Loading...
TC 06-17-04 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 To: Frederick County Transportation Committee File Copy From: Jeremy F. Camp, Planner Il Subject June 17, 2004 Transportation Committee Meeting Date: June 9, 2004 The Frederick County Transportation Committee will hold a public hearing for the draft updates of the Secondary, Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plans at 7:30 p.m. on Thursday, June 17, 2004 in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. Also on the agenda is the review of a proposal to restrict truck traffic on Brucetown Road. The agenda for this meeting is as follows: AGENDA 1) Public Hearing - Draft 2005-2006 through 2010-2011 Secondary Road Improvement Plan 2) Public Hearing - Draft 2005-2006 through 2010-2011 Primary Road Improvement Plan 3) Public Hearing - Draft 2005-2006 through 2010-2011 Interstate Road Improvement Plan 4) Review - No Thru-Truck Traffic On Brucetown Road 5) Other. Access is limited during the evening hours. Therefore, it will be necessary to enter the building through the back double doors of the Board of Supervisors Room, located in the rear of the new addition of the county building. I would encourage committee members and interested citizens to park in the County parking lot located in the rear of the building, or in the joint Judicial Center parking lot and follow the sidewalk to the back double doors of the Board Room 107 North Dent Street e Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 1) Draft Update of the 2005-2006 through 2010-2011 Secondary Road Improvement Plan The Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan is a six (6) year transportation plan for all secondary roads in Frederick County. The Secondary Road Plan is divided into the following three categories: Major Road Improvement Projects, Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects, and Incidental Road Improvement Projects. Major road improvement projects include the construction of new roads or the upgrading existing roads. Warrior Drive is an example of a major road improvement project. Hardsurface road improvement projects include the paving of existing Secondary Roads which are unpaved. The third category of the Secondary Road Improvement Plan is the Incidental Road Improvement Plan. The transportation projects within this category include spot improvements on existing roads. Two examples of incidental road improvement projects could be adding a stop sign at an intersection or widening a turn. This year Old Baltimore Road (Route 677) has been added to the list of hardsurfacing projects. A petition from the majority of adjoining property owners was submitted for this project. The induction ofthis road necessitates are -rating of all unscheduled hardsurfacing road projects. Staffhas attached the worksheets for each individual hardsurfacing road project to show how each project was rated. Please also find attached a copy ofthe Frederick County Hardsurfacing Rating System Policy. Requests have also been received for a number of roads to be considered for the Rural Rustic Road Program option. Of these roads, only the first three listed below are currently on the scheduled listlo receive funding. Below is a list of the roads which may be considered for the Rural Rustic Road Program: Back Creek Road (Route 704) Gough Road (Route 618)- Ebenezer Church Road (Route 705) Indian Hollow Road (Route 679) Chestnut Grove Road (Route 681) Carter Lane (Route 629) Pack Horse Road (Route 692) Old Baltimore Road (Route 677) The Rural Rustic Road Program is an option which may be used which allows roads to be hardsurfaced with lesser design standards and a lower cost. Prior to entrance into the Rural Rustic Road Program the Board of Supervisors must pass a resolution of request. VDOT is ultimately responsible for determining ifa road qualifies for this program. A copy of the Rural Rustic Road guidelines is attached for your information. The process to update the Secondary Road Improvement Plan begins in Frederick County and ends in Richmond. After review by the Frederick County Transportation Committee and Planning Commission the Board of Supervisors will forward a recommended update to the Virginia Department of Transportation for their consideration. Ultimately, VDOT is responsible for establishing the priority of projects in Frederick County. Including the information mentioned above, please find attached a copy of the draft Secondary Road Improvement Plan for the 2005-2006 update, including a staff prepared map showing scheduled hardsurfacing road improvement (HRI) projects and major road improvement (MRI) projects and a General Highway Map of Frederick County, published by VDOT. U:!COMM/TILES!TRANSPORTATIONiAgendas!2004Age dns1June_17 04 RwdPI Updates.upd 2005-2006 SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN for FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DRAFT 06/08/04 FREDERICK COUNTY MAJOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 2005/2006 through 2010/2011 Major road improvement projects command the reconstruction of hardsurfaced roads to enhance public safety. Improvements required for road width, road alignment, road strength, and road gradient are considered major road improvements projects. * To be constructed as one project Page 1 of 6 r✓ 0 F W U, �� w v 4�' 0 H b w UJ � F Q OM 0 W[ 1a) 647 Aylor Road 0.22 mi. N 1.1 mi. N of 6900 0.9 miles OP/SH $5,886,623 03/04 Under of Rt. 277 Rt. 277 Construction 1b) 647 Aylor Road 1.1 mi N of Route 642 6800 1.2 miles OP/SH $3,039,D00 03/06 Rt. 277 2) 719 Warrior Drive Route 277 Route 642 n/a 1.55 miles OP Revenue Complete Sharing Fund �3) 656' Greenwood Road Route 657 Route 655 4300 1.36 miles SH/RB $4,224,114 UN/SH Feasibility Phase 4) 655' Sulphur Springs Route 656 Route 50 5000 0.78 miles SH $5,653,395. UN/SH Feasibility Road Phase 5) 1520 Inverlee Way — 0.45 Mi. N. Route 657 New 0.61 miles SH $1,800,000 UN/SH Feasibility Revenue Sharing Rt. 50 1 1 Road Phase * To be constructed as one project Page 1 of 6 06/08/04 FREDERICK COUNTY UNSCHEDULED MAJOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 7nns/2036 through 2010/2011 Page 2 of 6 zUJI' W Q 0 0 2 © r. o 608 Wardensville Grade Route 50 West Route 616 1100 2.83 miles BC 659 Valley Mill Road Route 820 Route 7 500 0.2 mile RB Towns curb and gutter improvements for the Town of Stephens City Towns curb and gutter improvements for the Town of Middletown 664 Jordan Springs Road Route 761 Route 660 1500 1.1 miles ST 660 Woods Mill Road Route 664 Route 7 1300 2.13 miles ST East 622 Cedar Creek Grade Winchester City Route 37 12,000 1.03 miles BC Limits 600 North Hayfield Road 1.07 Mi. N Rte. 679 Route 684 760 1.93 miles GA 659 Valley Mill Road Route 656 Route 820 4900 1.8 miles RB 657 Senseny Road Winchester City Route 656 9800 1.6 miles SH/RB Limits 739 Apple Pie Ridge Road Route 673 Route 522 3100 1.66 miles GA North 636 White Oak Road Route 277 Route 642 1400 1.6 miles OP/SH 644 Papermill Road Winchester City Route 522 7400 1.36 miles SH Limits South 661 Redbud Road Route 11 North Route 660 760 3.24 miles ST 622 Cedar Creek Grade Route 629 Route 37 3800 5.86 miles BC 657 Senseny Road Route 656 Clarke Co. 5200 2.07 miles RB Line 641 Double Church Road Route 647 Route 277 4200 0.68 mile OP 761 Old Charlestown Route 11 North Route 664 2500 1.13 miles ST Road 659 Valley Mill Road Route 7 Route 656 6700 1.09 miles RB 636 Hudson Hollow Road Route 277 1.5 Mi. S. 1100 1.5 miles OP Rte. 277 621 Jones Road Route 1109 Route 628 1900 0.57 mile BC 600 Back Mountain Road Route 753 Route 614 3100 1.8 miles BC 642 Tasker Road 0.2 Mi. W. Rte1187 Route 1031 9800 0.9 mile OP/SH 661 Welltown Road Route 663 Route 11 3900 1.21 miles ST/GA North 628 Middle Road Route 621 Winchester 3700 1.25 miles BC City Limits 627Reliance Road Interstate 81 Route 11 1500 0.49 mile OP 1 South 704 Back Creek Road Route 751 Route 683 1100 4.11 miles BC Page 2 of 6 06/08/04 FREDERICK COUNTY HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 2005/ 2006 through 2010/ 2011 Hardsurface road improvement projects provide impervious resurfacing and reconstruction of non-hardsurfaced secondary roads. Hardsurface improvement projects are prioritized by an objective rating system, which considers average daily traffic volumes; occupied structures; physical road conditions including geometrics, drainage, and accident reports; school bus routing; and the time that project requests have been on the Secondary Road Improvement Plan. Page 3 of 6 UJ UJ way' A t-- g BIW Z Z' �;� 2 0 cQ C� H Fes- UJI Gr 1) 689 Adams Road Route 600 2.30 Mi. N. 100 2.3 miles GA $834,000 10/03 Complete S. Rt. 600 S. 2) 689 Adams Road 2.54 Mi. N. Route 600 100 1.7 miles GA $702,800 10/04 Rural Rustic Rt. 600 S. N. 3) 704 Back Creek Road Route 683 Route 617 160 1.66 miles BC $552,000 03/05 Potential Rural Rustic 4) 704 Back Creek Road Route 617 W. VA Line 70 1.68 miles BC $559,000 03/06 Potential Rural -i Rustic 5) 618 Gough Road Route 622 Route 616 60 1.75 miles BC $581,000 03/07 [[t( Potential Rural Rustic 6 6) 618 Gough Road Route 616 Route 608 60 1.32 miles BC $445,000 03/08 Potential Rural Rustic 7) 705 Ebenezer Church Road 0.25 Mi. E. Route 522 160 4.25 miles GA 1 $1,594,100 1 UN/SH Potential Rural Rt. 703 1 1 Rustic Page 3 of 6 06/08/04 FREDERICK COUNTY UNSCHEDULED HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS RATINGS UPDATED MAY, 2004 2005/2006 through 2010/2011 W z © o U. v 1) 707 Hollow Road W. VA Line Route 610 200 1.6 BC/GA 80 miles 2) 709 Ridings Mill Route 636 Route 735 160 2.7 OP 80 Road miles 3) 676 Warm 0.83 Mi. N Rt. Route 677 240 0.87 GA 77 Springs Road 677 mile 4) 629 Carter Lane . Route 631 Route 625 290 1.8 BC 76 miles 5) 681 Chestnut Route 805 Route 685 100 1.62 GA 76 Grove Road miles 6) 734 1 North Sleepy1.27 Mi. SW 2.27 Mi. SW Rt. 140 1 mile GA 73 rnn r.1 rn') AI 7) 692 UI ccn i wau Pack Horse 4• •+ 1.2 Mi. NE Rt. Route 671 200 1.4 GA 73 Road 600 miles 8) 679 Indian Hollow 0.3 Mi. W. Rt. 0.5 Mi. E. Rt. 600 140 2.5 GA 72 Road 608 miles 9) 636 Canterburg Route 640 Route 641 130 1.5 OP 71 Road miles 10) 612 Fishel Road Route 600 Route 600 30 1.6 BC 69 miles 11) 733 Fletcher Road Route 50 Route 707 120 1.3 GA 67 West miles 12) 607 Heishman Route 600 End of State 100 0.78 BC 66 Lane Maintenance mile 13) 638 Clark Road Route 625 Route 759 70 0.8 BC 64 mile 14) 644 East Parkins Route 50 East Clarke Co. 260 0.81 SH 63 Mill Road mile 15) 636 Huttle Road Route 709 Route 735 150 1,1 OP 63 miles 16) 677 Old Baltimore Route 739 Route 1360 450 0.38 GA 63 Road mile 17) 695 Middle Fork 2.3 miles W. VA State Line 30 0.9 GA 63 Road north Rt. 522 mile 18)671 Woodside Route 669 W. VA State Line 220 0.3 ST 62 Road mile 19) 836 Walters MITI Koute vi tna U1 -�tdLe 1 �� Lane I North Maintenance mile 20) 696 South Timber Route 522 Route 694. 130 1.3 GA 58 Ridge Road North miles Page 4 of 6 06/08/04 Page 5 of 6 w Q v �wz �, z- z 0 � z w z z w wIx © Qa o a 21) 634 Cougill Road Route 635 Route 11 South 280 0.25 BC 50 mile 22) 811 Timberlakes Route 671 End of State 180 0.25 1 ST 48 Lane Maintenance mile Page 5 of 6 06/08/04 FREDERICK COUNTY INCIDENTAL CONSTRUCTION 2005/2006 through 2010/2011 Incidental construction projects are defined as minor construction projects that cost less than $100,000. Examples involve drainage improvements, site distance improvements, spot widening, replacing overflow pipes with box culverts, and the application of plant mix on existing road surfaces. The Virginia Department of Transportation determines if a proposed nrniorf ni imlificc fnr lnrirlontal C'.nnctructinn based on the overall scope of the improvement. Page 6 of 6 Z o z i'! U a oLLJ Ci 1) 1323 Park Centre at 0.4 miles East of Rt. 11 R/R Crossing- Improve ST $8,000 2003/04 Requesting Drive Surface 10% Federal matching Funds 2) 657 Senseny Road From Rt. 1204 to Rt. 1265 Construct Center turn RB/S $10,000 2003/04 Requesting lane, widen pavement H 10% Federal & bride matching Funds 3) 657 Senseny Road From Rt. 1265 to 0.06 Construct center turn RB/S $10,000. 2003/04 Requesting miles east of Rt. 1225 Pane H 10% Federal matching Funds 4) County -wide Improvement Install guardrail at $20,000 2004/05 various locations 5) 681 Chestnut From: 0.58 Mi. S of Rt. 608 Add extra pipes GA $80,000. 2004/05 Grove Road To: 0.80 Mi. S. of Rt. 608 6) 699 New Hope From: 0.16 Mi. W. of Rt. Widen slope to GA $40,000 2004/05 Road 522 improve sight distance To: 0.23 Mi. W. of Rt. 522 7) Town of Middletown Various roads Plant Mix BC $130,000 2005/06 8) Town of Stephens City Various roads Plant Mix OP $120,000 2005/06 9) 661 Redbud Road 0.45 mile east of Rt. 11 Install flashing lights & SW $15,000 2005/06 Requesting bells at RR crossing Federal Funds 10) 620 Singhas Road 0.05 mile south of Rt. 803 Install flashing lights & BC $17,500 2005/06 Requesting bells/upgrade crossing Federal Funds 11) 684 Gainesboro 234' southeast of Rt. 522 Install flashing lights & GA $17,500 2005/06 Requesting Road bells/upgrade crossing Federal Funds 12) 684 Gainesboro 0.20 mile east of Rt. 600 Install flashing lights & GA $17,500 2005/06 Requesting Road bells/upgrade crossing Federal I II Funds 13) 672 Brucetown 0.45 mile east of Rt. 11 Install flashing lights & SW $15,000 2005/06 Requesting Road bells at RR crossing Federal Funds Page 6 of 6 06/08/04 I)LU z o a v cn zLU ~ o L w d t— w 0 JI U CO <Ui� 14) 704 Back Creek From: 0.37 mile south of Improve drainage & BC $85,000 2005/06 Road Rt. 783 widen roadway To: 0.80 mile south of Rt. 783 15) 1054 Westmoreland Frederick Towne Estates Plant Mix OP $140,000 2006/07 Drive 16) 1349 Forrest Drive Battleview Subdivision Plant Mix SW $46,000 2006/07 17) 1326 Confederate Third Battle Subdivision Plant Mix SW $40,000 2006/07 Drive 18) 749 Quarry Lane 0.05 mile southwest of Rt. Install flashing lights & SW $13,000 2006/07 672 bells 19) 649 Springdale 0.55 mile west of Rt. 11 Install flashing lights & BC $13,000 2006/07 Road I bells Page 7 of 6 Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects (HILI t. Adams Road - southern portion 2. Adams Road - northern portion 3. Back 'Creek Road - northein portion 4. Back Creek Road - Southern portion . Gough Road - southern portion 6. Gough Road - northern portion 7. Ebenezer Church Roar! Frederick Count -u, Major Road Impr 2005/2006 through 2010/2011 Proposed Major Road Ir proveme t Project (MRI) 1a. Alor Road - PRASE 1 ib. Aylr Road - PRASE �, Warrior Drive . Greenwood Road 4. Sulphur Springs Road 5. lnverle a (Revenue Sharing) HARD SURFACE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RATING SYSTEM POLICY Adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on October 7, 1997 The following procedures are intended to delineate the steps necessary for the application of this rating system policy. Adherence to these procedures will ensure consistency in the application of this rating system policy for existing and future hard surface road improvement project requests. This policy shall be effective following the adoption of these procedures through a public hearing process held by the Board of Supervisors and shall only be altered through the same process. Information pertaining to the rating system application for each hard surface road improvement project shall be maintained in the Frederick County Planning Department database system. The Board of Supervisors shall have the authority to revise the Hard Surface Road Improvement Projects section of the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan subsequent to the application of the rating system to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Frederick County. RATING SYSTEM REVIEW AGENCIES IN • Candidate projects shall be rated by the Frederick County Planning Department, the Frederick County Transportation Committee, and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). • One rating sheet shall be prepared for each candidate project by each review entity. • The Frederick County Planning Department shall rate each candidate project. • The Transportation Committee members shall rate each candidate project within their respective magisterial districts. • The VDOT Residency shall rate each candidate project through information received from the Maintenance Supervisors for all roads within their respective maintenance districts. RATING SYSTEM APPLICATION METHODOLOGY • Candidate projects shall, be rated utilizing the following information and methodology for each category: 1) Average _Daily. Traffic Count - utilize the most recent traffic counts for each candidate project provided by the VDOT Residency. 2) Occupied Structures - utilize the Frederick County Planning Department addressing database and digital mapping system to determine the total number of occupied structures that have direct access to, or whose only means of ingress and egress from a private road is achieved by each candidate project. 3) Physical Road Conditions/Safety a) Surface Width - obtain surface width data for each candidate project through the VDOT Residency Maintenance Supervisors. b) Shoulder Width - obtain shoulder width data for each candidate project through the VDOT Residency Maintenance Supervisors. C) Horizontal Curvature - horizontal curvature is determined to be deficient if sight distance around the curve is limited by cut sections or vegetation traveling at normal driving speeds. 2 RATING SYSTEM APPLICATION METHODOLOGY (Continued) d) Vertical Curvature - vertical curvature is determined to be deficient if sight distance is significantly reduced or eliminated due to the rise and fall of the road segment traveling at normal driving speeds. e) Drainage - candidate projects shall be determined to have good, fair, or poor drainage utilizing the following guidelines: Good: Pipes are of adequate size and number. Water drains away from the roadway and creates no problem with surface maintenance. Ditches are of adequate size which produce no flooding within the roadway. Fair: Pipes are of adequate size; however, additional pipes may be needed. Water drains away from the roadway with minimal maintenance problems. Drainage ditches are in good condition, require little maintenance, and produce no flooding within the roadway. Poor: Pipes are not adequate in size or number. Ditch lines are inadequate and require extra maintenance. Water does not drain from the roadway effectively, creating maintenance problems and flooding. f) Accident Data - obtain police accident report data reflecting property damage and personal injury from the VDOT Residency Traffic Engineering Division. 4) School Bus Travel - utilize information reflecting current or proposed school bus travel routes for each candidate project provided by the Frederick County Public Schools Transportation Supervisor. 5) Time On Road Plan - utilize information from current and previously approved Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plans maintained within the Frederick County Planning Department to determine when candidate projects were incorporated. 3 RATING SYSTEM POINTS APPLICATION • Total points are determined for each category element. A cumulative total is obtained for each candidate project utilizing the total points derived from each category element. • The cumulative total for each candidate project is provided to the Frederick County Planning Department by all review entities. An average is determined for each candidate project utilizing the cumulative points from each review entity sheet and dividing by three. • All candidate projects are ranked from the highest cumulative point average to the lowest cumulative point average within their respective classification. • If two or more candidate projects have the same cumulative point average, a tie -breaking system will be utilized. Each affected candidate project will be compared to the others starting with the category of greatest weight and working through the categories of lesser weights respectively until the tie is broken. • The cumulative point average for each candidate project shall be final. Any citizen request or Board action which results in the alteration of a previously rated and ranked candidate project will require a new rating application by all review entities. The altered candidate project will then be incorporated into the Hard Surface Road Improvement Plan accordingly. HARD SURFACE ROAD IlVIPROVEMENT PLAN FORMAT • The Hard Surface Road Improvement Projects section of the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan will reflect the candidate projects with the highest cumulative point average that can be incorporated into the VDOT Six -Year Fiscal Plan based on available funding. This information will be provided to the Frederick County Planning Department by the VDOT Residency. • All remaining candidate projects will be placed on an Unscheduled Hard Surface Improvement Projects list which will be incorporated within the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan. Candidate projects incorporated into this section of the plan will be ranked from the highest cumulative point average to the lowest cumulative point average. 4 HARD SURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN FORMAT (Continued) The VDOT will advise the Frederick County Transportation Committee when funding is available for the inclusion of new candidate projects within the Hard Surface Road Improvement Projects section of the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan. All candidate projects placed on the Unscheduled Hard Surface Improvement Projects list, as well as newly requested candidate projects, will be reviewed by all review agencies to determine current conditions. Appropriate ranking for all candidate projects will be determined at that time and placed accordingly. NEW PROJECT REQUESTS A written request must be provided to the Frederick County Planning Department which describes the location of the candidate project, the origin and terminus of the segment, and a petition signed by at least 51 % of all property owners fronting on the proposed segment indicating their willingness to participate in right-of-way dedication should the project receive favorable recommendation by the Board of Supervisors. The Transportation Committee shall recommend new project requests which meet this criteria after determining that the candidate project includes a segment of a state route that has a rational origin and terminus. PROJECT REMOVAL Road improvements projects shall be removed from the plan once VDOT has notified Frederick County that the project has been funded and advertised for bid. The Board of Supervisors may remove projects from the plan if VDOT has provided notification that right-of-way efforts have been ceased. Virginia Department of Transportation's Rural Rustic Road Program Prepared by the Office of Local Assistance Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 James S. Givens, Director June 2003 We Keep ',��'� Virginia Moving July 1, 2003 Foreword The Local Assistance Division and the Rural Rustic Road Policy Committee are pleased to present these Guidelines for Rural Rustic Roads. This concept, first enacted by the 2002 Session of the General Assembly of Virginia, is a practical approach to paving Virginia's Low Volume Unpaved Roads. A pilot program implemented in July 2002, demonstrated the success of this program concept. It ensures that we practice environmental and financial stewardship while providing basic paved access to more of our rural countryside. The 2003 Session of the General Assembly amended the legislation to provide that this method will be considered as a first alternative for improving all unpaved roads in the future. The Rural Rustic Road Program is effective July 1,2003. Special appreciation is expressed to the Members of the Rural Rustic Road Policy Committee: Julie R. Brown Local Assistance Division Rob N. Bowman, P.E. Amelia Residency Judith C. Dunn Programming Division James S. Givens Local Assistance Division Junior H. Goad, P.E. Hillsville Residency Conrad L. Hill Lebanon Residency Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Fredericksburg Residency Michael C. McCormack Amherst Residency Brennan B. Snyder Environmental Division Joe F. Staton Warsaw Residency David A. Steele, P.E. Waverly Residency Stephen A.Tyrrell, P.E. Leesburg Residency Jerry R. VanLear, P.E. Verona Residency Jimmy W. White, Jr. Lexington Residency C. F. 'Frank' Gee, P.E. Chief Engineer of Operations July 1, 2003 RURAL RUSTIC ROAD PROGRAM Table of Contents Introduction..................................................................................................................................... I Unpaved Road Improvement Program Options.................................................................. 1 Guidelines For Rural Rustic Road Program................................................................................... 2 EligibilityCriteria............................................................................................................... 2 VDOT Review Of Rural Rustic Road Candidate Projects ................................................. 3 ApprovalProcess................................................................................................................ 4 Environmental Requirements For Rural Rustic Road Program .......................................... 5 Sample Resolution For Rural Rustic Road Project......................................................................... 6 ScopingDocument.......................................................................................................................... 7 EnablingLegislation....................................................................................................................... 8 July 1, 2003 Introduction The Rural Rustic Road Program will significantly improve VDOT's ability to pave the vast backlog of unpaved roads. The following chart will help guide whether the Rural Rustic Road option is the best alternative for a given road. Unpaved Road Improvement Program Options 7/2/03 Un awed Road Pave -In -Place Rural Rustic Road The road must already be a state maintained road in the secondary system of Roadway Status state highways. These programs do not apply to the addition and improvement of roads that are privately maintained. 50 vpd minimum for Traffic Volume unpaved road funds, VPD = vehicles per day otherwise no minimum for 50 — 750 vpd 50 — 500 vpd Limitations are based on normal secondary funding (see below). construction funding. Project must be in the County's Secondary Six -Year Plan (SSYP) County Project must be in the Project must be in the of improvements. Board must County's Secondary Six- County's Secondary Six- also request the Rural Rustic Government Year Plan (SSYP) of Year Plan (SSYP) of Road Program be used, by Action and Funding improvements. improvements. passing a special resolution declaring the road a "Rural Rustic Road." The County Board indicates growth and traffic generated Land Use No restrictions. No restrictions. by the land are not expected Growth Factor to increase significantly over the next 10 years. Ideally, the road can be paved Safety factors are Safety factors are as it is without any special Safety addressed as part of the addressed as part of the needs regarding alignment, project. project. drainage or safety issues. Generally, the existing Minor changes in alignment should be capable of Reconstruct as necessary to alignment maybe safely handling the traffic Alignment improve alignment and necessary to address volume and increased speeds grade. issues. that may result from the improved riding conditions. Roadway drainage will be Roadway drainage will Existing drainage provisions should be sufficient with Drainage improved, if needed. be improved, if needed. minimal improvement. Paving may be done within the existing right Abutting property owners of way, but abutting Paving may be done within will need to provide property owners are the existing right of way, Right of Way additional right of way, normally expected to which may be a minimum of normally 50 feet in width. donate additional right- 30 feet. of -way for spot widening, if necessary for safety. 7/2/03 GUIDELINES FOR RURAL RUSTIC ROAD PROGRAM Effective July 1, 2003 The following guidelines apply to the Rural Rustic Road Program: Eligibility Criteria ❑ Must be an unpaved road already within the State Secondary System. ❑ Must carry at least 50 but no more than 500 vehicles per day. ❑ Must be a priority (line item) in an approved Secondary Six -Year Plan, even if the funding source is not from normal, secondary construction allocations. ❑ Governing body of County, in consultation with VDOT's Resident Engineer or designee, must designate a road or road segment as a Rural Rustic Road. ❑ Roadway or roadway section must be predominately for local traffic use. ❑ The local nature of the road means that most motorists using the road have traveled it before and are familiar with its features. ❑ County Board of Supervisors will endeavor to limit growth on roads improved under the Rural Rustic Road program and cooperate with the Department through its comprehensive planning process to develop lands consistent with rural rustic road concepts. ❑ Requires a special Resolution designating the road as a Rural Rustic Road by County Board of Supervisors for each individual road (see page 6). 2 7/2/03 VDOT Review of Rural Rustic Road Candidate Projects ❑ Consider the views of the governing body making the request and of the residents and owners of the adjacent property. ❑ Consider the historical and aesthetic significance of such road and its surroundings. ❑ Focus on leaving trees, vegetation, side slopes, and open drainage abutting the roadway undisturbed to the maximum extent possible. ❑ Improvements along Rural Rustic Roads may be less than minimum design standards, as outlined in the Chief Engineer's memorandum dated June 11, 2002. AASHTO's Guidelines For Geometric Design of Very Low -Volume Local Roads (ADT <= 400) may be used as a guide. ❑ Look for evidence of site-specific safety problems and focus safety expenditures on those sites where a site-specific safety problem exists. Consideration should be given to appropriate warning signs as needed. ❑ Low volume local roads have very few crashes. Even when 5 — 10 year crash data are available, this data will often be so sparse that other indicators of safety problems should be considered as well. Such other indicators may include field reviews to note skid marks or roadside damage, speed data (which may indicate whether speeds are substantially higher than the intended design speed), or concerns raised by police or local residents. 7/2/03 Approval Process ❑ *Resident Engineer is VDOT's designated representative in dealing with County Boards of Supervisors regarding Rural Rustic Roads. ❑ Board of Supervisors requests the Resident Engineer to evaluate a section of road as a candidate for the Rural Rustic Road program. ❑ Resident Engineer advises Board whether road appears to be a good candidate for program. ❑ Resident Engineer will review all proposed unpaved road projects in the approved Secondary Six -Year Plan for eligibility as a Rural Rustic Road project. ❑ Board of Supervisors designates road as Rural Rustic Road, by resolution. ❑ Resident Engineer concurs in designation and determines if improvements can be made according to Rural Rustic Road concepts and advises Board of project concept. ❑ If for some reason the Board of Supervisors does not accept the final decision from the Resident Engineer after consideration by the District Administrator's office, a final appeal may be sent through the Resident Engineer and District Administrator to the Chief Engineer, for consideration by the Commissioner. ❑ Resident Engineer requests assistance from other divisions, as needed in developing project in accordance with Rural Rustic Road Guidelines. ❑ Requires State Environmental Review Process and permit determination by Environmental staff of VDOT. ❑ Requires scoping documentation (either LD -430 package or modified scoping document developed by Programming Division, see page 7). *Note: The Transportation Manager will be VDOT's designated representative in Northern Virginia. 4 7/2/03 Environmental Requirements for Rural Rustic Road Program All projects being considered for this program should be reviewed by the Residency Environmental Specialist or District Environmental Staff for consideration of the following: SERP (Requires 60-90 days) • Is not required if there are: i. No improvements, ii. No horizontal/vertical realignments, iii. No widening, and iv. No acquisition of right of way. Z. Water Quality Permits (Requires 1-135 days) • Are not required if there are: i. No streams, ii. No water bodies, iii. No wetlands, iv. No water in pipes/culverts/ditches, and v. No intermittent/sometimes dry channels. 3. Cultural Resources (Requires 7-30 days) • No coordination is required if there are: i. No water quality permits and ii. Project is not located within a Rural Historic District listed in the Virginia Landmarks Register and/or the National Register of Historic Places. Such districts include, but may not be limited to, the Green Springs Historic District (Louisa Counties), the Catoctin Rural Historic District (Loudoun and Fauquier Counties), and the Madison - Barbour Rural Historic District (Madison and Orange Counties). 4. Threatened and Endangered Species (Requires 30-135 days) • A database search on the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries website must be conducted by Environmental staff for all projects. • No further coordination is required if there are: i. No water quality permits and ii. No threatened and endangered species identified in collections on the DGIF database. 5. Agricultural and Forestal Districts (Requires 30-60 days) • No coordination is required if there will be: i. No purchase of right of way and ii. No exchange of right of way for work performed by VDOT. 1. Straight donation of right of way is acceptable. 6. VPDES Permit (Requires 14 days) • Is not required if there is: i. No clearing, grading, or excavating (earthwork or manipulation of subgrade and shoulders) that results in land disturbance equal to or greater than 1 acre on one project or any combination of adjacent projects. 7. Hazardous Materials (Requires variable amount of time) • No coordination is required if there is: i. No obvious signs of contamination within the project vicinity. 5 7/2/03 Sample Resolution for Rural Rustic Road Project The Board of Supervisors of , in regular meeting on the day of , adopted the following: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, during the 2002 session of the General Assembly, legislation was passed to revise §33.1-70.1 of the code of Virginia, to allow for the improvement and hard surfacing of certain unpaved roads deemed to qualify for and be designated a Rural Rustic Road; and WHEREAS, such roads must be located in a low-density development area and have a minimum of 50 vehicles per day (vpd), and have no more than 500 vpd; and WHEREAS, this Board is unaware of pending development that will significantly affect the existing traffic on the road; and WHEREAS, the citizens that utilize this road have been aware of this road being paved with minimal improvements; and WHEREAS, this Board believes Route a Rural Rustic Road, From: To: should be designated owing to its qualifying characteristics; and WHEREAS, the road aforesaid is in this Board's six-year plan for improvements to its secondary system of state highways: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board hereby designates and requests VDOT's Resident Engineer to concur in the aforesaid road as a Rural Rustic Road, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board requests that this road be hard surfaced and, to the fullest extent prudent, be improved within the existing right of way and ditch -lines to preserve as much as possible the adjacent trees, vegetation, side slopes, and rural rustic character along the road in their current state. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution is forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Vote Moved By: Seconded By: Signed Yeas: Printed Name Nays: Title 0 7/2/03 A Copy Teste: Enabling Legislation § 33.1-70.1. Requesting Department to hard -surface secondary roads; paving of certain secondary roads within existing rights-of-way; designation as Rural Rustic Road. A. Whenever the governing body of any county, after consultation with personnel of the Department of Transportation, adopts a resolution requesting the Department of Transportation to hard -surface any secondary road in such county that carries fifty or more vehicles per day with a hard surface of width and strength adequate for such traffic volume, the Department of Transportation shall give consideration to such resolution in establishing priority in expending the funds allocated to such county. The Department shall consider the paving of roads with a right-of-way width of less than forty feet under this subsection when land is, has been, or can be acquired by gift for the purpose of constructing a hard -surface road. B. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection A of this section, any unpaved secondary road that carries at least fifty but no more than 750 vehicles per day may be paved or improved and paved within its existing right-of-way or within a wider right-of-way that is less than forty feet wide if the following conditions are met: 1. The governing body of the county in which the road is located has requested paving of such road as part of the six-year plan for the county under § 33.1-70.01 and transmitted that request to the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner. 2. The Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner, after having considered only (i) the safety of such road in its current condition and in its paved or improved condition, including the desirability of reduced speed limits and installation of other warning signs or devices, (ii) the views of the residents and owners of property adjacent to or served by such road, (iii) the views of the governing body making the request, (iv) the historical and aesthetic significance of such road and its 7/2/03 surroundings, (v) the availability of any additional land that has been or may be acquired by gift or other means for the purpose of paving such road within its existing right-of-way or within a wider right-of-way that is less than forty feet wide, and (vi) environmental considerations, shall grant or deny the request for the paving of such road under this subsection. C. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections A and B, the governing body of any county, in consultation with the Department, may designate a road or road segment as a Rural Rustic Road provided such road or road segment (i) is located in a low-density development area and has an average daily traffic volume of no more than 500 vehicles per day and (ii) has a posted speed limit consistent with the topography and features along the road. For a road or road segment so designated, improvements shall utilize a paved surface width based on reduced and flexible standards that leave trees, vegetation, side slopes and open drainage abutting the roadway undisturbed to the maximum extent possible without compromising public safety. The provisions of this subsection shall become effective July 1, 2003. D. The Commonwealth, its agencies, instrumentalities, departments, officers, and employees acting within the scope of their duties and authority shall be immune for damages by reason of actions taken in conformity with the provisions of this section. Immunity for the governing body of any political subdivision requesting paving under this section and the officers and employees of any such political subdivision shall be limited to that immunity provided pursuant to § 15.2-1405. Secondary Road Name Rating Hollow Road (Route 707) 80 Ridings Mill Road (Route 709) 80 Warm Springs Road (Route 676) 77 Carter Lane (Route 629) 76 Chestnut Grove Road (Route 68 1) 76 North Sleepy Creek Road (Route 734) 73 Pack Horse Road (Route 692) 73 Indian Hollow Road (Route 679) 72 Canterburg Road (Route 636) 71 Fishel Road (Route 612) 69 Fletcher Road (Route 733) 67 Heishman Lane (Route 607) 66 Clark Road (Route 638) 64 East Parkins Mill Road (Route 644) 63 Huttle Road (Route 636) 63 Old Baltimore Road (Route 677) 63 Middle Fork Road (Route 695) 63 Woodside Road (Route 671) 62 Walters Mill Lane (Route 836) 61 South Timber Ridge Road (Route 696) 58 Cougill Road (Route 634) 50 Timberlakes Lane (Route 811) 48 II A DT cT77J1VA f -F PRniF.CT RATING SYSTEM tt e Route Number. og From - To: • 3 P?1 i . W. R+. 60$ Road Name: 11,11aq ko116W M. 5 l�li. k • R+. 40O Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count (1) 50-75 3 X (1) , (2) 76-100 3 X (2) �(3) 101-150 ; 3 X (3) (4) 151-200 3 X (4) (5) 201+ 3 X (5) 2) Occupied Structures Ov 1-10 J 3 X (1) (2) 11-25 3 X (2) (3) 26-50 3X(3) (4) 51+ 3 X (4) 3) Physical Road Conditions/ Safety a) Surface Width (4) 10'-12' 4 X (4) r (3) 12.1'-14' 4 X (3), (2) 14.1'-16' 4 X (2) (1) 16+, 4 X (1) b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 X (4) (3) 1' 4 X (3) (2) - 2' 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) C) Horizontal Curvature (1) for each occurence 4 X (?) d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence 4 X (?) e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) (2) fair 4 X (2) (3) poor 4 X (3) ' f) Accident Data (1) 1-5 per year 4 X (1) (2) 6-10 per year 4 X (2) (3) 10+ per year 4 X (3) 4) School Bus Travel J (1) Yes 5 X (1) `~s -(Or_ No 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan (1) 0-5 yrs. 2 X (1) (2) 5-10 yrs. 2 X (2) 3 'H+ .. yrs. 2 X 3 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Road Name: �1C �UI Route Number. 9a From - To: i ' ° • K� �• boo Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count (1) 50-75 3 X (1) (2) 76-100 3 X (2) (3) 10.1-150 3 X (3) (4) 151-200 3 X (4) (5) 0. 201+ 3 X (5) 2) Occupied Structures (1) 1-10 3 X (1) (2) _ 11-25 ` 3 X (2) (3) 26-50 3 X (3) (4) 51+ 3 X (4) 3) Physical Road Conditions/ Safety a) Surface Width (4) 10'-12' 4 X (4) (3) 12.1'-14' 4 X (3) (2), 14.1'-16: 4 X (2) (1) 16'+ 4 X (1) b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 X (4) (3) 1' 4 X (3) (2) 2' 4 X (2) (1) .__. 3.+ 4 X (1) c) Horizontal Curvature (1) for each occureince 4 X (?) d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence 4 X (?) e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) (2) fair 4 X (2) (3) poor 4 X (3) fj Accident Data Qj_ 1-5 per year 4 X (1) (2) 6-10 per year 4 X (2) (3) 10+ per year 4 X (3) 4) School Bus Travel (1) Yes 1 5 X (1) (0) No 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan (1) 0-5 yrs. 2 X (1) (2) 5-10 yrs. 2 X (2) 3 11+yrs. 2 X (3 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES II A D71 c1T-n- A rF. PRn_YV.('T RATING SYSTEM Road Name: 5 i Route Number,. J 72 4 From - To: ti • -A -7 ��' • W k 5ZZ A/— o �yi1 a•ai M�. �5W �i--: SZZrx/ Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count (1) 50-75 3 X (1) _ (2) 76-100 3 X (2) (3) 101-150 3 X (3) (4) 151-200 3 X (4) (5) 201+ 3 X (5) 2) Occupied Structures (1) 1-10 3 X (1) (2) 11-25 - 3 X (2) (3) _ 26-50 3 X (3) (4) 51+ 3 X (4) 3) Physical Road Conditions/ Safety a) Surface Width (4) 10'-12' 4 X (4) 4 X (3) (2) 14.1'46' 4 X (2) (1) 16'+ 4 X (1) b) Shoulder Width (4) _ 0' 4 X (4) rq) 1' 4X(3) (2) 2' 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) c) Horizontal Curvature (1) for each occur enee 4 X (?) d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence 4 X (?) e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) (2) fair 4 X (2) (3) poor 4 X (3) f) Accident Data (1) 1-5 per year 4 X (1) (2) 6-10 per year 4 X (2) (3) 10+ per year 4 X (3) 4) School Bus Travel (1) Yes ', 5 X (1) (0) No 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan (1) 0-5 yrs. 2 X (1) Y � (2) 5-10 yrs. 2 X (2) (3). 11+ yrs. 2 X (3 IMMwim GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES F Jim_ HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Road Name: Route Number. From - To: Z4. 6 3 6 -- �d���s,�o� . -73 Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count (1) 50-75 3 X (1) (2) 76-100 3 X (2) (3) 101-150 3 X (3) J(4) 151-200 3 X (4) (5) 201+ 3 X (5) 2) Occupied Structures (1) 1-10 3 X (1) (2) 11-25 ^ ` 3 X (2) (3) 26-50 3 X (3) (4) 51+ 3 X (4) 3) Physical Road Conditions/ Safety a) Surface Width (4) 10'-12' 4 X (4) (3) 12.1'-14' 4 X (3) (2) 14.1'-16' 4 X (2) (1) 16'+ 4 X (1) b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 X (4) (3) 1' 4 X (3) (2) 2# 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) c)1Torizontal Curvature (1) for each occurence 4 X (?) d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence 4 X (?) e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) (2) fair 4 X (2) / (3) poor 4 X (3) f) Accident Data (1) 1-5 per year 4 X (1) (2) 6-10 per year 4 X (2) (3) 10+ per year 4 X (3) 4) School Bus Travel z (1) Yes 5 X (1) (0) No 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan (1) 0-5 yrs. 2 X (1) (2) 5-10 yrs. 2 X (2) �3 11+j rs. _r 2 X 3 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES rrADT\ QTTv-VAd--V punfVt-T RATING. SYSTEM RoadName: Route Number. I i -, From - To: (2'i • % 0 0 Category Criteria Weight Total Points Daily Traffic (1) 50-75t (2) 76-100 3 X (2) (3) 101-150 3 X (3) (4) 151-200 3 X (4) (5) 201+ 3 X (5) 2) Occupied Structures (1) 1-10 3 X (1) (2).: _ 11-25 3 X (2) )` 26-50 3 X (3) (4) 51+ 3 X (4) 3) Physical Road Conditions/ Safety a) Surface Width (4) 10'-12' 4 X (4) (3) 12.1'-14' 4 X (3) (2) 14.1'-16' 4 X (2) (1) 16'+ 4 X (1) b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 X (4) 4 X (3) (2) TT.2' 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) C) Horizontal Curvature (1) for each occur encs 4 X (?) d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence 4 X (?) t e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) r (2) fair 4 X (2) (3) poor. 4 X (3) f) Accident Data _per year, 4 X (1) (2) 6-10 per year 4 X (2) (3) 10+ per year 4 X (3) 4) School Bus Travel (1) Yes 5 X (1) '' 0) No 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan (1) _ 0-5 yrs. 2 X (1) (2) 5-10 yrs. 2 X (2) 3 11+ yrs. 2 X 3 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Road Name: 191Route Number: From - To: Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count (1) 50-75 3 X (1) (2) 76-100 3 X (2) (3) 101-150 3 X (3) (4) 151-200 3 X (4) (5) 201+ 3 X (5) 2) Occupied Structures (1) 1-10 3 X (1) 1 (2) 11-25 3 X (2) (3) 26-50 3 X (3) (4) 51+ 3 X (4) 3) Physical Road Conditions/ Safety a) Surface Width (4) 10'-12' 4 X (4) (3) 12.1'-14' 4 X (3) (2) 14.1'-16' 4 X (2) (1) 16'+ 4 X (1) b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 X (4) ` (3) 1' 4 X (3) (2) 2' 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) c) Horizontal Curvature (1) for Each occur ecce 4 X (?) d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence 4 X (?) e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) (2) fair. - 4 X (2) (3) poor 4 X (3) f) Accident Data (1) 1-5 per year 4 X (1) (2) 6-10 per year 4 X (2) (3) 10+ per year 4 X (3) 4) School Bus Travel (1) Yes 5 X (1) (0) No 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan (1) 0-5 yrs. 2 X (1) (2) 5-10 yrs. 2 X (2) 3 11+ yrs. 2 X 3) GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES "ADTl CTM-PAI—V pun_rF.rT RATTN(i SYSTEM =Name:i Route Number. �Ly From - To:�¢�-ie� 1 �z� ,(0a Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count (1) 50-75 3 X (1) (2) 76-100 3 X (2) (3) 101-150 3 X (3) (4) 151-200 3 X (4) 3 X (5) 2) Occupied Structures (1) 1-10 3 X (1) (2) 11-25 3 X (2) (3) 26-50 N 3 X (3) (4) 51+ 3 X (4) 3) Physical Road Conditions/ Safety a) Surface Width (4) 10'-12' 4 X (4) (3) 12.1'-14' 4 X (3) (214.1'-16 4 X (2) (1) 16'+ 4 X (1) b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 X (4) (g).,. 1� r 4 X (3) (2) 2' 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) c) 1111orizontal Curvature (1) for Each occurence 4 X (?) d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence 4 X (?) e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) (2) fair 4 X (2) (3) poor 4 X (3) f) Accident Data CA J 1 1-5 year ' ; O � Per Y 4 X (1) 6-10 per year 4 X (2) (3) 10+ per year 4 X (3) 4) School Bus Travel (1) Yeas' 5 X (1) - (0) No 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan (1) 0-5 yrs. 2 X (1) (2) 5-10 yrs. 2 X (2) 3 11+ rs. 2 X (3 �"AkGRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM f� ,-1. -- Road Name: %t � , ,_(. 1, � Route Number. � � � From - To: 6 4I Op V Ni tai. k q1 Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count (1) 50-75 3 X (1) - (2) 76-100 3 X (2) (3) 101-150 3 X (3) (4) 151-200 3 X (4) (5) 201+ 3 X (5) 2) Occupied Structures (1) 1-10 3 X (1) (2) _ 1-25 3 X (2) ,(3) 26-50}' 3 X (3) (4) 51+ 3 X (4) 3) Physical Road Conditions/ Safety a) Surface Width (4) 10'-12' 4 X (4) (3) 12.1'-14' i 4 X (3) (2) 14.1'-16' 4 X (2) (1) 16'+ 4 X (1) b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 X (4) (3) 1' ` 4 X (3) (2) 2' 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) C) Horizontal Curvature (1) for each occurence 4 X (?) d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence 4 X (?) e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) (2) fair 4 X (2) (3) poor 4 X (3) f) Accident Data (1) 1-5 per year 4 X (1) (2) 6-10 per year 4 X (2) (3) 10+ per year 4 X (3) 4) School Bus Travel (1) Yes 5 X (1) (0) ` No 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan (1) 0-5 yrs. 2 X (1) (2) 5-10 yrs. 2 X (2) 3 11+ yrs. 2 X (3 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES a ,. ii)„ QTTi? F A !'F pu n_TV.CT R A TING SYSTEM Road Name: I �fj a Route Number. From - To: V// F67' K. i1 Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count (1) 50-75 3 X (1) (2) 76-100 3 X (2) (3) 101-150 3 X (3) 4) .. 151-200 f 3 X (4) (5) 201+ 3 X (5) 2) Occupied Structures (1) 1-10 3 X (1) k (2) 11-25 3 X (2) ;,(3)� 26-40 3 X (3) (4) 51+ 3 X (4) 3) Physical Road Conditions/ Safety a) Surface Width _ (4) 10'-12' � � 4X 4 ( ) (3) 12.1'-14' 4 X (3) (2) 14.1'46' 4 X (2) (1) 16'+ 4 X (1) b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 X (4) 4 X (3) 4 X (2) (2) 2' (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) c) ;horizontal Curvature (1) for each occur once 4 X (?) d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence 4 X (?) e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) (2) fair 4 X (2) .(3) poor. 4 X (3) f) Accident Data (1) 1-5 per year 4 X (1) V (2) 6-10 per year 4 X (2) (3) 10+ per year 4 X (3) 4) School Bus Travel jl) Yes 5 X (1) (0) No 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan (1) 0-5 yrs. 2 X (1) " (2)^5-10 yrs: 2 X (2) 3 11+ yrs. 2 X 3 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES VA HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Road Name: r�r�l �� / Route Number. &07From - To: let. 6� �- Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count (1) 50_-75 3 X (1) (2) _7A -A"— 3 X (2) (3) 101-150 3 X (3)' (4) 151-200 3 X (4) (5) 201+ 3 X (5) 2) Occupied Structures (1) 1-10 3 X (1) E. (2) 11-25 3 X (2) 26-50 3X(3) (4) 51+ 3 X (4) 3) Physical Road Conditions/ Safety a) Surface Width (4) 10'-12' 4 X (4) (3) 12.1'-14' 4 X (3) (2) 14.1'-16' 4 X (2) (1) 16'+ 4 X (1) b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 X (4) (3) 1 4 X (3) (2) 2• 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) c) Horizontal Curvature (1) for each occur ence 4 X (?) d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence 4 X (?) e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) r ,. F ~' (2) fair 4 X (2) V11'. `r (3) Poor J 4 X (3) f) Accident Data (1) 1-5 per year 4 X (1) (2) 6-10 per year 4 X (2) (3) 10+ per year 4 X (3) 4) School Bus Travel (1) Yes 5 X (1) `1 (0)' fNo 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan (1) 0-5 yrs. 2 X (1) (2) 5-10 yrs. 2 X (2) 3 11+rs. " 2 X 3 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES II A i " crTAFA t -F. PRn_rF(T RATING SYSTEM RoadName: ��++ ., outs Number. �/ From - To: �� • �S `� V 3 f rhA+ 6rOdC 7 e -A (p Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count (1) 50-75 3 X (1) (2) 76-100 3 X (2) (3) 101-150 3 X (3) (4) 151-200 3 X (4) (5) 201+ 3 X (5) 2) Occupied Structures (1) 1-10 3 X (1) r (2) 11-25 3 X (2) (3) 26-50 3 X (3) (4) 51+ 3 X (4) 3) Physical Road Conditions/ Safety a) Surface Width (4) 10'-12' 4 X (4) (3) 12.1'-14' 4 X (3) (2) 14.1'-16' 4 X (2) (1) {`^ 16'+ 4 X (1) b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 X (4) (3) 1' 4 X (3) (2) 21 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) c) Horizontal Curvature (1) for each oceurence 4 X (?) d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence 4 X (?) e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) Q2) fair 4 X (2) (3) poor 4 X (3) f) Accident Data 1 (1) 1-5 per year 4 X (1) (2) 6-10 per year 4 X (2) (3) 10+ per year 4 X (3) 4) School Sus Travel (14 yes) 5 X (1) (0) No 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan (1) 0-5 yrs. 2 X (1) (2) 5-10 yrs. 2 X (2) 3 11+ yrs. 2 X 3 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Road Name: �1�e r0� t, Route Number: From - To: � l,�w� JAZZ'' Category f` Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic (1) 50-75 3 X (1) Count a) Surface Width (2) 76-100 3 X (2) (3) 101-150 3 X (3) (4) 151-200 3 X (4) (5) 201+ 3 X (5) 2) Occupied Structures (1),_ 1-10 3 X (1) o 5) Time on Road Plan (2) 11-25 3 X (2) 4 X (2) (3) 26-50 3 X (3) (3) 11+ vrs.' (4) 51+ 3 X (4) 3) Physical Road Conditions/ Safetv a) Surface Width (4) 10'-12' 4 X (4) (3)'12.1'44' 4 X (3) (2) 14.1'-16' 4 X (2) (1) 16'+ 4 X (1) b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 X (4) 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan (1) 0-5 yrs. (2) T 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) 4 X'?) Id) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence I 4 X (?) I II e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) (2) fair 4 X (2) a' (3) poor 4 X (3) f) Accident Data'(1) )-5 per year 4 X (1) (2) 6-10 per year 4 X (2) (3) 10+ per year 4 X (3) 4) School Bus Travel (1)� Yes ' 5 X (1) (0) No 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan (1) 0-5 yrs. 2 X (1) (2) 5-10 yrs. 2 X (2) (3) 11+ vrs.' 2 X (3) GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Road Name �, (Route Number. �, / From - To:� .. G�aS� �ctt��ir� Kd. `7(COD Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count (1) 50-75 3 X (1) a (2) fair (2) 76-100 3 X (2) (3) 101-150 3 X (3) (4) 151-200 3 X (4) (5) 201+ 3 X (5) 2) Occupied Structures (1) 1-10 3 X (1) 4) School Bus Travel (1) Yes (?) 11-25 3 X (2) (p) No (3) 26-50 3 X (3) (1) 0-5 yrs. (4) 51+ 3 X (4) 3) Physical Road Conditions/ Safety 2 X (2) 3 11+ yrs. ; 2 X 3 a) Surface Width (4) 10'-12' 4 X (4) (3) 12.1'44' 4 X (3) (2) 14.1'-16' 4 X (2) (1) 16'+ 4 X (1) b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 X (4) 431 1 ° 4 X (3) (2) 2' 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) n_� rt2 �•. - [t : f: r a�rr n: rinreen: 4 A' F?) d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence 4 X (?) e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) a (2) fair 4 X (2) (3) poor 4 X (3) E f) Accident Data i (1) 1-5 per year 4 X (1) (2) 6-10 per year 4 X (2) (3) 10+ per year 4 X (3) 4) School Bus Travel (1) Yes 5 X (1) (p) No 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan (1) 0-5 yrs. 2 X (1) (2) 5-10 yrs. 2 X (2) 3 11+ yrs. ; 2 X 3 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Road Name: p �) /- Route Number. 3 From - To: VV Gi Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count (1) 50-75 3 X (1) (2) 76-100 3 X (2) (3) 101-150 3 X (3) (4) 151-200 3 X (4) (5) 201+ 3 X (5) 2) Occupied Structures (1) 1-10 3 X (1) t (2) 11-25 3 X (2) (3) 26-50 3 X (3) (4) 51+ 3 X (4) 3) Physical Road Conditions/ Safety a) Surface Width (4) 10'-12' 4 X (4) (3) 12.1'-14;� 4 X (3) (2) 14.1'-16' 4 X (2) (1) 16'+ 4 X (1) b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 X (4) r (3) 1' 4 X (3) (2) 2' 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) c) Horizontal Curvature (1) far each occurence 4 X (?) d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence 4 X (?) e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) fair ,. 4 X (2) (3) poor 4 X (3) f) Accident Data (1) 1-5 per year 4 X (1) (2) 6-10 per year 4 X (2) (3) 10+ per year 4 X (3) 4) School Bus Travel (1) Yes/ 5 X (1) (0) No 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan (1) 0-5 yrs. 2 X (1) (2) 5-10 yrs. 2 X (2) 3 11+ Irs. 2 X 3 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Road Name: { j Route Number.d From - To: ��/ �( l✓ " L4A/t J 3 67�KA ' Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count (1) 50-75 3 X (1) (2) 76-100 3 X (2) (3)' 101-150 3 X (3) (4) 151-200 3 X (4) (5) 201+ 3 X (5) 2) Occupied Structures (1) 1-10 3 X (1) (2) 11-25 3 X (2) (3) 26-50 3 X (3) (4) 51+ 3 X (4) 3) Physical Road Conditions/ Safety a) Surface Width (4) 10'-12' 4 X (4) (3) 12.1'-14' 4 X (3) (2) 14.1'-16' 4 X (2) (1) 16'+ 4 X (1) b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 X (4) (3) 11 4 X (3) (2) 21 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) c) Horizontal Curvature (1) fcr each occur once 4 X (?) d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence 4 X (?) e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) (2) fair 4 X (2) (3) poor 4 X (3) f) Accident Data �1) 1-5 per year 4 X (1) (2) 6-10 per year 4 X (2) (3) 10+ per year 4 X (3) 4) School Bus Travel (1)� Yes, 5 X (1) (0) No 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan (1) 0-5 yrs. 2 X (1) (2) 5-10 yrs. 2 X (2) 3 • 11+ yrs. 2 X 3 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Name- (1 V + • Route Number. Q From - To:� : 5 (� ( E Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count k °: ( (1) 50-75 3 X (1) (2) 76-100 3 X (2) (3) 101-150 3 X (3) (4) 151-200 3 X (4) (5) 201+ 3 X (5) 2) Occupied Structures (1) 1-10 3 X (1) 1 (2) 11-25 3 X (2) (3) 26-50 3 X (3) (4) 51+ 3 X (4) 3) Physical Road Conditions/ Safety a) Surface Width (4) 10'-12' 4 X (4) (3) 12.1'-14'.-. 4X(3) (2) 14.1'-16' 4 X (2) (1) 16'+ 4 X (1) b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 X (4) 1' 4 X (3) (2) 2' 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) c) Horizontal Curvature (1) fcr each occurence 4 X (?) d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence 4 X (?) e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) (2J fair. 4 X (2) .(3) poor 4 X (3) f) Accident Data ; (1) �1 5 per year 4 X (1) 6-10 per year 4 X (2) (3) 10+ per year 4 X (3) 4) School Bus Travel r- M Yes ; 5 X (1) (0) No 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan (1) 0-5 yrs. 2 X (1) (2) 5-10 yrs. 2 X (2) 3) 11+ yrs. 2 X 3 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES $ A A i?il cTTD A rF. pun_YF'('T RATING SYSTEM Road Name -WI ��__ W Route Number. From - It iA(,� To: O A Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count (1) 50-75 3 X (1) (2) 76-100 3 X (2) ,.s 3 101-150 3 X (3) (4) 151-200 3 X (4) (5) 201+ 3 X (5) 2) Occupied Structures (1) 1-10 3 X (1) (2) 11-25 3 X (2) (3)._. _ 26-50 3 X (3) (4) 51+ 3 X (4) 3) Physical Road Conditions/ Safety a) Surface Width (4) 10'-12' 4 X (4) (3) 12.1'-14' 4 X (3) (2) 14.1'-16' 4 X (2) 4 X (1) b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 X (4) 4 X (3) (2) 2' 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) c) Horizontal Curvature (1) far each occurence t 4 X (?) d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence 4 X (?) r e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) (2) fair 4 X (2) poor ,' 4 X (3) f) Accident Data rJ (1). _ 1-5 ner year, 4 X (1) (2) 6-10 per year 4 X (2) (3) 10+ er year 4 X (3) 4) School Bus Travel .1 (1) Yes, 5 X (1), (0) No 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan (1) 0-5 yrs. 2 X (1) (2) 5-10 yrs. 2 X (2) 3 11+ yrs. 2 X 3 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Road Name: I `� M Route Number. � -7 � From - To: Rf. 6 q `' Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count (1) 50-75 3 X (1) (2) 76-100 3 X (2) (3) 101-150 3 X (3) (4) 151-200 3 X (4) (5) 201+ 3 X (5) 2) Occupied Structures (1) —1--10'. 3 X (1) (2) 11-25 3 X (2) (3) 26-50 3 X (3) (4) 51+ 3 X (4) 3) Physical Road Conditions/ Safety a) Surface Width (4) 10'-12' 4 X (4) (3) 12.1'-14' 4 X (3) (2) 14.1'-16' 4 X (2) (1) 16'+ 4 X (1) b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 X (4) (3) 1' 4 X (3) (2) 2' 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) C) Horizontal Curvature (:) for each occur ence 4 X I?) d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence 4 X (?) e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) (2) fair 4 X (2) _(3) poor 4 X (3) f) Accident Data �1 l (1) 1-5 per year 4 X (1) (2) 6-10 per year 4 X (2) (3) 10+ per year 4 X (3) 4) School Bus Travel (1) Yes 5 X (1) �—w (0) No 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan (1) 0-5 yrs. 2 X (1) (2) 5-10 yrs. 2 X (2) 3 11+yrs. 2 X 3 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES II A -wn crmi's f F PRn_Y'.1-T R AT1N(T SYSTEM a,W Route Number. From - To: Z Z /nLRoad Name:qs�0w� Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count (1) 50-75 3 X (1) (2) 76-100 3 X (2) (3) 101-150, 3 X (3) (4) 151-200 3 X (4) (5) 201+ 3 X (5) 2) Occupied Structures (1) 1-10 3 X (1) (2) 11-25 3 X (2) (3) - 26-50 3 X (3) (4) 51+ 3 X (4) 3) Physical Road Conditions/ Safety a) Surface Width (4) 10'-12' 4 X (4) (3) 12.1'-14' 4 X (3) (2) 14.1'-16' 4 X (2) R •.(1) 16'+ 4 X (1) b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 X (4) (3) 11 4 X (3) (2) 21 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) c) Horizontal Curvature (1) for each occsrence 4 X (?) d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence 4 X (?) e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) (2) fair 4 X (2) poor`) 4 X (3) f) Accident Data r -- (1) 1-5 per year 4 X (1) (2) 6-10 per year 4 X (2); (3) 10+ per year 4 X (3) 4) School Bus Travel (1 Yes) 5 X (1) (0) No 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan (1) 0-5 yrs. 2 X (1) (2) 5-10 yrs. 2 X (2) 3 11+ rs- 2 X 3 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Road Name:lii►� j� � f ` ��Route Number. From - To: 9-f• (v 71 — 4 :Zfo-,k A16;�+-,xrJ Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count (1) 50-75 3 X (1) (2) 76-100 3 X (2) (3) 101-150 3 X (3) (4)-, 151-200..x' 3 X (4) (5) 201+ 3 X (5) 2) Occupied Structures (1) 1-10 3 X (1) (2) 11-25 ) 3 X (2) (3) 26-50 3 X (3) (4) 51+ 3 X (4) 3) Physical Road Conditions/ Safety a) Surface Width (4) 10'-12' 4 X (4) (3) 12.1'-14' 4 X (3) (2) 14.1'-16' 4 X (2) b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 X (4) (3) 1' 4 X (3) (2) 2' 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) c) Horizontal Curvature (1) f�,r each accurence 4 X (?) d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence _ 4 X (?) e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) ✓' '(2) fair) 4 X (Z) (3) poor 4 X (3) f) Accident Data (1) 1-5 per year 4 X (1) (2) 6-10 per year 4 X (2) (3) 10+ per year 4 X (3) 4) School Bus Travel (1) Yes 5 X (1) t� (Or-o 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan (1) 0-5 yrs. 2 X (1) (2) 5-10 yrs. 2 X (2) 3 11+ yrs. 2 X 3 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES u A Dn CY-M- ACF PPn_YF.CT R ATINCT SYSTEM Road Name•�� • t I C� Route Number: From - To: C I Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count (1) 50-75 3 X (1) (2) 76-100 3 X (2) (3) 101-150 3 X (3) (4) 151-200 3 X (4) (5) 201+`, 3 X (5) 2) Occupied Structures (1) 1-10 3 X (1) (2) 11-25 3 X (2) (3) 26-50 3 X (3) (4) 51+ 3 X (4) 3) Physical Road Conditions/ Safety a) Surface Width (4) 10'-12' 4 X (4) (3) 12.1'-14' 4 X (3) (2) 14.1'-16' 4 X (2) 16'+- ''' 4 X (1) b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 X (4) 4 X (3) (2) 2' 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) c) Horizontal Curvature (1) for each occurcnce 4 X d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence - 4 X (?) e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) (2)� fail,` 4 X (2) (3) poor 4 X (3) f) Accident Data (1) 1-5 per year 4 X (1) (2) 6-10 per year 4 X (2) (3) 10+ per year 4 X (3) 4) School Sus Travel (1) Yes 5 X (1) No, 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan � r (1) ' 0-5 yrs. 2 X (1) (2) 5-10 yrs. 2 X (2) 3 11+ rs.' 2 X 3 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES HARD SURFACE PROJECT RNTEYC SYSTEM Road Name 0`d gQjki ntor�,, Route Number. / { �7 From - To: (O ` Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count 60 -.(PCA (1) 50-75 3 X (1) 15 (2) 76-100 3 X (2) (3) 101-150 3 X (3) (4) 151-200 3 X (4) r (5) 201+ 3 X (5) 2) occupied Structures (1) 1-10 3 X (1) (2) 11-25 3 X (2) ,(3) 26-50 3 X (3) (4) 51+ 3 X (4) 3) Physical Rood Conditionsl Safety a) Surface Width (4) 10'-12' 4 X (4) �. (3) 12.1'-14' 4 X (3) �` (2) 14.1'-16'=` 4 X (3) (� 6 4X(1) h) Shoulder Width (4) 01\ 4 X (4) (3} �1' 4X(3) (2) 2' 4X(2) (1) 31+ 4 X (1) C) iiYoeaoatal C-Urvature (i) r each Gccumnce 4 X (:f) d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence 4 X ('?) e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) (2) fair 4 X (2) (3) poor 4 X (3) f) Accident Data1�5 J ger year 4 X (1) (2) 6-10 ger year 4 X (2) (3) 10+ ger year 4 X (3) 4) School Bus Travel 1) Yet 5 X (1) (0) No 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan (1 0 5 y r, ' 2 X (1) (2) 5-10 yrs. 2 X (2) (3) 11+ vrs. 2 X (3) GRAND TOTAL FOR .ALL CATEGORIES 2) Draft Update of the 2005-2006 through 2010-2011 Primary Road Improvement Plan The Frederick County Primary Road Improvement Plan focuses on improvements to existing major and minor arterial roads within Frederick County. Arterial Roads in Frederick County include Routes 7,11, 37, 50, 55, 277, and 522. The Frederick County Primary Road Improvement Plan is updated annually through a public hearing process involving reviews by the Transportation Committee, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. The adopted plan is submitted to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for consideration during the funding process. Fairfax Pike (Route 277) remains the top priority recommendation, followed by improvements to Route 11; spot improvements to intersections along Routes 50 and 277; and finally the establishment of a commuter parking and ride share lot on Route 7. Please find attached a copy of the draft Primary Improvement Plan for the 2005-2006 update, including a staff prepared map showing project locations. U:,COWITTEES�TRANSPORM710A';Agemfra'.?00-1 Agendas'June_ 17_0a Road Plan Updnres.,vpd 2005-2006 PRIMARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN for FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DRAFT IJ.'COWITTE.ES'TRANSPORTATIONAgendcrs'.200J AgendasVmie_17_04 Road Plop Updn1—, pd 1) Route 277 (East of Stephens City) County staff to work with site developers to acquire dedicated right-of-way and achieve grading, drainage, and construction improvements in conjunction with development projects which occur along the corridor until such time that funding is available for construction. Establish a construction schedule for the phased improvement of Route 277. Program funding for the completion of right-of-way acquisition and construction of each phase as described above. A) Route 277 - Phase 1 (East of Stephens City) From: 1-81/277 Interchange To: Route 636 (as illustrated on map as priority IA) B) Route 277 - 'Phase 2 (East of Stephens City) From: Route 636 To: Route 340/522 (as illustrated on map as priority 1B) 2) Route 11 (North and South of Winchester) A) Establish an Urban Four Lane System From: Southern limits of the City of Winchester To: Intersection of Route 37 South, Exit 310 (as illustrated on map as priority 2A) B) Establish an Urban Four Lane System From: Northern limits of the City of Winchester To: Intersection of Route 761. (as illustrated on map as priority 2B) p.-ICOA,94ITTE&51.TRANSPORTATIOMAgendtxst200l Agendas'Jmie_l7_04 R—d P1— Updales.wpd 3) Spot Improvements A) Route 50/17 Program funds to initiate engineering and design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction involving the relocation of the existing entrance to Carper's Valley Golf Club to align with the major collector road entering the Ravens Development; to construct a new crossover at this intersection location with turn lanes on Route 50/17; and to eliminate the existing crossover serving Carper's Valley Golf Club. This spot safety improvement will ensure conformance with the Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS) and the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan's Eastern Road Plan. (as illustrated on map as priority 3A) B) Sulfur Springs Road and Route 50 Program funds to install Trac Light at intersection of Sulfur Springs Road (Route 655) and Millwood Pike (Route 50) (as illustrated on map as priority 3B) C) White Oak Road and Route 277 Program funds to install Traffic Light at intersection of White Oak Road (Route 636) and Fairfax Pike (Route 277) (as illustrated on map as priority 3C) 4) Commuter Park and Ride Lots Establish anew park and ride facility along the Berryville Pike (Route 7) corridor. Work with the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission to determine appropriate locations for park and ride facilities at other strategic locations within the County's Urban Development Area. (as illustrated on map as priority 4) U:ICOMM7TTEES17RANSPORTAT/ON�Agendasi200JAgendas'✓rme_/7 04_Ro dPlnnUpdmeswyd 3) Draft Update of the 2005-2006 through 2010-2011 Interstate Road Improvement Plan The Frederick County Interstate Road Improvement Plan is updated annually through a public hearing process involving reviews by the Transportation Committee, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. The adopted plan is submitted to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for consideration during the funding process. No changes have been made from last years Interstate Road Improvement Plan. Please find attached a copy of the draft Primary Improvement Plan for the 2005-2006 update, including a staff prepared map showing project locations. U:�COA,94I7TEES'ITRANSPOR7ATION✓lgeudas'.200JAgendnsVenm IT OJ_RoadPlan UPdales.'vpd 2005-2006 INTERSTATE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN for FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DRAFT U.'COAVdIT7EESITRANSPORTATIONulgendosi200JAgendasJune_!?_0J_RmdP/mn Updn[es.wpd I-81 Improvements: Provide additional travel lanes on the main line, collector -distributor lanes adjacent to the main line, modifications to existing interchange areas, and develop new interchange areas and bridge crossings of the main line as recommended by the Interstate 81 Study and the Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS). Moreover, the County of Frederick supports exploration of the potential for rail transportation as a component of the Interstate 81 Corridor improvements. A) Widen Abrams Creek Bridge and Extension of Northbound Acceleration and Southbound Deceleration Lanes, Exit 313 (as illustrated on map as priority I -81A) B) Extend Southbound Acceleration Lane, Exit 310 From: Route 37 To: Southbound•.1-81 (as illustrated on map as priority I -81B) C) Widen I-81 from Fairfax Pike to Route 37 North. This should include the relocation of the 277 Interchange, Exit 307, further south to alleviate existing and future congestion on Fairfax Pike. From: Route 277, Exit 307 To: Route 37 North, Exit 310 (as illustrated on map as priority 1-81 C) D) Widen Remainder of I-81 in Frederick County From: West Virginia line To: Warren County line (as illustrated on map as priority 1-81D) U:,COAdM17YELS�TRANSPORTATION,Agend,,s'!1004Agendas'Jvne_1704_R—dPlnnUpdn>es yd LEAF caredi4, The µ' f iiul3 of tXlanr',,,-,g am Davd,wor, 21, acs a ••:. z.. I terst - 81 Improve} 1�.'r. 3 C V4'� f� Q f �1 C4e " •.}+N .. 4.„,� ,f '!� .. .... <::t .'k a_.:, -',in Vii- ser Roads d r { r r ?fit JA ' 04. S� ti 1..•.� - n> `� ' � � 'M►'"”. wy :�(. ,, f Viµ. LEAF caredi4, The µ' f iiul3 of tXlanr',,,-,g am Davd,wor, 21, acs a 4) Proposed No-Thru Truck Traffic Route at Brucetown Road (Route 672) A request has been made to consider restricting through truck traffic on Brucetown Road (Route 672) from Frey's Quarry east to the Clarke County Line. Brucetown road is an east -west collector road, located in the Stonewall Magisterial District. It is primarily used to direct residential traffic to and from Valley Pike (Route 11 N) and Interstate 81. Staff has scheduled review ofthis transportation project with the Transportation Committee and Planning Commission. Comments from the Transportation Committee and Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their input. In accordance with Section 46.2-809 ofthe Code of Virginia, Frederick County must hold a public hearing on this matter. If the Frederick County Board of Supervisors determines that it is appropriate to restrict through truck traffic along this segment of road a resolution to the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Transportation would be appropriate. The matter would then be up to the Commissioner whether or not to restricted thru—trucks. Four criteria are used by Commissioner when reviewing a request for through truck restriction. These criteria include the following: 1) There must be a reasonable alternate route for through truck traffic. 2) Truck traffic must be incompatible with the route proposed for no through truck traffic. 3) The roadway should be residential in nature. 4) The roadway should be a local or collector road. Please find attached a map showing the proposed route for no-thru truck traffic and the two alternative routes for trucks to use. For your information Staff has also attached a copy of the State's guidelines for the consideration of no-thru truck routes. U:'CO&WITTEEYTRANSPORTATIOAbAgend-12004 AgendasJane 17_04! Road Plan Updoces ivpd Brucetown Rd (672) : Proposed No-Thru Truck Route with Two Proposed Alternative Routes Map Features Proposed No-Thru Truck Route Alternate Route - A 'r� Alternate Route - B Hamle s Pr mart' Roads © Lakes/Ponds �i Secondary Roads � Floopla n Terc art' Roatls F. -Cover �i Railroads � Buildings . C.—'6 ... da,y Parcel l'nes \i Index Conrour L—, %1 CAy / Town Bounday S__ Created by Frederick County N Department of Planning & Development This map Is for general reference and is not to be construed `( , as accurate. \V/ Locate actual property S documents on file with the Frederick County Clerk's Office. 1 0.5 0 1 Route_.Name Mileage Proposed Alternate Route - A 10.3 Miles ProposedAlternateRoute - B 11.4 Brucetown Rd (No-Thrtei&eu WRowte)-23 Fncounty Sho'Cky ville / - BerkeleyCounty *{ / JeffersonCounty J G 'ay ; CI¢a gi/tovin % Nam SF ie -. Grnt r 4 f 00 ape q, j toaso lte- .,�:frens Created. June 2nd, 2004 DRAFT Draft September 16, 2003 Adopted by Commonwealth Transportation Board October 16,2003 GUIDELINES FOR CONSIDERING REQUESTS TO RESTRICT THROUGH TRUCKS ON PRIMARY AND SECONDARY HIGHWAYS Section 46.2- 809 of the Code of Virginia provides: The Commonwealth Transportation Board, or its designee, in response to a formal request by a local governing body, after such 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 primary or secondary highway if a reasonable alternate route is provided. The Board, or its designee, shall act upon any such formal request within nine months of its receipt, unless good cause is shown. Such restriction may apply to any truck or truck and trailer or semitrailer 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 in this section shall affect the validity of any city charter provision or city ordinance heretofore adopted. Background 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 on any class of highway should be restricted only upon demonstration that it will promote the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Commonwealth without creating an undue hardship on any of the users of the transportation system. The Board recognizes that there may be a limited number of instances when restricting through trucks from using a segment of a primary or secondary roadway will reduce potential conflicts, creating a safer environment and one that is in accord with the current use of the roadway. The Board has adopted these guidelines to govern and regulate requests for through truck restrictions on primary and secondary highways. Process The Commonwealth Transportation Board delegates the authority to restrict through truck traffic on secondary highways to the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Transportation. Such Draft September 16, 2003 restrictions can apply to any truck, truck and trailer or semi trailer combination, or any combination of those classifications. Consideration of all such restrictions by the Commissioner is subject to these guidelines as adopted by the Board. The Commonwealth Transportation Board retains the authority to restrict through truck traffic on primary highways. In order to conform to the requirements of the Code of Virginia and to insure that all concerned parties have an opportunity to provide input, the local governing body must hold a public hearing and make a formal request of the Department. 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 termini. 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 resolution must describe the proposed through truck restriction and a description of the alternate, including termini. (D) The governing body must 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. The Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Commissioner shall act upon any such formal request within nine months of its receipt, unless good cause is shown. Criteria 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 without creating an undue hardship on any users of the transportation network. The Virginia Department of Transportation will consider criteria 1 through 4 in reviewing a requested through truck restriction. The proposed restriction must meet both the first and second criteria in order to be approved: 1. Reasonable alternate routing is provided. The alternate route will be evaluated for traffic and 2 Draft September 16, 2003 safety related impacts. To be considered "reasonable", the alternate route(s) must be engineered to a standard sufficient for truck travel, and must be judged at least as appropriate for truck traffic as the requested truck restriction route. If an alternate route must be upgraded, the improvement shall be compieted before the truck restriction can be implemented. The termini of the proposed restriction must be identical to the alternate routing to 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 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 issues, accident history, engineering of the roadway, vehicle composition, and other traffic engineering related issues. In addition to meeting the first two criteria, the proposed restriction must meet either the third or the fourth criteria in order to be approved. 3. The roadway is residential in nature. Typically, the roadway will be judged to be residential if there are at least 12 dwellings combined on both sides within 150' of the existing or proposed roadway center line per 1,000 feet of roadway. 4. The roadway must be functionally classified as either a local or collector. Failure to satisfy criteria 1 and 2, and either criteria 3 or 4 will normally result in rejection of the requested restriction. The Commonwealth Transportation Board when deemed necessary may modify or revise any provisions or criteria contained in these guidelines. 9-1