Loading...
TC 03-26-07 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development y MEMORANDUM `' TO: Frederick County Transportation Committee FROM: John A. Bishop, AlCP, Transportation Planner - RE: March 26, 2007 Transportation Committee Meeting DATE: March 19, 2007 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 The Frederick County Transportation Committee will be meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, March 26, 2007 in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. Note we are expecting guests from the Public Works Committee and the CPPS Committee for a joint discussion on agenda item 5. The agenda for this meeting is as follows: AGENDA 1. Rural Roadways Ranking System 2. Metropolitan Planning Organization(MPO) Activity Update 3. Article distribution 4. Other Business 5. Discussion of Public and Private Subdivision Street Requirements Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting. Attachments ifa 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 I'T'EM #1 Rural Roadways Ranking System Staff has implemented the additional changes requested by the committee at the February 26, 2007 meeting. Enclosed please find the updated policy, updated scoring sheet, and two tables that depict the impact of the scoring changes. When reviewing note that subtractions from the original policy are noted with bold strikethrough and additions are in bold italics. LARD SURFACE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RATING SYSTEM POLICY Adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on norm 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 evaluated 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 b each entity - Staff from the Frederick County Planning Department and VDOT shall coordinate to complete a rating sheet for each candidate project and submit the results to the Transportation Committee for review. RATING SYSTEM APPLICATION METHODOLOGY • Candidate projects shall be rated utilizing the following information and methodology detailed on the scoring sheet for each category: 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. J. b. Shoulder Width — obtain shoulder width data for each candidate project through the VDOT Residency . 2 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. 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 crash data detailing the number of accidents in the most recent data year available police aeeident report data Feflecting PFOPeFt-y damage and personal inja-flT from the VDOT Residency 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. • If two or more candidate projects have the same cumulative point average, a tie - breaking system will be utilized. First priority will be given to the project that has been on the road plan longer. Following that 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. M i► • The cumulative point average for each candidate project shall be final. Any citizen request to alter the termini of a current candidate project and subsequent Board action will require a new rating sheet to be completed for the resulting segment(s). The resulting segment(s) will retain the `time on road plan' date of the previous segment. HARD SURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT 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 total that can be incorporated into the VDOT Six -Year Fiseal Plan Improvement Program 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 total to the lowest cumulative point average total. 4 • 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 ageneies the procedure detailed above to determine current conditions. Appropriate ranking for all candidate projects will be determined at that time and placed accordingly. NEW PROJECT REQUESTS • New project requests and supporting materials must be received by the Frederick County Planning Department by April 1St to be included in the next plan update. • 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 indi .atinb their willingness to participate in rightof- way Board of 81 • The Transportation Committee shall recommend new project requests which meet these criteria after determining that the candidate project includes a segment of a state route that has a rational origin and terminus. The Transportation Committee shall have the authority to adjust the project origin and terminus to create a more rational segment at their discretion. 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. 5 HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM Road Name: From: Segment Length: Route Number: To: Number of 114 miles: Category Criteria Weight _ Total Points 1) Average Daily Traffic (1-)5075 3x4 Coun-t (2) 7r`, G0v 3x2 (3) 101 150 2x3 x4l) 151. 2w U4 (5)-204+ 3x5 _ 1) Average Daily Traffic Count 3+ (3 per each 50) NA Occup;ed Structures (1)--1-19 3*4 (2)-11-25 U2 (3) 26 50 3X-3 (4y51-+ 3x4 2) Occupied Structures (1) 1-10 (3x1)/number of 114 miles (2) 11-25 (3x2)/number of 114 miles (3) 26-50 (3x3)/number of 114 miles (4)51+ (3x4)/number of 114 miles 3) Physical Road ' Conditions/Safety a) Surface Width (4) 10'-12' 4x4 (3) 12.1' - 14' 4x3 (2) 14.1' - 16' 4x2 (1) 16'+ _ 4x1 b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4x4 (3) 1' 4x3 (2) 2' 4x2 (1) 3'+ 4x1 c) Horizontal !`watt re (1) for each occurance numDVr or occurances); c) Horizontal Curvature (1) for each occurance number of 114 miles d) Vertic-al (1) for each orrura d x w.her of S x num er 37 occurances d) Vertical Curvature (1) for each occurance number of 114 miles e) Drainage (1) good 4x1 (2) fair 4x2 (3) poor 4x3 f) Accident Data (1) 1-5 per year 4x1 (2) 6-10 per year 4x2 (3) 10+ per year 4x3 4) School Bus Travel (1) Yes 5x1 (2) No 5x0 5) Time on Road Dlar, (1) 0-5 years (`2) 5�v_1 years 2-x2 (4 11 years 2-JE3 5) Time on Road Plan (1) 0-5 years 4x0 (2) 5-10 years 4x2 (3) 11 + years 4x3 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2006 RANKINGS ADJUSTED AS SHOWN ON REVISED SCORING SHEET Rank 2006 ` Rank Name 1 9 Warm Springs Rd 2 21 Woodside Rd 3 18 East Parkins Mill Rd 4 5 Hollow Rd 5 10North Sleepy Creek 6 7 4 Pack Horse Rd 6 Carter Ln 8 8 Fletcher Rd 9 14 Clark Rd 10 19 Heishman Rd 11 16 Middle Fork Rd 12 17Old Baltimore Rd 13 23 Cougill Rd 14 12 Fishel Rd 15 16 7 Laurel Grove Rd 11 Canterburg Rd 17 24 Timberlakes Ln 18 15 Wright Rd 19 20 Huttle Rd 20 21 13 Babbs Mountain Rd 22 South Timber Ridqe 676 677 *677 0.83 15 3.61 12 12 3.61 3.61 8 12 4 0 5 5 12 12 78.84 77.17 671 669 WV Line 0.3 15 2.50 12 12 3.33 3.33 644 50 Clark Line 0.81 21 1.85 121-12 2.47 2.47 8 4 0 12 75.79 707 WV Line 610 1.6 12 1.41 16 12 3.13 3.13 12 0 5 8 72.66 734 *522_ *522 1, 9. 1.50 12 12 6.00 3.001 12- 0 5 12 72.5 692 629 *600 631 671 625 1.4 1.8 121 15 1.61 1.25 8 8 8 12 5.71 2.78 2.86 2.78 12 12 8 8 12 12 8 8 12 8 8 8 12 12 4 4 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 5 5 5 5 G 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 12 8 12 12 12 12 0 12 12 12 12 12 fll 71.18 70.81 69.65 68.94 68.37 68.33 67.54 67 66.56 63.4 63.17 63 61.4 59.91 733 50 707 1.3 12 1.73 12 12 3.85 3.08 638 625 759 0.8 9 0.94121 12 5.00 5.00 607 600 *600 0.78 9 0.96 161 12 3.85 2.56 695 *522 WV Line 0.9 3 1.67 12 12 4.44 2.22 677 676 672 1.2 15 1.88 16 16 1.67 0.00 634 635 11 0.25 15 3.00 4 12--0.00 8.00 612 600 600 1.6 3 0.94 16 12 5.00 0.63 629_ 622 *622 2.5 9 0.6012 12 2.40 2.40 636 1.5 6 1.50 12 12 4.00 2.67 811 0.25 18 9.00 4 12 0.00 0.00 661 1.84 9 1.22 12 16 1.09 1.09 "522694 636 1.1 9 1.36 4 12 3.64 0.91 730 696 0.9 1.3 6 9 1.67 1.73 12 4 16 8 5.56 2.31 4.44 1.54 8 0 58.67 12 0 55.58 *denotes approximate terminus, see individual scoring sheet for detail Scenario 1 - 2006 Rankings used for Recently Adopted Secondary Improvements Plan 2006 734 8 Canterburg Rd 636 9 Fishel Rd 10 Babbs Mountain Rd Rank Name 11 Clark Rd 638 12 Wright Rd 13 Middlead5695 661 1 Pack Horse Rd 692 15 East Pll Rd 671 1.4 2 Hollow Rd 707 WV 610 1.6 3 Carter Ln 629 ]622 625 1.8 4 Laurel Grove Rd 629 *622 2.5 5 Fletcher Rd 733 707_ 1.3 6 Warm Springs Rd 676 *677 083 7 North Sleepy Creek 734 8 Canterburg Rd 636 9 Fishel Rd 10 Babbs Mountain Rd 612 730 11 Clark Rd 638 12 Wright Rd 13 Middlead5695 661 14 Old Bad 677 15 East Pll Rd 644 16 Heishm60717 669 *522 Huttle 63618 Woods67119 �, South idge 69620 Cougill63421 Timber811 600 *522 *522 1 640 641 1.5 600 600 1.6 654_ 677 0.9 625 759 0.8 669 *522 WV Line WV Line 1.84 0.9 676 �, E3 50 Clar1 0 5 600 709 Je8 1669 WV522 635 671 *denotes approximate terminus, see individual scoring sheet for detail 12 12 15 9 12 15 15 15 9 9 15 9 15 15 9 12 16 8 12 12 12 12 12 16 12 12 12 12 16 12 16 4 12 4 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 16 12 16 12 16 12 12 12 12 8 12 12 3 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 12 4 5 5 12 0 5 4 12 4 5 4 _3 6 8 0 5 8 8 12 0 5 4 5 0 5 6 3 8 0 5 3 12 0 5 �, 12 4 5 2 12 4 5 6 8 4 5 8 4 0 E3 12 0 0 E3 12 0 5 E3 12 01 5 E3 121 0 5 6 11 11 10 10 10 ITEM #2 Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Activity Update There are a number of initiatives underway at the MPO about which the Committee should know. Bicycle & Pedestrian Mobility Plan Staff participated in a meeting on March 28, 2007. The purpose of the meeting was to update the Steering Committee on the status of the plan. The consultant did provide and very preliminary draft and work continues. 2. Local Assistance Projects The Route 37 interchange study and the Route 11 access management study are progressing well. Data collection is nearly complete with only some traffic counts remaining to be collected by the consultant. 3. Multimodal Corridor Studies The MPO has submitted application for 4 Multimodal Corridor Studies addressing two sections of Route 522, Route 11, and Route 7. 4. Transportation, Community, and System Preservation (TCSP) Program Grants The MPO has submitted 2 applications totaling $3 million for this federal program for Eastern Route 37 environmental and preliminary engineering work. 5. Staffing Staff has recently learned that the Executive Director (Mr. Stephen Kerr) of the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission is resigning effective March 2°d. Mr. Kerr acts as primary staff person for our MPO activities. The County Transportation Planner has been tasked to act as coordinator for the local technical assistance projects noted above. County and City staff have been putting in extra effort to keep the other responsibilities of the MPO moving forward. No additional information is currently available on when we can expect new permanent staff. This item is for information and discussion. No action is required. ITEM #3 Article Distribution Staff has included a number of articles from statewide news outlets for your consideration. Georgia changing exits like one where bus crashed - CNN.com mxom,_ Georgia changing exits like one where bus crashed Officials will add signs, striping, raise pavement • 7 killed after bus took commuter -lane exit, plunged off overpass • Bus was carrying Bluffton University baseball team Page 1 of 2 Cts PR Powered by ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- Georgia highway officials investigating a deadly bus crash said Tuesday they would add safety measures to several commuter -lane exits like the one the baseball team's bus had taken before it plunged off an overpass. Seven people on the bus died from their injuries, five of them baseball players from Bluffton University in Ohio. Georgia Department of Transportation spokesman David Spear said the state would be adding signs and adding reflective striping to seven similar ramps starting Wednesday. The bus driver apparently mistook one of the Atlanta -area commuter -lane exit ramps for a lane, officials said. The bus crossed through a T -intersection at the top of the ramp and careered over the retaining wall of the overpass to the interstate, 30 feet below. The driver and his wife also died in the crash. Spear declined to say whether the new safety measures could have prevented the March 2 wreck. He said Commissioner Harold Linnenkohl decided to make the safety changes based on recommendations from department engineers after the bus wreck. The changes can be made quickly and without having to get permits to add overhead signs or other devices, Spear said. More significant alterations to the ramps could come with time after engineers study the exits more, he said. The National Transportation Safety Board continues to investigate the accident. "Anything that can be done now to prevent future accidents is significant," Bluffton University President James Harder said. Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Find this article at: http://cnn.usnews.printthis.clickability.com/pt/ept?action=cpt&title Georgia+changing+ex... 3/14/2007 Georgia changing exits like one where bus crashed - CNN.com http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/13/bus.wreck.ap/index.htmI Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article. n 2007 Cable News .N.1et44.1crk. Page 2 of 2 http://cnn.usnews.printthis. clickability. com/pticpt?action=cpt&title=Georgia+changing+ex... 3/14/2007 Proposed Toll Hike Raises Drivers' Ire - washingtonpost.com wa hingtonposteom Proposed Toll Hike Daises Drivers' Ire By Sandhya Somashekhar Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, March 14,2007; B05 When the Dulles Greenway opened in 1995, some people joked that the stretch of asphalt that sliced through forest and farmland was a road to nowhere. Today, the 14 -mile, privately owned roadway connecting the Dulles Toll Road and Leesburg has become a main artery through Loudoun County, one of the fastest-growing communities in the country, spawning daily jams and a fight over whether the $2.70 one-way toll should go higher. ,`..c>,ert�semenr Pagel of 2 Yesterday, a state agency ended months of written and oral testimony on whether Toll Road Investors Partnership II, the company that owns the Greenway, should be allowed to nearly double its one-way fare over the next five years. If approved, a 2012 rush-hour drive for passenger cars would cost $4.80; the same trip for six -axle trucks would total $9.45. Although the State Corporation Commission has yet to decide on the matter, analysts for the agency have signed off on TRIP II's request, testifying that it is reasonable under the 1988 Virginia law that authorized the construction of private highways. But opponents, including AAA Mid -Atlantic, U.S. Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.) and commuters, say the law is flawed and does not account for the company's troubled financial history. "I think the law was written poorly, and not only that, it was poorly negotiated," Wolf said. If the toll increase passes, Wolf said, he will call for the road to be taken over by the state. Although ridership on the Greenway has grown steadily to 22 million cars a year, TRIP II has operated at a loss since it opened, despite projections that it would be profitable by 2003. Its debt has nearly tripled, to more than $900 million. Company officials have said that the problems stem from low ridership in the road's early years, conditions that caused the company to default on its debt payments in 1996. In 2005, the Macquarie Infrastructure Group, an Australian firm that owns roads worldwide, bought a majority interest in the company. The purchase was widely seen as a promising sign for the road's financial health. But some opponents say the firm is trying to unfairly raise tolls to make up for TRIP II's financial missteps and say that ought to be a factor in the commission's decision. "The staff is saying they don't have the ability to judge the fee structure based on the financial situation, http://www.washingtonpost.comlwp-dynlcontent/articlel2007lO3ll3lAR2007031301564_p... 3/14/2007 Proposed Toll Hike Raises Drivers' Ire - washingtonpost.com Page 2 of 2 which obviously shows a flaw in the statute [authorizing the Greenway]," said John A. Andrews II, who founded a Web site opposing the increase and is running for state Senate as a Republican. "This was not the deal that was sold to Loudoun residents." Greenway officials say they are entitled to make a profit, like any company. Moreover, they said, their road is an alternative to slower routes -- for those willing to pay. "Let's say you have a meeting today that you're late for," said Ann Huggins -Lawler, TRIP II's spokeswoman. "Are you willing to pay to travel without hitting a stoplight or traffic, regardless of your means?" Under state law, TRIP II must satisfy three conditions to justify a toll increase: the higher toll must be equivalent to the road's benefits; it must not "materially" discourage ridership; and it must not earn the company an inordinate profit. State financial analysts said TRIP II met the first two conditions based on a study commissioned by the company. It showed that drivers save more than $6 in time, gas and vehicle wear -and -tear by taking the Greenway instead of Route 7, the most popular alternative. It also showed that past toll increases have discouraged drivers only temporarily. A financial analyst for the commission testified to the final condition, saying any profit earned by the company would be well within the limits set forth by the state. The analysis, however, does little to assuage the concerns of drivers, many of whom say the toll they pay is already a financial hardship. Colleen Demetro said she avoids the Greenway whenever possible. Sometimes, though, when Route 7 is clogged with bumper -to -bumper traffic and it can take more than an hour to reach Tysons Corner from her Leesburg home, she takes it. The highway is no longer a high-speed alternative to slower routes, she said. "It might have started that way, but it's not anymore," she said. "It's not a premium service. It's for everyone." © 2007 The Washington Post Company Ads by Google Ticket / Traffic Lawyer Free Consultation with Bloom Legal Traffic Ticket . Ticket Defense NolaTix.com Brand New Home Community New Luxury Style Homes, N. Virginia From $550K, Single Family/Townhomes www. Stan leyMartin.com VA Traffic Laws By State You can't follow them if you don't know them. New DMV laws updated. Virginia.DMV.org http://www.washingtonpost. com/wp-dynlcontentlarticle/2007/03/ 13/AR2007031301564_p... 3/14/2007 Printer -Friendly Version This article �tE �� figs brought to y u by i9ellle,sDispa1tnh.wrrJm w NEv'�,_ 7,ct hlovie St.owlimes m Entertainmcgl Cameras a deterrent in Va. Beach BY BILL GEROUX TIMES -DISPATCH STAFF WRITER Thursday, March 1, 2007 Red-light runners, beware Page 1 of 2 VIRGINIA BEACH -- When the General Assembly pulled the plug on the city's experimental photo -red system in 2005, Virginia Beach police Sgt. John Lourenco said he and other officers were perplexed. "We couldn't believe it was happening," Lourenco recalled. "We were standing there with our mouths open." In 10 months, cameras at four of the resort city's busiest, most crash -prone intersections caught 25,000 vehicles running red lights, Lourenco said, and the rate of red-light running declined. At the worst intersection -- Rosemont and Holland roads -- red-light running declined by nearly half, he said, and the number of wrecks diminished as well. No one in Virginia Beach, a sprawling suburb of more than 420,000 people, had objected to the red-light cameras. A public hearing about them attracted one speaker -- a woman whose 5 -year- old daughter had been killed by a motorist running a red light. Her account left Mayor Meyera Oberndorf tearful. Virginia Beach's system, which made a modest profit, was designed not to rake in fines from careless drivers but to discourage people from running lights, Lourenco said. Warning signs about the cameras were posted at all four intersections. The $50 cost of a citation was about one-third the cost of being ticketed in person by an officer. Police reviewed each of the 25,000 photo citations and discarded nearly 7,000 because of such inconsistencies as mismatches between the type of vehicle on camera and license -plate records. Officers, who have to witness the offense, could issue only a tiny fraction of that number of citations. Only 15 car owners appealed the photo -red citations in court, he said. "They lost." Lourenco also said that in the final month of the photo -red program, there were 488 red-light citations at the four intersections. After the cameras were turned off, the sensors stayed on to record, for the record, how many people were running red lights unphotographed. Six months after the cameras went dark, the total for the four intersections had more than doubled, to 1,056. Virginia Beach will now start over, Lourenco said, reviewing the latest traffic and accident statistics to identify the worst intersections. City Council will hold another public hearing. At the earliest, he said, the cameras could be running by the start of 2008. http://www.richmondtimesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Common%2FMGArtic... 3/l/2007 Printer -Friendly Version Contact staff writer Bill Geroux at wgeroux(a)timesdispatch.com or (757) 625-1358. Go Back Page 2 of 2 http://www.richmondtimesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Common%2FMGArtic... 3/l/2007 Maryland Delays Purple Line, 2 Other Transit Projects - washingtonpost.com Pagel of 2 washingtenpost.com Maryland Delays Purple Line, 2, Other 'Transit Projects Study Underestimating Ridership Could Cost State Federal Funds, Officials Say By Ovetta Wiggins Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, March 1, 2007; B04 Maryland officials said yesterday that three major transit projects, two of them aimed at using light rail or express buses to ease traffic in the Washington suburbs, will likely be delayed about a year because of a flawed study that underestimated the number of riders. Advert:,efrkenj State Transportation Secretary John D. Porcari said Metro's proposed Purple Line between Bethesda and New Carrollton, a transit link between Shady Grove and Clarksburg and the Red Line in Baltimore have been shelved while Maryland and its consultants work on new projections. Porcari said that the state had planned to hold public hearings on draft environmental studies of the projects this spring but that they will likely be pushed to 2008. "Ridership numbers were wrong, and people were reluctant to face up to that," Porcari said. "I am not at all happy about this." No money has yet been designated to build any of the projects. With $30 million allocated to study the Purple Line and $10 million for the Shady Grove project, known as the Corridor Cities Transitway, officials had hoped to start construction in 2010 or 2011. Porcari, who became transportation secretary in January, said Maryland Transit Administration staff members have "known since last June that they were running behind schedule." He said he only recently became aware of the projections in the study, which could affect the amount of federal money the projects received. Simon Taylor, director of planning for the Maryland Transit Administration, said the state is trying to leverage as much as it can from the federal government. "It's not about wrong information; it's ensuring that we have the best information," said Taylor, who also served under then -Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R). "We know that we can make this a better model and a more competitive model." Taylor said other metropolitan areas, including Charlotte and Las Vegas, are refining the data for their transit projects. Activists said they were not surprised to hear about the delay. "The process was already slowing down; the Ehrlich administration was dragging its feet," said Hans Riemer, president of Montgomery County's Action Committee for Transit. http://www.washingtonpost.comlwp-dyn/content/article/2007/02l281AR2007022801975_pf.... 3/1/2007 Maryland Delays Purple Line, 2 Other Transit Projects - washingtonpost.com Page 2 of 2 Del. William A. Bronrott (D-iviontgomery) said that it was disheartening to know the two local projects are being delayed but that he's hopeful the additional time will work to their advantage. "If it means we will get more accurate figures on these two important projects, which may help us to leverage more federal transit dollars, than maybe it's something we can live with," Bronrott said. The Purple Line, a light rail or express bus line, would run 14 miles between Bethesda and New Carrollton, with stops in Silver Spring and College Park. The Corridor Cities Transitway would add light rail or rapid bus services along Interstate 270 between the Shady Grove Metro station and just south of Clarksburg. "While I'm disappointed, I want them to get it right," said Montgomery County Council President Marilyn Praisner (D -Eastern County). "We want to compete [for the federal dollars].... We've got to make sure that when we go forward ... there are no glitches." © 2007 The Washington Post Company Ads by Google Feel a Spark of Chemistry Get Matched Based on Science and Compatibility at Chemistry.com® www.Chemistry.com/dc http://www.washingtonpost.comlwp-dynlcontent/article/2007/02l281AR2007022801975 pf.... 3/1/2007 Republicans Put Aside Differences To Push Their Transportation Plan - washingtonpost.c... Page 1 of 4 ��a �+hig /'�/��` �; �:ei'o bishajIra. sto post�r o � 9 i'range Prei rancx�sI igt'' Out Print F !titasrl i Subscribe Cons ndate. NEws ; POLTICS OPINIONS SPORTS i AWFS & LIVI.NG DISCUSSIONS I PHOTGS&VIDEO I CrTYCAJIDE CLASSIFIEDS JOBS SEARCH ,7'-au'I've';.' cis . • • washingtonpost.com IWeb , -results by (yu le" I Search Ar wash ingtonpost.com > Metro > Special Reports > Virginia Politics Print This Article E -Mail This Article Subscribe to The Post A.C, F 17WARDS MOST VIEWED ARTICLES Metro On the Site Updated 8:31 a.m. ET • Alexandria's End Run on Public Smoking • Greenbelt Traffic Stop Yields Arrest in '93 Killing • Marvland Delays Purple Line, 2 Other Transit Projects • For Want of a Dentist • Detours Planned at Route 1 Bridge 2007 Legislation Roundup Online Resources » What Happened? I Scan through » Speech Archive key legislation from the 2007 State of the Commonwealth on';d session and read Post coverage of the key issues. » Transit Plan Projects That Might Advance TAKING ON THE GOVERNOR Republicans Put Aside Differences To Push Their Transportation Plan GOP Package Calls for Regional Taxes in Northern Virginia By Tim Craicg Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, March 1, 2007; Page B06 RICHMOND, Feb. 28 -- Virginia Republicans, who have fought among themselves for years, have launched a unified, election -year effort to generate support for a transportation package that was crafted by party leaders and that Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) has threatened to veto. E-MAIL NEWSLETTERS View a Sample and Sign Up Since the weekend, when the Republican -controlled General Today's Headlines & Assembly agreed to a $1.5 billion -a -year plan, the state parry and its Columnists allies have produced a television ad criticizing Kaine, held news Breaking News Alerts conferences, dispatched talking points to GOP legislators and begun Manage Your Newsletters organizing meetings in communities the governor plans to visit Republicans, tired of feeling outmaneuvered by successive Democratic governors, are hoping to outflank Kaine on one of his signature issues while convincing voters that theirs is the party committed to relieving ❑+ Enlarge This Photo 3 7 TOP . Manu COTe Infon Regi( HTMI Systf FEA1 Refin Refin Roth Be Pt HSB( The F Car A http://www.washingtonpost.comlwp-dynlcontent/article/2007/02l281AR2007022802025.html 3/1/2007 Republicans Put Aside Differences To Push Their Transportation Plan - washingtonpost.c... Page 2 of 4 gridlock. The GOP response is being coordinated by House and Senate leaders as well as state parry Chairman Ed Gillespie. With all 140 legislators up for reelection in the fall, the Republican effort offers a glimpse into what is likely to be an aggressive campaign to defend their Assembly majority. "We don't have the luxury of the bully pulpit that the governor has. He has planes, cars to take him around and can command audiences, but we do want to try to get the word out that this is a fundamentally sound plan," said House Speaker William J. Howell (R -Stafford). The GOP plan calls for regional taxes and fees in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads that would raise $400 million a year for projects in the Washington suburbs, although they must be approved by local officials. The plan also calls for a statewide $10 increase in vehicle registrations and borrowing $2.5 billion. rnor's "bully pulpit," House Speaker William J. Howell said. (Steve ; ;ember - n.P) ONLINE RESOURCES 1fainia Politics Post Coverage Key Issues in 2007 What Has Happened? Legislative Scorecard On Transportation Projects That Might Advance Transit Plan How Northern Virginia Voted Latest Headlines Virginia Politics Coverage SAVE & SHARE ARTICLE What's This? Dicta Google del.icio.us Yahoo! The debt would be repaid by Reddit Facebook taking $172 million to $184 million each year from the state's general fund, which pays for public safety, education and other services. In Virginia, transportation needs have historically been paid out of a separate pot of money derived from a gas tax, a portion of the state sales tax and other fees. Kaine and Democratic leaders, who had advocated statewide taxes to fund new projects, say the Republican plan will undermine core government services. "Even as our general fund is growing, so is the commitment that we've made to education, health care and public safety," said Delacey Skinner, the governor's communications director. St.Pa Cool Trave Huh http://www.washingtonpost.comlwp-dynlcontent/article/2007/02l281AR2007022802025.html 3/l/2007 Republicans Put Aside Differences To Push Their Transportation Plan - washingtonpost.c... Page 3 of 4 At a news conference Wednesday, several Republican leaders who have opposed one another in recent years joined forces to rebut the governor, who has said he plans to hold a "very public discussion" across the state about how best to fund transportation. Using props and charts, legislators said that their plan diverts less than 1 percent a year from the $17 billion general fund. "We say to our critics, 'If you are serious about doing something to end gridlock, join us in supporting this plan,'" Senate Majority Leader Walter A. Stosch (R -Henrico) said. Howell added, "We are not talking about widows and orphans being denied benefits." The governor's office says that the annual debt would be closer to $200 million, more than the combined operating budgets of the departments of Health and Aging and equal to what the Virginia State Police receive from the general fund each year. Skinner said diverting the money could endanger "very, very important programs that Virginians are depending on." The relative unity being displayed by Republicans could signal that years of division within the party are easing. The party has been splintered since former Gov. Mark R. Warner (D) persuaded 17 Republican delegates to agree to a $1.5 billion tax increase in 2004. Conservatives rebelled and have since been at odds with moderate party members, who have favored additional tax increases. The rift almost forced a government shutdown last summer when the two chambers couldn't agree on a budget. This year, even though Senate President John H. Chichester (R - Northumberland) opposed the compromise plan, he could only persuade one other Republican to join him in voting against it. Several Republican senators, under pressure from party leaders, voted for the plan even though they called it fiscally irresponsible. The compromise "demonstrated when we really got down to the crunch, the Republicans are committed to dealing with the transportation crisis," said U.S. Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.). Amy Reger, executive director of the Virginia Democratic Party, said, "The fact is, the Republican plan will ... steal money from our schools, our colleges and our frail elderly while not providing enough dollars to come close to solving our transportation crisis." Print This Article E -Mail This Article Permission to Republish http://www.washingtonpost.comlwp-dynlcontent/article/2007lO2l281AR2007022802025.html 3/l/2007 Republicans Put Aside Differences To Push Their Transportation Plan - washingtonpost.c... Page 4 of 4 Ivio na on washingtonpos`_.corn Board Resisting Tax Plan For Transit Kaine's Veto Dilemma Veto Threat Looms Over House Labor Bill y Related Topics & Web Content �,NC ed byinform Post a Comment People who read tl:is a so read ... Power Plant E__missions May Be Harmful, Agency Says VIRGINIA BRIEFING Longa Challenger of His Own Party, Potts Won't Seek Reelection Pocahontas's Trail View all comments that have been posted about this article. Your wash ingtonpost. com User ID, bishaj, will be displayed with your comment. Comments: (Limit 5,000 characters) Post Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post. © 2007 The Washington Post Company Ads by Google Free Credit Score The average US credit score is 675 The cost to see yours: $0 wvwm. FreeCreditReport. com SEARCH Try Our New Search a s o wash ingtonpost.com Web NEWS j OPINIONS ! SPORTS j ARTS & LrVIAjG Discussions j Pho- us & Video I City Guide CLASSIFIEDS j OBS j wash ingtonpost.com: Help j Contact Us j About Us j Advertisers I Site Index j Site Map j Make Us Your Homepage j mywash The Washington Post: Subscribe j Subscriber Services j Advertisers j Electronic Edition j Online Photo Store j The Washingtoi The Washington Post Company: Information and Other Post Co. Websites © Copyright 1996- 2007 The Washington Post Company j User Agreement and Privacy Policy I Rights and Permissions http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dynlcontentlarticlel2007/02l281AR2007022802025.htmi 3/1/2007 More Lanes in Store for I-95 and I-395 - washingtonpost.com 4+ ashInCgtonpost.com More Lanes in Store for I-95 and I-395 By Robert Thomson Sunday, February 25, 2007; CO2 D ear Dr. Gridlock: First off, I would like to congratulate the team that is responsible for the improvements to the Springfield interchange. As a person who travels from Woodbridge to Tysons Corner and back every day, I expected the worst. Pagel of 3 But only a few commutes were worsened by the construction. As they are near finishing, it is a joy to be able to flow through the interchange without the headaches that used to be associated with it. Now on to the problem. While the commute from Tysons Corner -- 495 to 95 south -- through the interchange works great, the problem has been pushed farther south. As soon as you get through the interchange, traffic on 95 south comes to a standstill. Scott Jackson Woodbridge Your route is part of the most intensive highway program in our region. The Virginia Department of Transportation is going to add a fourth lane in each direction on I-95 from Route 123 at the Occoquan River to the Fairfax County Parkway/Route 7100. The eight -mile -long widening is scheduled to get underway in early 2008 and take four years, said Joan Morris, a VDOT spokeswoman in Northern Virginia. Motorists can expect lane closures at off-peak hours, but there will be no closures for rush periods during construction. But wait, Scott, there's more. The state is working with a private consortium called Fluor-Transurban on two projects that will create extra lanes for carpoolers and drivers willing to pay a toll to move faster. These are called HOT lanes, for high occupancy or toll. VDOT and the private group signed an interim agreement last fall to create HOT lanes along I-95 and I- 395. The next step is a federal environmental review, which will be the subject of some public information meetings this spring. That project isn't as far along as the one to create HOT lanes along the Beltway between Springfield and Georgetown Pike, with three exits in Tysons. Much of the environmental work on that project is done, said Jeff Caldwell, a VDOT spokesman in Richmond. VDOT hopes to work out financial and logistical details within the next few months so construction can begin by the end of the year. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/24/AR2007022401101_pf.... 3/1/2007 More Lanes in Store for I-95 and I-395 - washingtonpost.com Page 2 of 3 Seeing a Silver Lining Dear Dr. Gridlock.- No ridlock: No information has been released to explain how Metro will accommodate riders from the planned Silver Line along the Dulles corridor after they arrive at the East Falls Church Station. I am a daily user of the Orange Line, and this leaves me wondering if the planned line will adversely affect Orange Line riders. Three possible scenarios come to mind: . Scenario 1: Silver Line starting at Dulles and ending at the East Falls Church Station. It would be a miracle for a trainload of people to get off at the East Falls Church Station and hop onto the packed Orange Line train. • Scenario 2: Silver Line from Dulles merging at East Falls Church Station and then sharing tracks with the Orange Line to downtown Washington. However, Orange Line trains share heavily used tracks with Blue Line trains from Rosslyn into the District and are almost bumper -to -bumper during the rush hour. • Scenario 3: Silver Line from Dulles merging at East Falls Church Station, sharing tracks with the Orange Line to Rosslyn, then switching to the Blue Line to Arlington National Cemetery, staying on the Virginia side of the river only. One problem: If people want to change trains from the Silver Line to the Orange Line to head into the District at Foggy Bottom or farther in, they will be hard-pressed to find room on the Orange Line trains. Will the Silver Line be a flop? I hope that Metro already has a much better plan worked up that will not include any of the scenarios mentioned above. Tony Battisti Chantilly That's a pretty good description of the basic scenarios and the challenges. Given that the line is scheduled to open through Tysons in 2012 and through Dulles in 2015, Metro isn't about to put out a train schedule. And who knows if it will be called the Silver Line. We aren't done figuring out how 100,000 commuters will get in and out of Tysons during the construction phase. But certain things are pretty likely. Forget Scenario 1: The trains won't turn around until they get to Stadium -Armory after traveling through downtown Washington. Forget Scenario 3: Passengers boarding the train at Dulles International Airport won't be heading for Arlington Cemetery. Steve Feil, the chief of Metro's rail operations, thinks he can make a version of Scenario 2 work, with a more sophisticated system of train management than Metro has now. Dr. Gridlock appears Thursday in the Extras and Sunday in the Metro section. You can send e-mail questions and comments todrgridlock@washpost. com. Include your name, home community and phone number. © 2007 The Washington Post Company http://www. washingtonpost. com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/24/AR2007022401101 _pf.... 3/l/2007 More Lanes in Store for I-95 and I-395 - washingtonpost.com Ads by Google New York Film Academy Learn filmmaking and acting in New York, Hollywood, UK and more www. nyfa.com Page 3 of 3 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/24/AR200702240110I_pf ... 3/1/2007 Leesburg Today - The Journal of Loudoun County - Supervisors Obje... http://www.leesburg2day.com/articles/2007/03/01/news/fp9975transO... real estate I jobs I cars In Car Buying Mode? Check the Driving Loudoun classifieds Loudoun Magazine Winter Issue On Newsstands Now Job Openings Click here to find positions in Loudoun and Fairfax counties. Find It Fast Your quick reference business directory Thursday, March 01, 2007 In The Community, With The Community, For the Community Archives I Subscribe I Contact Us GRADUATED IN: r M0 ,ys t ¢ f 7>, is rt NE Ir H1 wk, r a,r r, t cla atas.com I _ . i Home News - News Supervisors Object To State Transportation Plan _ l Assembly Genera_ Leesburg By Dusty Smith Loudoun County Politics (Created: Thursday, March 1, 2007 8:59 AM EST) Public Safety Towns And Villages_ Submit News Tip Villages.. 7 TT Text Size Tr.: .—,: 8 print I e-mail �, comment (0) Obituaries — — - - Ending a three-year Opinion stalemate, state Schools___ lawmakers reached o an agreement for a _Business Entertainment transportation Loudoun Magazine - — funding bill over the weekend, but that Which celebrity _Real Estate _ _ Jobs _ _ _ plan already faces opposition from the couple is ths? -Cars------___ —,rt" governor and some local elected 'i�G�"1�itai�' �irfylf®lir< Local Shopping _ — Classifieds leaders. After failing r Bwnif er — — to provide a Archives_ _ transportation planiLaptop' We'll give Find it Fast_ last year, state Place a Classified lawmakers, during Advertising Info-- the final hours of this Contact Staff year's session Saturday, approved a plan that is projected to put $1.5 Sign-up for E-mail billion a year toward transportation. Updates — - From Loudoun's state delegation, only Sen. Mark Herring (D-33) and Subscribe Del. Robert Marshall (R-13) voted against the bill. The majority of Northern Virginia senators, many whom share Gov. Timothy M. Kaine's (D) objection to the use of general fund money for roads, voted against the measure. Q J ``�'�J After the House and Senate approved differing bills this year, a 12 -member Committee of Conference consisting of 11 Republicans �� iVtli'1 1 r WtI and one Democrat hammered out a compromise that more closely resembled the House plan, which senators opposed because it relied G� on using $250 million in general fund money. } • 14 PWh1L I%; Loudoun supervisors were still waiting this week for the bill's final language to be together, but were not pleased with the pulled prospect of having to raise local taxes or to take on the responsibility for maintaining secondary roads -both elements of the plan. Kaine and Loudoun County Chairman Scott K. York (I -At Large) each referred to the "secret" meeting in which the conferees worked out the plan. "I feel a battle coming," York said, adding that he was looking forward 1 of 5 3/1/2007 9:52 AM Leesburg Today - The Journal of Loudoun County - Supervisors Obje... http://wwwleesbur-2day.com/articies/2007/03/01/news/fp9975trans0 to Kaine visiting the area during his tour of the state to gather input about the plan before proposing changes. "I guess at this point, what localities will be doing is working through the governor's office to snake suggestions and comments." Supervisor Mick Staton (Sugarland Run), chairman of the board's TransportationiLand Use Committee, said he wanted to review the bill before commenting, but that he's certain he cannot support one element requiring local governments to impose new taxes and fees. "I think it still says I'm supposed to raise taxes, which I'm not going to do," he said. Supervisor Stephen J. Snow (R -Dulles) said the state was abdicating its responsibility. "My general comment is that I will not be supportive of taxing our citizens at this level when it's the responsibility of our legislature to provide us transportation money," he said. "I think the citizens should be outraged with their representatives to Richmond for failing to do their jobs." Supervisor Bruce E. Tulloch (R -Potomac) also said he was still trying to learn exactly what the bill means for Loudoun, but that it appears there are elements he would oppose. "My initial knee-jerk response is, there's going to be a cost associated with this and I pray that cost is not too high," he said. "The bottom line remains to be seen, but as far as I can tell, it's the [local] taxpayers that will be left holding the bill." Tulloch said he was concerned about provisions for localities taking responsibility for new roads that come into the secondary road system. Although the bill indicates that would only occur for those jurisdictions that volunteer to establish urban transportation service districts, Tulloch and other local representatives in Northern Virginia have said they remain skeptical. For those who opt not to establish such districts, Tulloch said, "I can't imagine there's not a huge penalty." The concept of pushing secondary road responsibility onto localities has been dubbed "devolution." Kaine issued a statement saying the plan falls short of meeting the state's needs and pits transportation against other state needs. "This proposal does not represent a compromise, and it certainly does not represent a solution to Virginia's transportation challenges," Kaine stated. "This proposal would drain almost $200 million a year from the general fund, pitting transportation against our core priorities in public education, public safety and public health." And while the proposals for regional transportation programs in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads "have been significantly improved," he stated, "there has not been sufficient dialogue with local elected officials who would be expected to implement increased taxes and fees." The plan offered by the Committee of Conference calls for the use of less general fund money than the previous House plan. The first would be a $500 million one-time infusion of money from that fund in FY 2008. Then, 50 percent of nonrecurring general fund surpluses would be applied to transportation needs, amounting to $64 million a year from FY 2009 to FY 2013. In addition, the recordation tax would of 5 3/1/2007 9:52 AM Leesburg Today - The Journal of Loudoun County - Supervisors Obje... http://www.leesburg2day.com/articles/2007/03/01/news/fp9975trans0... be used to pay debt service on $2.5 billion in bonds, ranging from $148 million to $172 million a year during those same years. Also, the bill would dedicate one-third of taxes levied on insurance premiums to the Transportation Trust Fund, the portion of the budget intended for transportation; increase motor vehicle registration fees by $10; establish fees for abusive drivers, and increase heavy truck registration fees. The package also calls for reforms at the Virginia Department of Transportation, including a provision giving the legislature power to name members of the Commonwealth Transportation Board now appointed by the governor; allowing the CTB to set the salary for the commissioner of VDOT; reconsideration of road classification assignments; a competitive bid requirement, and a requirement to make all toll facilities fully automated. In addition, the package calls for land use reform measures that would require counties in Northern Virginia and the Richmond -Petersburg and Winchester areas with population growth in excess of 15 percent and total populations of more than 20,000 to establish Urban Development Areas; establish Urban Transportation Service Districts where transportation and other impact fees may be imposed; and increase design standards requirements for roads coming into the state secondary road system. The Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads regions also would be able to raise a series of taxes under the proposal that could be dedicated to transportation. Those revenues are estimated to total $215 million in FY 2008, $409.6 million in FY 2009 and small increases each year until FY 2013 when the totals are projected to equal $425.4 million. To raise revenue in Northern Virginia, local elected leaders would have to agree to raise certain taxes and fees, including a 2 percent increase in the transient occupancy tax and a commercial real estate fee. In addition, the state would impose a $100 fee on anyone -excluding teenagers -obtaining a driver's license in Virginia for the first time, a car rental impact fee of 2 percent, and a 40 -cents per $100 increase in the grantor's tax for real estate sales. Of the more than $400 million that would be raised annually, $50 million would go to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, $25 million would be dedicated to Virginia Railway Express, and the rest would be divided with 40 percent going to localities and 60 percent to the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority. Del. Joe T. May (R-33) defended the plan Tuesday. "I am very, very pleased we were able to get a viable transportation bill," he said. "More will be required, but this is an excellent start, particularly for Northern Virginia." He said localities are simply going to have to participate in the solution. "I've talked to most members of the [Loudoun] Board of Supervisors about it," he said. "While I understand it's not highly popular with them, it's pretty much a necessity to raise the type of revenue we need to solve our problems." Herring said he simply could not support the bill because it's not a satisfactory solution. "I think we could have done much better," he said. "Hopefully, the 3 of 5 3/1/2007 9:52 AM Leesburg Today - The Journal of Loudoun County - Supervisors Obje... http://www.leesburg2day.com/articies/2007/03/01/news/fp9975transO governor will make significant changes. As it is now, it's not a real solution." Herring said he opposes taking on $2.5 billion in debt without additional revenue to pay for it and that he believes Northern Virginia is not getting its fair share of the statewide portion of the package, estimating the region, which provides about 40 percent of the budget, would get $80 million at most from the $600 million statewide package. In addition, he said it's possible that localities in the region will reject the idea of raising taxes locally because it's not their responsibility and end up with even less. "Not only is it wrong, if the local government officials don't decide to raise the taxes, which the state legislature refused to do, it's possible there will be no funding under the regional package," he said. May and Herring both acknowledge there are constitutional concerns with the element of the Northern Virginia package that calls for the establishment of commercial tax districts. Localities do not have the authority to tax similar land at different rates, but could end up in that position under the proposal. Herring also said he was concerned about the possibility that localities would be forced to take on secondary road responsibility or they would not be able to take advantage of other parts of the bill. "There are certain aspects of what has been called devolution that remain in the bill," he said. The bill passed easily in the house on a 64-34 vote, but won a more narrow victory in the Senate with a 21-18-1 vote. Reader Comments The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of Leesburg Today. Total Comments: 0 You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your member ID will be posted with the comments. REGISTERED USERS SIGN IN HERE: *Member ID: *Password: Remember login? (requires cookies) Forgot Your Password? Login Having trouble logging in? Click Here of 5 BECOME A REGISTERED USER Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required! *Create a Member i ID: *Choose a (- password: I * enter password: *mail Address: *Yearof sirth:n: *First Name: (children under 13 cannot register) 3/1/2007 9:52 AM Leesburg Today - The Journal of Loudoun County - Supervisors Obje... http://www.leesburg2day.com/articles/2007/03/01/news/fp9975trans0... *Last Name: *Zip Code: Create Account More News Headlines: • GOP Delegate Deadline Nears; Waters, Ryan Run For Office, Away From Myers • Supervisors Object To State TransportaJ,cm Plan • GSA Assault Cases Head To Court • Conflict Opinion Sought On Commissioner • Supervisors To Debate Sheriff Takeover Of Animal Control • Democrat Joins Sheriffs Race • Loudoun Cares Closes In On Fuel Fund Target • Wells' Budget Envisions Lower Tax Bills • County Budget Hearings Begin Today • COLT Picks Druhan As School Task Force Rep • Four Teens Charged In Hockey Stick Robbery • Banners, Web Site Could Replace Civic Signs O Round Hill Residents Push For Bigger Pool • Assembly Passes Transportation Plan, Kaine Vows Changes • Equine Center: Horses'Stable' • Johnson To Be Honored Wednesday • Paxton Property Is Vandalized • Embezzlement Suspect Found In PA • Purcellville Man Dies In Rt. 287 Crash • Contribution Restriction Would Include Special Interests • Equine Center Update; Meeting Planned Monday • Transportation Conferees Stick With House Plan • Tulloch Threatens Censure Of Burton • Deputies Seek Leads In Landscaping Lights Larceny • Potts Announces Retirement Plans • 13 Sites Pitched For New County Complex • Five Leesburg Locations Among Gov't Center Options Leesburg Today Home News I Obituaries I Opinion I Schools I Entertainment Loudoun Business I Loudoun Magazine I Middleburg Life Archives I Subscribe I Advertising I Contact Us Copyright © 2007 Leesburg Today ^ Back to the Top 5 of 5 3/1/2007 9:52 AM ITEM #4 Other Business ITEM #5 Discussion of Public and Private Subdivision Street Requirements As noted in the cover letter of the agenda we are expecting guests from the Public Works Committee and the CPPS Committee for a j oint discussion on public and private subdivision street requirements. Deputy Director of the Planning Department, Mike Ruddy, will be staffmg the portion of the meeting with assistance as needed from the transportation planner. Attached please find materials for this portion of the meeting. Discussion of Public and Private Subdivision Street Requirements. Private ownership and maintenance of subdivision streets by Home Owners Associations. The purpose of this meeting is to seek additional input and guidance on how the County would implement a change in its policy to allow private ownership and maintenance of subdivision streets by Home Owners and Property Owners Associations. In addition, Staff is seeking input from the interested stakeholder groups regarding the use ofprivate streets within the community to ensure that the needs of each group is fully recognized in any modifications to the existing County Policy on Subdivision Streets. The Transportation Committee, in conjunction with a working stakeholder group, has been determined to provide the best forum for the continued discussion of this issue. The intention is to establish a j oint effort to address this issue. Meeting format. 1. Overview of BOS request and Public and Private Street Policies. 2. Review of CPPS input. 3. Discussion of the requirements of stakeholder group participants. 4. Implementation of a new policy 5. Recommendation from group to BOS. Invited Stakeholder Groups 1. Transportation Committee 2. Public Works Committee 3. Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) 4. Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) 5. Frederick County Public Schools 6. Frederick County Fire and Rescue 7. Frederick County Sheriff's Office The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) of the Planning Commission previously evaluated this issue. A summary of their recent discussion of this issue is attached for your information. This joint effort could be considered a continuation of the discussion held by the CPPS at their February and March meetings. During the Frederick County Planning Commission Retreat held on February 24, 2007, members of the Board of Supervisors provided additional guidance regarding this issue. It was clearly the Board's desire to evaluate how this proposal could be accomplished should the County ultimately believe such a program should be implemented. Discussion of Subdivision Streets. Current Policy The Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance requires that all lots abut and have direct access to a public street or right-of-way dedicated for maintenance by the Virginia Department of Transportation. The vast majority of new lots created in Frederick County are created consistent with this policy. Exceptions to this policy include multifamily, single family attached, and single family small lot housing types which may abut private roads, parking lots, or access easements, and Minor Rural Subdivisions. In the case of proffered age restricted communities, the Board of Supervisors may provide a waiver to the public street requirement. However, the private street must meet or exceed VDOT Standards. Virginia is a state that manages and maintains the maintenance and operation of local streets. Therefore, in Frederick County, VDOT maintains the local streets. VDOT's Subdivision Street Requirements (SSRs) establishes the criteria governing VDOT's acceptance of new roads. Each locality is responsible for establishing new streets and roads within its jurisdiction, including those that VDOT will maintain. These new streets are usually built through the efforts of land developers. To qualify for VDOT acceptance, new streets must: ■ Be available for unrestricted public use, ■ Provide public service sufficient to warrant maintenance at public expense, ■ Be located on right-of-way that is dedicated to public use; and ■ Have been fully and properly constructed to a standard adequate to sustain the traffic volume anticipated when the land served is fully developed. Historic Perspective Prior to the requirement for all lots to have access to state maintained roads, many lots in Frederick County were provided access via private easements, which in many cases were not improved to any particular standard. Frederick County historically had little involvement in the ongoing maintenance of the streets or their administration. Most of the lots and access roads were rural in character with the private property owners and users being responsible for their maintenance. The County's involvement was limited and consisted of responding to citizen concerns regarding access to their homes. Frederick County's most significant involvement with roads occurred in Shawneeland. The Shawneeland Sanitary District was created in response to a variety of public health, safety, and welfare issues which were occurring in Shawneeland. As a result, the Shawneeland Sanitary District has a program for improving and maintaining roads in Shawneeland. Policy alternatives In lieu of the current system of constructing and maintaining residential subdivision streets, two alternatives are available for consideration; 1) Public maintenance of subdivision streets by County, and 2) Private maintenance of subdivision streets by Home/Property Owners Associations. The Board's discussion sought to transfer this responsibility to Home Owners or Property Owners Associations. Issues for discussion In general, public street systems, in particular residential streets, are designed to balance considerations of safety and efficiency, cost effectiveness, livability, and community attractiveness. The entire community benefits from street improvements that are functionally adequate, durable, and cost effective. Current County and State policies seek to achieve this. Any future policies should seek to ensure this position is maintained or enhanced. A change in the approach presently taken by the County to require private ownership and maintenance of subdivision streets by Home Owners and Property Owners Associations would result in a significant increase in the County's transportation and infrastructure construction and maintenance capabilities. Such a change in policy would in essence transfer many of the roles and responsibilities currently provided by VDOT to the County. Frederick County Public Works Department has expressed that this would include the adoption of road standards, the addition of personnel, and potentially the acquisition of equipment. The role of the Public Works Department would need to be increased to effectively administer a road program. An alternative would be to contract for the same. Overall, the fiscal responsibility for such programs would also need to be increased. The private maintenance of subdivision streets by Home/Property Owners Associations, which the Board's discussion sought to achieve, would be a major policy change for the County. The function of Home Owners or Property Owners Associations should be a significant consideration when evaluating requiring private streets for all development in the County. Such a responsibility would be beyond the scope of such an organization's customary duty. Recent experiences throughout the County would indicate that Homeowners Associations do not typically function effectively. Therefore, to require such associations to be responsible for privately maintaining a public street system would require a great deal of consideration and, ultimately, oversight. The transfer of all public streets over to the ownership and control of the Property Owners Associations of Subdivisions within which the Public Streets are located would appear to have many important considerations for the County and the Community. Such considerations include but are not limited to the following: ■ Maintaining the Public Health, Safety, and Welfare of the residents of the Subdivision and the Community. ■ Public Access. ■ Emergency responsiveness. ■ Maintainingproperty values and quality communities. ■ Increase the financial responsibility of the residents of the Subdivision and Community in their on-going maintenance of the public road system. ■ Long term life cycle costs of road programs. ■ Equitable distribution of taxation revenues. ■ Potential source of conflict between the County and residents. ■ Additional fiscal impacts to County. An alternate view of the proposal might suggest that transferring the responsibility for Subdivision Streets to the County or a Private Home Owners Association may provide additional flexibility in the design of the streets beyond that which is presently afforded by the State. However, this point is immaterial if the private streets have to meet VDOT Standards. Such a proposal would appear to reduce the financial responsibility of the State in their on-going maintenance of the State's road system. Virginia State Legislature Current discussion at the State level related to this issue was in response to a bill that included provisions for VDOT no longer accepting roads into the State System. This is a transportation issue with budgetary constraints, the on-going restructuring of VDOT, and the financing of transportation improvements within the State having a bearing on the bill's consideration. HB3202 was ultimately approved by the State Legislature. Final resolution at the State level is pending. VACO and VAPA's positions were generally opposed to this road reversion legislation based upon the transfer of this responsibility from the State to the Localities without a revenue source and the use of general funds for transportation. Board of Supervisors discussion and motion (01/10/07) The Board of Supervisors at its meeting on January 10, 2007 initially provided direction to the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee and Planning Commission to study and make a recommendation to the Board regarding a change to the Frederick County Code to require subdivision streets not to be maintained by VDOT; however, the streets should be built to State standards. The Board of Supervisors discussion and motion follows: Supervisor Dove stated that the Board approved resolutions tonight (1/10/07) dedicating roads to VDOT, which put more burden on the State to maintain subdivision streets. He would like to make a change in Frederick County that all subdivision streets would be maintained by the Homeowners' Association. He went on to say that if the Board does not do this then they will be forced to when the State mandates it. Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Vice - Chairman Fisher, the Board unanimously directed the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee and the Planning Commission to study and make a recommendation to the Board. Chairman Shickle stated that this suggestion should go to committee because it needs to be discussed. Supervisor DeHaven stated that he did not oppose discussion because there were a lot of issues associated with this proposal that needed to be discussed. Supervisor Van Osten stated that it was reasonable to look at this, but she also had interest in waiting to see what comes out of the State. Supervisor Ewing stated this proposal was worth studying. Supervisor Lemieux stated that his only concern was the homeowners ' associations trying to fund this maintenance because they often do not have the cash to pay for these types of expenses. CPPS Update from March 12, 2007 Meeting_ The CPPS reaffirmed their belief that the existing County policy is appropriate, provides for quality community development, and promotes the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. However, in recognition of the Board's direction, the CPPS offered the following comments for further consideration should the County change its policy to require private ownership and maintenance of subdivision streets by Home Owners and Property Owners Associations. ■ The establishment of financial and administrative mechanism such as a Sanitary District or Special Taxing District to ensure the function and accountability of the Associations responsible for ownership and maintenance of the private street systems. • Consideration of transportation districts. ■ Addressing the legalities of access over and through private road systems. ■ Promoting the goals of the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to quality community development, interconnected street systems, and interparcel access. ■ Ensuring the continuity of ingress and egress. ■ Differentiating standards and requirements between rural and urban areas. ■ Enabling private street standards to serve special populations and projects of limited scope. Previous CPPS Comments (02/12/07) The CPPS considered this item at their February 12, 2007 meeting. The discussion was thorough and additional input was received at the meeting from representative of the Blue Ridge Association of Realtors. The CPPS unanimously recommended that no change be made to the County's current policy. The CPPS expressly stated that the responsibility and maintenance of streets should not be the responsibility of Homeowners Associations. The CPPS discussed the possibility of private street maintenance for all new roads created in the County with the understanding that existing state roads would remain state roads. The following points were made regarding this shift: In favor of turning to private maintenance: • Faster response time on road issues when owned privately verses owned by the state. • HOA owned/operated roads don't result in an increase in taxes for county residents. Against turning to private maintenance: • School Buses will not service private roads — School system expressed significant concern. • Private roads will more than likely lead to gated communities which demolish previous attempts at interparcel connectors during rezoning applications. • Public access is a concern. • HOAs in Frederick County have typically been unsuccessful at managing even small projects within their development, how can they maintain something as important as roads? If given to the HOAs, a strong oversight committee will be necessary to ensure that work is done and the associations don't just default. • Who is responsible if the HOAs default? • "HOA owned roads will result in total anarchy for the county", "HOA owned roads are inefficient to maintain." • HOAs will need to charge high dues/fees in order to compensate for road maintenance which could create an undesirable living environment in new developments — individual property owners are not going to want to pay $10,000 HOA dues • The development community would be opposed to the change. Change would create uncertainty in the development process and reduce value in projects. • VDOT has experience maintaining roads and recognizing problems requiring immediate attention • Currently, the school's transportation division notifies VDOT if they see issues or problems (potholes, signs down, etc). VDOT has been very cooperative with the school board in quickly fixing these issues. The schools won't be able to identify issues like these on private streets if they don't service them. Comments from representatives from the Blue Ridge Association of Realtors: • HOA maintained roads means a decrease or total lack of affordable housing options, creation of gated communities or HOA's with higher dues means the depletion of affordable housing • The BRAR is totally against a move towards HOA owned/operated roads • This option creates undesirable subdivisions due to the fact that schools won't service the roads and the severe increase in HOA fees • Currently, HOA contact information is nearly impossible to keep up to date for perspective home buyers, members of the board for HOAs don't return phone calls on small problems — how will residents get in touch with them over issues like roads? • Private roads reduces growth due to higher fees • Who will enforce speeding and road safety on private roads, private safety officers? • Increased chance of involving civil liberties groups, activists, political groups, etc if county moves towards private roads.