relative priority is presented in Appendix C. Possible impacts of improvements in adjoining localities were not considered although it is recognized that such improvements could reduce or increase the traffic burdens identified for the City. It was determined that the Hershberger Road Extension to Orange Avenue, when coupled with other improvements, did provide some tradeoff benefits to the otherwise required Program. As a result, two sets of revised draft recommendations were developed (see Tables 5.1 and 5.2). Alternative "A" are those recommendations developed without the consideration of these projects. Alternative "B" are those projects that are required if the joint city/county Extension project and the other necessary work (as detailed in the remarks column of the Final Program of Projects) are constructed. Figures 5.1 and 5.2 are LOS maps for these sets of recommendations. Table 5.3 indicates the anticipated traffic volumes on the existing and proposed networks and the percentage changes in traffic relative to the unimproved condition. No preference between these alternatives is provided as there are numerous motivations for opting for one set of improvements over the other. Obviously, cost considerations is one such factor. Of principal concern is the deterioration of LOS along the Interstate 581/U.S. 220 Expressway corridor. It is recognized that the entire corridor will need to be widened to provide for the steadily increasing traffic on this route. Preliminary consideration was given to providing median reversible lanes for HOV and transit usage. The Advisory Committee determined that the interchange spacing and design features did not allow for this approach. It was also determined that the most pressing problem areas occur at the underdesigned interchanges and along the expressway between Franklin Road and Wonju Street. Traffic queues can be observed at virtually all of the interchanges with the present conditions. Problems at the Peters Creek Road interchange, although not modelled, are associated with the lack of transition lanes on the overpass. It is assumed that the identified need to widen Peters Creek Road in this vicinity will encompass this condition. 58 59 Table 5.1 ROANOKE CITY THOROUGHFARE PLAN Final Program of Projec:l~ - Altem,,tlve A I Elm Flyover Jeffemon Jn~on/Bulllt 1 ~ P~r 2 I~ ~r gmd~ M Main F~I~ C~bell I ~ M No~lk A~. 1~ ~ ECL R~ 2 ~ Val~ V~ 1~ ~ (~U~) 2 ~ M 24~ St ~r ~e ~. I ~ I I-~1 ~m C~k Hem e~r 4 ~ I I-~1 Hem~e~r Or. ge 5 ~ ~. A-SB m~ ~ Lbe~ I I-~1 O~ge ~ll~n 5 ~ I I-~1 ~ll~n Elm 5 ~ I ~ ~ Elm FmnMIn 4 ~ NB m~ ~ J~on S~ I ~ ~ FmnMIn Won~ 4 ~1 No SB m~ to T~m I ~ ~ Won~ E~c 3 ~ 8B r~ ~ ~ R~d M ~o~ NCL Mun~al 2 ~ M Avaaon Mun~al He=~e~r 2 ~ M ~nnl~n PI~ ~. R~ I ~ R~I~ H ~a~n ~on P~i~er 2 ~ H ~a~n ~l~r Mo~go~ 2 ~ H ~n Mo~o~ ~L 2 ~ ~on ~em C~k Edg~ 3 ~ ~on Edg~ ~don 2 ~ ~on ~don Ll~ln 2 ~ ~a~on Li~ln ~n 2 ~ ~a~on ~n Cornel 2 ~ ~11~ Elm 1~ ~ 2 ~ M C~bell No~lk 1~ ~ 2 ~ C~bell No~lk ~m 3 ~ C~bell ~m ~ll~n 3 ~ C~bell ~ 8W 3~ 8W 3 ~ C~bell Main P~n 2 ~ w/~1~ Main S~ s~ H Cornel Won~ ~ 2 ~ P~ I H Cornel ~ ~ndi~ Way 2 ~ P~ I H Co~nal ~ndl~ Way ~L 2 ~ P~ II C~ G~ Hem~e~r 2 ~ D~ ECL G~r 2 ~ D~ G~r J~l~n 21 ~ Edg~ Me~ ~a~on 2: ~ E~c ~ ~ ~L 4 ~ , Elm ~ 5W Mou~ln I ~ C~e ~ ~1~ M~n St. I Elm ~nm. J~mon J~la 2 ~ ~ ~ W~on. & I-~1 Fmn~ln (~) 1~ 8W 2~ 8W 2 ~ FmnMin (SB) Elm ~ ~ 2 ~ FmnMIn (N~ ~ ~ Elm '1 ~ G~en C~ ~ Yel~w M~. 1 ~ Gr~in ~n~or Me~d~ 2 ~ * l~im'i~, l-lsm~e~l, H-HI,h, M-Medlusa, 61 Table 5.1 (cont.) F~ml Program of Projeo~l - AItMnmtlve A (Continued) HershbMg~' Perm'8 Creek Cove HershbMge~ 1-581 Valley View HMshbMgM Valley View Avia~on HershbM~' Willamlon Hazelridge HeclhbMgM H~zelrldge ECL Jamison 13th SE Elm Jefferson Elm Albemarle King Qua Nicks C~'ange Mekose WOL Pm Creek Memorial Roanoke Campbell Mt. Pleasant Ru~'ough SCL Orange (EB) Salem Trpke tOth NW (kange loth N~V Burrell Orange Burrell I-5~1 Orange I-5~1 I~mtmll Orange K}mb~ll Qu~ Nicks O~nge Gu~ Nid~$ I~ng Orange I~ng EOL OveH~nd Bmmble~on Colonial I~tl~o n ~t Boulewrd Pe~r~ Oreck L~ur®l Ridge NOL Peters Creek Her~hbMgM Laurel Ridge PebN. s Creek Melrose HMshbMger Peters Creek Shenandoah Meli'o~e Petem Creek Brandon Shenandoah Plantation NCL Frontier P.'=ntation Whiteeide Kantw Plantation KantM UbMty Plantalion Liberty Orange Reeerv® Franklin J~n RivMland 9th SE Garden City RivMland Ge]den City Ru~ough Salem lOth SW 5th SW Salem 3rd SW 5tfl SW Shenandoah WCL Petem Creek Shenandoah Peters Creek Beech Tazewell WillMmeon l~th U8 220 Eleetltc Hurtling kiP- US 220 Hunting HUh SCL Welcome Vlly (1ego ~0 mph) Yellow Mtn. Welcome Vlly Old Rocky Mt. (1990 25 mph) Williem~on Rutherlord Wells Wmson ($B) Wells 8~llem Wm~on (NB) Campbell Wells Yellow Mtn. Ge]den CRy Welcome Valley 9th 8E Jamison Morgan 9th SE Morgan Indus'~y 9th SE Indu~y RivMland 13th SE Jamison Tazewell 62 AltA Alt. A, Phue Il Alt. A, Ph. II-rea#gn to 601 12' AltA Alt. A- Re6~lcted Access Alt. A- Restricted Access Alt. A- Reslhcted Accea~ AJt. A- Fleeffiated Acce~ Ck~e when 24th span open AKA Reaigned 2 way:. eth-Sth Alt. A AIt. A Table 5.2 ROANOKE CITY THOROUGHFARE PLAN Final Prl~ram of P~ojl~c~ - Altem~tive B ~ Fmc///~le Elm Flyover Jeffemon Jn~on/Bulllt 1 ~ Prefer 2 I~ for grades Heranberger WIIliameon Orange 2 55 Alt B w/County Liberty Hollln. Hemnberger 2 55 Alt. B Norfolk Ave. 13th 8E ECL Roanoke 2 25 Valley View 10th NW (Exletlng) 2 35 24th St. Baker Bridge St. I 30 1-561 Harsl~erger Orange 4 55 Alt. B-SB ramp @ Liberty 1-551 Orange Willlamson 5 55 1-561 WIIliameon Elm 5 55 220 Expwy Elm Franklin 4 55 NB Ramp @ Jeff 220 F_xpwy Frank]In Wonju 4 55 No SB ramp to Towers 220 F..xpwy Wonju Electric 3 55 SB ramp @ Overland Road Airport NCL Munlc~pal 2 30 Aviation Municipal Hemnberger 2 30 Bannlngton Pike Mt. I~eaeant 1 30 Realigned Br~mbleton Brandon Perslng®r 2 20 Bran~leton Perslnger Montgomery 2: 25 Bramb~,;~n Montgomery SCL 2 30 Brandon Pete~ Creek Edgewood 3 40 Brandon Edgewood L.angdon 2 35 Brandon Lmgdon LIr~oln 2 30 Brandon Lincoln Brambk]ton 2 25 Brandon Branlbiaton Colonial 2 20 Bullitt Elm 13~h 8E 2 25 Campbell Norfolk 13ih ~E 2 30 Carnpb®ll Norfolk Salem 3 30 Calllpbell Balom Willlameon 3 25 Campbell 5th 8W 3roi 5W 3 25 Ceff~b®ll Main Pattemon 2 25 w/realigned Main St, signal Colonial Wonju Overiand 2 30~ Phaea I Colonial Overiand Winding Way 2 25 Phase I Colonial Winding Way SCL 2 35 Phase II Cove Gan~t~nd Hemhberger 2 35 Dele ECL ~ireanbrter 2 30 Dale Greenbrier Jarnl~on 2 25 Edgewoocl Mamori&l Brandon 2 20 Electric 220 F.~owy SCL 4 30 Elm ~th 8W Mountain I 25 CIoae ~ realignacl MeJn St. Elm Conm. Jeffemon Jm~on/Bulllt 2 20 Accea8 to Wmson. & I-5~1 Frank]in (WB) l~t 8W 2nd 8W 2 25 Frank]In (SB) Elm 220 F..xpwy 2 20 Frank]in (NB) 220 Expwy Elm 1 20 Garden City Ray Ye#ow Mtn. I; 25 ~irandln Wincl~or Idemoria] 2 25 63 Table 5.2 (cont.) Filtml Pn~iram of Projects - Alternative B (Cominued) Fac~ Grandln ~ullfoKI Brandon Hemhberger PMem Creek Cove Hemhberger Ora'way 1-581 Hemhberger 1-581 Valley View Hemhberger Valley View Aviation Hemhberger Aviation Willlarmon Hollins Orange Liberty Jernison 13th SE Elm Jeffemon Elm Albemarle King Gus Nicks Orange Melrose WCL Pe(em Creek Memorial Roanoke Campbell Mt. Pleasant Ru~ough SCL Orange (EB) Salem Ttpke 10tfl NW Orange 10th NW Burmll Overland Brambleton Colonial Pm'temon at Boulevard Pet®m Creek Laurel Ridge NCL Petem Creek Hemhberger Laurel Ridge Petem Creek Melrose Hemhberger PeSeta Creel( Shenandoah Melrose F~®m Creek Brandon Shenandoah Plantation NCL Frontier Plantation Wbl1~lcle K~nter Plantation Kanter Liberty Resewe Franldln Jeffemon Rivedand 9th SE Garden City Rlverland Garden City Rutrough Salem 10th SW 5th SW Salem 3rd SW 5th SW Shenandoah WCL Pelem Creek Shenandoah Perm Creek Beech Tazewell Wllliameon 3rd U8 220 EleCtltC Hunting Hili~ U8 220 Hunting HilI~ SCL Welc~ome Vlly (lggO 30 mph) Yellow Mtn. Wek=ome Vlly Old Rock'y Mt. (lgeO 25 mph) Wmeon (SB) Well~ Salem Wmeon (NB) Campbell Wella Yellow Mtn. Garden C~ Welcome Valley ~th 8E dami~on Morgan 9th SE Morgan Induat~j 9th 8E Industry Rlverland 131h SE damlaon Tazewell Alt. B Alt. B-Close Thirlane Alt. B-Limit Aoc~ AIt. B 12' C&G Close when 24th span open Realigned 2 way: 6th- 5th 64 Table 5.3 MINU'IP Tradflo Prol~m~ (~t, ^ & B) 00~6 97036 g07~6 -6.1B~/, 6.90% 6.94% F D O 91901 _~.,',mn 96017 -11,~ 4.14% 3.~ F C C 51~ ~ ~ -17~ -10.~ -10.6~ E C C ~ ~ 5~ -a4.~ -1,~ -2.~ F~ C~) C~) ~ 47016 ~-27,~ -l&~-~,~ F~ C~) C~) ~ ~ ~7~-14.~% -~ -8.~ F D C ~ ~7~ ~-~.~ -~.~ 0~ F~ D~ C~) 1~ 1~ 1~1 -~.1~ -~.~-~ C~ C~) C~) 1~ ~ ~ -5.7~ ~-~.~ C C C ~ ~ ~1~ -~.~ 1~% 1~.1~ C~) C~ C~ ~ 1~ 167~ -m~% ~.1~ ~.~ C~) C~ C~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 7~ -~ -6~. C C C ~ ~ ~ -~ -1~ -17.~ E D D ~ 1~74 1~-~.~ ~ ~.7~ C~ C~) C~) ~ ~ ~ -1131% ~ ~,~ D C C 65 Table 5.3 (cont.) C~n~:~l Avenu~ P~lem(m 3rd 8~'eet Camp~l Avenue 2015 1~0 3000 % C~ange % Change ~41-1o~- ~41"lou' 24. Hou' 1~0 AItAw AItBv. And Mcx$el Model M,(x$~ % Errc~ 2015 2016 2016 Alt A Alt B 131~ 8treet 774~ ~042 6~38 -50.~'& 16.~I~A -10,62q& C(E) C(C~ gth 81met 17711 3468~ 34071 -831% g6,11BeA 9~.3'/% E C C Town 8<:1, Blvd. 1~1 16~12 1~ -~3.60% -4.00% -7.79% C{F) C(E) C(E) 0 0 o n/~ rVa r~a C C C Cemp~el Awn~ tva ~ 3~60 n/a ~a n/a n/a C C vam~y Vk~w/lOm 8ree~ Coaneela. ECL Ro~'a3ke n/a ~ r~n 11133 n/& rt/a n/a rv'a C C n/a 20~04 19~d9 r~a r,/a n/a n/a C C Q~ MI3. Roa~ ~a n/a 44~13 n,/a~ n/a tva n/a r,/a C L~ ~ re'e ~ 44&33 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a C Qrang~ A~mr..,~ n/a ~a 67~ n/a n/a ~Va n/a n/a C Herlw~gar ~ tva tva ~1.~7 ~Va n/a rv'a n/a n/a C 66 Table 5.3 (cont.) realiello LO8 pro~ ~rf~-,a wtmm Ihe meulte 67 At the Hershberger Road interchange, northbound traffic frequently experiences delays in securing eastbound Hershberger Road due to the proximity of the Valley View Boulevard ramps. This is particularly noticeable when traffic to the mall is heavy. The addition of the connector to 10th Street should make closing of the westernmost ramp viable thus allowing a longer entrance gore taper from northbound 1-581. Westbound Orange Avenue traffic frequently experiences morning delays securing 1-581 southbound. This is due to the combined effect of the peak hour load on 1-581 southbound and the proximity of the Williamson Road slip ramp which forces many vehicles to remain in the right lane. It should be noted that westbound Orange Avenue traffic, particularly truck traffic, also has difficulty in securing northbound 1-581 in the afternoons. The eastern Orange Avenue corridor has become a industrial growth area for the city and has resulted in substantial work trip generation and has resulted in a large volume of truck traffic as well. The westbound ramp is underdesigned for facilitating trucks securing northbound 1-581. Ultimately, there will be a need to reconfigure this interchange to allow for the dominant movements. The need to widen 1-581 will not allow sufficient room to exist for the existing ramps to be used. In this eventuality it is likely that the Williamson Road ramps will need to be removed although this was not modelled. In addition to the above concern regarding the proximity of the southbound Williamson Road ramp, the northbound Williamson Road ramp onto 1-581 also exhibits afternoon peak period queues as 1-581 northbound traffic using the Orange Avenue exits will require the right lane. The Elm Avenue interchange presents perhaps the most difficult challenge due to the lack of available right of way, heavy volumes on all approaches, and close proximity of major side streets. The need to improve this interchange was considered the top priority of the Advisory Committee. At the outset, it should be noted that a more detailed investigation of this interchange than is obtainable in this document is in order. However, one recommendation that was put forth by the Advisory Committee was tested. The recommendation was to construct a flyover ramp to span the Williamson Road and 1- 581 signals thereby conveying traffic on Elm Avenue between Jefferson Street and the Jamison/Bullitt Avenue corridor. This would be very difficult to construct in order to be able to accommodate all the different movements to and from the Jefferson Street intersection while being able to reach a suitable bridge elevation over Williamson Road. The modelled conditioned assumed that it was possible to construct the facility to allow all turning movements. Using this assumption it was determined that the new facility would only require one lane in each direction to convey the traffic (although two should be required because of the grades involved) and that a large difference in speed (associated with the signal delays) would be required to discourage through traffic from using the existing lanes. 68 The partial interchange at Franklin Road presents weaving problems to the Wonju Street interchange area similar to the Williamson Road partial interchange's effects upon the Orange Avenue interchange area. Queues on the ramp onto the southbound expressway are quite noticeable in the afternoons due to the heavy concentration of southbound peak period traffic on the expressway and the proximity of the expressway ramp onto Colonial Avenue (which has additional queues at the Colonial Avenue signal). Again, the model did not consider the delay effects of weaving traffic patterns. However, the modelled approach did assume that the ramp onto Colonial Avenue would be moved to the newly signalized intersection with Overland Drive. In this scenario, Overland Drive would need to be widened to four lanes although this is instead a function of increased traffic to and from the Brambleton Avenue corridor. It is believed that the paved width on Overland Drive will allow for this without substantial construction. In the northbound direction, similar delays are encountered (particularly in the morning peak hour) for traffic entering the expressway via the Wonju Street ramps as vehicles wanting to exit at the Franklin Road ramp remain in the right lane. The modelled approach relocated the ramp onto Franklin Road to Jefferson Street. This has the multiple desirable effects of: reducing the impact of the weaving section on the expressway, alleviating congestion on northbound Franklin Road between the expressway and the CBD, and making use of excess capacity on Jefferson Street in this vicinity. The problems associated with the Route 419 interchange are of similar magnitude to the Elm Avenue interchange as can be witnessed by the short term accident history (r'ecall Figure 3.8). The dominant movements, in addition to the through movement on the expressway, are those to and from the Tanglewood Mall area. Heavy queues build up on the southbound expressway in the afternoons waiting to use the exit ramp onto westbound Route 419. This condition is aggravated by the proximity of the entrances to the mall which lie in Roanoke County. Consequently, it would behoove city officials and county officials to jointly study improvements in this area. In the northbound direction, queues also develop on the cloverleaf approach from the Tanglewood Mall area owing to the poor design of this ramp which does not provide suitable transition for vehicles to reach the expressway speed. South of Route 419, the U.S.. 220 corridor will require widening as well. This is due to the combined effects of steadily increasing through traffic, increased traffic to and from local activity centers (e.g., Hunting Hills Plaza) and the impact of the adverse grades on truck traffic. The benefits of lighting the corridor, which have been suggested by the Advisory Committee for throughout the 1-581/U.S. 220 corridor, should be of particular importance here as a result of the change in facility type, rising cross street volumes, and grade problems.' 69 The Orange Avenue corridor between 1-581 and the East Corporate Limit is also of immediate concern. It is evident from the 2015 model that straightforward widening of the corridor would require more extensive improvements than were envisioned in the previously published U.S. 460 Corridor Study. As a result, two approaches were developed. The Alternative A approach used the existing corridor for a limited access facility with frontage roads. The Alternative B approach instead relied on the proposed Hershberger and Liberty Road Extension projects to provide suitable reliever routes to an unimproved Orange Avenue corridor. Both approaches are capital intensive and both have different related improvements and community development implications. Consequently, both approaches are documented in this publication. In the vicinity of the CBD, the previously mentioned Elm Avenue Flyover will serve to make the CBD more accessible to travel to and from the Dale Avenue corridor. The construction of a connection between Walnut Avenue in Vinton and the Norfolk Avenue corridor with the associated widening of the existing corridor and reduction in posted speeds on Dale, Jamison and Bullitt Avenues will serve to both more evenly distribute this traffic to and from the east and circumvent the Wise Avenue community and existing low water bridge over Tinker Creek. This does not completely remove the need to widen Tazewell Avenue and 13th Street between Tazewell Avenue and Jamison Avenue in the long term although it does lessen the importance of making such an improvement. Because of the dangerous nature of the existing five legged intersection with Ferdinand Avenue and 8th Street as well as limited opportunity to improve the Elm Avenue corridor west of Franklin Road, the Advisory Committee recommended that traffic be directed from Main Street to Campbell Avenue via either 8th Street or 10th Street. This was modelled on the network as closing Elm Avenue west of 5th Street and improving the carrying capacity of the 8th Street corridor. In actuality Elm Avenue would either become a cul-de-sac at 8th Street or would become a continuous facility with the southern half of Ferdinand Avenue. This closure may also be accomplished with gates that will allow for passage of transit buses and emergency vehicles to provide minimal disruption to these services. As a result of the modelling process, it was determined that both 8th Street and Ferdinand Avenue could function as two lane facilities. This makes the project easier to accommodate in the vicinity of the 800-900 block of Marshall Avenue which are considered historic properties. An additional lane will be required on Campbell Avenue between 8th Street and Patterson and a traffic light may be required at 8th Street. An additional lane will also be required on Salem and Campbell Avenues between 3rd and 5th Streets. This may be accomplished through time dependent parking prohibitions. It should also be noted that the model allows for two way traffic flow on Salem Avenue between 5th and 6th Streets. This is important in that it allows Salem Avenue to carry 70 some measure of traffic between the 10th and 5th Street corridors that would otherwise follow Campbell Avenue. One other area of concern is the Franklin Road corridor between Elm Avenue and the U.S. 220 Expressway. Recognizing the impact that widening this corridor would have on the neighborhood, it will be necessary to provide additional carrying capacity if the expressway ramps are to remain in use. It is recommended that an additional southbound lane be provided in this region. The need for an additional northbound lane will be addressed by relocating the northbound expressway ramp to Jefferson Street and by reducing the posted speeds while raising the posted speed on Reserve Avenue to further encourage use of the Jefferson Street corridor. In order to discourage the use of underdesigned roads in the southeastern quadrant from being used as through facilities, it will be necessary to reduce the posted speeds slightly along certain corridors as indicated in the Final Program of Projects. This will not, however, be sufficient to handle the increased burden on Mt. Pleasant Boulevard because of increased traffic from outlying jurisdictions. In conjunction with widening this corridor, Bennington Street will need to be realigned to do away with the portion of Mt. Pleasant Boulevard that is shared with Rutrough Road. Also, Garden City Boulevard between Bandy Road and Riverland Road will need to have twelve foot wide lanes with paved shoulders or curb and gutter treatment in order to process the traffic that is anticipated. This is implicit in the assumption that this facility should be treated as an urban route in the model. In conjunction with the increased traffic on Garden City Boulevard and from the Mt. Pleasant Boulevard corridor, Riverland Road will need to be widened between 9th Street and Garden City Boulevard. This will allow sufficient traffic to divert away from the 13th/Bennington Street and Jamison/Bullitt Avenue corridors to avoid additional improvements in these areas. As previously mentioned, the first instance of declining LOS in the northeastern quadrant will be along the two lane portion of Plantation Road. The 24 hour versus peak hour ranking of this corridor lead us to believe that traffic is less concentrated to the peak periods along this corridor than it would be for the average route in the city. Consequently, peak period remedial strategies would probably be less effective in this area and straightforward widening of the corridor is recommended. The Alternative B approach of extending Hershberger Road to Orange Avenue does not seem to do away with the need to widen this corridor although it does add to the longevity of the improvement. Additionally, the improvements mentioned above for the Garden City Boulevard corridor between Bandy Road and Riverland Road are also applicable for the Old Mountain Road corridor. These improvements should be viewed as a function of the urbanization of these corridors although, in this instance, this urbanization is occurring in outlying areas. 71 As was stated previously, increased traffic on the Peters Creek Road corridor in the northwestern quadrant will necessitate widening this corridor between Laurel Ridge Road and the North Corporate Limit. It is unclear as to how much of the traffic increase is due to the need to widen 1-81 (a recognized need outside the city). However, widening will also be required between Melrose Avenue and Hershberger Road. Slight reductions in posted speed will also be required to more evenly distribute traffic among the corridors connecting Peters Creek Road and the Route 419 corridor in Salem. Both the Melrose and Shenandoah Avenue corridors will need to be widened in the long term. Traffic along Airport Road will continue to grow as a function of development and increased travel on Peters Creek Road. Thus, Airport Road is also projected to be widened. This recommendation may be revisited if the anticipated 1-81 widening reduces sufficient congestion on Peters Creek Road to diminish the use of Airport Road. Another area of concern was the Hershberger Road corridor particularly between Aviation Drive and 1-581. This was due to growth pressures in the vicinity of Valley View Mall. It was determined in the analysis of the 10th Street widening alternatives that providing a direct connection between a four lane 10th Street at Andrews Road and Valley View Boulevard reduced the traffic burden on both Hershberger Road and 1-581. It should also be pointed out that 10th Street between Andrews Road and Williamson R~ad under these conditions did not require widening. Congested conditions at Shaffers Crossing will continue after the Peters Creek Road Extension project is completed. This will impair travel to and from the industrial areas adjacent to the crossing. A single lane bridge crossing west of the existing underpass which would connect 24th and Bridge Streets is recommended. Such a facility'will provide a better route across the railyard for fire department vehicles and heavy trucks in this vicinity. Boulevard should also be reconfigured to encourage traffic between Patterson Avenue and 24th Street to use the new crossing. Additionally, widening of Cove Road north of Hershberger Road will be required asa function of development and increased delays at Hershberger Road. Lastly, the single lane bottleneck sections of Orange Avenue between 10th Street and 24th Street will have to be addressed. This may entail diverting the eastbound traffic in this vicinity onto Melrose Avenue to avoid widening Orange Avenue in a residential area. In the southwestern quadrant, thoroughfare improvements consisted of widening existing facilities and reducing speeds including the aforementioned widening of Overland. Drive. In the cases of Brandon Avenue and Edgewood Street, both were necessary. 72 The reductions in posted speeds in these situations should be viewed as the eventual need to redirect some of the traffic in the long term after the corridors have been widened. The portion of the Peters Creek Road extension between Brandon and Shenandoah Avenues will also eventually need to be widened and the need for such should be considered in conjunction with any development along this corridor. Portions of the Grandin Road corridor will decline in LOS faster than others. The segment between Guilford and Brandon Avenues will need to be widened to four lanes. The segment between Windsor and Memorial Avenues will also have to. be four lanes although this may be accomplished through time dependent parking restrictions. The other radial routes, Brambleton and Colonial Avenues, will also require widening. Since these needs are more attributable to peak period conditions (recalling Table 3.2), it may be possible to provide reversible center lanes to carry the additional peak period traffic on these corridors if obtaining the additional right of way is considered overly intrusive. The highest preference is given to providing two, full width lanes in each direction as reversible lanes have their own safety concerns which need to be recognized. 73 APPENDIX A 1. Urban LOS Modelling Assumptions 2. Rural LOS Modelling Assumptions 3. Explanation of Codes in Tables 3.15 through 3.20 1. Urban LOS Modelling Assumptions The following assumptions were used in generating the sim- plified threshold volumes for determining urban route LOS as found in Table 3.4: Base Equation: Cap VPD = MSCV x G/C x N / 2 / D / K where: Cap VPD= Signalized Daily Service Volume (vpd) MSCV= Maximum Sum of Critical Volumes (vph) G/C= Ratio of Effective Green Time to Cycle Length N= Number of Lanes D= Directional Distribution of Traffic during the peak period K= Peak Hour % of ADT (hour/day) assuming: 1) Equal % Left Turn in both directions 2) 10% Lost Time (i.e., "PIEV" time) 3) No turn lanes 4) C=30 to 120 sec. 5) 10% Trucks 6) Level Terrain 7) Lane Width 10' TO 12' MSCV Level of Service 8) D:60/40 9) K:10 % 0-1200 C 1201-1400 D 1401-1800 E >1800 . F 2. Rural LOS Modelling Assumptions A. Multilane The following assumptions were used in gen- erating the simplified threshold volumes for determining rural route LOS as found in Tables 3.5 through 3.9: Base Equation: Cap VPD = SF x PHF / K / D where: Cap VPD= Daily Service Volume (vpd) SF= Service Volume for LOS (vph) found by the equation: SF = C x V/C x N' x FW x FHV x FE x FP PHF= Peak Hour Factor (ratio of average 15 minute flow during peak hour to highest 15 minutes) K= Peak Hour % of ADT (hour/day) D= Directional Distribution of Traffic during the peak period C= Unadjusted capacity of roadway V/C= Volume to Capacity ratio for a given LOS N= Number of Lanes FW= Width Factor (lane and shoulder) FHV= Heavy Vehicle Factor found by the equation: FHV=i/(i+PT(ET-1)+PB(EB-1)+PR(ER-1)) assuming: FE= Environment Factor FP= Driver Population Factor PT, PB, & PR= % Trucks, % Buses, and % RVs respectively ET, EB, & ER= Equivalent cars for trucks, buses, and RVs respectively 1. For arterial roads Terrain LOS V/C C Shoulder FW for Average Lane Width <9 9 10 11 17 Level C 0.71 2000 6' 0.70 0.77 0.89 0.95 1.00 Rolling C 0.65 2000 6' 0.70 0.77 0.89 0.95 1.00 Mountain D 0.76 1900 4' 0.69 0.76 0.88 0.94 0.98 2. For collector roads FW for Average Lane Width Terrain LOS V/C C Shoulder <9 9 10 11 17 Level C 0.65 2000 6' 0.70 0.77 0.89 0.95 1.00 Rolling C 0.76 1900 6' 0.70 0.77 0.89 0.95 1.00 Mountain D 0.76 1900 4' 0.69 0.76 0.88 0.94 0.98 1) 14% Trucks, 0% Buses, and 4% RVs 2) Terrain ET ER FHV Level Rolling Mountain 3) 4) 5) 6) 1.7 1.6 0.89 4.0 3.0 0.67 8.0 4.0 0.48 FE=0.95 for rural, undivided routes FP=0.90 for weekday commuter population PHF=0.90 K=10% 7) D=60/40 A. Two Lane eratihg the simplified threshold volumes for route LOS as found in Tables 3.10 through 3.14: Base Equation: Cap VPD = SF x PHF / K where: Cap VPD= Daily Service Volume (vpd) SF= Service. Volume for LOS (vph) equation: The following assumptions were used in gen- determining rural found by the SF = 2800 x V/C x FD x FW x FHV PHF= Peak Hour Factor (ratio of average 15 minute flow during peak hour to highest 15 minutes) K= Peak Hour % of ADT (hour/day) V/C= Volume to Capacity ratio for a given LOS FW= Width Factor (lane and shoulder) FHV= ~eavy Vehicle Factor' found by the equation: FHV=i/(i+PT(ET-1)+PB(EB-1)+PR(ER-1)) PT, PB, & pR= % Trucks, % Buses, and % RVs respectively ET, EB, & ER= Equivalent cars for trucks, buses, and RVs respectively FD= Direction Distribution Factor, f(D) D= Directiona~ Distribution of Traffic during the peak period assuming: 1. For arterial roads % No Terrain Pass LOS V/C Level 40 C 0.36 Rolling 60 C 0.32 Mountain 80 D 0.37 Shoulder FW for Average Lane Width <9 9 10 11 17 0.60 0.70 0.84 0.93 1.00 0.55 0.65 0.77 0.85 0.92 0.45 0.57 0.68 0.75 0.81 2. For collector roads % No Terrain Pass LOS V/C Level 60 C 0.34 Rolling 80 D 0.46 Mountain 100 D 0.33 Shoulder FW for Average Lane Width <9 9 10 11 12 0.55 0.65 0.77 0.85 0.92 0.45 0.57 0.68 0.75 0.81 0.45 0.57 0.68 0.75 0.81 1) 10% Trucks, 0% Buses, and 0% RVs 2) LOS C Terrain ET ER Level 2.2 2.5 FHV 0.89 Rolling 5.0 3.9 0.71 Mountain 10.0 5.2 0.53 LOS D Terrain ET ER FHV Level Rolling Mountain 3) PHF=0.89 4) K=12% 5) D=70/30 6) FD=0.89 2.0 1.6 0.91 5.0' 3.3 0.71 12.0 5.2 0.48 3. Explanation of Codes in Tables 3.15 through 3.20 Code 1 2 3 7 Explanation Anticipated problem is due to the minor street delay incurred on this facility at its intersection with a more heavily travelled facility. This may not be a problem owing to the presence of turn lanes and/or more complex signalization at this location. A closer analysis of this intersection should be performed if further increases in traffic are anticipated. Please note that, in the case of the Peters Creek Road Extension Project, no midblock segments have been employed. Thus the entire corridor and all affected cross streets will appear to have poor LOSs. This segment represents the confluence of multiple routes. As a result, the volume on this segment is higher than the volumes found on adjacent segments. The employment of turn lanes and coordinated signalization of all approaches may reduce the significance of this problem. The possibility of intersection consolidation as well as adding through capacity should be investigated. As with type (1) situations, the minor street in question is being delayed by the high volume of traffic on an intersecting major street. Again, the use of turn lanes and revised signalization practices may help. However, more extensive traffic flow improvements (i.e., expansion or redesign) through the constricting intersection are foreseen due to the need to avoid further deterioration of major street capacity. High through volumes on this major facility are dictating the need for an improved facility with increased through capacity. There are limited suitable parallel facilities for the diversion of traffic when congestion occurs. Similar to type (4) conditions except that parallel facilities do allow for some diversion of traffic during peak periods. The acceptability of such diversions will, of course, vary from location to location. This code refers to anticipated problems with a limited access facility as identified by the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual software. Additional through capacity is required. It is believed that high turning volumes along this facility are impeding through traffic movement and vice versa. The number of turning movements and short distance(s) involved 9 10 11 limit available storage. Intersection improvements (e.g., dual left turn lanes, exclusive-permissive phasing, etc.) should be considered. This is a rural facility with a reduced pavement width recorded in VDOT's 2010 Statewide Highway Plan. Widening the existing lane(s) and/or shoulders should alleviate the present problem although additional long term work may be required. Typically, the volumes encountered on these sections is low enough to be acceptable if the facility is considered urban in nature. Similar to type (3) conditions except that parallel facilities do allow for some diversion of traffic during peak periods. The acceptability of such diversions will, of course, vary from location to location. Although no explicit analysis is performed, this code is to note that the facility in question is also a weave section. Control or separation of the various weaving movements should be considered in conjunction with other improvements. Terrain problems in this area reduce the capacity of the existing facility and could limit the number of potential remedies. Addressing the needs of heavy vehicles (i.e., additional acceleration and deceleration distances) should be considered for this location. APPENDIX B VDOT Highway Cross-Section Designations APPENDIX C Program of Projects PROGRAN OF PROJECTS ROANOKE CI'~¥ ~HOROUGHFARE PLAN 1990-2015 2) 3) 4) Imminent Priority. These projects are of recognized importance intended to address immediate, critical needs. High Priority. These projects are of recognized importance intended to address a current, though less critical need than those of imminent priority. ~edium Priority. These projects are considered less critical in the immediate future but will significantly deteriorate by the design year. Other Priority. These projects are intended to address less critical needs which may best be handled as locally funded projects by the City. PROGRAM OF PROJECTS ROANOKE CITY THOROUGHFARE PLAN 1990-2015 Imminent Priority Improve the Elm Avenue/I-581 interchange. The initial concepts considered included an overpass for through traffic between Jefferson Str, eet and 4th Street, SE and/or clover-leaf ramps east of 1-581. Widen the Orange Avenue corridor as recommended in the Route 460 Corridor Study. This also includes improuements and sign work to the Orange/Kimball and Kimball/Rutherford intersections to encourage through traffic to and from the CBD to use this route. Widen the 1-581/U.S. 220 Expressway corridor. Move the southbound exit ramp onto Colonial Avenue from Wonju Street to Overland a~d signalize. Provide for a full interchange at Route 419. Replace deficient Walnut Avenue bridge over the Roanoke River. Extend Wonju Street as a four lane facility to Brandon Avenue. Reconstruct the Williamson Road portion of the Hunter Viaduct to 3 southbound and two northbound lanes and remove the existing traffic signal at Shenandoah Avenue. High Priority Widen two lane portion of Brambleton Avenue to provide either a three lane with reversible center lane or four lane facility between Brandon Avenue and the SCL. Specific safety deficiencies for various side street entrance locations would be inventoried and addressed at this time. Realign Brambleton Avenue to intersect Brandon Avenue at Main Street. Brandon Avenue would be realigned to the south between Brighton Road and Malcolm Street to separate the Brandon and Sherwood Avenue intersections. Widen Colonial Avenue between Wonju Street and the SCL in two phases. The first phase would include banning parallel parking and some widening in order to accommodate a four lane facility between Wonju Street and VWCC. The second phase provides either a three lane with reversible center lane or four lane facility between VWCC and the SCL. Both phases would employ side street entrance consolidation where practical and it is likely that improvements would be required at the Overland/Brambleton intersection as well. Widen two lane portions of Hershberger Road to four lane facilities in two phases. The first phase would widen the portion of Hershberger Road between Cove and Peters Creek Roads. The second phase would be a cooperative project with Roanoke County which would widen Hershberger Road east of Williamson Road and realign its intersection with Plantation Road in the county to provide a four way signalized inter- section with Route 601. Widen two lane portions of Plantation Road along its present alignment between Kimball Avenue and the NCL. Medium Priority Widen Airport Road to four lanes north of Coulter Road. Widen and realign Airport Road to south of this location to join with Aviation Drive. Realign existing Airport and Municipal Road intersection to connect the existing Airport Road alignment with the new corridor. Realign the Bennington Street/Mount Pleasant Boulevard intersection to make Bennington and Mount Pleasant as well as Rutrough and Riverland Roads continuous facilities. Widen Campbell and Norfolk Avenues east of Salem Avenue to four lanes and connect to Walnut Avenue in Vinton via a new bridge over Tinker Creek and the NS railroad. Divert traffic to and from the Main Street corridor off Elm Avenue to Campbell Avenue via the 8th Street or Ferdinand/ 10th Street corridors. Realign 24th Street, NW in the vicinity of Baker Avenue further west to join with a new four lane bridge over the NS railroad yard which would intersect Patterson Avenue at Bridge Street. Additional consideration should be given to realigning the existing Melrose Avenue intersection so that Lafayette Boulevard and 24th Street would be a continuous facility. Other Priority Prohibit parallel parking on McClanahan Street and restripe to four lanes. Provide additional turning storage at Broadway. Post no left turn restrictions on Carolina Avenue at McClanahan Street. * Any decision to proceed with' this project should be accompa~]ied by an effort to secure National Highway System funding with the intent being to supplement or take the place of the Urban System G~SS~Y ABB~EVIATIONS CBD - ECL - HOV - MPO - NCL - SCL - TSM - WCL - central business district east corporate limit high occupancy vehicle (see definition below) Metropolitan Planning Organization (see definition below) north corporate limit south corporate limit transportation system management (see definition below) west corporate limit DEFINITIONS Administrative Classification - State designated classification of highways for funding allocation purposes that include interstate, primary, secondary, and urban systems (4) Approach - a set of lanes accommodating all left-turn, through, and right-turn movements arriving at an intersection from a given direction (1) Arterial - see Principal Arterial and Minor Arterial At Grade Crossing - the intersection of two crossing streams of traffic without the physical separation (e.g., underpass or overpass) of those streams of traffic (5) Carrying Capacity - the maximum rate of flow at which persons or vehicles can be reasonably expected to traverse a point or uniform segment of a lane or roadway during a specified time period under prevailing roadway, traffic, and control conditions; usually expressed as vehicles per hour or persons per hour (1) Collector Street - surface streets providing land access and traffic circulation service within residential, commercial, and industrial areas (1) Cloverleaf Interchange - an interstate interchange in the shape of a cloverleaf, having two exits for each direction of travel (5) Design Analysis - a usage of capacity analysis procedures to determine the size (number of lanes) required on a given segment of a facility in order to provide a specified level of service (1) Design Capacity - the maximum number of vehicles (vehicular capacity) or passengers (person capacity) that can reasonably pass over a given section of roadway in one or both directions during a given period of time under prevailing environmental, roadway, and traffic conditions; usually expressed as vehicles per hour or persons per hour (2) Design Speed - the maximum safe speed that can be maintained over a specified section of highway when conditions are so favorable that the design features of the highway govern (6) Diamond Interchange - a complete interchange with four one-way ramps and left turns made directly off the crossroad (6) Freeway a multi-lane divided highway having a minimum of two lanes for exclusive use of traffic in each direction and full control of access and egress (1) Frontage Road a road branching from a major thoroughfare, designed to provide access to the properties adjoining the major thoroughfare (3) Functional Classification - a grouping of highways into systems according to the character of service that they are intended to provide (see Principal Arterial, Minor Arterial, Urban Collector, and Local Street) (4) Geometrics - the vertical (i.e., grade) and horizontal (i.e., curve) alignment as well as typical section (e.g., pavement width, shoulders, curb and gutter, etc.) of a highway (4) Gore Area - the area located immediately between the left edge of a ramp pavement and the right edge of the roadway pavement at a merge or diverge area. (1) Grade Separated Crossing - the physical separation of two streams of crossing vehicular traffic, such as an underpass or overpass; this also may include the separation of pedestrian traffic from vehicular traffic (5) Green Time - the actual length of the "green" indication for a given movement at a signalized intersection (1) High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane - a lane of a freeway reserved for the use of vehicles with more than a preset number of occupants; such vehicles often include buses, taxis, and carpools (1) Infraatructure - the utilities that provide essential services to a development that are typically provided on a community-wide basis (e.g., roads, water systems, sanitary sewer systems, storm water systems, electric power, telephone and communication lines, and street lights) (3) Interstate - roads on the federal interstate system (an administrative classification) (4) Level of Service (LOS) - a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream; generally described in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety (1) Local Street - a street that provides direct access to adjacent land and provides access to the higher systems; service to through traffic is discouraged (an urban functional classification) (4) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) - an organization designated by the Governor representing the local governing bodies, local transit operators, as well as state and federal funding agencies that is charged with the responsibility for carrying out the continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive (3C) transportation planning process in urbanized areas with a population greater than 50,000 (4) Minor Arterial - a highway that interconnects and supplements the principal arterial system with a greater emphasis on land access and a lower level of traffic mobility; it provides intracommunity services as well as connecting rural collectors to the urban highway system (an urban functional classification) (4) MINUTP - a COMSIS Corporation PC-based software system for travel forecasting; it is a library of computer programs that provide the capability to perform the usual functions of traditional transportation planning with regard to trip generation, distribution, and network assignment (8) Multimodal pertaining to many forms of transportation (e.g., highways, air, rail, water, etc.) (4) Peak Hour - that hour during which the maximum amount of person travel occurs, generally specified as the morning peak hour or the evening peak hour (2) Primary Road state maintained roads numbered 0 - 599 (an administrative classification) (4) Principal Arterial a significant road in the urban area that serves the major centers of activity, constitutes the highest traffic volume corridors, serves the longest trip desires, carries the major portion of through traffic in the urban area, and provides continuity between rural arterials (an urban functional classification) (4) Queue - a waiting line of vehicles or persons (2) Ramp - a short segment of roadway serving as a connection between two traffic facilities; usually services flow in one direction only (1) Ramp ~etering - a procedure used to reduce congestion on a freeway facility by managing vehicle flow from local access entrance ramps; an entrance ramp is equipped with one or more traffic signals that allow vehicles to enter the freeway at a controlled rate (2) Rural Area - all of the geographic area in the state that is outside of the boundaries of urban study areas (4) Secondary Road - state maintained roads numbered 600 9999 (an administrative classification) (4) Six-Year Improvement Program - a State six-year program of all highway construction projects and project staging statewide for the interstate, primary, secondary, and urban systems (4) Taper - a taper for acceleration or deceleration of turning vehicles is provided on high-speed roads in order to improve traffic flow conditions; tapers are designed so that an entering vehicle can accelerate to the speed of through traffic before it begins the actual merging maneuver, and that a diverging vehicle need not begin to decelerate until it has completely left the through lane (7) Transportation System Management (TSM) the use of non-capital- intensive transportation improvements to increase the efficiency of transportation facilities and services; examples include carpool and vanpool programs, parking management, traffic signalization coordination, and park-and- ride lots; the term is also applied to techniques used to reduce the demand for travel in a defined area (2) Urban Collector - a highway that provides land access service and traffic circulation within residential, commercial, and industrial areas; it collects local traffic and distributes it to the arterial system (an urban functional classification) (4) Urban Roads - urban thoroughfares maintained by cities or towns (an administrative classification) (4) Urban Study Area - the geographical area surrounding and including cities and towns that maintain their own streets which is urban in character and which has been utilized in the development of an urban transportation/highway plan (4) Urbanized Area - a U.S. Census designated geographical urban area which has a population of 50,000 or more (4) Weaving Area - a length of highway over which traffic streams cross each other's path without the aid of traffic signals over a length of highway, doing so through lane-changing maneuvers; formed between merge and diverge points, as well as between on-ramps and off-ramps on limit access facilities (1) SOURCES FOR ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS: (1) Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 1985 (2) Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, "HOV System Notes", May 1993 (3) Interstate 81 Corridor Council, The Interchange Planning and Management Handbook, July 1991 (4) Transportation Planning Division, Virginia Department of Transportation, 2010 Statewide Highway Plan, October 1989 (5) Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 1988 (6) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Traffic Engineering Handbook, 1992 (7) Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Berkeley, Fundamentals of Traffic Engineering, 1992 (8) COMSIS Corporation, MINUTP Technical User Manual, 1992 FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION 313 Luck Avenue, SW P.O. Box 2569 Roanoke, Virginia 24010 Ph: (703)343-4417 Fax: (703)343-4416 MARY F. PARKER City Clerk, CMC/AAE CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk December 17, 1993 File #216-200-77-20-326 Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairperson City Planning Commission Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Price: A public hearing on the request of the City Planning Commission that the proposed Roanoke City Thoroughfare Plan dated September, 1993, be approved and adopted as an element of the Roanoke Vision, the City's Official Comprehensive Plan for Roanoke, was conducted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on Monday, December 13, 1993. On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, action on the matter was deferred until the regular meeting of Council on Monday, January 10, 1994, at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm Eno. Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairperson December 17,. 1993 Page 2 pc: Ava Howard, Chief of Transportation Planning, Fifth Planning District Commission, 313 Luck Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Dr. John Kern, Director, Roanoke Regional Preservation Office, 1030 Penmar Avenue, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24013 Franklin D. Kimbrough, III, Executive Director, Downtown Roanoke, Inc., 310 First Street, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24011 D. Kent Chrisman, President, Old Southwest Inc., 421 King George Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney James D. Grisso, Director of Finance William F. Clark, Director, Public Works John R. Marlles, Chief, Community Planning Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner Wiliiam L. Stuart, Manager, Streets and Traffic Robert K. Bengtson, Traffic Engineer NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ROANOKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Roanoke City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, October 6, 1993, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., in order to consider the following: Request from Roanoke City Planning Commission to adopt and endorse the proposed Roanoke City Thoroughfare Plan as an element of Roanoke Vision. Comprehensive Development Plan for Roanoke. Virginia 1985-2005. A copy of said plan is available for review in the Office of Community Planning, Room 162, Municipal Building. All parties in interest and citizens may appear on the above date and be heard on the matter. Martha P. Franklin, Secretary Roanoke City Planning Commission Please run in newspaper on Tuesday, September 21, 1993 and Tuesday, September 28, 1993. Please bill and send affidavit of publication to: Office of Community Planning Room 162, Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24011 ST;F~ ']:F ¥I<SI'¢i, CI 'Fy 3h ~{,J'h '93 D,:,, 10 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Pursuant to the provisions of §15.1-456, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, the Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a Public Hearing on Monday, December 13, 1993, at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Council Chamber in the Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., in order to consider adopting the proposed Roanoke City Thoroughfare Plan Element (September, 1993), prepared by the Fifth Planning District Commission, as an element of the City of Roanoke's Comprehensive Plan. All parties in interest may appear on the above date and be heard on the question. GIVEN under my hand this 23rd day of November , 1993. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk. Publish twice in the Roanoke Times and World-News, once on Friday, November 26, 1993, and once on Friday, December 3, 1993. Send publisher's affidavit and bill to: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Room 456, Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536 MINUTES CONSIDERED AT THIS COUNCIL MEETING MAY BE REVIEWED ON LINE IN THE "OFFICIAL MINUTES" FOLDER, OR AT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DAVID A. BOWERS Mayor CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 452 Roanoke, Virginia 240l 1-1594 Telephone: (703) 981-2444 January 10, 1994 The Honorable Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen: I wish to request an Executive Session to discuss vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1- 344 (A) (1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Sincerely, David A. Bowers Mayor DAB: se January 10, 1994 The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia 24011 RE: Rea_uest for Executive Session Dear Mayor and Members of Council: This is to request that City Council convene in Executive Session to discuss the location of a prospective business when no previous announcement has been made of the business' interest in locating in the community, pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A)(5), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/bw cc: Ms. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Mr. James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Mr. Phillip F. Sparks, Acting Chief of Economic Development MARY F. PARKER City Clerk, CMC/AAE CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 8ANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk January 13, 1994 File #15-110-132-200 Wendy Wingo, Chairperson Fifth Planning District Commission Route 4 Box 539 Troutville, Virginia 24175 Dear Ms. Wingo: This is to advise you that John S. Edwards has qualified as a member of the Fifth Planning District Commission to fill the unexpired term of Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., resigned, ending June 30, 1994. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm pc: Wayne G. Strickland, Executive Director, Fifth Planning District Commission, p. O. Box 2569, Roanoke, Virginia 24010 John R. Marlles, Chief, Community Planning Sandra H. Eakin, Deputy City Clerk 0-2 Oath or Affirmation of Offi%? j~ _~ ~,.~ Stat~ of Vi,'ginla, C,i~ of Roanoke, to .,sit: I,. John S. Edwards , do solemnly swear (or ~rm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Virginia, and that I w~ll faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as_ a member of the Fifth Planning District Commission, to fill the unexpired term of Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., resigned, ending June 30, 1994. according to the best of my ability. So help me God. Sub~crlbed and sworn to before me, this /~ ..~c~ ~ ~'k -- % ' ~'~-~'/~'"~ , Deput~ Clerk MARY F. PARKER City Clerk, CMC/AAE CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk January 13, 1994 File #15-110-132-450 J. Granger Macfarlane, Chairperson Economic Development Commission P. O. Box 201 Roanoke, Virginia 24002 Dear Mr. Macfarlane: This is to advise you that John S. Edwards has qualified as a member of the Economic Development Commission for a term ending June 30, 1994. Sincerely, City Clerk MFP: sm Eric. pc: Brian J. Wishneff, Secretary, Economic Development Commission, 111 Franklin Plaza, Suite 230, Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Phillip F. Sparks, Acting Chief, Economic Development Sandra H. Eakin, Deputy City Clerk Oath or Affirmation of OffiCe '94 JI~N-4 P2,~,:~ 8t, a~ o~ Virginia, ~i~t o~ Roanoke, to I, ,Tnhla ,q. ~r]wmr~].~ . do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a member of ~:he Econom±c Dexrelopment Coram±ssion for a ~:erm end±rig June 30, 1994. according to the best of my ability. Subscribed and sworn to before me, this So help me God. MARY F. PARKER City Clerk, CMC/AAE CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAK/N Deputy City Clerk January 13, 1994 File #15-110-178 Willis M. Anderson, Chairperson City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority 2535 Stephenson Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Dear Mr. Anderson: This is to advise you that H. B. Ewert has qualified as a member of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority to fill the unexpired term of Jo Anne B. Justis, resigned, ending August 31, 1995. /~x'x a~'~~'Sincerely , ~dl.~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm pc: Neva H. Smith, Executive Director, City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, 2624 Salem Turnpike, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24017 ' Sandra H. Eakin, Deputy City Clerk 0-2 Oath or Affl atlon 'of Office '94 JAN-4 P2:(I~~, State o~ Virginia, ~it~ o~ Roanoke, to .wit: I, H.B. Ewert ., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially dlschargc and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a member of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, to fill the unexpired term of 3o Anne 3ustis, resigned, ending August 31, 1995. according to the best of my ability. So help me God. Subscribed and sworn to before me, this MARY F. PARKER City Clerk, CMC/AAE CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAICIN Deputy City Clerk January 13, 1994 File #15-110-323 Frank J. Eastburn, Chairperson Roanoke Public Library Board 1810 Denniston Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24015 Dear Mr. Eastburn: This is to advise you that B. Gayle Graves has qualified as a member of the Roanoke Public Library Board to fill the unexpired term of Bonnie A. Nethery, resigned ending June 30, 1995. , Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm pc: Glenn D. Radcliffe, Director, Human Development M. Emily Keyser, Acting City Librarian Sandra H. Eakin, Deputy City Clerk Oafh or Afflrm lfi oE ©ffice State o] Virginia, Oitst o] Roanoke, to.wit: I, _. B. Gavle Grave~ , do ~lemnly ~w~r (or ~) ~at I w~l sup~ ~e Constitution of the United S~tes, and ~e Constltu~ion of the S~te of Virginia, and I w~l faithf~y and ~pa~ially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent u~n mc a~ ~ member of ~he Roanoke Public L~br~ry Board, ~o f~]l the unexpired ~erm of Bonnie A. Nerhery, resigned, ending June 30, 1995. according to the best of my ability. So help me God. '-(] ' ~, Deputy Clerk MARY F. PARKER City Clerk, CMC/AAE CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 2~1011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk January 13, 1994 File #15-110-202 Kenneth S. Cronin Personnel Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Cronin: This is to advise you that I. B. Heinemann has qualified as a member of the Personnel and Employment Practices Commission for a term ending June 30, 1996. Sincerely, f~,...g~.~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm Enc. pc: Glenn D. Radcliffe, Director, Human Development Sandra H. Eakin, Deputy City Clerk 0-2 Oath or Affirmaf b-fi Of Office 8tato of Virginia, Cirri of Roanoke, to I, I, B, Heinemann ., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a member of the Personnel and Employment Practices Commission for a term ending June 30, 1996. according to the best of my ability. So help me God. Subscribed and sworn to before me, this Deputy Clerk January 4, 1994 ~rs. Nary Parker I would like to address members of Roanoke City Council on January ll, 1994. This will be about the Explore Project and the Mill Mountain Zoo. Please let me know if there is a problem with this. Thanks, Gary Jo Foutz ll03 Mountainview Rd. Vinton, Va. 24179 MARY F. pA.RKF~U City Clerk, CMC/AAE CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, $.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (70~) 9~ 1-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk January 13, 1994 File #5-20=236 W. Robert Herbert · City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 31829=011094 accepting a certain DUI Enforcement Grant offer made to the City by the State Transportation Safety Board, in the amount of $30,000.00, and authorizing execution of any required documentation on behalf of the City, upon all terms, provisions and conditions relating to receipt of such funds. Resolution No. 31829-011094 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 10, 1994. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm Enc. pc: Thomas R. Hyland, Chairperson, State Transportation Safety Board, Department of Motor Vehicles, 2300 W. Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia 23269-0001 Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney James D. Grissd, Director of Finance George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety M. David Hooper, Police Chief Diane S. Akers, Budget/Management Analyst, Office of Management and Budget Charles A. Harlow, Acting Grants Monitoring Administrator IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 10th day of 3anuary, 1994. No. 31829-011094. A RESOLUTION accepting a certain DUI Enforcement Grant offer made to the City by the State Transportation Safety Board and authorizing execution of any required documentation on behalf of the City. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The City of Roanoke does hereby accept the offer made to the City by the State Transportation Safety Board of a DUI Enforcement grant in the amount of $30,000.00, such grant being more particularly described in the report of the City Manager, dated January 10, 1994, upon all the terms, provisions and conditions relating to the receipt of such funds. 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, any documentation required in connection with the acceptance of such grant and to furnish such additional information as may be required by the State Transportation Safety Board. ATTEST: City Clerk. MARY F. PARKER City Clerk, CMC/AAE CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk January 13, 1994 File #60-5-20-236 James D. Grisso Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Grisso: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31828-011094 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 1993-94 Grant Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation of $30,000.00 from the State Transportation Safety Board, in connection with additional funds to enhance selective DUI enforcement. Ordinance No. 31828-011094 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 10, 1994. Sincerely, ary F~ Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm Erie. pc: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety M. David Hooper, Police Chief Diane S. Akers, Budget/Management Analyst, Office of Management and Budget Charles A. H'arlow, Acting Grants Monitoring Administrator IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 10th day of January, 1994. No. 31828-011094, AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1993-94 Grant Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that certain sections of the 1993-94 Grant Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: A ro riations Public Safety DWI Enforcement Enhancement Program ~eve~u~ Public Safety DWI Enforcement Enhancement Program (1-2) ........ (3) .......... $ 1,222,294 30,000 $ 1,222,294 30,000 1) Overtime Wages 2) FICA 3) State Grant Revenue (035-050-3400-1003) $ 27,868 (035-050-3400-1120) 2,132 (035-035-1234-7160) 30,000 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke, Virginia January 10, 1994 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: SUBJECT: State Transportation Safety Board DUI Enforcement Grant I. Backqround: State Transportation Safety Board awards money for districts throughout the State of Virginia, through state grants, for the enhancement of selective DUI enforcement efforts. SJ Application for a qrant to be awarded to the City of Roanoke was based on the necessity to raise DUI arrests to a level that will positively impact the total number of alcohol-related crashes and fatalities. Funds received may be used only as stated in the application for DUI enforcement. The aqency requesting the transfer of funds agrees to provide items and equipment necessary to provide the transfer. II. Current Situation: Roanoke City, over the past three (3) years, has experienced an increase in the number of traffic fatalities which are alcohol-related. Arrests for DUI have increased during the same three- year time period. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Page 2 January 10, 1994 Local fundinq for overtime for extra duty assignments is unavailable and impairs the Police Department's ability to conduct successful selective DUI enforcement. Alcohol was found to be involved in 40% of 1993 fatality accidents and in 50% of related deaths City of Roanoke. in the III. Issues: A. Need. B. Fundinq expenditures and accountability. IV. Alternatives: City Council accept funding from the State Transportation Safety Board in the amount of a $30~000 grant to run from October 1, 1993, to September 30, 1994, and authorize the Director of Finance to establish a special account from which funds may be expended in accordance with program requirements. Need exists to provide additional funding to enhance selective DUI enforcement with the goal of reducing alcohol-related crashes. Fundinq expenditures and accountability will be controlled through the Police Department's Traffic Bureau in coordination with the Department of Finance. All documentation required by the Department of Motor Vehicles, Transportation Safety Division, for reimbursement will be maintained by the Police Department. City Council reject funding from the State Transportation Safety Board and not authorize the Director of Finance to establish a special account for funding of a selective DUI enforcement effort. Need for additional funding to enhance selective DUI enforcement will not be met. Fundinq will not be applied for or received from the State Transportation Safety Board. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Page 3 January 10, 1994 V. Recommendation: Council approve Alternative "A" to: Accept the grant from the State Transportation Safety Board and authorize the City Manager to execute, on behalf of the City, any grant agreement or other documentation required by the State Transportation Safety Board; and Appropriate $30~000 of selective DUI enforcement grant funds to revenue and expenditure accounts to be established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund. WRH/hw ectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager CC: Director of Finance City Attorney Budget Administrator Director of Public Safety Police Chief Major R. D. Shields Lt. R. A. Bower O00000 ~000 ROANOKE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT TOTAL DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE ARRESTS 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 lO0 90 8O 7O 6O 5O 4O 3O 2O 10 0 MARY F. PARKER City Clerk, CMC/AAE CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk January 13, 1994 File #27-472 W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 31830-011094 accepting the bid of DSI Transports, Inc., made to the City to transport pickle liquor from Yorkville, Ohio, to the City's Water Pollution Control Plant, for the period of January 1, 1994, to December 31, 1994, with an option to renew for two additional one year periods, for the price of $1.65 cwt on 48,000 pounds per load; and rejecting all other bids made to the City. Resolution No. 31830-011094 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 10, 1994. ~-"-,~u-~--~,Sincerely' ~-'~fa~_ . Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm Eric. pc: Kevin B. Deft, Regional Sales Manager, DSI Transports, Inc., 2212 Deepwater Terminal Road, Richmond, Virginia 23234 Wilburn C. DibLing, Jr., City Attorney James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Kit B. Kiser,' Director, UtiLities and Operations Steven L. Walker, Manager, Water Pollution Control Plant D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services William F. Clark, Director, Public Works Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician MARY F. PARKER City Clerk, CMC/AAE CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 21~ Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 2s,011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk January 13, 1994 File #27-405 · Wilson H. Rothschild Pricing Analyst Matlack, Inc. One Rollins Plaza P. O. Box 8789 Wilmington, Delaware 19899 Michael A. Grimm Vice President Sales Montgomery Tank Lines 3108 Central Drive Plant City, Florida 33567 Dear Mr. Rothschild and Mr. Grimm: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 31830-011094 accepting the bid of DSI Transports, Inc., made to the City to transport pickle liquor from Yorkville, Ohio, to the City's Water Pollution Control Plant, for the period of January 1, 1994, to December 31, 1994, with an option to renew for two additional one year periods, for the price of $1.65 cwt on 48,000 pounds per load; and rejecting all other bids made to the City. Resolution No. 31830-011094 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 10, 1994. On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for submitting your bid on the abovedescribed product. Sincerely, ~g~.~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm Eric. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 10th day of January, 1994. No. 31830-011094. VIRGINIA, A RESOLUTION accepting the bid of DSI Transports, Inc., made to the City for transportation of pickle liquor from Yorkville, Ohio, to Roanoke, Virginia, for the period of January 1, 1994, to December 31, 1994; and rejecting all other bids made to the City. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The bid of DSI Transports, Inc., made to the City, offering to transport pickle liquor from Yorkville, Ohio, to the City's Water Pollution Control Plant in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, for the period of January 1, 1994, to December 31, 1994, for the price of $1.65 cwt on 48,000 pounds per load, which bid is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, is hereby ACCEPTED. 2. The City's Manager of General Services is hereby authorized and directed to issue the requisite purchase order therefor, incorporating into said order the City's specifications, the terms of said bidder's proposal and the term and provisions of this resolution. 3. Any and all other bids made to the City for the aforesaid procurement are hereby REJECTED, and the City Clerk is directed to notify each such bidder and to express to each the City's appreciation for such bid. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke, January Virginia 10, 1994 /!!I:/F Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: SUBJECT: Bids for Transportation of Pickle Liquor, Bid No. 93-11-51 I. Background Pickle Liquor is a waste product, from Wheeling- Pittsburg Steel Company in Yorkville, Ohio, used for phosphorous removal. This product is made available to the City, for use in the waste water treatment process, at no charge except for the transportation cost from Ohio to Roanoke. Specifications for the transportation services were developed and along with request for quotations, were sent specifically to seven (7) vendors that are currently listed on the City's bid list. A public advertisement was also published in the Roanoke Times and Roanoke Tribune. Bids were received, after due and proper advertisement, until 2:00 p.m. on November 29, 1993, at which time all bids appropriately received were publicly opened and read in the Office of the Manager of General Services. The recently exDired transportation contract had a cost of $1.70 cwt plus a Fuel Surcharge. II. Current Situation A. Three (3) bid responses were received. A bid tabulation is attached. Ail bids were evaluated by representatives of Water Pollution Control and General Services. The lowest bid, submitted by DSI Transports, Inc. meets all required specifications. Pickle Liquor Bid No. 93-11-51 Page 2 III. Issues IV. A. Need B. Compliance with Specifications C. Fund Availability Alternatives Council accept the lowest bid for transporting Pickle Liquor for the period January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1994 with the option to renew for two (2) additional one (1) year periods, at a rate of $1.65 cwt., as submitted by DSI Transports, Inc. Need - The product delivered is necessary for the continuation of waste water treatment. Compliance with specifications The bid submitted by DSI Transports, Inc. meets all required specifications. Fund availability - Funds are available in the Water Pollution Control Operating Budge~ Account Number 003-056-2160-2045, to provide for this service. Approximately $155,000 will be expended annually. B. Reject all bids 1. Need - This product, used for treatment of waste water, would not be available. Compliance with Specifications would not be a factor in this alternative. Fund availability - Budgeted Funds designated for the purpose of transporting this product would not be expended. Recommendation ao Council concur with Alternative "A" - accept the bid submitted by DSI Transports, Inc. to provide transportation of Pickle Liquor from Yorkville, Ohio to Roanoke, Virginia for the period of January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1994 with the option to renew for two (2) additional one (1) year periods, at a rate of $1.65 cwt. Pickle Liquor Bid No. 93-11-51 Page 3 cc: B. Reject all other bids. City Attorney Director of Finance Management & Budget Respectfully Submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager 0 U MARY F. PARKER City Clerk, CMC/AAE CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk January 13, 1994 File #215-216-236 W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31831-011094 authorizing execution of an agreement with The Arts Place at Old First, Inc., to provide matching funds not to exceed $46,100.00 for rehabilitation of Old First Baptist Church located at 407 North Jefferson Street, as more particularly set forth in a report of the City Manager under date of January 10, 1994. Ordinance No. 31831-011094 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 10, 1994. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm Enc. J. Granger Macfarlane, President, The Arts Place at Old First, Inc., Board of Directors, P. O. Box 12847, Roanoke, Virginia 24029 Walter L. Wheaton, Chairman, Board of Trustees, First Baptist Church, 310 North Jefferson Street, Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Wilburn C. Diblihg, Jr., City Attorney James D. Grisso, Director of Finance William F. Clark, Director, Public Works John R. Marlles, Chief, Community Planning Phillip F. Sparks, Acting Chief, Economic Development Charles A. Harlow, Acting Grants Monitoring Administrator IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 10th day of January, 1994. No. 31831-011094. VIRGINIA, AN ORDINANCE authorizing execution of an agreement with The Arts Place at Old First, Inc., to provide matching funds, not to exceed $46,100.00, for the rehabilitation of Old First Baptist Church located at 407 North Jefferson Street; and providing for an emergency. BE follows: 1. IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby authorized on behalf of the City to execute and attest, respectively, an agreement with The Arts Place at Old First, Inc., to provide matching funds not to exceed $46,100.00 for the rehabilitation of Old First Baptist Church, all as more particularly set forth in the City Manager's Report to Council dated January 10, 1994, said agreement to be in such form as is approved by the City Attorney. 2. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the municipal government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke, Virginia January 10, 1994 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: CDBG Grant Agreement with The Arts Place at Old First, Inc. I. Background: Old First Baptist Church, at 407 North Jefferson Street is listed on the Virginia Historic Register and the National Register of Historic Places. On September 23, 1991, City Council authorized $48,500 as a grant to the Roanoke Valley Preservation Foundation to stabilize the building as part of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. This was accomplished by Resolution No. 30721-92391. During Fiscal Year 1992-93, the Board of Directors of The Arts Place at Old First, Inc., used private funds continue the rehabilitation of the structure. to On May 10, 1993, by Resolution No. 31445-051093, City Council approved additional funding for this project as part of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application submitted to the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). City Council appropriated CDBG funds on June 28, 1993 by Ordinance No. 31534-062893, including $46,100 for this project. II. Current Situation: The Arts Place at Old Firstt Inc. will continue to renovate the building with the installation of new flooring, and installation of a heating and air conditioning system, repairs to the roof, belfry and steeple, and securing the building against further effects of weather. B. The Arts Place at Old First, Inc. will eventually occupy the building for stage productions and fine arts exhibits under a twenty year lease from the Trustees of First Baptist Church, the owners of the building. An administrative agreement is necessary between the City and The Board of Directors of The Arts Place at Old First, Inc. for the funds to be disbursed for repairs. III. Issues: A. Cost to the City B. Funding C. Compliance with applicable regulations D. Historic preservation objectives IV. Alternatives: Authorize the City Manager to execute the attached Agreement with the Board of Directors of The Arts Place at Old First, Inc. to rehabilitate Old First Baptist Church located at 407 North Jefferson Street. 1. Cost to the City will be $46,100 in CDBG funds. Funding is available in CDBG accounts 035-091-9137- 5215 ($9,809) 035-092-9237-5215 ($2,200) and 035- 093-9337-5215 ($34,091). Compliance with applicable regulations is assured through contract review and project monitoring by the City Attorney and the City's Office of Grants Compliance. Historic preservation objectives would be addressed by helping to preserve a valuable historic resource. Do not authorize the City Manager to execute the attached Agreement with the Board of Directors of The Arts Place at Old First, Inc. to rehabilitate Old First Baptist Church located at 407 North Jefferson Street. 1. Cost to the City would be nothing. 2. Funding would not be an issue. Compliance with applicable regulations would not be an issue. 4. Historic preservation objectives would not be addressed. V. Recom~endation: It is recommended that City Council concur in Alternative A and authorize the City Manager to execute the attached Agreement with the Board of Directors of The Arts Place at Old First, Inc. for the renovation of Old First Baptist Church located at 407 North Jefferson Street. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/cah attachment CC: Assistant City Manager City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Public Works Director of Human Resources Acting Chief of Economic Development Chief of Community Planning Acting Grants Monitoring Administrator President, Arts Place at Old First Chairman, Board of Trustees, First Baptist Church OLDFIRST.RPT AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and entered into this day of , 1993, by and between the following parties: The Grantee City of Roanoke, Virginia 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 and the Subgrantee - The Arts Place at Old First, Inc., Board of Directors P'. O. Box 12847 Roanoke, Virginia 24029 WI TNES SETH: WHEREAS, the Old First Baptist Church located at 407 North Jefferson Street is listed on the Virginia Historic Register and the National Register of Historic Places, and is therefore a valuable historic resource to the City of Roanoke; WHEREAS, this former church has been vacant since 1981, is deteriora%ing and is at risk of permanently losing portions of its historic and architectural integrity unless protected from further weathering; WHEREAS, The Arts Place at Old First, Inc. has requested funds to further stabilize the physical structure of Old First this historic structure, and is particularly suited to preserve, where possible, valuable historic properties of the Roanoke community; WHEREAS, a suitable use has been found for the building, and the owner, the First Baptist Church, has signed a twenty-year lease with The Arts Place at Old First, Inc. to occupy, manage and maintain the building when renovated; WHEREAS, the Roanoke City Council has authorized as a part of the City's Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") program the grant of funds to The Arts Place at Old First, Inc. for stabilizing this facility, and Council has, by Resolution No. - 94, adopted January 10, 1994 authorized the execution of this grant agreement; and WHEREAS, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") has declared the use of CDBG funds for this purpose to be an eligible activity if carried out in accordance with applicable Federal, State and local statutes and regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES: This project provides for stabilization of the Old First Agreement Page 2 Baptist Church located at 407 North Jefferson Street, Roanoke, Virginia, owned by the Trustees of First Baptist Church, 310 North Jefferson Street. The work will include stabilization of the upper steeple, asbestos removal, new flooring on the first floor, installation of heating and air systems, two handicapped- accessible bathrooms and other improvements. Improvements are more specifically detailed in the plans and specifications of the project, included as part of this agreement by reference. TIME OF PERFOP/Wa%NCE: This Agreement shall be for the period of September 1, 1993 through August 31, 1994. This Agreement may be extended with the written consent of both parties. The total budget for this project will be $92,200, of which $46,100 will be provided by The Arts Place at Old First, Inc. as a match, and $46,100 will be a grant from the City of Roanoke CDBG Fund. The City's grant is contingent upon The Arts at Old First providing the stated match amount. PROPOSED PAYMENT SCwR.~ULE AND PROCEDURES: Requests for payment will be submitted to the City's Office of Grants Compliance, accompanied by an invoice from the Subgrantee's contractor(s). Payment will be made to the Subgrantee based on the invoice within ten (10) days from date of receipt if all compliance requirements are met. 5. INDE~9~IFICATION: The Subgrantee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Grantee, its officers, agents and employees, from any and all claims, liability, causes of action, suits of nature, costs, expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, and other costs of defense, resulting from or arising out of the Subgrantee's intentional or negligent acts or omission in providing services under this Agreement including without limitation, fines and penalties, violation of federal, state or local laws, or regulations promulgated thereunder, personal injury, wrongful death or property damage. COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL REGULATIONS: The Subgrantee agrees to abide by the HUD conditions for CDBG programs as set forth in Attachment A, and all other Agreement Page 3 7e Se e applicable federal regulations relating to specific programs performed hereunder. The Subgrantee specifically agrees to comply with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for rehabilitation of historic properties. Assistance in applying these standards will be provided by the City's Historic Review Officer. UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS: The Subgrantee shall comply with the requirements and standards of OMB Circular No. A-122, "Cost Principles for Non Profit Organizations" and the following Attachments to OMB Circular No. A-110: Attachment A, "Cash Depositories,"; Attachment B, "Bonding and Insurance"; Attachment C, "Retention and Custodial Requirements for Records,"; Attachment F, "Standards for Financial Management Systems"; Attachment H, "Monitoring and Reporting Program Performance," paragraph 2; Attachment N, "Property Management Standards," Attachment O, "Procurement Standards." FEDERAL LABOR STANDARDS PROVISIONS: The Subgrantee and all contractors engaged under contracts in excess of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for the construction, rehabilitation, completion or repair of any building or work financed in whole or in part with assistance provided under this Agreement shall comply with HUD requirements pertaining to such contracts and the applicable requirements of the regulations of the Department of Labor under 29 CFR Parts 3 and 5, and more fully detailed in Attachment A to this Agreement. The Subgrantee shall cause or require to be inserted in full in any such contracts subject to such regulations, provisions meeting the requirements of 29 CFR 5.5. PROGRAM INCOME: "Program income" means gross income received by the Grantee or Subgrantee directly generated from the use of CDBG funds. Program income, if any, from any sources shall be submitted to the City within five (5) days of its receipt by the Subgrantee, for the duration of this Agreement as referenced in paragraph No. 2. "Program income" does not include proceeds from fundraising activities carried out by the Subgrantee. 10. RECORDS AND REPORTS: The Subgrantee shall maintain full and accurate records with respect to all matters covered under this Agreement. All records pertaining to this Agreement and the services performed pursuant to it, shall be retained for a period of Agreement Page 4 three (3) years after the expiration date of the Agreement. Appropriate City and/or HUD personnel shall have free access to those records during the Agreement duration and the following three-year time period. 11. CONFLICT OF IR'£~REST: No employee, agent, consultant, officer or appointed official of the Subgrantee, who is in a position to participate in a decision-making process or gain inside information with regard to any CDBG activity, may obtain a personal or financial interest in any contract, subcontract or agreement with respect thereto, or in the proceeds thereunder, either for themselves, their family or business associates, during their tenure or for one (1) year thereafter. 12. SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION Suspension or termination may occur if the Subgrantee materially fails to comply with any term of this award, and the award may be terminated for convenience by the Grantee or Subgrantee upon written notification to the awarding agency (HUD), setting forth the reasons for such termination, the effective date, and in the case of partial termination, the portion to be terminated. 13. REVERSION OF ASSETS: Upon expiration of this agreement the Subgrantee shall transfer to the Grantee any CDBG funds or program income on hand at the time of expiration and any accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds. The subject property at 407 North Jefferson Street, shall be used at all times exclusively for secular purposes available to persons regardless of religion. If the premises are not retained in wholly secular purposes and use for at least the useful life of the improvements, financed in whole on in part by CDBG funds, the Subgrantee shall pay to the Grantee an amount equal to the residual value of the improvements. 14. ANNUAL AUDIT AND MONITORING: The Subgrantee shall provide for an independent audit, in compliance with OMB Circular A-128, which will include all CDBG expenditures covered by the Agreement. Copies of said audit report shall be furnished to the Grantee's City Manager and Director of Finance within thirty (30) days of completion of the audit. Agreement Page 5 15. THIPJ)-PARTY CONTRACTS: The Grantee shall not be obligated or liable hereunder to any party other than the Subgrantee. 16. AMENDMENTS: The Grantee, from time to time, may require changes in the obligations of the Subgrantee hereunder, or its City Council may appropriate further funds for the implementation of the project. In such event or events, such changes which are mutually agreed upon by and between the Subgrantee and Grantee shall be incorporated in written amendment to this Agreement. 17. GOVEP/NIN~ LAW: This Agreement shall be governed by laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as the day and year hereinabove written: ATTEST: CITY OF ROANOKE By By Mary F. Parker, City Clerk W. Robert Herbert, City Manager SUBGRANTEE By By Witness APPROVED AS TO CDBG ELIGIBILITY Granger MacFarlane, President The Arts Place at Old First, Inc. APPROVED AS TO FORM Grants Monitoring Administrator Assistant City Attorney APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AVAILABLE Assistant City Attorney Director of Finance Account No. OLDFIRST.CON ATTACHMENT page U,S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS "Section 3' Cnm~liance in the Provision of Training, Emplo.vment and Business Opportunities: The work to be performed under this contract is on a project assisted under a program providing direct Federal financial assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and is subject to the requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, i2 U.S.C. 170. Section 3 requires that to the greatest extent feasible opportunities for training and employment oe given lower income residents of the project area and contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the area of the project. The parties to this contract will comply with the provisions of said Section 3 and the regulations issued pursuant thereto by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development set forth in 24 CFR 135, and all applicable rules and orders of the Department issued thereunder or'or to the execution of this contract. The parties to this contract certifyand agree that they are under no contractual or other disability which would prevent them from complying with these requirements. The contractor will send to each labor organization or representat'.e of workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or :t"er contract or understanding, if any, a notice advising the said iaoor organization or workers' representative of his commitments under Section 3 clause and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment or training. The contractor will include this Section 3 clause in every for work in connection with the project and will, at the direct'~ the applicant for or recipient of Federal financial assistance. appropriate action pursuant to the subcontract upon a finding t"at subcontractor is in violation of regulations issued by the Secreta-y Housing and Urban Development 24 CFR Part 135. The contractor -,'' subcontract with any subcontractor where it has notice or knowleage that the latter has been found in violation of regulations under part 135 and will not let any subcontract unless the subcontracto~ first provided it with a preliminary statement of ability to com~iy with the requirements of these regulations. Compliance with the provisions of Section 3, the regulations set %~tn in 24 CFR Part 135, and all applicable rules and orders of tme Department issued hereunder prior to the execution of the contract. shall be a condition of the federal financial assistance providea to the project, binding upon the applicant or recipient for such ATTACHMENT A page 2 assistance, its successor and assigns. Failure to fulfill these requirements shall subject the applicant or recipient, its contractors and subcontractors, its successors and assigns to those sanctions specified by the grant or loan agreement or contract through which Federal assistance is provided, and to such sanctions as are specified by 24 CFR Part 135. Equal Emplo~ent Opportunity: Contracts subject to Executive Order I1246~ as amended: Such contracts s~all be subject to HUD Equal Employment Opportunity regulations at 24 CFR Part 130 applicable to HUD-assisted construction contracts. The Contractor shall cause or require to be inserted in full in any non- exempt contract and subcontract for construction work, or modification thereof as defined in said regulations, which is paid for in whole or in part with assistance provided under this Agreement, the following equal opportunity clause: "During the performance of this contract, the contractor agrees as follows: A. The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. B. The contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex or national origin. C. The contractor will send to each labor union or representative of workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, a notice to be provided by the Contract Compliance OCftcer advising the said labor union or workers' representatives of the contractor's commitment under this section and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employaes and applicants for employment. D. The contractor will comply with all provisions of Executive Order 112¢6 of September 2¢, 1965, and of the rules, regulations and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor. E. The contractor will furnish all information and reports required by Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 196§, and by the rules, regulations and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant thereto, and will permit access to his books, records and accounts by the ATTACHMENT A page 3 Department and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations and orders. F. In the event of the contractor's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination clauses of this contract or with any of such rules, regulations or orders, this contract may be canceled, terminated or · suspended in whole or in part, and the contractor may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts or Federally-assisted construction contract procedures authorized in Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, or by rule, regulation or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as otherwise provided by law. G. The contractor will include the portion of the sentence immediately preceding paragraph (A) and the provisions of paragraphs (A) through (G) in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by rules, regulations or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to Section 204 of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. The contractor will take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as the Department may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance; provided, however, that in the event a contractor becomes involved in or is threatened with litigation with a subcontractor or vendor as a Fesult of such direction by the Department, the contractor may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interest of the United States." The Contractor further agrees that it will be bound by the above equal opportunity clause with respect to its own employment practices when it participates in Federally-assisted construction work; provided, that if the Contractor so participating is a State or local government, the above equal opportunity clause is not applicable to any agency, instrumentality or subdivision of such government which does not participate in work on or under the contract. The Contractor agrees that it will assist and cooperate actively with the Department and the Secretary of Labor in obtaining the compliance of contractors and subcontractors with the equal opportunity clause and the rules, regulations, and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor; that it will furnish the Department and the Secretary of Labor such compliance; and that it will otherwise assist the Department in the discharge of its primary responsibility for securing compliance. The Contractor further agrees that it will refrain from entering into any contract or contract modification subject to Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, with a contractor debarred from, or who has not demonstrated eligibility for Government contracts and Federally-assisted construction contracts pursuant to the Executive Order and will carry out such sanctions and penalties for violation of the equal opportunity clause as may be imposed upon contractors and subcontractors by the Department or the Secretary of Labor pursuant to Part II, Subpart D, of the Executive Order. In addition, the Contractor agrees that if it fails or refuses to comply with these undertakings, the Department may take any or all of the following actions: cancel, terminate or suspend in whole or in part the grant or loan guarantee; refrain from extending any further assistance to the Contractor under the Program with respect to which the failure or ATTACHMENT A page ~ refusal occurred until satisfactory assurance of future compliance has been received from such Contractor; and refer the cause to the Department of Justice for appropriate lqgal proceedings. 3. Nondiscrimination Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: This Agreement is subject to the requirements of Title VI of the Civi~ Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352) and HUD regulations with respect thereto, including the regulations under 24 CFR Part 1. In the sale, lease or other transfer of land acquired, cleared or improved with assistance provided under this Agreement, the Contractor shall cause or require a covenant running with the land to be inserted in the deed or lease for such transfer, prohibiting discrimination upon the basis or race, color, religion, sex or national origin, in the sale, lease or rental, or in the use of occupancy of such land or any improvements erected or to be erected thereon, and providing that the Contractor and the United States are beneficiaries of and entitled to enforce such covenant. The Contractor, in undertaking its obligation in carrying out the program assisted hereunder, agrees to take such measures as are necessary to enforce such covenant and will not itself so discFiminate. 4. Obligations of Contractor with Respect to Certain Third-party Relationships: The Contractor shall remain fully obligated under the provisions of the Agreement, notwithstanding its designation of any third party or parties for the undertaking of all or any part of the program with respect to which assistance is being provided under this Agreement to the Contractor. Any Contractor which is not the Applicant shall comply with all lawful requirements of the Applicant necessary to insure that the program, with respect to which assistance is being provided under this Agreement to the Contractor is carried out in accordance with the Applicant's Assurances and certifications, including those with respect to the assumption of environmental responsibilities of the Applicant under Section 104(h) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. 5. Interest of Certain Federal Officials: No member of or delegate to the Congress of the United States, and no Resident Commissioner, shall be admitted to any share or part of this Agreement or to any benefit to arise from the same. 6. Interest of ~_~rs, Officers or Employees of Contractor, Members of Local Offtc Government Body, or Other Public tals: No member, officer or employe. of the Contractor, or its designees or age, ts, no member of the governing body of the locality in which the program is situated, and no other public official of such locality or localities who exercises any functions or responsibilities with respect to the program during his tenure, or for one {1) year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any contract or subcontract, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed in connection with the program assisted under the Agreement. The Contractor shall incorporate, or cause to be incorporated, in all such contracts or subcontracts a provision prohibiting such interest pursuant to the purposes of this section. ?. Prohibition Agmtnst Pa~m~nts of Bon.s or Commmtssten: The assistance provided under this Agreement shall not be used in the payme,~t of any bonus or commission for the purpose of obtaining HUD approval of the application for such assistance, or HUD approval or applications for additional assistance, ATTACHMENT A page 5 10. 11. or any other approval or concurrence of HU0 required under this Agreement Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of lg74, or HU0 regulations with respect thereto; provided, however, that reasonable fees or bona fide technical, consultant, managerial or other such services, other than actual solicitation, are not hereby prohibited if otherwise eligible as program costs. "Section log': This Agreement is subject to the requirements of Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 3535{d). No person in the United States shall on the ground of race, color, religion, sex or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds available under this title. Access to Rmcords and Site of FJm~lo~m~nt: This Agreement is' subject to the requirements of Executive Order 11246, Executive Order 1375, Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Access shall be permitted during normal business hours to the premises for the purpose of conducting on-site compliance reviews and inspecting and copying such books, records, accounts, and other material as may be relevant to the matter under investigation and pertinent to compliance with the Order, and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto by the Contractor. Information obtained in this manner shall be used only in connection with the administration of the Order, the administration of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended} and in furtherance of the purpose of the Order and that Act. ~ords: All records pertaining to this Agreement and the services d pursuant to it, shall be retained for a period of three (3) years after the expiration date of the Agreement. Appropriate City and/or HUD personnel shall have free access to those records during the Agreement duration and the following three-year time period. Termin&tion for Cenventencs or for C~uss: This Agreement may be terminated by either the City or the Contractor in ~he event of a substantial failure to perform by either party. In the event of such termination, the Contractor shall be entitled to collect all sums for services performed as of the date of termination. This Agreement may be terminated for convenience in whole or in part by the City with the consent of the Contractor, in which case the two parties shall agree upon the termination conditions, including the effective date and in the case of partial termination, the portion to be terminated. 12. Leg&l R~:~tms for Centr&ct Vtolatt~: If the Contractor materially fails to comply with any term of this Agr;....ant, whether stated in a Federal statute or regulation, an assurance, in a State plan or application, a notice of award, or elsewhere, the City may take one or more of the following action, as appropriate in the circumstances: 1) Temporarily withhold cash payments pending correction of the deficiency by the Contractor, 2) Disallow all or part of the cost of the activity or action not in compliance, 3) Wholly or partly suspend or terminate the current Agreement, or 4) Take other remedies that may be legally available. E:Ai~FACHD~F.PRO 10/1/91 MARY F. PARKER City Clerk, CMC/AAE CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981.2541 January 13, 1994 File #27-57-166-207-405-468 SANDRA H. EAK1N Deputy City Clerk W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31834-011094 accepting the bid of Thomas Brothers, Inc., in the total amount of $618,842.00, for construction Contract I, Statesman Industrial Park Stormwater Detention Basin, upon certain terms and conditions; accepting the bid of Aaron J. Conner, General Contractor, Inc., in the total amount of $1,741,045.00, for construction Contract II, Statesman Industrial Park Storm Drainage System; authorizing the proper City officials to execute the requisite contracts for such work; and rejecting all other bids made to the City for the work. Ordinance No. 31834-011094 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 10, 1994. Sincerely, ~ Mary F.~-~arker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm Ene. pc: Larry G. Conner, Sr., President, Aaron J. Conner General Contractor, Inc., P. O. Box 6068, Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Joseph C. Thomas, Jr., President, Thomas Bros., P. O. Box 1143, Salem, Virginia 24153 Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney James D. Grisso, Director of Finance William F. Clark, Director, Public Works Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations Earl Sturgill, Project Manager Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician Diane S. Akers, Budget/Management Analyst, Office of Management and Budget MARY F. PARKER City Clerk, CMC/AAE CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2341 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk January 13, 1994 File #27-57-166-207-405-468 Allegheny Construction Co., Inc. Branch Highways, Inc. H. T. Bowling, Inc. Laramore Construction Co., Inc. E. C. Pace Co., Inc. Prillaman and Pace, Inc. Ladies and Gentlemen: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 31834-011094 accepting the bid of Thomas Brothers, Inc., in the total amount of $618,842.00, for construction Contract I, Statesman Industrial Park Stormwater Detention Basin, upon certain terms and conditions; accepting the bid of Aaron J. Conner, General Contractor, Inc., in the total amount of $1,741,045.00, for construction Contract II, Statesman Industrial Park Storm Drainage System; authorizing the proper City officials to execute the requisite contracts for such work and rejecting all other bids made to the City for the work. Ordinance No. 31834-011094 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 10, 1994. On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for submitting your bid on the abovedescribed projects. Sincerely, ~-~J~e..~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm EHC. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 10th day of January, 1994. No. 31834-011094. AN ORDINANCE accepting the bid of Thomas Brothers, Inc. for construction Contract I, Statesmen Industrial Park Stormwater Detention Basin, upon certain terms and conditions, and awarding a contract therefor; and accepting the bid of Aaron J. Conner, General Contractor, Inc. for construction Contract II, Statesmen Industrial Park Storm Drainage System; authorizing the proper City officials to execute the requisite contracts for such work; rejecting all other bids made to the City for the work; and providing for an emergency. BE follows: 1. IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as The bid of Thomas Brothers, Inc., in the total amount of $618,842.00, for construction Contract I, Statesmen Industrial Park Stormwater Detention Basin, as more particularly set forth in th~ January 10, 1994, report of the City Manager to this Council, such bid being in full compliance with the City's plans and specifications made therefor and as provided in the contract documents offered said bidder, which bid is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, be and is hereby ACCEPTED. 2. The bid of Aaron J. Conner, General Contractor, Inc., in the total amount of $1,741,045.00, for construction Contract II, Statesmen Industrial Park Storm Drainage System, as more particularly set forth in the January 10, 1994, report of the City Manager to this Council, such bid being in full compliance with the City's plans and specifications made therefor and as provided in the contract documents offered said bidder, which bid is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, be and is hereby ACCEPTED. 3. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby authorized on behalf of the City to execute and attest, respectively, the requisite contracts with the successful bidders, based on the proposals made therefor and the City's specifications made therefor, said contracts to be in such form as is approved by the City Attorney, and the cost of said work to be paid for out of funds heretofore or simultaneously appropriated by Council. 4. Any and all other bids made to the City for the aforesaid work are hereby REJECTED, and the City Clerk is directed to notify each such bidder and to express to each the City's appreciation for such bid. 5. municipal In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. MARY F. PARKER City Clerk, CMC/AAE CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 4:56 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (70~) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk January 13, 1994 File #60=27-57-166-207-405-468 James D. Grisso Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Grisso: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31833-011094 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 1993-94 Capital Fund Appropriations, providing for the transfer of $2,359,887.00 from Capital Improvement Reserve - Public Improvement Bonds Series 1992A, to Sanitation - Statesman Park, Contract I and Statesman Park, Contract II, in connection with construction of the Statesman Industrial Park Stormwater Management Systems, Contracts I and II. Ordinance No. 31833-011094 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 10, 1994. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm Eno. pc: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager William F. Clark, Director, Public Works Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer Kit B. Kiser,'Director, Utilities and Operations Earl Sturgil!, Project Manager Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician Diane S. Akers, Budget/Management Analyst, Office of Management and Budget IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RO~OKE, VIRGINIA The 10th day of January, 1994. No. 31833-011094. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1993-94 Capital Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist. Roanoke THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of that certain sections of the 1993-94 Capital Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: Appropriations sanitation Statesman Park Contract I (1) ..................... Statesman Park Contract II (2) .................... Capital Improvement Reserve Public Improvement Bonds Series 1992A (3) ......... $ 5,302,323 618,842 1,741,045 2,685,515 2,320,483 1) Appropriated from Bond Funds (008-052-9657-9001) $ 618,842 2) Appropriated. from Bond Funds (008-052-9658-9001) 1,741,045 3) Appropriated from Bond Funds (008-052-9700-9176) (2,359,887) BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: this City Clerk. Roanoke, Virginia · ~ ~ _~ .~ . January 10, 1994 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of City Council: SUBJECT: BID COMMITTEE REPORT STATESMAN INDUSTRIAL PARK STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CONTRACTS I AND II I concur with the Bid Committee recommendation relative to the above project and recommend it to you for appropriate action. Sincerely, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/ES/kh cc: City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Public Works Director of Utilities and Operations Assistant to City Manager for Community Relations City Engineer Construction Cost Technician Accountant, Contracts and Fixed Assets Manager, Office of Management and Budget Roanoke, Virginia · ~0~ ?~? -~ ? !i!i~ January 10, 1994 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of City Council: SUBJECT: BID COMMITTEE REPORT STATESMAN INDUSTRIAL PARK STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CONTRACTS I AND II I. Background: Bids, following proper advertisement, were publicly opened and read aloud before City Council on Monday, November 22, 1993, for the construction of Contracts I and II of the subject project. Eiqht (8) bids were received, with Thomas Brothers, Inc. submitting a low base bid for Contract I, Stormwater Detention Basin, in the amount of $618~842.00 and Aaron J. Conner, General Contractor, Inc. submitting a low base bid for Contract II, Storm Drainage System, with Alternates No. 1 and No. 2 included, in the amount of $2~797~251.80, giving a total contract amount for both contracts of $3~416{093.80. C. Bid documents for Contract II, Storm Drainage System, required that all bidders submit separate bids for Alternates No. 1 and No. 2. Alternate No. 1 provided for additional curb and gutter with related curb inlets and commercial entrances in excess of that which is needed for the storm system to function properly. This consideration was given to property owners within the Park complex only if funds were available after bids were received. Alternate No. 2 involves the western end of Nicholas Avenue that does not drain to the detention basin but to an adjacent watershed on City property and ultimately to another basin in conjunction with the development of RCIT which has not yet been designed. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council BID COMMITTEE REPORT STATESMAN INDUSTRIAL PARK STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CONTRACTS I AND II January 10, 1994 Page 2 II. Current Situation: A. Alternate No. 1, Contract II, Additional Curb and Gutter With Related Entrances, in the bid amount of ~498,219.59, must be deleted due to the lack of funds. Alternate No. 2, Contract II, Western Portion of Nicholas Avenue, in the bid amount of $327,539.30, must be deleted until such time as the RCIT basin is functional and funds are available. Deletions of Alternates No. 1 and No. 2 yields a base bid amount of $1,971,492.91 for Contract II. Design of Contract I is tight, with no room for deletions and/or modifications, with a base bid price of $618,842.00, giving a total bid for Contracts I and II in the amount of ~2,590,334.91. Total allowable funds in the budget are $2,359~887.00, therefore, additional funds of $203,447.91 are required. Contract unit prices for both Contracts have been reviewed and compared with the detention basin recently built across from the Valley View Mall and other storm drains with similar scopes of work and are determined to be acceptable. Deletions from Contract II, (with agreement of low bidder) Storm Drainage system, in order to stay within allowable funds are as follows: Item No. 70 of the bid form, Asphalt Surface Material, in the amount of $80,010.00, and will become part of the City Paving Program. Item NO. 74, Rock Excavation - delete §,686 cubic yards from the total of 14,850 shown, with a deletion amount of $150,437.~1. Quantities deleted not expected. Revised Base Bid Amount Contract II Plus Contract I (Basin) Total Contracts I and II Available Funds $1,741,045.00 618,842.00 $2,359,887.0=~=~--=~ Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council BID COMMITTEE REPORT STATESMAN INDUSTRIAL PARK STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CONTRACTS I AND II January 10, 1994 Page 3 Note: Revised Contracts I and II include approximately $50,000.00 built quantities for contingency. will still in the bid III. Issues: A. ComDliance of the bidders with the requirements of the contract documents B. Amount of the bids C. Funding for Contracts I and II IV. Alternatives: Award a unit price contract, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to Thomas Brothers, Inc. in the amount of $618,842.00 and to Aaron J. Conner, General Contractor, Inc. in the amount of $1,741,045.00, giving a total project amount of $2,359,887.00. Compliance of the bidders with the requirements of the contract documents is met. 2. Amount of the bids after deletions mentioned above is acceptable. 3. Funding is available in account number 008-052- 9700-9176, Public Improvement Bonds Series 1992-A. B. Reject all bids received and do not award contracts at this time. Compliance of the bidders with the requirements of the contract documents will not be an issue at this time. Amount of the bids after deletions mentioned above will probably be higher if rebid at a later date. Fundinq will not be an issue at this time. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council BID COMMITTEE REPORT STATESMAN INDUSTRIAL PARK STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CONTRACTS I AND II January 10, 1994 Page 4 V. Recommendation is that City Council take the following action. Concur with the implementation of Alternative 'A'. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contractual agreement, in form approved by the City Attorney, with Thomas Brothers, Inc. for Contract I, Stormwater Detention Basin, in the amount of $618~842.00, and with Aaron J. Conner, General Contractor, Inc. for Contract II, Storm Drainage System, in the amount of $1~741,045.00, for a total amount for Contract I and II of $2~359,887.00. Authorize the Director of Finance to transfer the amounts of $618~842.00 and $1~741~045.00 from account number 008-052-9700-9176, Public Improvement Bonds - Series 1992-A, to new accounts entitled "Statesman Park, Contract I" and "Statesman Park, Contract II". D. Reject the other bids received. Respectfully submitted, lam White-, Sr., Chairman William F. Clark WW/ES/kh Attachment: Tabulation of Bids Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council BID COMMITTEE REPORT STATESMAN INDUSTRIAL PARK STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CONTRACTS I AND II January 10, 1994 Page 5 cc: City Manager City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Public Works Director of Utilities and Operations Assistant to City Manager for Community Relations City Engineer Construction Cost Technician Accountant, Contracts and Fixed Assets Manager, Office of Management and Budget TABULATION OF BIDS STATESMAN INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT CONTRACT I STORMWATER DETENTION BASIN CONTRACT II - STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM COMMISSION NO. 1055 Bids opened before City Council on Monday, November 22, 1993 at 2:00 p.m. BIDDER CONTRACT I CONTRACT II Thomas Brothers, Inc. N/B Aaron J. Conner, General Contractor, Inc. 674,338.59 H. T. Bowling, Inc. 702,507.00 N/B Allegheny Construction Co., Inc. 716,187.25 3,244,056.50 Prillaman & Pace, Inc. N/B 3,182,048.45 Laramore Construction Co., Inc. 741,334.00 N/B Branch Highways, Inc. 751,938.00 N/B E. C. Pace Co., Inc. N/B 3,216,720.75 Engineering Estimate - Contract I (Basin) = Engineering Estimate - Contract II (System) = including Alternate No. 1 and No. 2 $ 703~900.00 $3~346~400.00 Office of the City Engineer Roanoke, Virginia January 3, 1994 MARY F. PARKER City Clerk, CMC/AAE CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Raom 4f~ Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk January 13, 1994 File #181-258-468 W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31823-011094 authorizing and providing for the lease by the City of three parking spaces on the top deck of the Municipal Parking Garage located at 117 West Church Avenue to the Roanoke Valley Graduate Center for installation of a satellite dish antenna, subject to certain terms and conditions as more particularly set forth in a report of the Water Resources Committee under date of January 3, 1994. Ordinance No. 31823-011094 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on first reading on Monday, January 3, 1994, also adopted by the Council on second reading on Monday, January 10, 1994, and wili take effect ten days foliowing the date of its second reading. Sincerely, ~t~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Eno. pc; Leonard Peters, Vice Provost/Research/Dean of Graduate School, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 306 Burruss Hall, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060 L. Douglas Strickland, Director, Roanoke Valley Graduate Center, 117 W. Church Avenue; Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1905 Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney James D. Grisso, Director of Finance William F. Clark, Director, Public Works Richard V. Hamilton, Real Estate Agent Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF The 10th day of January, 1994. No. 31823-011094. ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, AN ORDINANCE authorizing and providing for the lease by the City of three parking spaces on the top deck of the Municipal Parking Garage at 117 West Church Avenue to the Roanoke Valley Graduate Center for installation of a satellite dish antenna, subject to certain terms and conditions. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the City Manager and City Clerk are authorized to execute and attest, respectively, in form approved by the City Attorney, a lease with the Roanoke Valley Graduate Center, leasing to said organization three parking spaces on the top deck of the Municipal Parking Garage at 117 West Church Avenue for installation of a satellite dish antenna, upon certain terms and conditions set out in the report of the Water Resources Committee dated January 3, 1994. ATTEST: City Clerk. E722 !'1:1!4 Roanoke, Virginia January 3, 1994 Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Roanoke Valley Graduate Center Municipal Parking Garage 117 West Church Avenue The attached report was considered by the Water Resources Committee at its regular meeting on December 20, 1993. The Committee recommends that Council authorize the Graduate Center to utilize three (3) parking spaces on the top deck of the Municipal Parking Garage to install additional satellite dish in accordance with conditions stated in the attached antenna, report. ETB:KBK:afm Attachments cc: Respect fully submit~d, Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairperson Water Resources Committee City Manager City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Utilities & Operations Mr. L. Douglas Strickland, Roanoke Valley Graduate Center INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 20, 1993 Members& Water Resources Committee ' i~t B~.' /Ki~er, Dif~, ,~Utilities & Operations, W. Robert Herber~Manager thru ROANOKE VALLEY GRADUATE CENTER MUNICIPAL PARKING GARAGE 117 WEST CHURCH AVENUE (GRADUATE CENTER) I. Backqround: ae Location of the Graduate Center in the Municipal Parking Garage limits the present and future classroom space available. B. Solution to space limitations is the use of televised broadcasts from participating institutions. One satellite dish has been in place for several years. Additional satellite receiver capacity is necessary to continue the Graduate Center's mission. II. Current Situation: Request for permission to displace three (3) parking spaces on level B-5 (top deck) in order to install a second satellite dish, with space at that same location to be available for a future third new dish, has been received from the Graduate Center. Request includes provision that the monthly parking fees related to the three (3) displaced parking spaces be waived. Should Parkinq Garage beqin operating at capacity the graduate Center agrees to begin paying the then standard monthly fee for the three (3) displaced parking spaces. III. Issues: A. Need B. Timinq Water Resource Committee RE: GRADUATE CENTER December 20, 1993 Page 2 IV. Alternatives: Committee recommend to City Council that it authorize the Graduate Center to utilize three (3) parking spaces located in the southeast corner of level 5-B (top deck - of the Municipal Parking Garage for a fenced area to contain two (2) satellite dish antennas, one (1) to be installed immediately, one (1) later. Graduate Center to agree to: Perform work in a manner so as to not interrupt traffic flow in the garage. ii. No physical damage to be caused to structure. iii. Pay the prevailing monthly parking rate, or remove the dish(es), at the point in time that the garage consistently operates at capacity. 1. Need by petitioner for space for antenna is met. 2. Timing to permit project to proceed immediately is met. Committee not recommend to City Council that it authorize the Graduate Center to install additional satellite dish antenna on the top deck of the Municipal Parking Garage. 1. Need by petitioner for space for antenna is not met. 2. Timing to permit project to proceed quickly is not met. Recommendation: Committee recommend to City Council that it authorize the Graduate Center to utilize three (3) parking spaces on the top deck of the Municipal Parking Garage to install additional satellite dish antenna in accordance with Alternative "A". WRH/RVH/fm Attachment cc: City Attorney Director of Finance Mr. L. Douglas Strickland, Roanoke Valley Graduate Center Virginia mTech VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY Mr. Kit B. Kisar, Director Utilities and Operations City of Roanoke 354 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue SW Roanoke, VA 24011 Dear Mr. Kisor: Roanoke Valley Grlduate Center I [7 W Church A~enu¢, $.W. Roanoke, Virginia 2401 I- 1905 (703) 857-7292 Fax: (703) §57-7371 November 10, 1993 In the spring, you end I exchanged latters concerning the possibility of placing satellite dish(asa atop the city garage as one altsmctive toward meeting space end program support needs at the Roanoke Valley Graduate Center. I enjoyed visiting with you last Friday to discuss the present situation. Since my first contact, we have been studying altsmatlvas end weighing possibilities within present parameters. The bottom line is that while we have a significant clasRroom shortage at RVGC end while member institutions are having to find whatever classroom space they cea outside the Center to launch new programs, wa do not have revenue to do more then make small modifications within our facility. It is very unfortunate that while we have the opportunity to provide citizens desired degree programs and COUrseR and hRve s willingness by sevatd institutions to cooperate to meet these needs, we do not hRve the physical space to take best adventapo of the opportunity. I flflTdy believe we ars missing a significant opportunity to crscts something quite unique in Downtown Roanoke. I am writing to request your help in two irsas: Clearance for Satellite Dish placement: Wa recognize that placement of · dish on top of the garage rsquiras approval by the City Counci. We have elected to pursue placement of only one presently because of financial constraints although we will be limited to only C-Band or KU-BUnd programs at one time instead of both simultaneously. We request your help in receiving approval for placing one dish (end potentially two) end for waiving parking space (three rsquirsd) monthly costs for placement. Wa recognize that at some future date demand for these parking Spacer would require Rome monthly compensation for their use. Classroom Renovation and ~ In In RVGC office renovation project list year, we requested and received construction assistance from City personnel. Your emMoyeas did en excallont job. We would again like to request your assistance in onidrglng I small clasiroom, mlking carpeting/tie repolrs, Ind in atoning cable from the satellite dish to the RVGC office atea. We would need In astlmlts of costs first to determine if the total project is poaslMe since budpo~ ers so tight. I am vaty sppNci~ive of the mJppon we recsivs from the City of Roonoke as we seek to mast educot~onal needs. )4 ! h~ve heatd tomy times ovlr the pest year, lick of spice is s good problem to hRve since it indi~tas RVGC is growing and meeting educitlonal needs. Whir both of these are true, it dso indi~tss we ate substontlally short of rsaching our potential. Please las me know it you hRve queatlofla or if I can clarify any points. Thank you. cc: Dr. Len Peters Mr. Bob Herbert MARY F. PARKER City Clerk, CMC/AAE CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 21 ~ Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virainia :24011 Telephone: (703) 991-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk January 13, 1994 File #20-28=67-68=166-468-514 W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31824-011094 authorizing donation and conveyance of a 2,551 square foot portion of land and a 4,112 square foot temporary construction easement on the northwesterly corner of the intersection of Wells Avenue and Wiliiamson Road, N. E., to the Commonwealth of Virginia, acting through its Department of Transportation or other appropriate state agency, upon certain terms and conditions, as more particularly set forth in a report of the Water Resources Committee under date of January 3, 1994. Ordinance No. 31824-011094 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on first reading on Monday, January 3, 1994, also adopted by the Council on second reading on Monday, January 10, 1994, and will take effect ten days following the date of its second reading. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm Enc. pc: W. A. Ayers, Acquisition Specialist, Virginia Department of Transportation, P. O. Box 3071, Salem, Virginia 24153 Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Kit B. Kiser~ Director, Utilities and Operations WilLiam F. Clark, Director, Public Works Richard V. Hamilton, Real Estate Agent John W. Coates, Manager, Parks, Recreation and Grounds Maintenance William L. Stuart, Manager, Streets and Traffic Robert K. Bengtson, Traffic Engineer IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 10th day of January, 1994. No. 31824-011094. VIRGINIA, AN ORDINANCE authorizing the donation and conveyance of a 2,551 square foot portion of land and a 4,112 square foot temporary construction easement to the Commonwealth of Virginia for use in the Wells Avenue Street Improvement Project, upon certain terms and conditions. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the City Manager and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute and attest, respectively, in a form approved by the City Attorney, the necessary documents to donate and convey a fee simple interest in a 2,551 square foot portion of land and a 4,112 square foot temporary construction easement on the northwesterly corner of the intersection of Wells Avenue and Williamson Road, N.E., to the Commonwealth of Virginia acting through its Department of Transportation, or other appropriate state agency, upon certain terms and conditions, as more particularly set forth in the report of the Water Resources Committee dated January 3, 1994. ATTEST: City Clerk. '-03 ~i? ~? i~ ~.~ Roanoke, Virginia January 3, 1994 Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Wells Avenue Street Improvement Project "Entranceway Park" Wells Avenue and Williamson Road, N.E. The attached report was considered by the Water Resources Committee at its regular meeting on December 20, 1993. The Committee recommends that Council authorize the appropriate City officials to execute a deed granting, by donation, street right- of-way and a temporary construction easement in Entranceway Park to the Virginia Department of Transportation for the Wells Avenue Street Improvement Project, in accordance with conditions stated in the attached report. Res~pectfully submitS, Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairperson Water Resources Committee ETB:KBK:afm Attachments cc: City Manager City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Utilities & Operations Manager, Parks & Recreation Manager, Traffic Engineering W. A. Ayers, Acquisition Specialist, VDOT CITY OF ROANOKE Interdepartmental Communication DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 20, 1993 Members~ Water Resources Committee B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations thru W. Robert Herbe~ity Manager Wells Avenue Street Improvement Project "Entranceway Park" Wells Avenue and Williamson Road, N.E. I. Backqround: City acquired several parcels of real estate and established "Entranceway Park" in the early 1980's. A fountain was built on the property, which is on the northwesterly corner of the intersection of Wells Avenue and Williamson Road, N.E. II. Current Situation: Land acquisition for the improvements to Wells Avenue is being completed by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). Realignment of Wells Avenue~ N.E. will require VDOT to acquire some street right-of-way and a temporary construction easement on the southerly and westerly sides of the park. (See attached map showing right-of-way needed in red, temporary construction easement in yellow, and the fountain in green.) A deed (attached) has been presented to the City by VDOT which dedicates the necessary street right-of-way and provides the needed temporary construction easement. D. Effect upon the park has been reviewed by the Department of Parks and Recreation. Their concerns are: 1. Elimination and replacement of at least three (3) mature magnolia trees. Removal/relocation/replacement of underground irri- gation system. Page 2 Tie-in of new sidewalk system to existing walkway in park. Regardinq contours and replacement of sod on cut slope area along the northerly side of Wells Avenue, N.E. Protection of remaining mature magnolia trees along Commonwealth Avenue, N.E. during construction in that area. VDOT has agreed to include these requirements in its construction contract. A nominal fee of $1.00 is proposed for the right-of-way. Since this is a City project to the extent that all costs go against the City's allocation for State Highway project funding, we do not propose to charge for the actual right-of-way. The consideration can be thought of as the work VDOT has agreed to perform at project cost to make the necessary adjustment to the landscaping, sidewalks and irrigation system for the park to accommodate the highway project. III . Issues: Need Timing Park Related Requirements IV. Alternatives: Committee recommend to City Council that it authorize the appropriate City officials to execute a deed, prepared by VDOT in a form approved by the City Attorney, which grants by donation a 2,551 square foot portion of Entranceway Park for street widening purposes and an adjoining temporary construction easement containing 4,112 square feet to VDOT for use in the Wells Avenue, N.E. Street Improvement Project. VDOT to agree to include on plans for project: Replace at least three (3) existing mature magnolia trees affected by the new street right-of-way. Replace, relocate, and/or repair the existing underground irrigation system affected by the project. Page 3 1. Need by VDOT for the street right-of-way and easement is met. 2. Timinq to provide right-of-way for Wells Avenue Project as soon as possible is met. 3. Park related requirements are met. Committee not recommend to City Council that it authorize the donation of street right-of-way and a temporary construction easement in Entranceway Park to VDOT for the Wells Avenue Street Improvement Project under certain terms and conditions. Need by petitioner for right-of-way necessary for the project is not met. 2. Timinq to provide right-of-way as quickly as possible is not met. 3. Park related requirements are not an issue. Recommendation: Committee recommend to City Council that it authorize the appropriate City officials to execute a deed granting, by donation, street right-of-way and a temporary construction easement in Entranceway Park to VDOT for the Wells Avenue Street Improvement Project in accordance with Alternative "A". KBK/WRH/RVH/kh Attachments cc: City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Public Works Manager, Parks and Recreation Manager, Traffic Engineering W. A. Ayers, Acquisition Specialist, VDOT RAY D. PETHTEL COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P 0 BOX 3071 SALEM, 24153 November 1, 1993 FRED ALTIZER, JR. Mr. Richard Hamilton City of Roanoke Municipal Building, Room 350 215 Church Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, VA 24011 Dear Mr. Hamilton: RIGHT OF WAY - Wells Avenue, City of Roanoke Project U000-128-117, RW-201 Property of City of Roanoke Parcel 021 Enclosed please find plan sheet and deed covering the above captioned project. Please review the deed and plan sheet and if you agree, return the executed deed, and our legal department will record it. If you have any questions, please contact me at 387-5371. Very truly yours, Acquisition Specialist WAA: bd Enclosure TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY Exempted from recordation taxes and fees under Sections 58.1-811(A)(3), 58.1-811(C)(4), 58.1-3315 and 25-249. · IIXS DEED, made this day of between THE CITY OF ROANOF~E, VIRGINIA, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, acting through Grantee; WITNESSE"~H: its meeting on duly authorized the conveyance to Transportation, of certain lands. , 19__, by and a Municipality, Grantor, and the its Department of Transportation, THAT WHEI~EAS, the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, at , by Ordinance No. ., the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of $1.00 and other good and valuable consideration, paid by the Grantee to the Grantor, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor hereby grants and conveys unto the Grantee with special warranty of title the following described land, all of which lies in the City of Roanoke, Virginia: Being as shown on Sheet 5 of the plans for Route - Wells Avenue, State Highway Project U000-128-117, RW-201, beginning on the north (left) side of Wells Avenue centerline from the southeast existing right of way line of Commonwealth Avenue opposite approximate centerline Station 26+32 to the northwest existing right of way line of Williamson Road opposite approximate centerline Station 28+25, and containing 2551 sq. ft., more or less, land. Also, together with the temporary right and easement to use the additional area shown as being required for the proper construction of cut and/or fill slopes, containing 4112, more or less. Said temporary easement will terminate at such time as the construction of the aforesaid project is completed; For a more particular description of the lands wherein conveyed reference is made to photocopy of Sheet 5 showing in RED the land conveyed in fee simple and in ORANGE the land conveyed for a temporary easement. The Grantor by the execution of this instrument acknowledges that the plans for the aforesaid project as they affect its property have been fully explained to its authorized representative. The said Grantor convenants and agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, that the consideration hereinabove mentioned and paid to it shall be in lieu of any and all claims to compensation for the land herein conveyed. Grantee is exempt pursuant to the provisions of Section 58.1-811A(3) of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, from payment of recordation taxes. Grantor is exempt pursuant to the provisions of Section 58.1-811C(3) of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, from payment of recordation taxes. WITNESS the following signature and seal: CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA By: TITLE: (SEAL) ATTEST: City Clerk NOV 0 3 1993 Good evening Mayor Bowers and members of Roanoke City Council. A larger portion of Downtown North Roanoke has been built primarily upon the demolition and eradication of the smaller Black communities in Northeast and Northwest where the following and other businesses now exist: Roanoke Civic Center; US Post Office; Roanoke Gas Company; McDonald's; Magic City Ford; Holiday Inn and the Coco-Cola plant. Remaining sections of Historic Gainsboro welcomes the proposed reopening of Hotel Roanoke but still contends that there are more effective ways of moving traffic without causing the devastation, noise and air pollution which will result from the proposed two four-lane highways within this small community. However, these comments do not pertain to the issue of roads. Several weeks ago Virginia Tech students revealed suggested plans for revitalizing the Henry(First) Street corridor--including some of the surrounding residential area. The plans have merit and should be seriously considered and evaluated. Afterwards, City Councilman "Mac" McCadden stated that ht wants a ball stadium in Historic Gainsboro(First Street) (RT&WN article dated Dec. 18, 1993). Most citizens believe this to be a very cruel and insensitive desire on the part of both Concilman McCadden and Businessman Dale Wilkinson, the apparent f'mancial backer and proposed owner. But did you notice that Mr. Wilkinson said "...the City could pay for the stadium.." .? (RT&WN article dated Dec 28, 1993). Since Mr. McCadden wants a ball park we suggest that he and his supporters (or the people he supports) build it on Noble Avenue, N. E. in Mr. McCadden's neighborhood or in Mr. Wilkinson's neighborhood (where ever it is). If not in either of those locations, perhaps the current site of Victory Stadium or an area near the City's Sports Complex would be more appropriate than any site within Historic Gainsboro.