2000 Systems Engineering Capstone Conference • University of Virginia
NELSON COUNTY LAND USE / TRAFFIC STUDY
Student team: William F. Bennett, Christine E. Herndon, Jonathan M. Hottinger, Sean C. Smith
Faculty Advisor: John S. Miller
Virginia Transportation Research Council
Client Advisors: Fred Boger
Nelson County Planning Department
Lovingston, VA
E-mail fredpz@aol.com
Bill Wanner
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
Charlottesville, VA
E-mail wwanner.tjpd@state.va.us
Wayne Woodcock
Virginia Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Division
Richmond, VA
E-mail woodcock_wc@vdot.state.va.us
KEYWORDS: land use planning, zoning, traffic
conditions, traffic simulation , Highway Capacity
Manual
methodology can be easily adapted for use in future
studies of Nelson County and other rural areas.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
ABSTRACT
Planners and residents of Nelson County, Virginia
wish to simultaneously support the County’s growth
and preserve its rural character. The amount of traffic
generated by future development will have an impact
on the area’s rural nature. This project quantified the
effects of various development scenarios on Route 151
traffic conditions. This knowledge will allow county
planners to better understand how their land use
decisions may affect the atmosphere of their area.
In order to link County growth to resulting traffic
conditions, the team developed a six-step methodology.
It generated quantifiable measures of traffic conditions
for several development scenarios. Each scenario
addressed one of two objectives: development of the
next 200 acres and management of the projected 2010
population. Analysis of the scenarios yielded valuable
insight for Nelson County. Specifically, allowance of
commercial development will greatly increase the
number of vehicles travelling along county roads and,
therefore, traffic congestion. The project methodology
is a cost-effective tool for the preliminary analysis of
the traffic impacts of rural development. The
Historically, Nelson County has grown at a gradual
pace, generally not exceeding the rate of growth for
neighboring counties. The County has primarily been
zoned for agricultural use, and few planning concerns
arose relating to increased growth. However, the trend
of moving from urban areas to more rural communities
is increasing in popularity. As a beautiful rural area in
central Virginia, Nelson County is a prime target.
The potential effects on transportation of Nelson
County’s inevitable growth concerns residents and
planners in the County. Increased residential and
business development has raised concerns about the
amount of traffic congestion in this rural area.
Increased traffic along Route 151 is an anticipated
result of this development. The specific association
between development and traffic congestion, however,
has not previously been identified.
PROJECT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
The project objectively determined the impact of
various growth scenarios on traffic conditions along
Route 151, the major roadway in Nelson County.
These scenarios highlighted key zoning considerations
23
Nelson County Land Use / Traffic Study
of interest to the county. By quantifying the tradeoffs
between zoning and traffic conditions, the project
results will help Nelson County decision-makers
achieve their goal of supporting growth while
preserving the County’s rural character.
Zoning shapes the potential use of a parcel of land
and, therefore, the amount of traffic generated by that
parcel. This study linked land use planning to its
impact on transportation. Traditionally, zoning has
been approached solely from a land use planning
perspective. The resulting traffic is typically not
considered prior to making zoning decisions. Traffic
problems are remedied, after they are created, using
roadway infrastructure improvements and alterations.
This project challenged this approach by addressing
future traffic while simultaneously examining the
planning decisions that affect it.
The Capstone team achieved the project goal
through the formulation and completion of two specific
objectives. Each objective approached the goal in a
different way, producing unique insight and results.
Objective #1: Land-Use Tradeoff Assessment
This objective investigated the small-scale tradeoffs
between how land is used and the traffic generated by
these different uses. In particular, it focused on the
development of the next 200 acres in Nelson County.
Concerns currently exist in Nelson County about the
sale of agricultural land to developers. Residents fear
that these transactions will change the County’s culture.
This concern rests on the belief that varying the use of
land will result in different populations and different
levels of traffic congestion. In order to examine this
hypothesis, the team considered the impact of
developing only 200 acres of Nelson County land in
different ways.
Objective #2: Population Management Assessment
This analysis viewed the population growth of the
County as inevitable. It examined the effects of
handling this growth differently using various methods
of zoning. The projected populations for the years
2010, 2025, and 2100 were considered in trial runs of
the approach. However, the analysis focused on
scenarios involving different management strategies for
the 2010 population for two reasons: these scenarios are
predicted with more certainty, and tradeoffs are
presented in a more meaningful manner.
24
ANALYSIS
The team followed a six-task methodology in order
to meet the objectives and goal of the project. This
section describes the details and scope of each task.
Task 1: Defined the Study Area
A 28 square mile area of land, surrounding the
Route 151 corridor, was considered as the study area
for this project. However, due to floodplains, sewer
systems, and other unsuitable conditions preventing
development, three square miles was excluded from
analysis for a more realistic approximation. The 25
square miles of land surrounded approximately a 10mile stretch of Route 151, beginning at the intersection
of Route 151 and Route 6 North and ending at the
intersection of Route 151 and Route 664. It included
land that reached approximately one mile back from the
road on each side. The Wintergreen area, though not
directly adjacent to Route 151, was included in the
study area because of its inevitable contribution to
traffic.
The population management assessment zoning
scenarios relied on population projections for the study
area. The team assumed the study area population to be
approximately equally to that of the Rockfish Valley
census. Figure 1 summarizes the results of the analysis
performed to project the future population of the study
area.
Year
2000
2010
2025
Population
4424
5328
7040
Figure 1: Projected study area population
2100
28366
Task 2: Formulated Zoning Scenarios
The project team utilized a specific process to define
and generate scenarios to accomplish the two project
objectives. Figure 2 graphically depicts this process.
The scenarios utilized the following zoning
categories, as defined in the 1994 Nelson County
Zoning Ordinance: A-1, R-1, R-2, B-1, B-2, M-2. Each
scenario first divided the total study land area between
three broad types of use: residential/agriculture
(residential), commercial/industrial (commercial), and
public infrastructure. The scenarios considered all land
allocated for residential use as zoned A-1, R-1, or R-2.
All commercial land was zoned B-1, B-2, or M-2. The
land for each zoning category was then “developed”
according to several specific land uses. Figure 2 shows
the specific land uses considered. The relative
2000 Systems Engineering Capstone Conference • University of Virginia
proportions of specific land uses were based on
historical Nelson County trends.
Three individual “build-out” percentages specified
the degree to which the total amount of land allocated
for each type of use was actually developed. For
example, a residential build-out percentage of 20%
meant that about one-fifth of all land zoned residential
will have dwelling units built on it. The team linked
commercial build-out to residential build-out based on
past market interests. All scenarios used a public
infrastructure build-out percentage of one hundred
percent; all land allocated for public infrastructure use
was actually built upon.
Total Study Area
Land
Task 3: Calculated Trip Generation Rates
Land-Use
Proportions
Residential Land
Commercial Land
Public Infrastructure
Land
Residential
Build-Out %
Commercial BuildOut %
Public
Infrastructure
Build-Out %
Developed Land
B-1:
1. Pharmacies
2. Shopping
Centers
3. Hardware
Stores
4. Professional
Offices
5. Car Dealerships
6. Fast-Food
Restaurants
7. Motels
8. Gas Stations
B-2:
1. Office Buildings
M-2:
1. Industrial Parks
Developed Land
1. Hospitals
2. Schools
3. Post Offices
Developed Land
A-1:
1. Single-Family
Dwellings
R-1:
1. Single-Family
Dwellings
R-2:
1. Single-Family
Dwellings
2. Townhouses
3. Apartment
Buildings
nature of each scenario: the proportion of the types of
land use (i.e. residential, commercial, or public
infrastructure) and the proportion of the zoning
categories within residential and commercial land.
Scenarios that reflected current zoning trends
maintained the proportions currently observed in the
county. Scenarios that emphasized landowner rights
designated larger proportions of overall commercial
land and higher-density specific land uses within both
residential and commercial areas. Increased
proportions of overall residential land and lowerdensity land uses defined scenarios that emphasized
rural culture.
Figure 2: Scenario-formulation process
Specific Scenarios Formulated. The project team
developed two separate groups of scenarios in order to
accomplish the two project objectives. The first group
consisted of six scenarios created to examine the
tradeoffs of different land uses. All scenarios in this
group considered the development of the next 200 acres
in Nelson County. The second group of scenarios
examined different management strategies for the 2010
population. The build-out ratio was used differently in
order to create each group of scenarios. It was held
constant for all scenarios in the first group, and varied
for each of the scenarios in the second group. The
nature of the scenarios within each group varied; some
scenarios reflected current zoning trends, some
scenarios emphasized landowner rights, and some
scenarios stressed rural culture. Two factors shaped the
For each scenario, the group determined the number
of vehicle trips generated by each specific land use
based on equations from the Institute of Transportation
Engineer’s (ITE) Trip Generation. These equations
translated the amount of land allocated to each type of
land use into a corresponding number of trips
generated. The sum of the trips generated by
residential, commercial, and public infrastructure use
constituted the total number of trips generated by a
scenario.
Task 4: Determined Traffic Volume
Determination of Current Traffic Volume. The team
conducted a license-plate count of the Route 151
corridor and reviewed Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) average daily traffic counts to
determine the volume of current traffic in the study
area. The license-plate study determined the percent of
traffic passing through the corridor without making any
stops, or “through traffic.” The team collected data on
two distinct segments of the road. “Segment A” refers
to the section of Route 151 between Route 6 North and
Route 6 South and “Segment B” refers to the section of
Route 151 between Route 6 South and Route 664. The
study revealed the percentage of through traffic on
Segment A and Segment B to be 50% and 32%,
respectively. The team estimated the current total
traffic volume to be 488 vehicles per hour (vph) on
Segment A and 264 vph on Segment B using 1999
VDOT PM peak hour traffic counts.
Determination of Traffic Volume for Each Scenario.
Three separate traffic components comprised the total
traffic volume for each scenario: current traffic volume,
additional trips generated by the scenario, and
additional through trips for the scenario. Previously
25
Nelson County Land Use / Traffic Study
discussed methods determined the first two
components. Additional through trips for a scenario are
not generated by the study-area development of that
scenario. Instead, the growth and development of
surrounding areas cause them. For each scenario, the
team calculated the number of additional through trips
using the annual growth rate for Virginia and the year
to which the scenario’s study area population
corresponded.
Task 5: Determined Traffic Conditions
This task correlated each zoning scenario to several
indicators of its resulting traffic conditions such as
average travel speeds and average travel times along
sections of Route 151. This was done using two
different analysis tools: 1994 Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) methods and computer traffic
simulation. The different nature of the two methods
essentially produced a worst-case (HCM) and a more
moderate (simulation) evaluation of the traffic
conditions for each scenario.
Highway Capacity Manual Analysis. This sub-task
involved the computation of the capacity and level of
service (LOS) of the corridor using the 1994 Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) methods of analysis for a twolane road. According to the HCM, LOS is a measure of
the quality of traffic flow along a road. Ultimately, LOS
calculations vary across each scenario as a function of
the total traffic volume of the scenario. The traffic
conditions resulting from each scenario are
characterized by one of six levels of service (A, B, C,
D, E, F). LOS A corresponds to the best conditions and
LOS F corresponds to the worst conditions. Each level
of service, except LOS F, corresponds to an average
speed and a percent time delayed which further describe
the traffic conditions. Average travel time along a
section of roadway is derived from the length of the
segment and the average speed.
HCM analysis, as applied to the project, considered
the two previously defined segments of Route 151
identical except for their lengths; both segments have a
two-way total capacity of 1797 vph for each segment.
The total vehicle volume for a scenario was
proportionately distributed between the two segments
based on their lengths. HCM analysis assumed that all
trips on a segment flowed directly along the entire
length of the segment. Following this methodology the
team determined LOS, and its corresponding outputs,
for the two roadway segments for each scenario.
Computer Traffic Simulation. The team modeled
the study area roadway network using the
26
INTEGRATION Release 2.20 for Windows traffic
simulation software package. This model served as the
foundation for the simulation of each scenario. The
output produced by simulation included traffic
characteristics, such as average speeds and travel times,
between every intersection along the modeled area of
Route 151. However, this output was averaged to
determine the same measures for the two segments
only. Simulation, as applied to the project, considered
trips to begin and end primarily on side roads, using
Route 151 en-route. Thus simulation spread the traffic
volume for each scenario throughout the study area
rather than directly placing it, in its entirety, along
Route 151 itself.
Task 6: Legal Analysis of Zoning
Once agreement is reached regarding what
configuration of land uses and zoning are ideal, the next
question is how can this legally be accomplished.
Research focused on ways in which the County can
reduce its liability when zoning for transportation
through an analysis of three key issues: conditional
zoning, upzoning, and impact fees. In addition, the
foundation for the general authority to zone, as granted
by the Virginia General Assembly, was researched.
Sources were consulted including the Code of Virginia
and relevant Virginia case law. The research was
ultimately compiled into a concise, reference tool on
legal issues involving zoning.
DISCUSSION OF METHODOLOGY
Potential Sources of Error
The nature of this study lacks precision. The project
methodology rested on many assumptions and
generalizations about both the roadway network and the
development of the study area. This section discusses
potential sources of error in the methodology.
Each scenario generated a very large number of
trips. The team examined this phenomenon through the
application of the project methodology to the current
population and zoning trends. The number of trips
generated by the methodology for the current study area
conditions was approximately ten times as large as the
actual current number of study area-generated trips
according to VDOT traffic counts.
The project team identified several potential causes
for the large number of trips generated. The
empirically derived ITE trip generation equations may
be flawed. However, the team performed a sensitivity
2000 Systems Engineering Capstone Conference • University of Virginia
analysis that showed a relatively narrow 95%
confidence interval based on a large number of studies.
Another possibility is that development in Nelson
County differs from development elsewhere. That is,
specific land uses may generate a different number of
trips when built in Nelson County than when built
elsewhere. However, as Nelson County becomes more
developed, it is likely that land-uses will behave more
like those reflected by ITE rates. This is relevant, given
that many of the project scenarios examine 2010
development. The project methodology also examined
only a small group of the land uses permitted under
each zoning category. A more extensive study could
consider a larger number of potential establishments in
order to gauge future development more accurately.
Because of the project focus on the quantity of
development, rather than the specific location of
development, internal capture rates and pass-by trip
rates were not utilized for all specific land uses in the
study. An internally captured trip is one where two ITE
land uses, such as a bank and a fast food restaurant, are
located so close to one another that some patrons who
use both establishments do not require an additional trip
on Route 151. A similar, but different, phenomenon is
a pass-by trip where a site attracts traffic that would
already be on Route 151 anyway, such as a gas station
(Institute of Transportation Engineers 1998). Both
instances would decrease commercial trip rates but
would not affect residential trip rates. Both types are
not as well quantified as the basic ITE trip generation
rates used in this approach (Institute of Transportation
Engineers 1998).
The Capstone study concentrated primarily on Route
151, itself. VDOT traffic counts showed insignificant
current amounts of traffic on study area side roads.
However, future growth will expand away from Route
151 placing more traffic on side roads than currently
exists. The team’s use of both HCM analysis and
simulation accounted for this discrepancy.
Scope Limitations
The study considered only general zoning
classifications, such as the amount of land zoned A-1.
It did not consider three important characteristics of
travel supply and demand that depend on the exact
locations of specific land uses. First, the potential
exists for county transportation to shift from vehicle
trips to other modes through mixing land uses. For
example, locating homes and businesses and in close
proximity could encourage walking. Second,
management of direct and indirect access to Route 151
could be altered or improved. Finally, the potentially
unique trip characteristics of businesses in Nelson
County could be examined. As a check on this
project’s computations, the team recommends periodic
measurements of changes in traffic volume as a
function of increased development. Regardless of
zoning decisions made by Nelson County Planners,
these checks will help determine necessary changes to
the methodology used here. With this precise land use
information, the use of site-specific measures to reduce
adverse effects of development could be made.
However, this study has sought to determine the rough
limit on what these site-specific measures can
accomplish. Finally, this study also focused only on
PM peak hour traffic. Traffic during other periods of
the day could be addressed with the same approach.
RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS
This section discusses the results and implications of
the Capstone team’s work in terms of the two project
objectives. The following metrics reflect the traffic
conditions for each scenario: vehicles trips generated,
level of service (LOS), average travel speed, and
average travel times. Figure 3 shows these results.
Objective #1: Land Use Tradeoff Assessment
This analysis offered tangible insight into the
tradeoffs associated with developing a fixed amount of
land in different ways. In a broad sense, the two
different development options were allowing land-use
freedom and emphasizing rural culture.
An increase in commercial and higher-density
residential development will increase traffic congestion.
This focus on land-use rights, as illustrated by Scenario
2, generated three times as many vehicle trips as
compared to the current Nelson County zoning trends
of Scenario 1. This caused a vast difference in travel
speeds: 52 mph for current zoning versus 36 mph for
land-use focus on segment A. The fact that only 200
acres of growth caused this dramatic difference
emphasizes the potentially catastrophic impacts of
unregulated land-use. These impacts, however, would
be primarily due to commercial development rather
than higher-density residential development. Scenario
5 allowed high-density residential development but
allowed no commercial development. It resulted in
approximately one-fifth as many trips and significantly
better traffic conditions than did Scenario 2, which
allowed both high-density residential and commercial
development. This indicates that commercial
development is the major cause of traffic congestion.
27
Nelson County Land Use / Traffic Study
Development that emphasizes rural culture will
result in slightly better traffic conditions than
development according to current county zoning.
Scenario 3 designated a higher percentage of residential
development to occur in A-1 zoned areas than did
Scenario 1. The former resulted in approximately half
the number of trips as did the latter. However, because
both numbers of trips are relatively low, the
improvement in travel speeds and times was minimal
according to both HCM analysis and simulation. This
reflects the fact that current zoning trends adequately
preserve rural culture. Because leeway to violate these
trends exist, restriction of development may be
necessary to protect the county’s atmosphere.
This analysis, based on the trade-off assessment
objective, generated solid results. Commercial
development contributed to traffic generation much
more significantly than the higher-density residential
uses. Emphasizing rural culture by preventing higherdensity residential development only slightly improves
traffic conditions over development according to
current trends. Future development that follows current
Nelson County zoning trends will protect the rural
culture.
Objective #2: Population Management Assessment
Scenarios for this analysis differed in the distribution
of the 2010 population between the various types of
residential uses. Commercial development, therefore,
also varied between scenarios because it is tied directly
to residential development.
The degree to which growth to the 2010 population
harms traffic conditions depends on the management of
that growth. If the population growth occurs according
to current zoning trends, as reflected by Scenario 7,
resulting traffic conditions will be only slightly worse
than those existing today. However, if higher-density
residential and commercial development are
unrestricted as the population grows to the 2010 level,
as reflected by Scenario 8, the number of trips
generated will be three times as high as those for
Scenario 7. Further, this scenario will cause travel
speeds along Route 151 to be approximately nine mph
less. Again, this shows that commercial and highdensity residential development greatly affect traffic
conditions.
The degree of commercial development associated
with the growth of the study area to the 2010 population
is the main factor in the resulting traffic congestion.
Scenario
Description
Additional Trips
Generated
Base
Current traffic conditions
0
Segment of
Rt. 151
LOS
Simulation Travel
Speed (mph)
Simulation Time to Travel
Segment (min)
segment A
D
53.58
6.95
segment B
C
44.89
7.40
segment A
E
52.17
7.15
segment B
E
44.72
7.40
segment A
F
36.02
13.30
segment B
F
43.75
7.50
segment A
E
52.99
6.95
segment B
D
44.76
7.40
segment A
E
53.02
6.95
segment B
D
44.79
7.40
segment A
E
52.82
6.95
segment B
D
44.78
7.40
segment A
D
53.00
6.95
segment B
C
44.81
7.40
segment A
E
52.01
7.15
segment B
E
44.68
7.40
segment A
F
43.70
8.30
segment B
F
42.56
7.75
segment A
E
46.32
8.25
segment B
E
44.26
7.40
segment A
E
52.23
7.15
segment B
E
44.71
7.40
segment A
E
53.31
6.95
segment B
D
44.85
7.40
Objective #1 Scenarios:
1
2
3
4
5
6
Current County zoning for next 200 acres.
Emphasizing land-owner / business-owner rights on
next 200 acres.
Emphasizing rural culture on next 200 acres.
No future commercial for next 200 acres with current
residential breakdown.
No future commercial with land-owner rights
emphasized for next 200 acres.
No future commercial with rural culture emphasized
for next 200 acres.
938
3,245
496
525
589
355
Objective #2 Scenarios:
7
Year 2010 build-out on current County zoning.
8
Year 2010 build-out emphasizing land-owner /
business-owner rights.
9
Year 2010 build-out emphasizing rural culture.
10
Current overall breakdown with optimal residential &
commercial breakdowns for 2010
11
No future commercial for 2010 with current residential
breakdown.
Figure 3: Scenario description and results
28
1,086
3,663
1,354
1,030
568
2000 Systems Engineering Capstone Conference • University of Virginia
Scenarios 11 depicts growth of population, according to
current residential development trends, with no
additional commercial development. This scenario
results in approximately one-half the number of trips
generated by Scenario 7. However, this corresponds to
only a slight improvement in traffic conditions because
both scenarios produce a small number of trips.
Analysis of Objective #2 scenarios confirmed many
of the points illustrated by analysis of the Objective #1
scenarios. Allowing the new population to reside in
higher-density residential housing and allowing
commercial development will worsen county traffic
conditions. However, commercial development clearly
is the more harmful of these two development trends.
Thus, there should be less concern about the nature of
residential development than about the amount of
commercial development. Regulating commercial
development is the key to preserving traffic conditions
in terms of sheer numbers of trips generated, assuming
trips will use similar travel modes as today.
CONCLUSIONS
The significance of this project is its linking of rural
land-use and zoning to resulting traffic conditions using
a practical methodology. This project embraced a
broad macroscopic focus on general zoning categories.
Before finalizing zoning decisions, therefore, the
project team recommends two additional levels of
analysis. First, a land use / traffic study that considers
the specific location of future development. Second,
validation and adjustment of the analysis methodology
through comparison of predicted traffic impacts to
actual observed traffic impacts.
Value Created for Nelson County, Virginia
This project succeeded in its original goal of linking
potential Nelson County zoning scenarios to their effect
on Route 151 traffic conditions. The project offers
insight to Nelson County decision-makers about the
traffic impacts of their actions. Its findings will provide
County residents with understanding of how current
zoning and development trends will affect them.
The project generated three specific conclusions of
value to county inhabitants. First, current Nelson
County zoning practices and trends, if maintained, will
result in only moderate traffic congestion as compared
to other potential methods of zoning. This was evident
in both analysis of the development of the next 200
acres of land and in analysis of management of the
2010 study area population. Second, commercial
development, if supported, will be the primary cause of
additional traffic congestion in Nelson County. Finally,
an increase in the use of higher-density residential
development relative to other residential development
options will not cause a dramatic increase in traffic
congestion as the county grows.
Reusability of Study Methodology
The establishment and use of a specific methodology
for relating zoning to traffic conditions is valuable for
several reasons. As this methodology is practical for
land use planning, it can be used as a starting point for
similar studies in other rural areas. Its strengths can be
leveraged and its weaknesses more easily avoided.
Specific reusable products, developed by the project
team, can easily be tailored for use in other studies.
The primary reusable product is a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet, named ScenarioCruncher.xls. This
program encapsulates the project methodology and,
thus, will serve to expedite future studies. The
spreadsheet allows new scenarios to be quickly
formulated and correlated to a number of trips
generated, total traffic volume, and HCM output. This
tool highlights all of the assumptions and potential
sources of error in the methodology and allows for their
simple modification and correction. As a result,
ScenarioCruncher.xls can easily be tailored to perform
preliminary analysis on any rural area.
The application of a simulation tool in order to study
traffic conditions is also relevant for future studies.
While the Nelson County simulation model, itself,
cannot be applied to the study of other areas, the lesson
learned through its use are valuable. Rather than just
“dumping” the trips onto a main roadway and using
macroscopic methods to look at the roadway network, a
simulation tool can distribute traffic throughout the
modeled area to examine the behavior of individual
sections of road. As a result, simulation provides a
moderate, and potentially more realistic, prediction of
traffic conditions.
The legal analysis task examined case law in
Virginia and the existing Code of Virginia in an attempt
to determine how the Nelson County planners can
legally apply some of these zoning techniques. It is
specific to Nelson County, but can serve as a reference
for other counties interested in zoning law. Although it
does not replace professional legal council, this analysis
can be used as a basis for understanding the County’s
legal authority to zone land.
29
Nelson County Land Use / Traffic Study
Concluding Remarks
This project successfully completed its goal of
linking land use planning and traffic engineering. The
conclusions offer Nelson County a useful analysis of
potential future planning and development. Thus, they
can be considered when making decisions that will
more efficiently fulfill the community vision. The team
also laid the groundwork for a methodology that can
evolve and adapt to changing situations and
environments; in the future, it can be applied to Nelson
County and elsewhere. This work, therefore, provides
the ability to uncover the true relationship between
traffic and development in rural communities across
America.
Transportation Research Board. 1994. “Highway
Capacity Manual.” Special Report 209. Transportation
Research Board, Washington, D. C.
Van Aerde, M. 1999. “INTEGRATION RELEASE
2.20 FOR WINDOWS: User's Guide-Volume I:
Fundamental Model Features.” M. Van Aerde,
Blacksburg, Va.
Van Aerde, M. 1999. “INTEGRATION RELEASE
2.20 FOR WINDOWS: User's Guide-Volume II:
Advanced Model Features”. M. Van Aerde,
Blacksburg, Va.
Virginia Department of Transportation. 1999. 1999
and 2025 Average Daily Traffic Counts. Available
from the Transportation Planning Division. Richmond,
Va.
REFERENCES
BIOGRAPHIES
Department of Commerce (U.S.), Census Bureau. 1994.
County and City Data Book. Washington, D. C.
Department of Transportation. 1998. Highway Laws
of Virginia. Lexis Law Publishing. Charlottesville, Va.
Dey, S. S. and J.D. Fricker. 1995. “Estimation of PassBy Trips Using a License Plate Survey”. Transportation
Research Record, Transportation Research Board.
Washington, D. C.
Local Government Attorneys of Virginia. 1992.
Handbook For Local Government Attorneys.
Richmond, Va.
Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation
6th Edition. 1997. Washington, D. C.
Institute of Transportation Engineers. 1998. Trip
Generation Handbook: An ITE Proposed
Recommended Practice. Washington.
National Research Council (U.S.) Highway Research
Board Committee on Highway Capacity. 1994.
Highway Capacity Manual. Dept. of Commerce,
Bureau of Public Roads, Washington, D. C.
Nelson County Planning Commission. 1994. Nelson
County Comprehensive Plan. Lovingston, Va.
Nelson County Planning Commission. 1994. Nelson
County Zoning Ordinance. Lovingston, Va.
30
Bill Bennett is a fourth-year Systems Engineering
major from Cincinatti, OH. He created
ScenarioCruncher.xls in order to encapsulate the
project methodology and analyze zoning scenarios.
After graduation, Mr. Bennett will pursue a graduate
degree in music.
Christy Herndon, is a fourth-year Systems
Engineering major from Arlington, VA. The primary
focus of her research was a legal analysis of the “zoning
for transportation” concept and its implementation in
Nelson County. After graduation, Ms. Herndon will be
working for Deloitte Consulting as a Business Analyst.
Jon Hottinger is a fourth-year Systems Engineering
major from Brentwood, TN. He performed the traffic
simulation work for this project. Starting in August,
Mr. Hottinger will be working for Dominion Digital,
Inc. in Richmond.
Sean Smith is a fourth-year Systems Engineering
major from Dale City, VA, concentrating in economic
systems. His main contribution to the project was in
the area of trip generation. Mr. Smith will begin his
career search this fall and will graduate in December
2000.