Loading...
025-02 RESOLUTION OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RE: To request the Commonwealth Transportation Board to consider restricting "" through truck traffic on Warrior Drive (Route 719) between its intersection with Fairfax Pike (Route 277) and Tasker Road (Route 642). Action: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: December 17,2002 ~ APPROVED 0 DENIED WHEREAS, Warrior Drive (Route 719) is classified as a major collector road designed to collect traffic from minor collector and local roads; and WHEREAS, local residents and county officials are concerned about heavy truck traffic on this road; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors has identified alternates exist via Interstate 81 and Route 522 for northbound and southbound trucks and Fairfax Pike (Route 277) for eastbound and westbound tnlcks between these highways. WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 46.2-809 of the Code of Virginia, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors has conducted a public hearing on December 17,2002 to obtain public comments on restricting through truck traffic on Warrior Drive (Route 719); and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors will use its good offices for enforcement of the proposed restrictions by the appropriate local law enforcement agency. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors does hereby request that the Commonwealth Transportation Board consider restricting through truck traffic on Warrior Drive (Route 719) from its intersection with Fairfax Pike (Route 277) and Tasker Road (Route 642). Passed this 17th day of December 2002 by the following-recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Nay Sidney A. Reyes E.:=... W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Margaret B. Douglas Nay Lynda J. Tyler ~ Robert M. Sager ..A:Le.. Gina A. Forrester Aye A COPY ATTEST ~- John lley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator Board Resolution No.: 025-02 PORes #35-02 'L " . . - _. ._'1" /?'L..L , ..''" Item #1 . . t . ~. .'1- -.... U .c." .~.." ..~_....~-'.'-.. -/ /-.\ --<-- . Miles DRAFT Requested Through Truck Restriction on Warrior Drive (Rt. 719) And Proposed Alternate Route COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 ~ MEMORANDUM Subject: Frederick County Board of Supervisors Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner ~ No Through Truck Traffic Policy To: From: Date: December 5, 2002 Staff has received several requests to prohibit through truck traffic on various roads within the county. The Transportation Committee met on November 5, 2002, to consider the following through truck restrictions in response to citizen concerns regarding the opening of Warrior Drive, and concerns of Stonewall District citizens regarding truck traffic en route to Stonewall Industrial Park and en route to Route 7 East. 1.) Warrior Drive (Route 719) between Fairfax Pike (Route 277) and Tasker Road (Route 642). 2.) Rest Church Road (Route 669) from the Flying J Travel Plaza to Welltown Road (Route 661) en routeJo the Stonewall Industrial Park, ending at McGhee Road.c; 3.) Old Charles Town Road (Route 761) from Martinsburg Pike (Route II)to Jordan Springs Road (Route 664) to Woods Mill Road {Route 660) to Route 7, and from Jordan Springs Road (Route 664) from Woods Mill Road (Route 660) to Burnt Factory (Route 659) to Route 7. Several steps have to occur before a road is posted for "No Through Truck Traffic." The first step involves the adoption of a resolution by the Board of Supervisors through a public hearing process requesting the implementation of these actions. Following the adoption, of the resolutions, the YOOT Resident Engineer will program a detailed study of the road segments to determine if qualifying criteria warrants prohibiting through trucks. The findings of this study are then presented to the Commonwealth Transportation Board who approve or deny the request. The Transportation Committee strongly recommended approval of the policy and directed staff to address these concerns during presentations to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Attached are maps depicting the proposed road segments identified for through truck restrictions. The recommendations from the December 4, 2002 Planning Commission meeting are included. Please find attached the Guidelines for Considering Request for Restricting Through Trucks on Secondary Highways adopted by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. 107 North Kent Street. Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF 12/04/02 MEETING: Some of the commission members asked Mr. Jerry Copp, VDOT Resident Engineer to clarify what defines a truck in the case ofthrough truck restrictions. Mr. Copp responded that the posting for no through trucks would include any vehicle type that would have to enter the scales on a highway, One ofthe commissioners stated that he believed the posted "No Turn-Around" on Rest Church Road at the Flying J Travel Plaza was working sufficiently to deter trucks from going down Rest Church Road to Welltown Road to the Stonewall Industrial Park. Discussion continued concerning the potential ofthru truck restrictions on certain secondary roads setting precedents for any roads to request this posting. Some planning commissioners felt that without advance traffic count information regarding trucks on these roads an informed decision could not be made. Some commissioners stated that they felt the roads were for all to use, and to prohibit trucks on certain roads was unjustified. Other commissioners stated that the residents were the ones with concerns, and that they are making these requests. Regarding Warrior Drive, some planning commission members felt it was easier to stop the truck traffic before it began, as was the request of the residents. Others felt that Warrior Drive was designed as a major collector road, and that the alternatives for through trucks were not good. The commissioners resolved to take each of the three items separately, and forward their recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. The recommendations regarding the restrictions on through truck traffic by the Planning Commission are as follows: ITEM #1 - WARRIOR DRIVE A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz to recommend denial on restricting truck traffic on Warrior Drive because this road has not yet been completed for public transportation and VDOT would not be able to conduct traffic studies required by their guidelines. (It was also noted that restricting truck traffic on Warrior would only force drivers to Aylor and White Oak.) This motion was passed by the following majority vote: YES (REC. DENTAL TO RESTRICT): Triplett, Fisher, Kriz, Thomas, DeHaven, Light, Morris, Watt, Unger NO: Rosenberry, Straub, Gochenour (Please Note: Commissioner Ours was absent from the meeting.) ITEM #2 - REST CHURCH ROAD/ WELL TOWN ROAD/ MCGHEE ROAD A motion was made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Thomas to recommend denial on restricting truck traffic on Rest Church Road (Rt. 669) to Welltown Road (Rt. 661), but to allow the existing "No Turn-Around" sign to remain at the Flying J to best serve this area. This motion was passed by the following majority vote: YES (REe. DENIAL TO RESTRICT): Triplett, Fisher, Kriz, Thomas, DeHaven, Light, Morris, Watt, Unger NO: Rosenberry, Straub, Gochenour (Please Note: Commissioner Ours was absent from the meeting.) ITEM #3 - JORDAN SPRINGS/ WOODS MILL! BURNT FACTORY A motion was made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Thomas to recommend approval ofrestricting truck traffic pending a VDOT study brought back to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for review with traffic counts justifying that the numbers of trucks using these roads warrants a restriction of truck traffic. (Commissioners based this decision on concerns they had for a precedent-setting situation that could be created for restricting trucks on any road.) This motion passed by unanimous vote. (Please Note: Commissioner Ours was absent from the meeting.) o e e . .I /t. /\: ~" ~ 'i-;:;\ ~ ,',"1 I ';I.l.. ,;t' ,1" ,1 '(,s ,I.' ':\1;' ~ ,,', I"~' ,l I I .' I rt ;1\ """ ,:.~ ,!..., ,," '~l ',''/'1' l ~,.; ~:. ;11/ ~.'~-;.;.. " 1''''~ ir '..I\:Jl:.;I1.... ..., I ,,' . ,,,' '-;) "1'- \ '''C',) \, t..... , , \; OOMM,ON1;VEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE EDINBURG, VA 22824 ,....,..., -II' I' RAY 0 PETHTEL I~ITE:,I',I Cor-.l/,rr:3SIONER April 17, 2002 JERRY A, COPP RESIOEflT E'JGINEER TEL (540) 984-5600 FAX (540) 984-5607 Mr. John Riley Frederick County Administrator 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Ref: Warrior Road Through Truck Restriction Dear John: At the public hearing, which Ed Strawsnyder conducted, several questions came up about having a through truck restriction on Warrior Road between Rt. 277 and Rt. 642 (Tasker Road) when Warrior Road is completed. __ I was questioned about this at the public hearing and told them that this restriction should come after the road is constructed. After the meeting, I visited this issue with our Traffic Engineering section in Richmond, and I found that we can proceed with the request for the through truck restriction on Warrior Road at this time should the County desire to do so. I am attaching the policy on Restricting Through Trucks on Secondary Highways, Should Frederick County desire to proceed, it would be necessary for you to go through a public hearing and pass a resolution. If the County decides to go forward, please provide both the resolution along with the public hearing documentation to me, and the Vir.ginia Department of Transportation will begin the process of making the formal study. siniL ~ " JACjch Attachment cc: Mr. Robert Sager WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING /.; l " GUIDELINES FOR CONSIDERING REQUEST FOR RESTRICTING THROUGH TRUCKS ~ 'F-"'? ON SECONDARY HIGHWAYS ,. e ~ ,. Adopted by Commonwealth Transportation Board September 15, 1988 GUIDELINES FOR CONSIDERING REQUEST FOR RESTRICTING THROUGH TRUCKS ON SECONDARY HIGHWAYS Section 46.2-809 of the Code of Virginia provides: "The Commonweal th Transportation Board in response to a formal request by a local governing body, after said body has held public hearings, may, after due notice and a proper hearing, prohibit or restrict the use by through traffic of any part of a secondary highway if a reasonable alternate route is provided. Such restriction may apply to any truck or truck and trailer or semi-trailer combination, except a pickup or panel truck, as may be necessary to promote the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Commonwealth. Nothing herein shall affect the validity of any city charter provision or city ordinance heretofore adopted." To conform to requirements of the Code, the local governing body must hold a public hearing and make a formal request of the Department. To insure that all concerned have an opportunity to provide input concerning the proposed restriction and alternate route, the following must be adhered to: (A) The public notices for the hearing must include a description of the proposed through truck restriction and the alternate route with the same term~ni. A copy of the notices , must be provided. (B) A public hearing must be held by the local governing body and a transcript of the hearing must be provided with the resolution. (C) The reso 1 uti on must describe the proposed through truck restriction and a description of the alternate, including termini. Page I (D) The governing body mllst include in the resolution that it will use its good offices for () enforcement of the proposed restriction by the appropriate local law enforcement agency. Failure to comply with (A), (B), (C) and (D) will result in the request being returned. It is the philosophy of the Commonwealth Transportation Board that all vehicles should have access to the roads on which they are legally entitled to travel. Travel by any class of vehicle should be restricted only upon demonstration that it will promote the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Commonwealth. Following that philosophy, the Virginia Department of Transportation staff and the Commonwealth Transportation Board will consider the following criteria in reviewing a requested through truck restriction. (1) Reasonable alternate routing is provided. To be considered "reasonable", the e alternate route(s) must be engineered to a standard sufficient for truck travel. The effect on the alternate routing will be evaluated for traffic and safety related impacts. If an alternate contains a Secondary route that must be upgraded, funds must be 'provided from the county secondary construction funds. The termini of the proposed restriction must be identical to the alternate routing and effectively equivalent to , i allow a time 'and distance comparison to be conducted between the two routings. Also, the alternate routing must not create an undue hardship for trucks in reaching their destination. (2) The road requested for restriction is functionally classified as local or collector. e Page 2 e -- (3) The character and/or frequency of the truck traffic on the route proposed for restriction is not compatible with the affected area. Evaluation will include safety and other traffic engineering related issues, and will take into account the volumes of truck traffic in relation to the remaining traffic as indicated by the following table: Total Traffic Volume Ranges Total Truck Volume Ranges 4000+ 2000 - 4000 1000 - 2000 400 - 1000 250 - 400 50 - 250 200 100 - 200 50 - 100 20 - 50 13 - 20 3 - 13 (4) The engineering of the roadway and/or the accident history of the route proposed for restriction indicate that it is not suitable for truck traffic. (5) Within 150' of the existing or proposed roadway center line there must be at least 12 dwellings per 1000 feet of roadway. Failure to satisfy at least three (3) ofthe five (5) criteria will normally result in the rejection of the requested restriction. -- - -- -~.._---------- ,. The Commonwealth Transportation Board, from time to time as appropriate and when deemed necessary, may modify and/or. revise any provisions or criteria co~tained in these guidelines. Page J ...... .:10;.,,;;, "1.;," _~ ;~ " .... ... ....e.. ....." .............. ..................~....~#_...,......... ..#..._............. .... '. Item #1 Consideration to Restrict Through Trucks on Warrior Drive (Route 719) from Fairfax Pike (Route 277) to Tasker Road (Route 642) ,J__ ^ "'~'''',,'''i;,, ".."",^_,,,"'~".~,.'''~ "',""-;",,",,~ _, ,<,,',"f'.,",'i".'''.H,'';";'H "."""~' "_'~"~'" ,.,:' I"~-" _ ',-:,' ';-.~,w.;_,~ '::"":;';.~':"-'~"-''''.:''"'''"'' ~-.-" .' "",,,,,,,_, ." ;U"h',,~,"-"," ",: ....,.. ...."," .~".,"~"." ",0.","""'_~'''''' A request has been made to prohibit through truck traffic on Warrior Drive (Route 719) between Fairfax Pike (Route 277) and Tasker Road (Route 642). Please find attached a map identifying existing truck traffic and the proposed alternative route. In order to prohibit through trucks on secondary roads, a reasonable alternative route must be available. Staff has reviewed this request and analyzed alternative routes in response to citizen concems, and is hoping to have through truck restrictions in place for this segment of Warrior Drive. Alternate routes exist for truck traffic via the north-south corridors of Interstate 81 and Route 522, which do provide access to the commercial and industrial uses on both Tasker Road and Fairfax Pike. In addition, Fairfax Pike provides east-west access between these two primary highways. Through the identified alternate route, this segment of Warrior Drive between Fairfax Pike and Tasker Road can be predominately used for local traffie. Through trucks on Tasker Road is presently prohibited.