Roads part next

 

Road safety is a concern throughout Goochland. At their July 2 transportation workshop, the supervisors discussed major road projects and potential funding sources.

Concerns about treacherous conditions on Rockville Road, at the northern edge of the Centerville Village, were discussed after several citizens raised the alarm about the poorly designed entrance to the Tuckahoe Bridge North subdivision, which has already been the scene of a serious wreck even before construction was completed.

Citizens listed other dangerous road conditions—everyone reading this can undoubtedly add their own to the list—throughout Goochland during citizen comments later in the day. This does not take into account deficient bridges, whose weight limits make them unable to support fire trucks, forcing first responders to use circuitous routes adding precious time to emergency response.

Ben Slone of Maidens contended that transportation decisions should use real time traffic data in addition to the “snapshot” data in transportation impact analyses (TIA) provided by VDOT or reports generated by traffic engineers hired by developers.

“Citizens are aware of actual traffic conditions,” he said. Slone, who lives near Fairground Road, and has closely follows traffic there, reported that the accident rate on Fairground Road is statistically higher than projected by VDOT, but declined last year because the increased traffic has slowed traffic.

Slone also urged the supervisors to retain control over rules governing safety mitigation features like turn lanes and be more restrictive than VDOT guidelines. “We have some very good developers in Goochland who understand what they need to do and work with staff (to support safety).”

Marjorie Mayo of District 1 used a brief slide presentation to illustrate her concerns about road safety issues in western Goochland. She has discussed these danger spots with VDOT before but brought them up again because increased traffic has made them even more perilous. These included the RT. 250 corridors in Hadensville Village, and Rt.6 through Georges Tavern, both busy commercial areas with awkward intersections.

Mayo contended that the 55mph speed limit in those areas is too high. Crozier, which has far less commercial activity, has a 45-mph speed limit. She also pointed out that there are no centerlines on the 55 mph narrow, windy, hilly Community House Road. Its intersection with Lowery Road is at a huge blind spot requiring navigation of narrow bridges. She also asked when the bridge over White Hall Creek, where rough pavement requires hard breaking to avoid alignment damage, will be fixed.

Marshall Winn, Administrator for the VDOT Ashland Residency, said that previous VDOT speed studies in both Hadensville and Georges Tavern did not warrant reduction speed limits. (This would be an effective use of real time data suggested by Slone. Still wondering if the VDOT—the state agency whose motto is “Oops!”— warrant process involves chicken bones and a full moon.) Winn informed the supervisors that they have no authority to change speed limits. Winn did ask for Mayo’s slides and wanted to discuss her concerns further.

During their evening July 2 session, the supervisors approved 4-1, with Jonathan Lyle, District 5, in dissent, amendments to the access management section of the county subdivision ordinance.

According to the amended ordinance “…Access management regulations are applied to roads for the purpose of reducing traffic accidents, personal injury, and property damage attributed to poorly designed access systems; thereby improving the safety and operation of the road network. This protects the substantial public investment in the existing transportation system and reduces the need for expensive remedial measures. These regulations also further the orderly layout and use of land, protect community character, and conserve natural resources by promoting well-designed roads and access systems. Finally, these regulations support the goals of the major thoroughfare plan.” (See the July 2 board packet for the entire ordinance.)

The amended ordinance goes into detail about items including road classifications, right of way, and road design and construction.

Ray Cash, Assistant Director of Community Development explained that the amendments are intended to ensure consistency with the county’s major thoroughfare plan (go to the “Transportation” tab on the county website Goochland va.us to read this.)

Among the changes/additions are provisions for  “no frontage spine roads” in  subdivisions of 200 or more homes; to create ultimate right of way to ensure that new construction is set back far enough from existing roads to accommodate future widening or improvement of those roads; use of alleys in townhome developments; and wider roads to enable parking without restricting access by fire-rescue apparatus. The most contentious change, increasing the number of homes in a major subdivision (five or more lots) that trigger the requirement for a left turn lane from five to ten if the subdivision is on an arterial or collector road and removing the supervisors’ ability to grant waivers on turn lanes.

Comments made during the public hearing addressed road safety and housing cost. A resident of Wickham Glen, a more than 10 lot neighborhood on River Road, roughly opposite St. Mary’s Church, with only a right turn lane at its entrance, urged the supervisors to retain the five-lot requirement to enhance safety as the county grows to handle increasing traffic on River Road.

Mitchell Bode of Boone Homes, headquartered in Centerville, said that he and other members of the Home Builders Association of Richmond have been discussing access management with staff for about eight months. He contended that “the cost of a turn lane can work on a development of smaller than 20 lots. Goochland County has a single home median sales price of $643k and an average sales price of $813K.” These far exceed similar costs in neighboring counties, Bode said, contending that the requirements in the ordinance would only compound the issue. All costs associated with building wider roads and turn lanes are passed on to the purchaser, increasing the cost of homes, reducing the number of homes available, which will drive up assessments and tax bills. “All of this is being done in the name of safety. While the building community will always support providing safe communities, the overall cost of the requirements has to be considered.” Bode voiced support for the 20-lot minimum and urged the supervisors to find another solution to keep construction costs down “during this time of housing affordability crisis.”

Louise Thompson a local realtor who is also involved in development, pointed out that the five lot turn lane requirement can be an impediment for developing land that, while it meets all other requirements, cannot acquire the road frontage needed to build the turn lanes. This could also be an obstacle to building homes with more modest price tags. She urged the supervisors to retain the ability to grant waivers. “Having massive houses on large lots does not create affordability," Thompson said.

Two turn lane waivers have been granted by the supervisors since 2020, in areas where it made sense.

Lyle advocated to retain the five-lot requirement and grant waivers when appropriate, which was the main reason that he voted against the amendment.

Neil Spoonhower, District 2, said that the supervisors can decline any project they do not deem safe. “We’ve been signaling loud and clear to our citizens that we want to keep it rural. They’re fine with the high prices because they’re already here. ...In the next 5, 10, 20 years down the road when developers don’t want to do anything in Goochland County because we’re too restrictive. We already had the tools at hand to decline a case we do not see as safe. I also signal to our partners in the development community that we’re willing to work with you and say that this is a good place to do business.”

Lyle commended his fellow board members for their thoughtful consideration of the matter.

Vice Chair Tom Winfree, District 3, contended that the amended ordinance is a compromise. It neither sends a signal that Goochland is against development nor opens the floodgate