The URL can be used to link to this page

TC 06-07-05 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of :FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Transportation Committee FROM: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner S<e RE: June Transportation Committee Meeting DATE: May 31, 2005 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 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 Tuesday, June 7, 2005 in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. The agenda for this meeting is as follows: AGENDA Public Hearing - Draft 2006-2007 through 2011-2012 Secondary Road Improvement Plan 2. Public Hearing - Draft 2006-2007 through 2011-2012 Primary Road Improvement Plan 3. Public Hearing - Draft 2006-2007 through 2011-2012 Interstate Road Improvement Plan 4. Other. Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting. SKE/dlw Attachments 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 Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 ITEM #1 Draft 2006-2007 through 2011-2012 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 of existing roads. Aylor 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 the unscheduled list of major road improvements projects has been dropped. Projects on the list had little prospect for funding. While the list is no longer included in the 6 year plan, it is still kept for reference by the Planning Department. Two projects have been added to the list of unscheduled hardsurfacing projects — Laurel Grove Road and Babbs Mountain Road. Laurel Grove Road, while not on last year's list, was on the list in previous years. In addition, the Old Baltimore Road project has been extended to include more of this road. A petition from the majority of adjoining property owners was submitted for each of these projects. Staff has attached the worksheets for the hardsurfacing road project to show how each project was rated. Please also find attached a copy of the Frederick County Hardsurfacing Rating System Policy. Walters Mill Lane was dropped from the list of unscheduled hardsurfacing projects as it was paved by the adjacent quarry. A number of roads on the hardsurfacing lists are eligible for the Rural Rustic Road Program. This program 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 if a 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 2006-2007 update, including a staff prepared map showing scheduled hardsurfacing road improvement (HRI) projects and major road improvement (MRI) projects. 2006-2007 SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN for FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DRAFT Frederick County Transportation Committee: Pending Frederick County Planning Commission: Pending Frederick County Board of Supervisors: Pending 05/18/05 FREDERICK COUNTY MAJOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 2006/2007 through 2011/2012 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. U F- Ile 1 W U W Q V W H Z Z7 O �� Q WW w uWi . w g ~ a 0 Quo p Qa w� O o g F= Q v w Q 1) 647 Aylor Road 1.1 mi N of Route 642 7100 1.2 miles OP/SH $3,420,000 01/06 Rt. 277 2) 656` Greenwood Road Route 657 Route 655 4400 1.36 miles SH/RB $4,224,114 UN/SH Feasibility 3) 655` Sulphur Springs Route 656 Route 50 5100 0.78 miles SH $5,653,395 UN/SH Phase Feasibility 4) 1520 Road Inverlee Way — 0.45 Mi. N. Route 657 New 0.61 miles SH $1,963,018 UN/SH Phase Feasibility Revenue Sharing Rt. 50 Road Phase 5) 644 Papermill Road 0.60 Mi. W. Route 522 7700 0.60 miles SH $1,000,000 UN/SH Feasibility Revenue Sharin Rt. 522 Phase 05/18/05 FREDERICK COUNTY HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 2006/2007 through 2011/2012 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. W V F Z W Ill � W Q f„ ❑ W LU N Z Z ❑ O Z ��' Z a W— 1—� QN ON Z w 19 0Q LL >�V H yy O a ❑ _J N U0 aQ ❑ a❑ W V G a 1} 689 Adams Road 2.54 Mi. N. Route 600 110 1.7 miles GA $702,800 10/04 Rural Rustic Rt. 600 S. N. 2) 704 Back Creek Road Route 683 Route 617 160 1.66 miles BC $552,000 03/05 Rural Rustic 3) 704 Back Creek Road Route 617 W. VA Line 70 1.68 miles BC $559,000 03/06 Rural Rustic 4) 618 Gough Road Route 622 Route 616 60 1.75 miles BC $581,000 03/07 Potential Rural 5) 618 Gough Road Route 616 Route 608 70 1.32 miles BC $445,000 03/08 Rustic Potential Rural 6) 705 Ebenezer Church Road 0.25 Mi, E. Route 522 160 4.25 miles GA $1,594,100 UN/SH Rustic Potential Rural Rt. 703 Rustic 05/31/05 FREDERICK COUNTY UNSCHEDULED HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS RATINGS UPDATED MAY, 2004 (MAY, 2005 — PARTIAL) 2006/2007 through 2011/2012 LU Z z W U- T�V) o 9z = ~ W LL w�0 0 aa� o _° an 0 o � 0 1) 629 Laurel Grove Route 622 2.5 Mi. W Rt. 622 2.5 BC 113 Road �150JO.9 miles 2) 730 Babbs Route 654 Route 677 GA 88 Mountain miles Road 3) 707 Hollow Road W. VA Line Route 610 200 1.6 BC/GA 80 miles 4) 709 Ridings Mill Route 636 Route 735 160 2.7 OP 80 Road miles 5) 677 Old Baltimore Route 676 Route 672 200 1.2 GA 80 Road miles 6) 676 Warm 0.83 Mi. N Rt. Route 677 240 0.87 GA 77 Springs Road 677 mile 7) 629 Carter Lane Route 631 Route 625 290 1.8 BC 76 miles 8) 681 Chestnut Route 805 Route 685 270 1.62 GA 76 T—� Grove Road miles 9) 734 North Sleepy 1.27 Mi. SW 2.27 Mi. SW Rt. 140 1 mile GA 73 Creek Road Rt. 522 N. 522 N. 10) 692 Pack Horse 1.2 Mi. NE Rt. Route 671 200 1.4 GA 73 Road 600 miles 11) 679 Indian Hollow 0.3 Mi. W. Rt. 0.5 Mi. E. Rt. 600 140 2.5 GA 72 Road 608 miles 12) 636 Canterburg Route 640 Route 641 130 1.5 OP 71 Road miles 13) 612 Fishel Road Route 600 Route 600 30 1.6 BC 69 miles 14) 733 Fletcher Road Route 50 Route 707 120 1.3 GA 67 West miles 15) 607 Heishman Route 600 End of State 100 0.78 BC 66 Lane Maintenance mile 16) 638 Clark Road Route 625 Route 759 70 0.8 BC 64 mile 17) 644 East Parkins Route 50 East Clarke Co. 260 0"1 SH 63 Mill Road mile 18) 636 Huttle Road Route 709 Route 735 150 1.1 OP 63 miles 19) 695 Middle Fork 2.3 miles W. VA State Line 30 0.9 GA 63 Road north Rt. 522 mile 20) 671 Woodside Route 669 W. VA State Line 220 0.3 ST 62 Road mile !l�-, Ill in= W U J Y W � Q g W LJL LL C9 F- W U Q U O F- Z 0 0 Z O Ix O F ->J �F-_ QZ LU H- z W O u- V O� QQ Q O V D � 21) 696 South Timber Route 522 Route 694. 130 1.3 GA 58 Rid e Road North miles 22) 634 Cougill Road Route 635 Route 11 South 290 0.25 BC 50 mile 23) 811 Timberlakes Route 671 End of State 180 0.25 ST 48 Lane Maintenance mile 05/18/05 FREDERICK COUNTY INCIDENTAL CONSTRUCTION 2006/2007 through 2011/2012 Incidental construction projects are defined as minor construction projects. 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 project qualifies for Incidental Construction based on the overall scoi3e of the im rovement W z J z O Q� o z z FO a wm Qi- w O O v N 2O Ca W 2 o w ao �vQ�W o o g wU0 V 1) 1323 Park 0.4 miles East of Rt. 11 R/R Crossing- Improve ST $8,000 2003/04 Federal 7ntreat Drive Surface 10% Funds match 2) 661 Redbud Road 0.45 mile east of Rt. 11 R/R Crossing -Install SW $15,000 2005/06 Federal flashing lights & bells 10% Funds match 3) 620 Singhas Road 0.05 mile south of Rt. 803 R/R Crossing -Install BC $17,500 2005/06 Federal flashing lights & 10% Funds bells/upgrade crossing match 4) 684 Gainesboro 234' southeast of Rt. 522 R/R Crossing -Install GA $17,500 2005/06 Federal Road flashing lights & 10% Funds bells/upgrade crossing match 5) 684 Gainesboro 0.20 mile east of Rt. 600 R/R Crossing -Install GA $17,500 2005/06 Federal Road flashing lights & 10% Funds bells/u rade crossingmatch 6) 672 Brucetown 0.45 mile east of Rt. 11 R/R Crossing -Install SW $15,000 2005/06 Federal Road flashing lights & bells 10% Funds match 7) 704 Back Creek From: 0.37 mile south of Improve drainage & BC $85,000 2005/06 Road Rt. 683 widen roadway To: 0.80 mile south of Rt. 683 8) 1054 Westmoreland Frederick Towne Estates Plant Mix OP $140,000 2006/07 Drive 9) 1349 Forrest Drive Battleview Subdivision Plant Mix SW $46,000 2006/07 10) 1326 Confederate Third Battle Subdivision Plant Mix SW $40,000 2006/07 Drive 11) 749 Quarry Lane 0.05 mile southwest of Rt. R/R Crossing -Install SW $13,000 2006/07 Requesting 672 flashing lights & bells 10% Federal match Funds 12) 649 Springdale 0.55 mile west of Rt. 11 R/R Crossing -Install BC $13,000 2006/07 Requesting Road flashing lights & bells 10% Federal match Funds 13) 633 Klines Mill 0.13 miles west of Rt. 11 R/R Crossing -Install BC $19,500 2006/07 Requesting Road flashing lights & bells 10% Federal match Funds n�z /1 Q ins z LU z a�LU 0 a a va �>0 a �LIJo JBC$19,500 14) 668 Bransone 0.22 miles SE of Rt. 11 R/R Crossing -Install 2006/07 Requesting Spring Road flashing lights & gates Federal Funds 15) 727 Belle Grove 0.04 miles west Rt. 624 RIRCrossing-Install 006107 Requesting Road flashing lights & bells 10% Federal match Funds 16) 853 Sinking Spring 0.06 miles south Rf. 751 R/R Crossing -Install BC $25,000 2006/07 Requesting Lane flashing lights & 10% Federal gates/improve crossing match Funds 17) 809 Mcfarland 0.02 miles south Rt. 817 R/R Crossing -Install BC $19,500 2006/07 Requesting Road flashing lights & gates 10% Federal match Funds 18) 671 Woodside 0.30 miles east Rt. 11 RIR Crossing -Improve SW $5,500 2006/07 Requesting Road crossing 10% Federal match Funds 19) 704 Back Creek 0.05 miles south Rt. 617 Install Box Culvert BC $95,000 2006/07 Road 20)704 Back Creek 1.18 miles south Rt. 617 Install Box Culvert BC $80,000 2006107 Road 21) 1065 Ridgefield Various roads Plant Mix OP $80,000 2007/08 Subdivision 22) 1020 The Meadows Various roads Plant Mix OP $54,000 2007108 Subdivision Frederick County Major Road Improvement Projects 2006/2007 thru 2011/2012 �Am aim L 2 3-� N W S Proposed Major Road Improvement Project 1. Aylor Road -Phase 2 2. Greenwood Road County Boundary DRAFT 3.Sulphur Springs Road 4. Inverlee Way (Revenue Sharing) City / Town Bounday 5. Papermill Rd (Revenue Sharing) Frederick County Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects Scheduled List 2006/2007 thru 2011/2012 1. Adams Road Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects (HRI) 2. Back Creek Road - northern portion County Boundary 3. Back Creek Road - southern portion DRAFT 4. Gough Road - southern portion -------, City / Town Bounday 5. Gough Road - northern portion 6. Ebenezer Church Road F, 2 W 1. Adams Road Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects (HRI) 2. Back Creek Road - northern portion County Boundary 3. Back Creek Road - southern portion DRAFT 4. Gough Road - southern portion -------, City / Town Bounday 5. Gough Road - northern portion 6. Ebenezer Church Road C� • 2.5 Mees HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM [=RoadName: La uce t G7 rOve Route Number. b Z I From -To: r CreQ,k - Gr -(4e-6 Z2 IRd • I 2.5 dv� e c ue S Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count (1) 50-75 3 X (1) X (2) (3) 101-150 3 X (3) (4) 151-200 3 X (4) (5) 201+ 3 X (5) 2) Occupied Structures (1) 1710 3 X (1) zq =(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 (3) 12.1'-14' 4 X (3) (2) 14.1'-16' 4 X (2) (1) 16'+ 4 X (1) h) 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 (?) Z d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence 4 X (?) 2- e) Drainage e) (1) good 4 X (1) F(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+ rs. 2 X 3 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES 113 5 4 9M-..65 HARD SURFACE PROTECT R,kTLNG SYSTEM Road Name: a6b5 (�. Route Number. 3 O From - To: Cedar rov2 (054 old 4 i re G-7-7 Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count 5 O r(l) 50-75 3 X (1) 3 (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) 1{l'-12' 4 X (4) 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) i' 4 X (3) (2) 2' 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) u C) ntt7r'�iiLtbi Cur—vature (i) --r ar.C"t occurcncz 4 X () 0 d) Vertical CurNature (1) for each occurrence 4 X e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) 8 :) fair~ (-)=f 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) y., Yes 5 X (1) (0) No 5 X (0) -9 Time on Road Plan {I) o-5 yrs. 2 X (1) (2) 5-10 yrs 2 X (2) (3) 11+ vm 2 X (3) GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES OWN HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Road Name: (� f I �/j� Route Number. -� o —7 From - To: WV h /Y(. 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) w (2) I1-25 3 X (2) `(3)� 26-50} 3 X (3) (4) 51+ 3 X (4) 3) Physical Road Conditions/ Safety a) Surface Width : ;,' (4)_ 10'-12'3 4 X (4) t !' (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 i t7 (3)_ 1, F 4 X (3) (2) 2' 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) c) Horiwntal Curvature (1) for each occurence € 4 X (?) d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence F` 4 X (?) e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) (2) fair 4 X (2) v C,(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 F ` . {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+ jrs. 2 X 3 dA 3RAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES �� HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Road Name: Q,,,4,& �nn , jI p p. Route Number. 7D q From - To: P,4- 636 '— NIS 1CcK Rl, _7 3 5 11 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 (3) 12.1'-14' 4 X (3) (2) 14.1'-16' 4 X (2) (1),_ 16'+ ;r 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 occur ence 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 ` ' (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 ON 0 I • Z N.� les HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Road Name: 01A C- Route Numbe!7 (p (� From - To: (A-)OrMSDr�A//A7 _ L -7C �Q 1d 1 Z l0 Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count -zoo(2) (1) 50-75 3 X (1) 76-100 3 X (2) (3) 101-150 3 X (3) C(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 (p (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) h) Shoulder WidtIh (4) 0' 4 X (4) (3) 1' 4 X (3) (2) 2' 4 X (�) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) c) Horizontal Curvature (1) for each occurence 4 X (?) S 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 0 HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Road Name: V�QrM r Route Number. ! From - To: • f? Nl, M %% Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count (1) 50-75 3 X (1) a (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) E " I (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) (.. (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) Ie (2) faire 4 X (1) (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) �r (2) 5-10 yrs. 2 X (2) 3 11+ yrs. 2 X (3 _ E GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Road Name: j' j Route Number. From - To: R-1. G 3) —' �/�fC1E;i �gh12 � /Z+ 2' 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) f(5 ^c 201+--) 3 X (5) 2) Occupied Structures (1) 1-10 3 X (1) -(2)` 11-25 3 X (2) (3) 26-501 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) (2LI4.V-1 4 X (2) (1) 161+ 4 X (1) b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 X (4) f I (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) �p .r 4 X (3) f) Accident Data !` �' (1) J1-5 per year 4 X (1) l�) 6-10 per year 4 X (2) (3) 10+ per year 4 X (3) 4) School Bus Travel f > (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 i HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Road Name: !,,,,,,, tRoute 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)w (4) 151-200 3 X (4) (5) 201+ i 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)., 161+ 4 X (1) b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 X (4) � `• (3) it 4 X (3) (2) 2' 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) c) Horizontal Curvature (1) for cach occur -Ince - 4 X (?) d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence `` 4 X e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) V ((2) fair- 1 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 ,- Yes 5 X (1) (0) No 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan (1) 0-5 yrs. 2 X (1) {2).5-10rs 2 X (2) (3) 11+ yrs. 2 X (3 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Road Name: iVa 1 S� V Route Number. 7 4 From - To: i • a7 !�� • .A(– i� � � d • a7 1��. 5W 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) k` ) (2) 11-25` 4 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) 4d {31 2.1'-14' _ 4 X (3) (2) 14.1'-16' 4 X (2) (1) 16'+ 4 X (1) b) Shoulder Width (4)1--- 0' 4 X (4) `. 4 X (3) (2) 2+ 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) c) Horizontal Curvature (1) for each occureace 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 (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) (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: pQG Hor.56 pj• Route Number. 9a From - To: boo 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) 151-2000 3 X (4) (5) 201+ 3 X (5) 2) Occupied Structures (1) 1-10 3 X (1) { Q) 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) )-14-4 ' 16 4X(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) 4 X (3) f) Accident Data(1� J 1 per year 4 X (1) i (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) No 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan (1) 0-5 yrs. 2 X (1) (2) 5-10 yrs. 2 X (2) 0 11+ rs: 2 X 3 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Road Name: T Route Number. 479 From -To: • �✓ 14; . �• Q%+ bog �iGr1 `r �o��GW ,. $ Mi. C. (Z+. (004 Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic (1) 50-75 3 X (1) Count a) Surface Width (2) 76-100 3 X (2) LA t (3) 101-150) 3 X (3) (4) 151-200 3 X (4) (5) 201+ 3 X (5) 2) Occupied Structures () 1-10 3 X (1) 4 X (1) �- (2)11-25 3 X (2) 4 X (2) (3) 26-50 3X(3) f) Accident Data '1 (4) 51+ 3 X (4) 3) Physical Road [ anditinnc/ Safetv (2) 6-10 per year 4 X (2) (3) 10+ per year a) Surface Width (4) 10'-12' 4 X (4) LA t (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 (1) (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) 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) (0j— 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:lam[_ . Route Number. 3 From - To: �"�• (P q L?`- V N �J IWC 2+. (p q 1 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) all 25 3 X (2) '{3 26-50f 3 X (3) (4) 51+ 3 X (4) 3) Physical Road Conditions/ Safety a) Surface Width (4) 10'-12' 4 X (4) r' z ';(3) 12.1'-144' 4 X (3) (2) 14.1'-16' 4 X (2) (1) 16'+ 4 X (1) b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 X (4) 4X (3) (2) 2' 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) c) Horizontal Curvature (1) for each occu.-ence 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) f f (2) 6-10 per year 4 X (2) (3) 10+ per year 4 X (3) 4) School Bus Travel () Yes 5 X (1) 5) Time on Road Plan (1) 0-5 yrs. 2 X (1) (2) 5-10 yrs. 2 X (2) (` 3 ..ii+b rs: 2 X 3 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Road Name: ( ` Route Number. J t From - To: (Z-1. Cv C O — 5 Q, d i0 1 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) 11-25 3 X (2) (`) 3 X (3) (4) 51+ 3 X (4) 3) Physical Road Conditions/ Safety a) Surface Width h. (4) 10'-12'-)1 4 X (4) t. f (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) 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) poov' 4 X (3) f) Accident Data ��lj --1-,er 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 1 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan (1): 0-5yrs 2 X (1) �,f. -P),.5-10 yrs 2 X (2) 3 11+ yrs. 2 X 3 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Road Name:h� Route Number. From - To: �'¢. �8 VV (Gd Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count (1) 50-75 3 X (1) �4 (2) 76-100 3 X (2) 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) Fr. --777, 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) { 6 R 4 X (3) (2) 2' 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) c) Horizontal Curvature (1) for each occurenee 4 X (?) d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence 4 X (?) e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) faire 4 X (2) (3) 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 (lj Yes) 5 X (1) ,ate (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+c rs. 2 X 3) A ALM, GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Road Name: t r�1�1 ` e' I Route Number. /_ 0 From - To: Pa. t1 i�l o1V j,fi�tf(Nar/G Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count (1) 50-75 3 X (1) 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 f' 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) O 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) (2) fair 4 X (2) (3) poor 4 X (3) f) Accident Data (1) 1-5 per year 4 X (1) `J (2) 6-10 per year 4 X (2) (3) 10+ per year 4 X (3) 4) School Bus Travel (1) Yes 5 X (1) 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 f FFARD 91TRFACE PROTECT RATING SYSTEM Road Name: (1 I V l Route Number./ Q From - To: �' Z ` UIQAN ^VV Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count r 1) 50-75 P 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) v 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', a: 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) 2' 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) c) Horizontal Curva-ure (1) fcr each occurence 4 X It?) f d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence -E 4 X (?) e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) `F °(2J fair 4 X (2) poor 4 X (3) f) Accident Data I /",(3) "(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 M Yes i 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 It I GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Road Name:�� i Route Number. ` / From - To: iii D. llw- 'I" t+5 A�� ((J `� 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) ate' 0 <-" (3 ( 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) M (3) 12.1'-14' f; 4 X (3) (2) 14.1'-16' 4 X (2) (1) 16'+ 4 X (1) b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 X (4) 4 N•4a 4X(3) (2) 21 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) (2) fairT 4 X (2) (3) poor 4 X (3) f) Accident Data Or (1) 1-5 per year 4 X (1) L (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 i t+ yrs. ; 2 X 3 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES k _ _ HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Road Name:�Jj.�t �J + Route Number. ! p �� From - To: -7 0 l I(,(�t J Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count (1) 50-75 3 X (1) Pl (2) 76-100 3 X (2) _ Eta) 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) �t j (3) 12.1'-14' 4 X (3) (2) 14.1'-16' 4 X (2) 6 4 X (1) b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 X (4) t 4X(3) (2) 2' 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) c) Horizontal Curvature (1) for each occurernce i 4 X (?) t d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence 4 X (?) e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) p ; (2) fair 4X(2) k' poor 4 X (3) f) Accident Data r Q 1-5 ner year" 4 X (1) (2) 6-10 per year 4 X (2) (3) 10+_pgr year 4 X (3) 4) School Bus Travel �(1) Yes l 5 X (1) "t (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:, e (7� L Route Number. / From - To: �',•/�/��5 VOi �G1 6 5?i2" � Category Criteria Weight Total Points I) Average Daily Traffic Count '<.) 50-75 3 X (1) f - -"- (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).e, 1-10 3 X (1) 6 �m (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) 1 (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) 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) C3) Poor ,. 4 X (3) f) Accident Data - (1) P -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 J1) 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) 2 X 3 ,ar' . GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES r HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Road Name: I ' � J Route Number. -7 ' From - To: 0• v V �Si tnr, rv.. r I .. , Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count (1) 50-75 3 X (1) r. (2) 76-100 3 X (2) (3) 101-150 3 X (3) (4) _y151-200 3 X (4) 2) Occupied Structures (1+-�1=i0. 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) t '(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) r (2) 2' 4 X (2) (1) 31+ 4 X (1) c) Horizontal Curvature (1) far etch occurence 4 X (?) d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence 4 X (?) i 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) ( Nod 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan (1) 0-5 yrs. 2 X (1) (2) 5-10 yrs. 2 X (2) 3 11+ Xrsr' 2 X (3) GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES L7 HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Road Name:s6,,CTW �, , n Route Number. ` From - To: 94 • 51 Z N 1l�• Category Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count (1) 50-75 3 X (1) a (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) i (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) �f (3) 12.1'-14' 4 X (3) (2) 14.1'-16' 4 X (2) 16'+`t 4 X (1) b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 X (4) Z, (3) 1' 4 X (3) 4 X (2) (1) 3'+ 4 X (1) c) Horizontal Curvature (1) far each oc"crence 4 X (?) d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence 4 X (?) e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) (2) fair 4 X (2) .y (� P ) 4 X (3) f) Accident Data (1) 1-5 per year 4 X (1) 0 (2) 6-10 per year 4 X (2) (3) 10+ per year 4 X (3) 4) School Bus Travel (1 Yes 5 X (1) 5) Time on Road Plan (1) 0-5 yrs. 2 X (1) (2) 5-10 yrs. 2 X (2) 3 11+L �s:, 2 X 3 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES f HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Road Name: OU fV I reQ Route Number. From - To: 6 � , — �j Calory Criteria Weight Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic Count (1) 50-75 3 X (1) F� (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 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) 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) / (2) fail 4 X (2) (3) poor 4 X (3) f) Accident Data �a (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) (N 'T 5 X (0) 5) Time on Road Plan (1)1145 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: ', ` r& w Route Number. a� From - To: ii. wtQgorl?- N6 A.,jLj 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) 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'+ 1 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 a.-carence 4 X (?) d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurrence _ 4 X (?) e) Drainage (1) good 4 X (1) s' (`(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) ( 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 .�r GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES 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 • 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) a�vera- 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 lb 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 1-padway effectively; greating maintenance problems and - -' flooding. I% _ 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 ccordingly; HARD SURFACE ROAD IMPROV fi 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) -a • 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 Ieast 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 OVAL 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. 5 HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Name: Route Number. From - To.- o:Category FR,oad 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 (W�, (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 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES Percentage Of Total Score Of Hard Surface Rating System Worksheet* 1) Average Daily Traffic Count 16% 2) Occupied Structures 12.8% 3) Physical Road Conditions a) surface width 17% b) shoulder width 17% C) horizontal curvature ---- (based on number of incidents) d) vertical curvature ---- (based on number of incidents) e) drainage 12.8% T ecioenl (I t--), 12.8% 4) selwo; _ aa:, Ykavei 5:3'/a-- 5) Time On Road Plan 6.4% * based on total possible score of all criteria excluding horizontal and vertical curvature which have no maximum score. • • C� 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 Nfaving 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 Michael C. McCormack Local Assistance Division Amherst Residency 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 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 .............................. Unpaved Road Improvement Program Options ............................ Guidelines For Rural Rustic Road Program ............................................. EligibilityCriteria......................................................................... VDOT Review Of Rural Rustic Road Candidate Projects ........... ApprovalProcess.......................................................................... Environmental Requirements For Rural Rustic Road Program.... Sample Resolution For Rural Rustic Road Project ................................... ScopingDocument.................................................................................... ..................................... 1 ..................................... 1 ..................................... 2 ..................................... 2 ................•.................... 3 ..................................... 4 EnablingLegislation.................................................................................................... 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 7777MUn 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 and traffic generated Land Usegrowth No restrictions. No restrictions. by the land are not expected Growth Factor to increase significantly over the next 10 years. Safety factors are Safety factors are Ideally, the road can be paved 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 may be safely handling the traffic Alignment improve alignment and necessary to address volume and increased speeds fie' 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 isnot 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. L! 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: 1. 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. 2. Water Quality Permits (Requires 1-135 days) • Are not required if there are: i. No streams, ii. No water bodies, ill. No wetlands, iv. No water in pipes/culverts/ditches, and v. No intermittent/sometimes dry channels. 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. 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 Taste: County of: Road Name: Project Number: UPC/ID #: Date of Scoping: From: To: Length: FHWA 534 Data Number: Existing Right Of Way: Existing geometrics: shoulders Traffic Count: Scope of Proposed Work: SERP completed: Permit determination: RURAL RUSTIC ROAD SCOPING DOCUMENT Date: 1 1 Priority # (200_/0_ SRCIP): miles ft. in width lanes feet wide ft to width, width ditch ADT taken in PE estimate: $ CN estimate: $ Allocations to -date: $ Expenditures as of Proposed advertisement/start date: County's Rural Rustic Road Resolution dated 7 7/2/03 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. ITEM #2 Draft 2006-2007 through 2011-2012 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 PIanning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. The adopted plan is submitted to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for consideration during the funding process. Route 37 remains the top priority recommendation, followed by improvements to Fairfax Pike (Route 277); 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 2006-2007 update, including a staff prepared map showing project locations. 2006-2007 PRIMARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN for FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DRAFT Frederick County Transportation Committee: Pending Frederick County Planning Commission: Pending Frederick County Board of Supervisors: Pending 1) Route 37 Eastern Bypass (Alternative C) A. Route 37 - Phase 1 Initiate final engineering and design, acquire right-of-way, and establish a construction phase schedule for the southern segment of the Route 37 Eastern Bypass from Interstate 1-81 to Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South) and the northern segment from Interstate 81 to Route 3 7. (As illustrated on map as priority IA) B. Note: It is intended that the first phase of Fairfax Pike (Route 277), as identified under item #2, shown below, be programmed for construction following the completion of Phase I of the Route 37 Eastern Bypass. (As illustrated on map as priority IB) C. Route 37 - Phase 2 Initiate final engineering and design, acquire right-of-way, and establish a construction phase schedule for the preferred alternative between Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South) and Interstate 81 to the north of Exit 317. (As illustrated on map as priority 1 C) 2) Route 277 (East of Stephens City) From: I-81/Route 277/Route 647 Intersection (East of Stephens City) To: Route 340/Route 522 South Intersection (East of Double Toll Gate) Phase 1: From the 1-81/277 Interchange to Route 636 (As indicated under note for priority IB) Phase 2: From Route 636 to Route 340/Route 522 (As indicated on map as priority 2) 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 Fairfax Pike (Route 277). Program funding for the completion of right-of-way acquisition and construction of each phase as described above. 3) 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 3A) 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 3B) 4) 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 4A) B) 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 4B) 5) Commuter Park and Ride Lots Establish a new 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 5) ITEM #3 Draft 2006-2007 through 2011-2012 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 2006-2007 update, including a staff prepared map showing project locations. 2006-2007 INTERSTATE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN for FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DRAFT Frederick County Transportation Committee: Pending Frederick County Planning Commission: Pending Frederick County Board of Supervisors: Pending 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 A) B) Extend Southbound Acceleration Lane, Exit 310 From: Route 37 To: Southbound I-81 (as illustrated on map as priority B) 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 C) D) Widen Remainder of I-81 in Frederick County From: West Virginia line To: Warren County line (as illustrated on map as priority D)