Loading...
TC 09-24-07 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Transportation Committee FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Transportation Planner RE: September 24, 2007 Transportation Committee Meeting DATE: September 17, 2007 The Frederick County Transportation Committee will be meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, September 24, 2007 in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. AGENDA 1. Enhancement Grant Application for Senseny Road 2. 2007 Capitol Improvement Program 3. Access Management 4. Route 277 Triangle Study 5. Metropolitan Planning Organization(MPO) Activity Update 6. Article Review 7. Other Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting. Attachments JAB/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Item 1: Enhancement Grant Application for Senseny Road Staff has been working to refine an application for a Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Enhancement Grant for the current application cycle. Enhancement Grants are federal funds that are awarded by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) on an annual basis for improvements to bicycle and pedestrian transportation. This is a grant with a local match component of 20%. As is the case with many VDOT grant programs, the application process itself does not obligate County funds. In the event that the County receives an award, the Board of Supervisors would determine at that time whether to commit funds with the hope that private funds would be available to cover the match requirement. For this year's application cycle, staff has recommended an application for enhancements to bicycle and pedestrian transportation in the vicinity of Senseny Road Elementary School. This is a continuation of this project which was awarded $140,000.00 based upon last year's application. The proposed project would add paved multiuse paths to the northern and southern sides of Senseny Road between I-81 and the Orrick Commons project. The project would also include improvements to the crossovers of roadways traversed by the paths and an additional crossover of Senseny Road at Senseny Elementary. Attached, please find a graphic depicting the project area. This project would serve as an important cornerstone for a future pedestrian and bicycle system extending further East along Senseny Road and into the City of Winchester. 2 Fac' 2008 — 2009 PROJECT APPLICATION FORM **APPLICATION DEADLINE NOVEMBER 1, 2007*x Erth��lltcernent R " G F e 4 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA Date (mm/dd/yyyy): 9/16/07 Use TAB KEY to reach each field. Instructions for completing each field appear on the status bar at the bottom of the active window. Press F1 for additional help I. Critical Milestone Dates and Endorsements (Attach copy of the public notice and all resolutions endorsing the project) a. Public Hearing 10/15/2007 b. Local Government Endorsement 10/15/2007 c. MPO Resolution Endorsement ❑ Check if not applicable 10/17/2007 Name: Frederick County, VA Department of Planning and Development A. Applicant (Group, Agency, etc.) Address: 107 N. Kent Street Suite 202 City, State Zip Winchester, VA 22611 Telephone: 540-665-5651 Email Address: jbishop@ co.frederick.va.us Name: B. Project Sponsor (if different from A.) Name and Address Address: City, State Zip Telephone: Email Address: Name: John Bishop, Deputy Director - Transportation Telephone: 540-665-5651 Fax: 540-665-6395 C. Responsible Person/Title — Sponsor: Email: jbishop@,co.frederick.va.us Name: John Bishop, Deputy Director - Transportation Telephone: 540-665-5651 Fax: 540-665-6395 D. Project Manager: Email: jbishop@co.frederick.va.us E. Project Title: Senseny Road Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvements F. Project Description: Installation of asphalt multiuse paths along Senseny Road in the vicinity of Senseny Road Elementary G. Transportation Enhancement Categories (Check all that apply — See Enhancement brochure for details of categories) 1, ® Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 2. ❑ Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and Education 3. ❑ Acquisition of Scenic or Historic Easements and Sites, including Historic Battlefields 4. ❑ Scenic or Historic Highway Programs, including Tourist and Welcome Centers 5. ❑ Landscaping and Scenic Beautification 6. ❑ Historic Preservation 7. ❑ Rehabilitation and Operation of Historic Transportation Building, Structures, or Facilities 8. ❑ Preservation of Abandoned Railway Corridors and Conversion to Trails 9. ❑ Inventory, Control, and Removal of Outdoor Advertising 10. ❑ Archaeological Planning and Research 11. ❑ Environmental Mitigation of Runoff Pollution and Provision of Wildlife Connectivity 12. ❑ Establishment of Transportation Museum H. Relationship to a Previously First critical step in developing key network connections to the city of Winchester which has Funded Enhancement Project had a number of enhancement grants for the Green Circle. I. Critical Milestone Dates and Endorsements (Attach copy of the public notice and all resolutions endorsing the project) a. Public Hearing 10/15/2007 b. Local Government Endorsement 10/15/2007 c. MPO Resolution Endorsement ❑ Check if not applicable 10/17/2007 J. Federal Enhancement Funds Requested in this Application (Maximum 80%) $1,517,600.00 ❑ Anticipated $130,000.00 Donated Right of Way along Corridor ❑ Confirmed ®I Anticipated $5,000.00 County General Funds ❑ Confirmed ED Anticipated $244,400.00 K. Match Required AtJT07VIATIC L .i ,`"� r deta,f (Minimum 20%) $379,400.00 L. Match .Breakdown by Source (include value of in-kind/donations) Status (check appropriate status) Amount County Staff Support and Management of Project ® Confirmed ❑ Anticipated $130,000.00 Donated Right of Way along Corridor ❑ Confirmed ®I Anticipated $5,000.00 County General Funds ❑ Confirmed ED Anticipated $244,400.00 ❑ Confirmed ❑ Anticipated THIS TOTAL MIDST MATCH ENTRY IN ITEM K TOTAL $379,400.00 M. Other Fundin Sources Available (beyond match requirement) Status (check appropriate status) Amount ❑ Confirmed ❑ Anticipated ❑ Confirmed ❑ Anticipated TOTAL $0.00 N. Project Budget: As Attachment A, enclose a complete project budget. If the project includes multiple phases, show each phase. Budget projections should reflect the total project cost, including that for federal and non-federal funds. O. Selection Criteria: Complete Attachment B — Include pictures, maps and support documents. Attach additional sheets as needed. By signing below, Project Sponsor indicates their understanding that these are federal funds, that project development must comply with all federal and state guidelines, and that they are responsible for future maintenance and operating costs of the completed project. P. Sponsor Signature (person responsible) Date MAILING ADDRESS AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Please mail FIVE copies of your completed application package to the following address: For Technical Assistance Contact: Mr. Michael A. Estes Winky Chenault (804) 786-2264 Toll Free: (800) 444-7832 Local Assistance Division Pamela Liston (804) 786-2734 Fax: (804) 371-0847 Virginia Department of Transportation Erica Jeter (804) 786-9125 1401 East Broad Street Cynthia Clark (804) 371-6289 Richmond, Virginia 23219 EnhancementPro am ,VDOT.Vir ig nia og_v Attachment A Anticipated Project Budget Preliminary Engineering Phase Engineering\Design\Survey Fees...............$218,250.00 VDOT Review Fees..............................$101,850.00 Grant Administrative Costs .....................$72,750.00 Total PE Costs...................................$392,850.00 Right of Way Phase Right of way costs/utility relocation .......... $1,242,650.00 Total ROW Costs................................$1,242,650.00 Construction Phase Construction Costs...............................$436,500.00 Total CN Costs....................................$436,500.00 Total Costs ................................................$2,072,000.00 FY 2008 - 2009 ., ATTACHMENT B 1 c,.4R3YSi.1' IIGK SELECTION CRITERIA E4ancei1lien# —AZ r ^ " THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED BY ALL APPLICANTS COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA A. Applicant (Group, Agency, etc.) Name: Frederick County, VA Department of Planning and Development Address: 107'N. Kent Street, Suite 202 City, State Zip Winchester, VA 22601 B. Project Title: Senseny Road Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvements C. Complete the following questions providing as much detail as possible while including examples when available. Responses will automatically expand to additional sheets as needed. 1. Relationship to Transportation — What service or function will this project, or has this project, provided for the traveling public? How will it impact transportation? This improvement provides the opportunity for a number of subdivisions to access amenities along Senseny Road including Senseny Road Elementary, Church Services, and Convenience shopping without being forced to use their vehicles. In addition improving this access would reduce automobile trips on a very heavily traveled facility. This project has been expanded since the last fiscal year application and now includes an extended length which attaches to a newly approved shopping center with anchor grocery store and their proffered trail system. This will give added convenience to the surrounding localities and give them access to a full service grocery store in addition to the convenience shopping opportunities along this planned path. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------- 2. Demonstrated Need — What need(s) will this project fulfill within the community? The Senseny Road corridor is a heavily traveled roadway at the heart of one of the most densely populated areas of Frederick County. Though it offers a number of amenities mentioned above, it does not have so much as a sidewalk to offer the residents opportunity to access those amenities. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Project Usefulness and/or Benefit -- What purpose will this project serve and how will it benefit the community? Is there strong community support? In addition to giving the pedestrian a bicycle alternative to travelers to shopping, it will also offer families the opportunity to walk their children to and from school and church services. The improved access also grants greater community access to the elementary school which really serves as a park for these neighborhoods which lack park facilities. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ ---------------------------------------------- 4. Amenities/Support Facilities — What facilities are available and/or included in this proposal? What means of access will be available? This proposal would bring better access to Senseny Road to a number of subdivisions as shown in the included map. These subdivisions, individually, do not have significant traffic on their local streets which makes those streets fairly safe for bicycle and pedestrian activity. However, this link would allow those residents to safely travel via foot or bicycle beyond the borders of their subdivision, thus improving their quality of life and reducing automobile trips on this corridor. -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- 5. Educational/Historical — Explain the history and/or scenic significance of this project. What educational experience will be provided? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- --- 6. Project Resources — How has the community involved itself in this project? What support has been provided? Has funding and/or land been secured? Is this a continuation of an existing project, and if so, what is the sztatus of that project? This corridor has long been planned for this type of improvements and the surrounding community has always been very supportive. This segment is seen as a critical first link of a bicycle pedestrian corridor that will run from the city of Winchester to Clark County. County staff has worked and will continue to work to further this project and the Board of Supervisors has given their support. D. If this project has received Enhancement funds in prior years, complete the followin cr: Enhancement Award by Year (include Federal Enhancement funds only, do not include applicant match or other non-federal participation). Identify if the award was applied to a prior phase of a multi -phased project. Year Award Applied Toward/Phase 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 140,000.00 Not yet applied, agreement not yet completed. Total 140,000.00 4 At, -__" • til �f.�'.,F WI L. --t, ` - - A s . � � �� .. , •'' -fit.:' - .. �,. �' .�L. � ' ;: Com. '�'v. � " �• � . C � d • n 'IN -F i1nAt: WQMb "�� _ Y£�1hfe`•? r-- i ^•tip, TTON ,+ t �� ^S '� A _• , � .l� I.�n � ,•L 1F -F -- a�.w _-s. a �' ..'� r._ r i-RY}Lit-E Phi.. r• ILI # e ri I r Ot T Item 2: 2007 Capital Improvement Program The time has come for the annual update to the Capital Improvements Plan. Per the State Code, Frederick County may include transportation projects upon which there is a significant chance we will be expending local revenue or cash proffers within the next five years. The CIP is updated on an annual basis. Below, please find the recommended list of transportation projects to add to the CIP this year. These projects were all included in last year's update of the Capital Improvement Program with the exception of the Relocation of Exit 307, which has been added this year. Route 37: Continued Planning and Engineering work Route 37/Route 11/ Shady Elm: Planning and Engineering for Interchange Solution Warrior Drive: Extension to Route 277 Channing Drive: Extension to Route 50 Route 11 North of Winchester: Widening to WV State Line Brucetown Road\Hopewell Road: Alignment and Intersection Improvements Senseny Road: Widening East Tevis Street Extension: Connection to Roadway within Russell 150 Development and I-81 Crossover Inverlee Way: Connection from Route 50 to Senseny Road Fox Drive: Right Turn Lane at Intersection of Fox Drive and Route 522 Blossom Drive: Install Turn Lane Exit 307 Relocation 3 2007-2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN INDIVIDUAL DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION FORM Return to: Department of Planning and Development Frederick County, VA Project Name: Channing Drive Extension Date Prepared: 9/17/2007 Agency: Planning Agency Contact Person: John Bishop Phone Number: 540-665-5651 Location of Project: Future Channing from Senseny to Route 50 Magisterial District: Redbud Project Description: Give a brief (1-2) paragraph description of what the project includes. Provide basic information, such as the location, size, acreage, floor area, capacity, etc. Construct a 4 Lane divided roadway beginning at Senseny Road where Channing Drive intersects from the north and continuing that roadway south to intersect with Route 50 at Independence Dr. Schedule: If the project will take several years to complete, outline the schedule here. Be sure to include any work that might have been done in previous years, including studies or other planning. Funding and planning for this project is not currently advanced to the point where an accurate schedule can be projected. Coordination: If the project is dependent upon or is being planned in conjunction with any other project(s), identify it/them and indicate the relationship between the projects. This project is not dependent upon, but is being coordinated with the planning for Greenwood Rd and Sulphur Springs improvements. Project Priority: If previously included in the Capital Improvements Plan, please indicate previous priority and current status of project: This project has not previously been included in the CIP. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 1 Estimate Cost (in 2006 dollars): PROPOSED EXPENDITURES Element 1St FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FV Beyond Total 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 FY 2012 Planning, Surveying, & Design Land Acquisition Site Preparation & Improvements Construction Furniture and Equipment Other (opening day collection) TOTAL $20.6 M Basis of Cost Estimates: Check one of the following. If you want to provide more detailed information on the estimate, please do so in the space provided. Cost of comparable facility or equipment From cost estimate provided by an engineer, architect, or vendor From bids received "Preliminary" estimate, (e.g. no other basis for estimate, guesstimate) X Other (please explain) Using unit costs from the Winfred MPO Long Range Plan. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 2 Source of Funding: Indicate the projected amount for each funding source. PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCES Element 1st FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FY Beyond TOTAL 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 FY 2012 General Fund Other Fund State Grants Bonds and Debts Other Fund- raising TOTAL $20.6 M Please describe the source of funding (i.e. type of grant). While $20.6 M is the projected cost based upon the above referenced plan, the actual allocation by funding source would be premature at this time. It is anticipated that much or all of this cost would be absorbed by the coming development which makes the roadway's implementation necessary. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 3 Project Justification: Please project the number of persons, dwellings, students, or units to be served or the units of service to be provided by the project. This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion in many areas of the county and address coming development to the surrounding area. Please describe the need for this project. As noted above. Please describe and justify the proposed location of the project. The location is as identified by joint planning efforts between the County and VDOT. Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan: Does the project conform to, or contribute to the attainment of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan? Is the project consistent with established policies? This project is identified in the adopted Eastern Road Plan. Public Health, Safety, or Welfare: Does the project improve conditions affecting health, safety, or welfare? Does it eliminate a clear health or safety risk? This project improves the safety for the traveling public by reducing congestion and offering additional travel alternatives. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 4 Legal Requirement: Is the project required in order to meet a State or Federal mandate or some other legal requirement? M Equitable Distribution of Services: Does the project meet a special need of some segment of the population that has been identified as needing assistance? Would the project provide equivalent services to a population group that is currently under served relative to other areas of the County? This project does not highlight any specific group, but is a region wide benefit. Economic Impact: Is the project essential to, or would it encourage some form of economic development? Would the project improve the tax base, reduce operating expenses, produce revenue, or otherwise have a positive effect on the local economy? Transportation projects such as this one, by their very nature attract additional economic development. Coordination with other projects: Is the project necessary for the successful completion of other projects? Is the project part of a larger project? This project is an link in the transportation network serving eastern Frederick county by improving north south movement between Senseny Road and Route 50. Public Support: Are county residents fully informed and supportive of the proposed project? List the methods used to determine public support. The public is kept abreast of planned transportation improvements via a number of advertised public meetings and hearings. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 5 2007-2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN INDIVIDUAL DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION FORM Return to: Department of Planning and Development Frederick County, VA Project Name: Planning and Engineering Work for Route 37 Date Prepared: 9/16/2007 Agency: Planning Agency Contact Person: John Bishop Phone Number: Location of Project: Planned Eastern Route 37 Magisterial District: Multiple Project Description: Give a brief (1-2) paragraph description of what the project includes. Provide basic information, such as the location, size, acreage, floor area, capacity, etc. This project would be to continue work on the Eastern Route 37 extension. More specifically; to update the Environmental Impact Statement to the point of a new Record of Decision and to updated the 1992 design plans to address the current alignment, engineering guidelines, and possible interchange improvements. Schedule: If the project will take several years to complete, outline the schedule here. Be sure to include any work that might have been done in previous years, including studies or other planning. It is anticipated that this work could be completed within a 2 year timeframe beginning with the environmental work and finishing with the updated plans. Coordination: If the project is dependent upon or is being planned in conjunction with any other project(s), identify it/them and indicate the relationship between the projects. This project would be completed within the scope of the adopted Eastern Road Plan. Project Priority: If previously included in the Capital Improvements Plan, please indicate previous priority and current status of project: 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page Estimate Cost (in 2006 dollars): PROPOSED EXPENDITURES Element 18' FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FV Beyond Total 2007/08 2008/09 2009110 2010/11 2011/12 FY 2012 Planning, $1.5 M $1.5 M $ 3.0 M Surveying, & Design Land Acquisition Site Preparation & Improvements Construction Furniture and Equipment Other (opening day collection) TOTAL $1.5 M $1.5 M $3.0 M Basis of Cost Estimates: Check one of the following. If you want to provide more detailed information on the estimate, please do so in the space provided. Cost of comparable facility or equipment From cost estimate provided by an engineer, architect, or vendor From bids received X "Preliminary" estimate, (e.g. no other basis for estimate, guesstimate) Other (please explain) 7-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 2 Source of Funding: Indicate the projected amount for each funding source. PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCES Element 1st FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FY Beyond TOTAL 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 FY 2012 General $1.5 M $1.5 M $3.0 M Fund Other Fund State Grants Bonds and Debts Other Fund- raising TOTAL $1.5 M $1.5 M $3.0 M Please describe the source of funding (i.e. type of grant): There is a possibility that revenue sharing funds could be pursued for this project which would reduce the burden on the General Fund. Project Justification: Please project the number of persons, dwellings, students, or units to be served or the units of service to be provided by the project. This project moves the county closer to completion of a transportation improvement that would benefit the entire county and surrounding localities. Please describe the need for this project. As stated above. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 3 Please describe and justify the proposed location of the project. The location of the corridor is as adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 4 Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan: Does the project conform to, or contribute to the attainment of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan? Is the project consistent with established policies? This project is in conformance with the Eastern Road plan as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Public Health, Safety, or Welfare: - Does the project improve conditions affecting health, safety, or welfare? Does it eliminate a clear health or safety risk? The completed Route 37 improves the safety and quality of life for the traveling public in the entire region. Legal Requirement: Is the project required in order to meet a State or Federal mandate or some other legal requirement? No. 2007-2008 Capital linprowments Plan Project Requests Page 5 Equitable Distribution of Services: Does the project meet a special need of some segment of the population that has been identified as needing assistance? Would the project provide equivalent services to a population group that is currently under served relative to other areas of the County? No. Economic Impact: Is the project essential to, or would it encourage some form of economic development? Would the project improve the tax base, reduce operating expenses, produce revenue, or otherwise have a positive effect on the local economy? Enhancement of the transportation system does encourage economic development. Coordination with other projects: Is the project necessary for the successful completion of other projects? Is the project part of a larger project? This proposed expenditure is a small part of the ultimate completion of route 37, but places the county in a better strategic position to take advantage of state and federal dollars as they become available. Public Support: Are county residents fully informed and supportive of the proposed project? List the methods used to determine public support. The public is kept informed of adopted transportation projects via meeting advertisements and public meetings. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 6 2007-2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN INDIVIDUAL DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION FORM Return to: Department of Planning and Development Frederick County, VA Project Name: Widening of Route 11 North to the WV State Line Date Prepared: 9/16/2007 Agency: Planning Agency Contact Person: John Bishop Phone Number: 540-665-5651 Location of Project: Route 11 North of Winchester Magisterial District: Stonewall Project Description: Give a brief (1-2) paragraph description of what the project includes. Provide basic information, such as the location, size, acreage, floor area, capacity, etc. Improve Route 11 to a divided 4 and 6 lane facility as detailed in the Eastern Road Plan. Schedule: If the project will take several years to complete, outline the schedule here. Be sure to include any work that might have been done in previous years, including studies or other planning. Funding and planning for this project is not currently advanced to the point where an accurate schedule can be projected. Coordination: If the project is dependent upon or is being planned in conjunction with any other project(s), identify it/them and indicate the relationship between the projects. There are a number of development associated improvements in the area that this project is not dependent upon, but which will be taken into consideration when planning the improvements. Project Priority: If previously included in the Capital Improvements Plan, please indicate previous priority and current status of project: 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 1 Estimate Cost (in 2006 dollars): PROPOSED EXPENDITURES Element 15t FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FV Beyond Total 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 FY 2012 Planning, Surveying, & Design Land Acquisition Site Preparation & Improvements Construction Furniture and Equipment Other (opening day collection) TOTAL $47.8 M Basis of Cost Estimates: Check one of the following. If you want to provide more detailed information on the estimate, please do so in the space provided. Cost of comparable facility or equipment From cost estimate provided by an engineer, architect, or vendor From bids received "Preliminary" estimate, (e.g. no other basis for estimate, guesstimate) X Other (please explain) Costs from the Winfred MPO Long Range Plan. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 2 Source of Funding: Indicate the projected amount for each funding source. :ODOSFO I LADING' SOfJR%FS Element 1st FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FY Beyond TOTAL 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 FY 2012 General Fund Other Fund State Grants Bonds and Debts Other Fund- raising TOTAL $47.8 M Please describe the source of funding (i.e. type of grant): While $47.8 M is the projected cost based upon the above referenced plan, the actual allocation by funding source would be premature at this time. It is anticipated that much or all of this cost would be absorbed by the coming development which makes the roadway's implementation necessary. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 3 ■ Project Justification: Please project the number of persons, dwellings, students, or units to be served or the units of service to be provided by the project. This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion over a large area of the county and address coming development to the surrounding area. Please describe the need for this project. As noted above. Please describe and justify the proposed location of the project. The location would be along the existing corridor. Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan: Does the project conform to, or contribute to the attainment of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan? Is the project consistent with established policies? This project is identified in the adopted Eastern Road Plan. Public Health, Safety, or Welfare: Does the project improve conditions affecting health, safety, or welfare? Does it eliminate a clear health or safety risk? This project improves the safety for the traveling public by reducing congestion and improving the flow of traffic. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 4 Legal Requirement: Is the project required in order to meet a State or Federal mandate or some other legal requirement? IM Equitable Distribution of Services: Does the project meet a special need of some segment of the population that has been identified as needing assistance? Would the project provide equivalent services to a population group that is currently under served relative to other areas of the County? This project does not highlight any specific group, but is a region wide benefit. Economic Impact: Is the project essential to, or would it encourage some form of economic development? Would the project improve the tax base, reduce operating expenses, produce revenue, or otherwise have a positive effect on the local economy? Transportation projects such as this one, by their very nature attract additional economic development. Coordination with other projects: Is the project necessary for the successful completion of other projects? Is the project part of a larger project? No, but it is necessary to accommodate the comprehensive planned land uses for this area. Public Support: Are county residents fully informed and supportive of the proposed project? List the methods used to determine public support. The public is kept abreast of planned transportation improvements via a number of advertised public meetings and hearings. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 5 2007-2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN INDIVIDUAL DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION FORM Return to: Department of Planning and Development Frederick County, VA Project Name: Revenue Sharing Date Prepared: 9/16/2007 Agency Contact Person: John Bishop Location of Project: County Wide Magisterial District: All Agency: Planning Phone Number: 540-665-5651 Project Description: Give a brief (1-2) paragraph description of what the project includes. Provide basic information, such as the location, size, acreage, floor area, capacity, etc. Plan to address changes in the revenue sharing program. Current state code, while allowing localities to apply for up to $1 M under the program only allow for 1/20f those dollars to come from proffers. This creates a requirement for a minimum of $500,000 annually from County funds to apply for the maximum in revenue sharing on an annual basis. Schedule: If the project will take several years to complete, outline the schedule here. Be sure to include any work that might have been done in previous years, including studies or other planning. Annual application process. Coordination: If the project is dependent upon or is being planned in conjunction with any other project(s), identify it/them and indicate the relationship between the projects. Project Priority: If previously included in the Capital Improvements Plan, please indicate previous priority and current status of project: 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page l Estimate Cost (in 2006 dollars): PROPOSED EXPENDITURES Element V FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th Fes' Beyond Total 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 FY 2012 Planning, Surveying, & Design Land Acquisition Site Preparation & Improvements Construction Furniture and Equipment Other (opening day collection) TOTAL $500,000 $500,000 5500,000 $500,000$500,000 $500,000 $3.0 M Basis of Cost Estimates: Check one of the following. if you want to provide more detailed information on the estimate, please do so in the space provided. Cost of comparable facility or equipment From cost estimate provided by an engineer, architect, or vendor From bids received "Preliminary" estimate, (e.g. no other basis for estimate, guesstimate) X Other (please explain) Annual expectation of revenue sharing match required from local funds based upon State Code. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 2 Source of Funding: Indicate the projected amount for each funding s -ounce. A ROPOOSED F UNDINGY SL`IIJTRC IES Element 1st FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FY Beyond TOTAL 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 FY 2012 General $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $3.0 M Fund Other Fund State Grants Bonds and Debts Other Fund- raising TOTAL $500,000 $500,000 7 500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $3.0 M Please describe the source of funding (i.e. type of grant): Project Justification: Please project the number of persons, dwellings, students, or units to be served or the units of service to be provided by the project. These funds are used to address projects as determined by the Board of Supervisors on an annual basis. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 3 Please describe the need for this project. Based upon State Code, if the county wishes to apply for the full $1 ISI in revenue sharing, we must be prepared to pay 50% of the match or $500,000 from local fuzlds. Please describe and justify the proposed location of the project. County Wide Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan: Does the project conform to, or contribute to the attainment of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan? Is the project consistent with established policies? NA Public Health, Safety, or Welfare: Does the project improve conditions affecting health, safety, or welfare? Does it eliminate a clear health or safety risk? These projects improves the safety for the traveling public. Legal Requirement: Is the project required in order to meet a State or Federal mandate or some other legal requirement? IM ,vv i -z�wo k,apaai Improvements Tian Project Requests Page 4 Equitable Distribution of Services: Does the project meet a special need of some segment of the population that has been identified as needing assistance? Would the project provide equivalent services to a population group that is currently under served relative to other areas of the County? These projects do not highlight any specific group, but are a congestion and safety benefit. Economic Impact: Is the project essential to, or would it encourage some form of economic development? Would the project improve the tax base, reduce operating expenses, produce revenue, or otherwise have a positive effect on the local economy? Many transportation projects, by their very nature offer opportunities for additional economic development. Coordination with other projects: Is the project necessary for the successful completion of other projects? Is the project part of a larger project? Public Support: Are county residents fully informed and supportive of the proposed project? List the methods used to determine public support. The public is kept abreast of planned transportation improvements via a number of advertised public meetings and hearing. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 5 2007-2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN INDIVIDUAL DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION FORM Return to: Department of Planning and Development Frederick County, VA Project Name: Inverlee Way Date Prepared: 9/16/2007 Agency: Planning Agency Contact Person: John Bishop Phone Number: 540-665-5651 Location of Project: From Senseny Road to Route 50 Magisterial District: Red. Bud and Shawnee Project Description: Give a brief (1-2) paragraph description of what the project includes. Provide basic information, such as the location, size, acreage, floor area, capacity, etc. Construct a 4 Lane divided roadway beginning at Senseny Road and going south to Route 50. Schedule: If the project will take several years to complete, outline the schedule here. Be sure to include any work that might have been done in previous years, including studies or other planning. Funding and planning for this project is not currently advanced to the point where an accurate schedule can be projected. Coordination: If the project is dependent upon or is being planned in conjunction with any other project(s), identify it/them and indicate the relationship between the projects. This project is being planned in conjunction with improvements to Senseny Road and surrounding development. Project Priority: If previously included in the Capital Improvements Plan, please indicate previous priority and current status of project: ./vv i-/-uuo kapnai improvements clan vroject Requests Page ] Estimate Cost (in 2006 dollars): PROPOSFT) VXPVND1T1TR1WQ Element 1S` FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th YY Beyond Total 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011,12 FY 2012 Planning, Surveying, & Design Land Acquisition Site Preparation & Improvements Construction Furniture and Equipment Other (opening day collection) TOTAL $10.2 M Basis of Cost Estimates: Check one of the following. If you want to provide more detailed information on the estimate, please do so in the space provided. Cost of comparable facility or equipment From cost estimate provided by an engineer, architect, or vendor From bids received "Preliminary" estimate, (e.g. no other basis for estimate, guesstimate) X Other (please explain) Using unit costs from the Winfred MPO Long Range Plan. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 2 Source of Funding: Indicate the projected amount for each funding source. PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCES Element 1st FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FY Beyond TOTAL 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 FY 2012 General Fund Other Fund State Grants Bondsand Debts Other Fund- raising TOTAL $10.2 M Please describe the source of funding (i.e. type of grant): While $10.2 M is the projected cost based upon the above referenced plan, the actual allocation by funding source would be premature at this time. It is anticipated that much of this cost will be addressed via new development and the revenue sharing program. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 3 Project Justification: Please project the number of persons, dwellings, students, or units to be served or the units of service to be provided by the project. This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion and provide and additional needed link between Senseny Road and Route 50. Please describe the need for this project. As noted above. Please describe and j ustify the proposed location of the project. The location is as identified by joint planning efforts between the county and VDOT. Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan: Does the project conform to, or contribute to the attainment of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan? Is the project consistent with established policies? This project is identified in the adopted Eastern Road Plan. Public Health, Safety, or Welfare: Does the project improve conditions affecting health, safety, or welfare? Does it eliminate a clear health or safety risk? This project improves the safety for the traveling public by reducing congestion and offering additional travel alternatives. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 4 Legal Requirement: Is the project required in order to meet a State or Federal mandate or some other legal requirement? No. Equitable Distribution of Services: Does the project meet a special need of some segment of the population that has been identified as needing assistance? Would the project provide equivalent services to a population group that is currently under served relative to other areas of the County? This project does not highlight any specific group, but is a region wide benefit. Economic Impact: Is the project essential to, or would it encourage some form of economic development? Would the project improve the tax base, reduce operating expenses, produce revenue, or otherwise have a positive effect on the local economy? Transportation projects such as this one, by their very nature attract additional economic development. Coordination with other projects: Is the project necessary for the successful completion of other projects? Is the project part of a larger project? No. Public Support: Are county residents fully informed and supportive of the proposed project? List the methods used to determine public support. The public is kept abreast of planned transportation improvements via a number of advertised 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 5 public meetings and hearing. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 6 2007-2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FLAN INDIVIDUAL DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION FORM Return to: Department of Planning and Development Frederick County, VA Project Name: Fox Drive Date Prepared: 9/16/2007 Agency: Planning Agency Contact Person: John Bishop Phone Number: 540-665-5651 Location of Project: Fox Drive where it intersects with Route 522 Magisterial District: Stonewall Project Description: Give a brief (1-2) paragraph description of what the project includes. Provide basic information, such as the location, size, acreage, floor area, capacity, etc. Add additional turning lane(s) to Fox Drive where it intersects with Route 522. ■ Schedule: If the project will take several years to complete, outline the schedule here. Be sure to include any work that might have been done in previous years, including studies or other planning. Funding and planning for this project is not currently advanced to the point where an accurate schedule can be projected. Coordination: If the project is dependent upon or is being planned in conjunction with any other project(s), identify it/them and indicate the relationship between the projects. Project Priority: N If previously included in the Capital Improvements Plan, please indicate previous priority and current status of project: 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 1 Estimate Cost (in 2006 dollars): PROPOSED VXPFND1T11u1W_c Element 1" FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FY Beyond Total 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 FY 2012 Planning, Surveying, & Design Land Acquisition Site Preparation & Improvements Construction Furniture and Equipment Other (opening day collection) 1 TOTAL , $250,000 Basis of Cost Estimates: Check one of the following. If you want to provide more detailed information on the estimate, please do so in the space provided. Cost of comparable facility or equipment From cost estimate provided by an engineer, architect, or vendor From bids received X "Preliminary" estimate, (e.g. no other basis for estimate, guesstimate) Other (please explain) 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 2 Source of Funding: Indicate the projected amount for each funding source. PROPOSRI) FTTNn1NC QMTJZrc Element 1st FY 112007/08 2nd FY 2008/09 3rd FY 2009/10 4th FY 2010/11 5th FY 2011/12 Beyond TOTAL FY 2012 General Fund Other Fund State Grants Bondsand Debts Other Fund- raising TOTAL $250,000 Please describe the source of funding (i.e. type of grant): While $250,000 is the projected cost based upon the above referenced plan, the actual allocation by funding source would be premature at this time. It is anticipated that this cost will be addressed the revenue sharing program. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 3 Project Justification: Please project the number of persons, dwellings, students, or units to be served or the units of service to be provided by the project. This is a transportation improvement that will address congestion at this intersection. Please describe the need for this project. As noted above. Please describe and justify the proposed location of the project. The location is at the existing intersection point. Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan: Does the project conform to, or contribute to the attainment of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan? Is the project consistent with established policies? This project is identified in Secondary Road Improvements Plan. Public Health, Safety, or Welfare: Does the project improve conditions affecting health, safety, or welfare? Does it eliminate a clear health or safety risk? This project improves the safety for the traveling public by reducing congestion. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page Legal Requirement: M Is the project required in order to meet a State or Federal mandate or some other legal requirement? Equitable Distribution of Services: Does the project meet a special need of some segment of the population that has been identified as needing assistance? Would the project provide equivalent services to a population group that is currently under served relative to other areas of the County? This project does not highlight any specific group, but is a congestion benefit. Economic Impact; Is the project essential to, or would it encourage some form of economic development? Would the project improve the tax base, reduce operating expenses, produce revenue, or otherwise have a positive effect on the local economy? Coordination with other projects: Is the project necessary for the successful completion of other projects? Is the project part of a larger project? No. Public Support: Are county residents fully informed and supportive of the proposed project? List the methods used to determine public support. The public is kept abreast of planned transportation improvements via a number of advertised public meetings and hearing. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 5 2007-2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN INDIVIDUAL DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION FORM Return to: Department of Planning and Development Frederick County, VA Project Name: Exit 307 Relocation Date Prepared: 9/16/2007 Agency: Planning Agency Contact Person: John Bishop Phone Number: 540-665-5651 Location of Project: South of Existing Exit 307 Magisterial District: Opequon Project Description: Give a brief (1-2) paragraph description of what the project includes Provide basic information, such as the location, size, acreage, floor area, capacity, etc. Construct a relocated Exit 307 interchange. Schedule: If the project will take several years to complete, outline the schedule here. Be sure to include any work that might have been done in previous years, including studies or other planning. Funding and planning for this project is not currently advanced to the point where an accurate schedule can be projected. Coordination: If the project is dependent upon or is being planned in conjunction with any other project(s), identify it/them and indicate the relationship between the projects. This project is not dependent upon, but is being coordinated with the Warrior Drive extension and Stephens City bypass. Project Priority: If previously included in the Capital Improvements Plan, please indicate previous priority and current status of project: Not previously included. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page I Estimate Cost (in 2006 dollars): PROPOSED FYPVND1fT1?RVC. Element 1 15'FY 11 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FY Beyond Total 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 FY 2012 Planning, Surveying, & Design Land Acquisition Site Preparation & Improvements Construction Furniture and Equipment Other (opening day collection) TOTAL $60 M Basis of Cost Estimates: Check one of the following. If you want to provide more detailed information on the estimate, please do so in the space provided. Cost of comparable facility or equipment From cost estimate provided by an engineer, architect, or vendor From bids received "Preliminary" estimate, (e.g. no other basis for estimate, guesstimate) X Other (please explain) VDOT Planning level estimate. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 2 Source of Funding: Indicate the projected amount for each funding source. PROPOSED FUNDING .gnlTRC'F-% Element 11 1st FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FY Beyond TOTAL 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 FY 2012 General Fund Other Fund State Grants Bonds and Debts Other Fund- raising TOTAL $60 M Please describe the source of funding (i.e. type of grant): While $60 M is the projected cost based upon the above referenced plan, the actual allocation by funding source would be premature at this time. It is anticipated that much or all of this cost would be absorbed by the coming development which makes the roadway's implementation necessary. -vv -.Lvvo %,apiLai improvements rian rroject Kequests Page 3 Project Justification: Please project the number of persons, dwellings, students, or units to be served or the units of service to be provided by the project. This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion in many areas of the county and address coming development to the surrounding area. Please describe the need for this project. As noted above. Please describe and justify the proposed location of the project. The location is as identified by joint planning efforts between the county, town and VDOT. Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan: Does the project conform to, or contribute to the attainment of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan? is the project consistent with established policies? This project is identified in the adopted Eastern Road Plan. Public Health, Safety, or Welfare: Does the project improve conditions affecting health, safety, or welfare? Does it eliminate a clear health or safety risk? This project improves the safety for the traveling public by reducing congestion and offering additional travel alternatives. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page Legal Requirement: Is the project required in order to meet a State or Federal mandate or some other legal requirement? !1M Equitable Distribution of Services: Does the project meet a special need of some segment of the population that has been identified as needing assistance? Would the project provide equivalent services to a population group that is currently under served relative to other areas of the County? This project does not highlight any specific group, but is a region wide benefit. Economic impact: Is the project essential to, or would it encourage some form of economic development? Would the project improve the tax base, reduce operating expenses, produce revenue, or otherwise have a positive effect on the local economy? Transportation projects such as this one, by their very nature attract additional economic development. Coordination with other projects: Is the project necessary for the successful completion of other projects? Is the project part of a larger project? This project is the critical link to the Warrior Drive extension and the Stephens City bypass. Public Support: Are county residents fully informed and supportive of the proposed project? List the methods used to determine public support. The public is kept abreast of planned transportation improvements via a number of advertised public meetings and hearings. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 5 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 6 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 7 2007-2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN INDIVIDUAL DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION FORM Return to: fl<.pa-�....ent ..r n�__._e_ __ "�-N�"k'�����I vi ridlllllny and Deveiopment Frederick County, VA Project Name: Blossom Drive Date Prepared: 9/16/2007 Agency Contact Person: John Bishop Location of Project: Blossom Drive at Route 7 Magisterial District: Red Bud Agency: Planning Phone Number: 540-665-5651 Project Description: Give a brief (1-2) paragraph description of what the project includes. Provide basic information, such as the location, size, acreage, floor area, capacity, etc. Add additional turning lane(s) at Blossom and Route 7. Schedule: If the project will take several years to complete, outline the schedule here. Be sure to include any work that might have been done in previous years, including studies or other planning. Funding and planning for this project is not currently advanced to the point where an accurate schedule can be projected. Coordination: If the project is dependent upon or is being planned in conjunction with any other project(s), identify it/them and indicate the relationship between the projects. Project Priority: If previously included in the Capital Improvements Plan, please indicate previous priority and current status of project: 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 1 Estimate Cost (in 2006 dollars): PROPOSED EXPENDITURES Element 11 15' FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FY Beyond Total 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 FY 2012 Planning, Surveying, & Design Land Acquisition Site Preparation & Improvements Construction Furniture and Equipment Other (opening day collection) TOTAL $250,000 Basis of Cost Estimates: Check one of the following. If you want to provide more detailed information on the estimate, please do so in the space provided. Cost of comparable facility or equipment From cost estimate provided by an engineer, architect, or vendor From bids received X "Preliminary" estimate, (e.g. no other basis for estimate, guesstimate) Other (please explain) 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 2 Source of Funding: Indicate the projected amount for each funding source. PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCES Element 1st FY 112007/08 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FY Beyond TOTAL 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 FY 2012 General Fund Other Fund State Grants Bonds and Debts Other Fund- raising TOTAL $250,000 Please describe the source of funding (i.e. type of grant): While $250,000 is the projected cost based upon the above referenced plan, the actual allocation by funding source would be premature at this time. It is anticipated that this cost will be addressed the revenue sharing program. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 3 Project Justification: Please project the number of persons, dwellings, students, or units to be served or the units of service to be provided by the project. This is a transportation improvement that will address congestion at this intersection. Please describe the need for this project. As noted above. Please describe and justify the proposed location of the project. The location is at the existing intersection point. Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan: Does the project conform to, or contribute to the attainment of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan? Is the project consistent with established policies? This project is identified in Secondary Road Improvements Plan. Public Health, Safety, or Welfare: Does the project improve conditions affecting health, safety, or welfare? Does it eliminate a clear health or safety risk? This project improves the safety for the traveling public. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 4 Legal Requirement: Is the project required in order to meet a State or Federal mandate or some other legal requirement? No. Equitable Distribution of Services: Does the project meet a special need of some segment of the population that has been identified as needing assistance? Would the project provide equivalent services to a population group that is currently under served relative to other areas of the County? This project does not highlight any specific group, but is a congestion benefit. Economic Impact: Is the project essential to, or would it encourage some form of economic development? Would the project improve the tax base, reduce operating expenses, produce revenue, or otherwise have a positive effect on the local economy? ■ Coordination with other projects: Is the project necessary for the successful completion of other projects? Is the project part of a larger project? No. Public Support: Are county residents fully informed and supportive of the proposed project? List the methods used to determine public support. The public is kept abreast of planned transportation improvements via a number of advertised public meetings and hearing. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 5 2007-2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN INDIVIDUAL DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION FORM Return to: Department of Planning and Development Frederick County, VA Project Name: Brucetown RdlHopewell Rd Alignment and Intersection Improvements Date Prepared: 9/16/2007 Agency Contact Person: John Bishop Agency: Planning Phone Number: 540-665-5651 Location of Project: Brucetown\Hopewell at Rt 11 Magisterial District: Stonewall Project Description: Give a brief (1-2) paragraph description of what the project includes. Provide basic information, such as the location, size, acreage, floor area, capacity, etc. Realign Brucetown Rd to meet Hopewell Rd at Route 11. Improvements to intersection to address comp. planned development's traffic generation in the area. Schedule: If the project will take several years to complete, outline the schedule here. Be sure to include any work that might have been done in previous years, including studies or other planning. Funding and planning for this project is not currently advanced to the point where an accurate schedule can be projected. Coordination: If the project is dependent upon or is being planned in conjunction with any other project(s), identify it/them and indicate the relationship between the projects. This project is not dependent upon, but is being coordinated with the planning for the overall widening of Route 11. Project Priority: If previously included in the Capital Improvements Plan, please indicate previous priority and current status of project: 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 1 Estimate Cost (in 2006 dollars): rKOFUSED EXPENDITURES Element Vt FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th Total 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 qBeyond 201FY 2012 Planning, Surveying, & Design Land Acquisition Site Preparation & Improvements Construction Furniture and Equipment Other (opening day collection) TOTAL $3.0 M Basis of Cost Estimates: Check one of the following. If you want to provide more detailed information on the estimate, please do so in the space provided. Cost of comparable facility or equipment From cost estimate provided by an engineer, architect, or vendor From bids received X "Preliminary" estimate, (e.g. no other basis for estimate, guesstimate) Other (please explain) 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 2 Source of Funding: Indicate the projected amount for each funding source. PROPOSED FUNDINf. cnITRf Fc Element 1st FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FY Beyond TOTAL 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 FY 2012 General Fund Other Fund State Grants Bonds and Debts Other Fund - TOTAL $3.0 M Please describe the source of funding (i.e. type of grant): While $3.0 M is the projected cost, the actual allocation by funding source would be premature at this time. It is anticipated that all of this cost would be absorbed by the coming development which makes the roadway's implementation necessary. /-uv i-wua 1.apitai improvements Vlan Yroject Requests Page 3 Project Justification: Please project the number of persons, dwellings, students, or units to be served or the units of service to be provided by the project. This is a transportation improvement that will have significant impact on the Route 11 corridor. Please describe the need for this project. As noted above. Please describe and justify the proposed location of the project. The location is as identified by joint planning efforts between the county and VDOT. Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan: Does the project conform to, or contribute to the attainment of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan? Is the project consistent with established policies? This project is identified in the adopted Eastern Road Plan. Public Health, Safety, or Welfare: Does the project improve conditions affecting health, safety, or welfare? Does it eliminate a clear health or safety risk? This project improves the safety for the traveling public by reducing congestion and offering additional travel alternatives. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 4 Legal Requirement: Is the project required in order to meet a State or Federal mandate or some other legal requirement? No. Equitable Distribution of Services: Does the project meet a special need of some segment of the population that has been identified as needing assistance? Would the project provide equivalent services to a population group that is currently under served relative to other areas of the County? This project does not highlight any specific group, but is a region wide benefit. Economic Impact: Is the project essential to, or would it encourage some form of economic development? Would the project improve the tax base, reduce operating expenses, produce revenue, or otherwise have a positive effect on the local economy? Coordination with other projects: Is the project necessary for the successful completion of other projects? Is the project part of a larger project? This project is an important component to addressing growth along the Route 11 north corridor. Public Support: Are county residents fully informed and supportive of the proposed project? List the methods used to determine public support. The public is kept abreast of planned transportation improvements via a number of advertised public meetings and hearings. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 5 2007-2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN INDIVIDUAL DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION FORM Return to: Department of Planning and Development Frederick County, VA Project Name: Channing Drive Extension Date Prepared: 9/17/2007 Agency: Planning Agency Contact Person: John Bishop Phone Number: 540-665-5651 Location of Project: Future Channing from Senseny to Route 50 Magisterial District: Redbud Project Description: Give a brief (1-2) paragraph description of what the project includes. Provide basic information, such as the location, size, acreage, floor area, capacity, etc. Construct a 4 Lane divided roadway beginning at Senseny Road where Channing Drive intersects from the north and continuing that roadway south to intersect with Route 50 at Independence Dr. Schedule: If the project will take several years to complete, outline the schedule here. Be sure to include any work that might have been done in previous years, including studies or other planning. Funding and planning for this project is not currently advanced to the point where an accurate schedule can be projected. Coordination: If the project is dependent upon or is being planned in conjunction with any other project(s), identify it/them and indicate the relationship between the projects. This project is not dependent upon, but is being coordinated with the planning for Greenwood Rd and Sulphur Springs improvements. Project Priority: If previously included in the Capital Improvements Plan, please indicate previous priority and current status of project: 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 1 Estimate Cost (in 2006 dollars): PROPOSED EXPENDITURES Element V FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FY Beyond Total 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 FY 2012 Planning, Surveying, & Design Land Acquisition Site Preparation & Improvements Construction Furniture and Equipment Other (opening day collection) TOTAL X20.6 M Basis of Cost Estimates: Check one of the following. If you want to provide more detailed information on the estimate, please do so in the space provided. Cost of comparable facility or equipment From cost estimate provided by an engineer, architect, or vendor From bids received "Preliminary" estimate, (e.g. no other basis for estimate, guesstimate) X Other (please explain) Using unit costs from the Winfred MPO Long Range Plan. , tall r,oject Nequests Page 2 Source of Funding: Indicate the projected amount for each funding source. PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCES Element 1st FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FV Beyond TOTAL 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 FY 2012 General Fund Other Fund State Grants Bonds and Debts Other Fund- raising TOTAL 520.6 M Please describe the source of funding (i.e. type of grant): While $20.6 M is the projected cost based upon the above referenced plan, the actual allocation by funding source would be premature at this time. It is anticipated that much or all of this cost would be absorbed by the coming development which makes the roadway's implementation necessary. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 3 Project Justification: Please project the number of persons, dwellings, students, or units to be served or the units of service to be provided by the project. This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion in many areas of the county and address coming development to the surrounding area. Please describe the need for this project. As noted above. Please describe and justify the proposed location of the project. The location is as identified by joint planning efforts between the County and VDOT. Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan: Does the project conform to, or contribute to the attainment of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan? Is the project consistent with established policies? This project is identified in the adopted Eastern Road Plan. Public Health, Safety, or Welfare: Does the project improve conditions affecting health, safety, or welfare? Does it eliminate a clear health or safety risk? This project improves the safety for the traveling public by reducing congestion and offering additional travel alternatives. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 4 Legal Requirement: Is the project required in order to meet a State or Federal mandate or some other legal requirement? No. Equitable Distribution of Services: Does the project meet a special need of some segment of the population that has been identified as needing assistance? Would the project provide equivalent services to a population group that is currently under served relative to other areas of the County? This project does not highlight any specific group, but is a region wide, benefit. Economic Impact: Is the project essential to, or would it encourage some form of economic development? Would the project improve the tax base, reduce operating expenses, produce revenue, or otherwise have a positive effect on the local economy? Transportation projects such as this one, by their very nature attract additional economic development. Coordination with other projects: Is the project necessary for the successful completion of other projects? Is the project part of a larger project? This project is an link in the transportation network serving eastern Frederick county by improving north south movement between Senseny Road and Route 50. Public Support: Are county residents fully informed and supportive of the proposed project? List the methods used to determine public support. The public is kept abreast of planned transportation improvements via a number of advertised public meetings and hearings. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 5 2007-2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN INDIVIDUAL DESCRIPTION AND .JUSTIFICATION FORM Return to: Department of Planning and Development Frederick County, VA Project Name: Warrior Drive Extension Date Prepared: 9/16/2007 Agency: Plannin- Agency Contact Person: John Bishop Phone Number: 540-665-5651 Location of Project: Route 277 to relocated Exit 307 Magisterial District: Opequon Project Description: Give a brief (1-2) paragraph description of what the project includes. Provide basic information, such as the location, size, acreage, floor area, capacity, etc. Construct a 4 Lane divided roadway beginning at Route 277 where Warrior Drive intersects from the north and continuing that roadway south and west to intersect with I-81 at the location of the relocated Exit 307 interchange. Schedule: If the project will take several years to complete, outline the schedule here. Be sure to include any work that might have been done in previous years, including studies or other planning. Funding and planning for this project is not currently advanced to the point where an accurate schedule can be projected. Coordination: If the project is dependent upon or is being planned in conjunction with any other project(s), identify it/them and indicate the relationship between the projects. This project is not dependent upon, but is being coordinated with the planning for the location of the new Exit 307 Interchange for purposes of future access at that point. Project Priority: If previously included in the Capital Improvements Plan, please indicate previous priority and current status of project: 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page I Estimate Cost (in 2006 dollars): PROPOSED F.XPF,NDITURFN Element 1" FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FY Beyond Total 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011112 FY 2012 Planning, Surveying, & Design Land Acquisition Site Preparation & Improvements Construction Furniture and Equipment Other (opening day collection) TOTAL i $23.2 M Basis of Cost Estimates: Check one of the following. If you want to provide more detailed information on the estimate, please do so in the space provided. Cost of comparable facility or equipment From cost estimate provided by an engineer, architect, or vendor From bids received "Preliminary" estimate, (e.g. no other basis for estimate, guesstimate) X Other (please explain) Using unit costs from the Winfred MPO Long Range Plan. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 2 Source of Funding: Indicate the projected amount for each funding source. PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCFS Element 1st FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FY Beyond TOTAL 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 FY 2012 General Fund Other Fund State Grants Bonds and Debts Other Fund- raising TOTAL Please describe the source of funding (i.e. type of grant): While $23.2 M is the projected cost based upon the above referenced plan, the actual allocation by funding source would be premature at this time. It is anticipated that much or all of this cost would be absorbed by the coming development which makes the roadway's implementation necessary. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 3 Project Justification: Please project the number of persons, dwellings, students, or units to be served or the units of service to be provided by the project. This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion in many areas of the county and address coming development to the surrounding area. Please describe the need for this project. As noted above. Please describe and justify the proposed location of the project. The location is as identified by joint planning efforts between the county, town, city, and VDOT. Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan: Does the project conform to, or contribute to the attainment of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan? Is the project consistent with established policies? This project is identified in the adopted Eastern Road Plan. Public Health, Safety, or Welfare: Does the project improve conditions affecting health, safety, or welfare? Does it eliminate a clear health or safety risk? This project improves the safety for the traveling public by reducing congestion and offering additional travel alternatives. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 4 Legal Requirement: Is the project required in order to meet a State or Federal mandate or some other legal requirement? No. Equitable Distribution of Services: Does the project meet a special need of some segment of the population that has been identified as needing assistance? Would the project provide equivalent services to a population group that is currently under served relative to other areas of the County? This project does not highlight any specific group, but is a region wide benefit. Economic Impact: Is the project essential to, or would it encourage some form of economic development? Would the project improve the tax base, reduce operating expenses, produce revenue, or otherwise have a positive effect on the local economy? Transportation projects such as this one, by their very nature attract additional economic development. Coordination with other projects: Is the project necessary for the successful completion of other projects? Is the project part of a larger project? This project is an important link to the future relocated Exit 307 Interchange and the Stephens City bypass. Public Support: Are county residents fully informed and supportive of the proposed project? List the methods used to determine public support. The public is kept abreast of planned transportation improvements via a number of advertised public meetings and hearings. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 5 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 6 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 7 2007-2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN INDIVIDUAL DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION FORM Return to: Department of Planning and Development Frederick County, VA Project Name: East Tevis Street Extension Date Prepared: 9/16/2007 Agency: Planning Agency Contact Person: John Bishop Phone Number: 540-665-5651 Location of Project: From Route 522 to the Russell 150 Development Magisterial District: Shawnee Project Description: Give a brief (1-2) paragraph description of what the project includes. Provide basic information, such as the location, size, acreage, floor area, capacity, etc. Construct a 4 Lane divided roadway beginning at Route 522 and going west approximately .2 miles to connect to the road network being constructed by the Russell 150 development. Schedule: If the project will take several years to complete, outline the schedule here. Be sure to include any work that might have been done in previous years, including studies or other planning. Due to a recent revenue sharing award on this project, planning and right of way talks are moving forward, but a full project schedule is not yet available. Coordination: If the project is dependent upon or is being planned in conjunction with any other project(s), identify it/them and indicate the relationship between the projects. This project is dependent upon the Russell 150 road system being put into place. Project Priority: If previously included in the Capital Improvements Plan, please indicate previous priority and current status of project: 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 1 Estimate Cost (in 2006 dollars): PROPOSED EXPENDITURFS Element V FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FY Beyond Total 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 FY 2012 Planning, Surveying, & Design Land Acquisition Site Preparation & Improvements Construction Furniture and Equipment Other (opening day collection) TOTAL S2.6 M Basis of Cost Estimates: Check one of the following. If you want to provide more detailed information on the estimate, please do so in the space provided. Cost of comparable facility or equipment From cost estimate provided by an engineer, architect, or vendor From bids received "Preliminary" estimate, (e.g. no other basis for estimate, guesstimate) X Other (please explain) Using costs from the Winfred MPO Long Range Plan. 2UU /-20U6 Uapitai improvements Plan Project Requests Page 2 Source of Funding: Indicate the projected amount for each funding source. PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCES Element 1st FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FY Beyond TOTAL 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/13 FY 2012 General Fund Other Fund State Grants Bonds and Debts Other Fund- raising TOTAL S2.6 M Please describe the source of funding (i.e. type of grant): While $2.6 M is the projected cost based upon the above referenced plan, the actual allocation by funding source would be premature at this time. $1.0 M has been awarded by the VDOT revenue sharing program. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 3 Project Justification: Please project the number of persons, dwellings, students, or units to be served or the units of service to be provided by the project. This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion in many areas of the county and address coming development to the surrounding area. Please describe the need for this project. As noted above. Please describe and justify the proposed location of the project. The location is as identified by joint planning efforts between the county, VDOT, and the developer. Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan: Does the project conform to, or contribute to the attainment of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan? Is the project consistent with established policies? This project is identified in the adopted Eastern Road Plan. Public Health, Safety, or Welfare: Does the project improve conditions affecting health, safety, or welfare? Does it eliminate a clear health or safety risk? This project improves the safety for the traveling public by reducing congestion and offering 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 4 additional travel alternatives. Legal Requirement: Is the project required in order to meet a State or Federal mandate or some other legal requirement? No. Equitable Distribution of Services: Does the project meet a special need of some segment of the population that has been identified as needing assistance? Would the project provide equivalent services to a population group that is currently under served relative to other areas of the County? This project does not highlight any specific group, but is a region wide benefit. Economic Impact: Is the project essential to, or would it encourage some form of economic development? Would the project improve the tax base, reduce operating expenses, produce revenue, or otherwise have a positive effect on the local economy? Transportation projects such as this one, by their very nature attract additional economic development. Coordination with other projects: Is the project necessary for the successful completion of other projects? Is the project part of a larger project? This project is an important link to the Tevis Street extension and I-81 overpass. Public Support: Are county residents fully informed and supportive of the proposed project? List the methods used to determine public support. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 5 The public is kept abreast of planned transportation improvements via a number of advertised public meetings and hearing. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 6 2007-2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN INDIVIDUAL DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION FORM Return to: Department of Planning and Development Frederick County, VA Project Name: Senseny Road Widening Date Prepared: 9/16/2007 Agency: Planning Agency Contact Person: John Bishop Phone Number: 540-665-5651 Location of Project: Senseny Road from Winchester to Clark County Magisterial District: Red Bud and Shawnee Project Description: Give a brief (1-2) paragraph description of what the project includes. Provide basic information, such as the location, size, acreage, floor area, capacity, etc. Widen to a 4 lane divided roadway. Schedule: If the project will take several years to complete, outline the schedule here. Be sure to include any work that might have been done in previous years, including studies or other planning. Funding and planning for this project is not currently advanced to the point where an accurate schedule can be projected. Coordination: If the project is dependent upon or is being planned in conjunction with any other project(s), identify it/them and indicate the relationship between the projects. This project is not dependent upon, but is being coordinated with the implementation of Route 37, Channing Drive, and development in the area. Project Priority: If previously included in the Capital Improvements Plan, please indicate previous priority and current status of project: 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests page 1 r Estimate Cost (in 2006 dollars): PROPOSED EXPENDITURES L' b Llemen� 11 1St Tv 1n 1__, �uu r r7 r - cru rY4th FY 5th FX' Beyond Total 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 FY 2012 Planning, Surveying, & Design Land Acquisition Site Preparation & Improvements Construction Furniture and Equipment Other (opening day collection) TOTAL $22.8 M Basis of Cost Estimates: Check one of the following. If you want to provide more detailed information on the estimate, please do so in the space provided. Cost of comparable facility or equipment From cost estimate provided by an engineer, architect, or vendor From bids received "Preliminary" estimate, (e.g. no other basis for estimate, guesstimate) X Other (please explain) Using unit costs from the MPO Long Range Plan. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests page 2 Source of Funding: Indicate the projected amount for each funding source. PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCES Element 1st FY 2nd FY 3rd FY 4th FY 5th FY Beyond TOTAL 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 FY 2012 General Fund Other Fund State Grants Bonds and Debts Other Fund- raising TOTAL $22.8 M Please describe the source of funding (i.e. type of grant): While $22.8 M is the projected cost based upon the above referenced plan, the actual allocation by funding source would be premature at this time. It is anticipated that some of this cost will come via the revenue sharing program, and a significant amount would be absorbed by the coming development which makes the roadway's implementation necessary. These sources will still leave a significant amount that will need to come from Federal, State, or local funds. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 3 Project Justification: Please project the number of persons, dwellings, students, or units to be served or the units of service to be provided by the project. This is a transportation improvement that will have significant impact on Eastern Frederick County. Please describe the need for this project. As noted above. Please describe and justify the proposed location of the project. The location along the existing corridor. Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan: Does the project conform to, or contribute to the attainment of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan? Is the project consistent with established policies? This project is identified in the adopted Eastern Road Plan. Public Health, Safety, or Welfare: Does the project improve conditions affecting health, safety, or welfare? Does it eliminate a clear health or safety risk? This project improves the safety for the traveling public by reducing congestion and offering additional travel alternatives. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 4 Legal Requirement: Is the project required in order to meet a State or Federal mandate or some other legal requirement? l� Equitable Distribution of Services: Does the project meet a special need of some segment of the population that has been identified as needing assistance? Would the project provide equivalent services to a population group that is currently under served relative to other areas of the County? This project does not highlight any specific group, but is a region wide benefit. Economic Impact: Is the project essential to, or would it encourage some form of economic development? Would the project improve the tax base, reduce operating expenses, produce revenue, or otherwise have a positive effect on the local economy? Coordination with other projects: Is the project necessary for the successful completion of other projects? Is the project part of a larger project? This project is being developed using coordinated planning for Route 37, Channing Drive, and surrounding development. Public Support: Are county residents fully informed and supportive of the proposed project? List the methods used to determine public support. The public is kept abreast of planned transportation improvements via a number of advertised public meetings and hearings. 2007-2008 Capital Improvements Plan Project Requests Page 5 Item 3: Access Management Due to waiting for the release of VDOT draft access management standards, staff has not yet prepared the first submission of this project. Without access to that draft, it is difficult to know how our proposed standards coincide with those of VDOT. Staff is hopeful that we will gain access to this draft prior to the date of the meeting so that we can bring the entrance spacing section our access management plan. 2 Item 4: Route 277 Triangle Study As part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, staff has been instructed by the Board of Supervisors to complete a plan for the Route 277 Triangle. Clearly, this study will have a significant transportation component, so the Transportation Committee can expect to be involved and to have coordination with the Comprehensive Plan and Programs Subcommittee. • C7 • Item 5: MPO Activity Update 1-81/Route 37/11/Shady Elm Drive Interchange Study This study, intended to develop alternatives for access between the above mentioned roadways, has been progressing well and a final draft report is expected shortly. A public meeting was held at the Frederick County Board of Supervisors room the evening of September 10 and it was very well attended with somewhere between 75 and 100 individuals attending through the evening. Route 11 Access Management Studv Intended to coincide with the above mentioned effort, this study has fallen somewhat behind schedule. However, VDOT has assigned a new project manager and it appears this effort is back on track. Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan At their meeting on September 12, 2007, the Board of Supervisors addressed the Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility plan by endorsing the plan map and requesting staff to begin work on incorporating elements relevant to Frederick County into the Comprehensive Plan. Staffing The primary staff for the MPO is expected to be leaving to begin maternity leave in the month of October. Staff has been working with the County Administrator to formulate a plan for coverage during this time. Plan Release Schedule As you know, the MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan was brought to the County during the public comment period. As members of the Technical Advisory Committee staff have recently moved, all future plans be released to the localities for review and input prior to being released for public comment. Co IN - \ • * . A L N ,L Connects to R Shady Elm Road if` Alternative 1 Features: • Cloverleaf interchange at 1-81 • Diamond interchange at Warrior Road s • Diamond interchange at Shady Elm Road ;i, • US 11 accessed from Shady Elm Road via new roadway Legend Key Roadways Indicative Alignment • Existing Not Retained Proposed Ramps Proposed Roadway /Proposed Collector -Distributor Roadway Modified Ramps Approximate Scale - 7 : 640 Alternative 2 s Features: V , r ,/ • Cloverleaf interchange at 1-81 P. ��• ?'t, - '�+ • Diamond interchange at Warrior Road ��, �.� i • Diamond interchange at Shady Elm Road �! � `- pti 1 _ _ • Existing access to US 11 retained !'F`Y k A,/ r • Collector Distributor Roads on Route 37 Legend f .,• �. - Y . , Key Roadways '4 � �' _��' 1; *' Indicative Alignment +� � ►' � •.••'' Existing Not Retained I _ ` ,� - - ` ��t, � s' •�^� Proposed Ramps ' "`'.'Pr...1. G / • 4.�' 1_�' r" I -,P Proposed Roadway p Pro osed Collector -Distributor �,. \;�r "fit+ -4.. t � •'..• ` ., ♦ $0. Roadway }. ►� �'� ¢' - M_ Modified Ramps P Connects to Shady Elm Road�, a "rr''' Approximate Scale -1 : 6flQ Oil _ y N j V •� A J, 0 1P R �� `tom �•. � • r 4 r P giv `'jr Connects to w Shady Elm Road if �+ Alternative 3 ` Features: • Cloverleaf interchange at 1-81 • • Diamond interchange at Warrior Road • Frontage roads provide access to US 11 and Shady Elm Road Legend Key Roadways Indicative Alignment ' Existing Not Retained Proposed Ramps Proposed Roadway Proposed Collector -Distributor Roadway Modified Ramps Apprvxim ate Scat 600 fits.•, � � e�,� � �: � r. v� `r . ,� �/" • � ; , '` ��. � "' < `' � .10. � r. • C: • Item 6: Article Review COMMONWEALTH V EEALTH ®f VIRCj1IA V IA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. Box 2249 Staunton, VA 24402-2249 www.VircliniaDOTorg DAVID S. EKERN, PE COMMISSIONER September 6, 2007 Mr. John Riley, Jr., County Administrator 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Riley: I am writing, on behalf of Staunton Commonwealth Transportation Board member Dr. James Davis and myself, to invite you to the Fall Commonwealth Transportation Board public meeting. This meeting is being held in your area for citizens to comment on projects that are candidates for inclusion in the Fiscal Year 2008-2013 Six -Year Improvement Program (SYIP). It will include highway, rail and public transportation initiatives. These candidate projects and programs represent important improvements to address safety, congestion and preservation of Virginia's transportation network. It is important that we hear from you and your constituents about the highest priorities for the state's limited transportation funds. The meeting for citizens in our district will start at 5:00 p.m. on Monday, October 15, 2007 at the Augusta County Government Center. From 6 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., the meeting will follow an "open house" format. Written comments may be submitted during this informal session, or they may be mailed or e-mailed afterwards. Starting at 6:30 p.m., there will be a public discussion session where prepared verbal comments can be shared. We invite you to attend a special public officials' briefing from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. before the public meeting. This will be an opportunity for you to learn more about the initiatives that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) are proposing, as well as the FY09-14 SYIP. VDOT and DRPT representatives will be on hand to provide information on the proposals. Also, we encourage Metropolitan Planning Organizations to participate with displays highlighting their regional long-range transportation planning efforts as well as their regional transportation improvement programs. 9 WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Fall Public Meeting September 6, 2007 Page 2 We welcome you to come and speak with our agency representatives. If you cannot attend the meeting, you may send your highway project comments to Diane Mitchell at 1401 E. Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23219 or a -mail Six-YearPro am a vdot.virainia. ov. For rail and public transportation comments, contact Jennifer Pickett at 1313 E. Main Street, Suite 300, Richmond, VA 23219 or e-mail them to drptpr"_drpt.vir inia.gov. If you have any questions prior to the meeting, please contact me or my secretary at 540- 332-9091 or 332-9092. Sorely, Vaff Moore, PE Administrator Walking hard for many exercisers - CNN.com M.Com. Is yvr nest cgg in nccd of attention? t: vostt our km Smt f st om et ra to soe now q 's - 44 C� • aft.* Pa Walking hard for many exercisers • Story Highlights • Neighborhoods with sidewalks more conducive to fitness • Walking, driving habits depend on where you live • Exercisers and non -exercisers drove less in walkable areas Pagel of 2 &2� PR Powered by I ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- Nearly one in four people in the Atlanta area are exercise enthusiasts stuck in neighborhoods without sidewalks or other walking amenities, according to a study that illustrates a problem for many Americans. Researchers said the findings point to the need for more exercise -friendly places to live. "The bottom line is the built environment really does matter to health," said Lawrence Frank, a University of British Columbia researcher who led the study. Walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods have sidewalks leading to nearby shops, restaurants or other destinations. They are built in a way that makes it easier to walk and get to buses and trains. Many are older neighborhoods, located in more urban areas. Frank is among a group of scientists who have shown that people who live in walkable neighborhoods tend to weigh less than people who live in more isolated and car -dependent areas. "He's the first one to make a connection between land use and obesity," said Christopher Leinberger, director of the University of Michigan's real estate program. Frank's current study examined whether a community's walkability affected obesity rates. The research showed that exercisers had a similarly low obesity rate whether they lived in walkable neighborhoods or not. It was 12 percent for those in walkable areas versus 15 percent in non -walkable neighborhoods, a difference that was not statistically significant. Among those who prefer to drive, however, about 21.5 percent were obese, and it also didn't matter whether they lived in walkable or non -walkable neighborhoods. The distances driven were also noted. Exercisers in walkable neighborhoods drove 26 miles a day, while those in non - walkable neighborhoods drove about 37 miles. Among non -exercisers, those in walkable neighborhoods drove 26 miles, and compared to 43 miles in areas that were mostly car -friendly. "Walking and driving really change a lot in different neighborhood types, regardless of people's preferences," Frank said. The study is based on detailed surveys done in the 13 -county Atlanta region in 2001-02. The results, which are being published this fall in a peer-reviewed journal, Social Science & Medicine, are based on responses from 1,432 people. Twenty- three percent of them were exercisers living in places more conducive to driving than walking. http://cnn. site.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Walking+hard+for+many... 9/10/2007 Walking hard for many exercisers - CNN.com Page 2 of 2 The researchers also noted that sometimes people don't end up living where they want. Some move to less pedestrian -friendly areas because of concerns about crime or schools, Frank said. Leinberger notes that some people can't afford housing in walkable neighborhoods, where homes can cost up to three times as much as similar housing in non -walkable areas. David Goldberg, a 44 -year-old Decatur, Georgia, resident who participated in the survey, has lived in both environments. Goldberg said he was randomly selected for the study, but he also works for Smart Growth America, a nonprofit coalition that combats urban sprawl. In the 1990s, when he was a newspaper reporter, he and his wife bought a house in Henry County, a far-flung Atlanta suburb. It was an affordable, pretty area that was a good base for work trips to southern Georgia. But there were no sidewalks in the subdivision, and the only real walking destination was a convenience store across an increasingly busy highway. The family had to drive everywhere and he put on 15 pounds, he said. By the time of the survey, he and his family had moved to Decatur, an older suburb closer to Atlanta. They settled in a walkable area near a pleasantly busy town center. 'f Associated Press. "! ,i jIi '.: c). i ....�_: a r:a " L All AboutExercise and Fitness Find this article at: http://www. cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/07/walkable.neighborhoods.ap/index. html Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article. © 2007 Cable News Network. http://cnn.site.printthis.clickability.comlpticpt?action cpt&title=Walking+hard+for+many... 9/10/2007 10 t 1 i I' T 9 A Case Study of the North Carolina Northern Otter Banks The NCI OT, Division of Bicycle & Pedestrian 1ansportati011 ley April 2004 THE ECONOMIC IMPACT or,' INVESTMENTS IN T i�ICYCL,E FACILI"l�l.ES. A. CASE STUDY OF< THE NORTHERN iT"ER BANKS Stu d -y Overview Produced for the North Carclina Department ofEransportation Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian ansportation by Tudson "Lawrie john Guenther Thomas 1 ock Mary Paul Meleiiou Institute for Transportati;,n Research and z.ducation North Carolina State University April 2004 1 THE ECONOMiC IMPACT OF INVESTMENTS IN BICYCLE FACILIMS: A. CASE STUDY IN THE NORTHERN OUTER BANKS Bicycle Facilities Are a Significant Affraction for Tourists Tourism is an important economic resource for North Carolina, as tourists spend money that benefits local economies. The economic impact of such expenditures is large and varied, and it benefits businesses, workers and local governments. Because of this favorable economic impact, competition for tourist dollars is strong. Tourists are drawn to visit an area by specific attractions, such as beaches, but also by a complex mix of activities and attractions that offer a variety of things to see and do. The richer the mix, the stronger the draw. For bicycling to be a significant ingredient in the mix, an area must be considered "bicycle -friendly". This means, among other things, providing special bicycle facilities such as bicycle paths, bicycle lanes or wide paved shoulders and other amenities that make the overall cycling experience con- venient, pleasurable and safe. North Carolina coastal areas are well-suited for attracting bicycle tourism because of the level terrain, year-round temperate climate and variety of natural and manmade attractions easily accessible by bicycle. Although it is difficult to determine the proportion of tourists who come to an area primarily because of bicycling, it is fair to say that bicycling is one of the important factors in the vacation decisions of many people. In the summer of 2003, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation (DBPT) commissioned a study to examine the value of public investment in bicycle facilities. The northern Outer Banks region was selected for the study because of existing high levels of bicycling activity and the presence of an extensive system of special bicycle facilities. A map of the study area appears to the right. BICYCLE FACILITIES OF THE a Corolla NORTHERN OUTER BANKS )'1\ I--] Wide Paved Shoulder 2.\1 N= Wide Paved Shoulder with Side Path Adjacent to. Road Y\ M Side Path Adjacent to Road Muhl -Use Path !�!J!111111111 Incidental Improvemenrs r'1 i Sanderling � 1k, Duck Southern j., Shores a 1 l\Kitty Hawk Si, Kill Devil Hills dr ,z; Nags Hea�� Manteo w 1 p12 Manns Harbor The study was conducted by the Institute for Transportation Research and Education (ITRE) at North Carolina State University. Researchers surveyed bicyclists riding on the bicycle facilities — paths and wide paved shoulders — and also obtained data from self-administered surveys of tourists at three visitors' centers in the region. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation 3 The study found that the economic impact of bicycling visitors is significant. A conservative estimate of annual economic impact is $60 million, with 1400 jobs created / supported per year. This compares favorably to the estimated $6.7 million of federal, state and local funds used to construct the special bicycle facilities it- the area. Significant Findings from the study include: ■ 17% of visitors to the area report bicycling activity while there; this is approximately 680,000 bicyclists annually. ■ A conservative estimate of the annual economic impact of bicyclists is $60 million. M The annual economic impact of cyclists is almost nine times as much as the one-time expenditure of public funds to construct special bicycle facilities in the region. ■ 1,400 jobs are created or supported annually with the expenditures made by bicyclists. ■ Almost half of surveyed bicyclists earn more than $100,000 annually and 87% earn more than $50,000. Forty percent have a Masters or Doctoral degree and an additional 38% reported completion of a college degree. ■ The quality of bicycling in the region had a positive impact on respondents' vacation planning with 43% reporting that bicycling was an important factor in their decision to come to the area, 53% reported bicycling as a strong influence in their decision to return in the future, and 12% reported staying 3-4 days longer to bicycling in the area. ■ Nearly two-thirds of respondents indicated that riding on bicycle facilities made them feel safer. ■ Over three-fourths of all survey respondents indicated that additional bicycle paths, paved shoulders and bike lanes should be built. i Nine out of ten survey respondents strongly agreed that state and/or federal tax dollars should be used to build more bicycle facilities. Ten Years or' Pubilic i es Met in Bicycle d t-ies The northern Outer Banks region of coastal North Carolina is a natural attraction for bicyclists. Looking at a map, the long, thin ribbon of land conjures images of sun and sea that are almost irresistible to those who like to travel on two wheels. In 1974, a group of Dare County citizens and decision -makers who understood that appeal initiated an effort to improve conditions for bicycling. They approached the North Carolina Department of Transportation for assistance; however, at that time, there were neither state nor federal funds available to construct bicycle facilities. It was not until the late 1980's, when DOT 4 NCSU Institute for Transportation Research and Education 11 funding was first earmarked for construction of bicycle facilities that the Bicycle Program (now the Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation) could begin to plan, Rind, design and build bicycle improvements in the region. Over the past ten years, NCDOT has built an extensive system of special bicycle facilities in the region. Multi -use paths, wide paved shoulders and wide curb lanes rzow link the towns and villages from Corolla south to Nags Head and west to Manteo. To date, approximately $5.9 million of federal/state funds have been allocated for these facil- ities. The towns of Nags Head and Duck and the Dare County Tourist Bureau have contributed approximately $800,000 toward construction costs bringing the total public investment in dedicated funds to $6,685,000. In addition, NCDOT has incorporated other improvements such as bicycle -safe accommodations on bridges and additional width on roadways into scheduled highway projects. In some areas, developers have used private funds to build bicycle facilities as well. Combined, these improvements have made bicycling a viable transportation option in the region and have enhanced bicycle recreation opportunities. The Benefits of Investing in Bicycie Faciilitiies There are both specific economic benefits and other less tangible benefits of public investments in bicycle facilities. These include: ■ urua _ Bcncr . — particularly in the case of bicycling travelers, increased retail sales (restaurants, lodging establishments, retail stores), job preservation and creation, and, in the case of dedicated bike paths or trails, enhancement of nearby property values. Also, reduced health care costs resulting from healthier living. r ■ Cleotdit, TO ncW I FAIISput ration S% ,4i, m — less traffic congestion, improved safety (minimized conflicts between motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians), and preservation of highway infrastructure (e.g., paved shoulders resulting in less damage at the edge of the vehicle lanes). ■ , +rornrm�nr;,I i3 : — including improved air quality and energy conservation. it is being increasingly recognized that Americans, particularly seniors, would benefit in many ways from a more active lifestyle. ■ :, :iu� ii_.;.iit — the quality -of -life benefits that result from living in communities with more open space and greenways, and that provide more opportunities for walking or cycling. Many of these benefits are very hard to quantify or translate into dollar terms. However, it is possible to estimate the economic impact of such an activity and this is a common tool used to measure the benefits of something that attracts tourists to an area. This is the premise upon which this study was designed. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation 5 Measuring Bicycle Usage orad (-_harac1-eris-i-ics The basic intention of ai Economic Impact Analysis is to examine the economic activity generated by visitors or tourists that are drawn to an area by a particular attraction or facility. When tourists visit an area, they spend money, and these expenditures benefit the local economy. A particular challenge in this case study was that tourists obviously come to the Outer Banks for a variety of reasons, most of which may have little or nothing to do with bicycling. Although they may do some bicycling while in the area, for most tourists this is not the primary reason for visiting the Outer Banks. Moreover, even if bicycling were an important factor in their decision to visit the area, was it the overall quality of bicycling in the area or was it the availability of specific bicycling amenities such as wide paved shoulders or multi -use paths? To try and resolve these questions, a variety of surveys and bicycle traffic counts were conducted in the area. The northern Outer Banks region was chosen for this study because of known bicycling in the area and the presence of a system of bicycle facilities. The surveys and counts were as follows: • Intercept surveys of bicyclists riding by three survey locations over a period of 2 1/2 days in order to develop a "profile" of bicyclists and their perceptions of the quality of cycling in the area. ■ Surveys aimed at general visitors (cycling and non -cycling) were made available at three Visitor Centers in the area, primarily to find out what proportion of them engaged in some bicycling activity while in the area. ■ Surveys of Bed and Breakfast and campground managers and their guests. ■ Surveys at bicycle shops. ■ Mechanical traffic counting devices to physically count bicyclists facilities at 11 separate bicycle facility locations over a period of one week. These efforts provided valuable information about the amount and nature of bicycling activity in the area. Included was information about how long people stayed, where and how often they bicycled, and how much and on what they spent money. This allowed calculation of an average amount spent per day by each visitor. These figures were then fed into an economic impact computer model at North Carolina State University in order to estimate the overall economic impact. H ighiights from the Surveys Bicyclists who completed the surveys are relatively affluent and well-educated. The typical cyclist was a 45 -year old male with a Masters or Doctoral degree who earns $100,000 or more a year and lives in Virginia or another mid-Atlantic state. His cycling skills are at an intermediate level and he normally rides 10-49 miles/month. While at the northern Outer Banks he rode about 14 miles a day on each of five days. 6 NCSU Institute for Transportation Research and Education The average respondent from the Visitors Centers' surveys was slightly different. This person tended to be a 47 -year old female with a college degree who makes $75,000-$99,000, and lives in Virginia, North Carolina or a mid-Atlantic state. She is an intermediate skill level cyclist who typically rides less than 10 miles per month. The Visitors Centers' surveys revealed that about 17 percent of tourists, or about 680,000 people annually, engage in some bicycling activity while in the area. Approximately one-third of these bicyclists indicated that it was an important factor in their decision to visit. The quality of bicycling in the area was rated fairly highly by survey respondents, as was the quality of bicycle facilities. Scoring even higher w -is the perception that the bicycle facilities added to the cyclists' feeling of sarety while riding. Finally, many survey respondents indicated that the quality of bicycling would be important in their decision to return to the area. It should also be recognized that bicycling is important not just for the tourists. Many residents also benefit by the presence of the bicycle facilities and use them or purposes of exercise (46 percetlt), recreation (32 percent), and personal errands 01 percent). Four percent of residents indicated that their bicycle trip was for the purpose of commuting to work or school. Another factor that indicates that bicycling is important in terms of visiting the area is that 70 percent of the intercepted respondents and 62 percent of the bicycling tourists stated that they had brought their own bikes. The average intercepted respondent bicycled on 69 percent of the days of his or her trip, with 75 percent bicycling on more than 50 percent of the days of their visit. Finally, 11 percent of the intercepts and 16 percent of the visitor center cyclists stated that their visit duration was longer due to bicycling, by an average of three and four days respectively. Interestingly, a higher percentage of both intercept and Visitor Center respondents said that bicycling would be more important to their decision to return to the area than it was in their decision to come. This suggests that once exposed to the quality of bicycling in the area, visitors are more likely to return. A large percentage of bicyclists indicated that additional facilities should be built in the area - 76 percent of intercept respondents, 70 percent of bicycling tourists, and 92 percent of residents. An overwhelming proportion favored the use of state and/or federal funds to build such facilities - 95, 88 and 100 percent respectively. Analyzing Economic Impact There are two main types of benefits that result from the presence of bicycle facilities in an area. Each of these has some economic value (i.e., people would be willing to pay something in order to obtain these benefits). ■ The benefits to local residents who use the bicycle facilities for recreation, exercise, commuting, etc. There may also be some benefits from less traffic congestion, increased bicycle and pedestrian safety, and improved air quality. In addition, more and more communities are looking at the ability of a child to safely walk or bicycle to school or to a local store as an important feature of a desirable community. M The benefits that result from tourists drawn to the area due to the bicycle facilities. The tourists spend money that benefits the local economy. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Bicycle c - Pedestrian Transportation 7 An Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) presumes that the main benefit that occurs from an investment is in attracting visitors or tourists from other areas. For example, a tourist attraction such as the Fright Brothers National Memorial attracts many visitors from across the country. These tourists spend money on food, lodging and a variety of other things while visiting, and this has a direct economic impact on the local restaurants, lodging facilities, and retail merchants. Moreover, these expenditures result in increased public revenues through sales and other local taxes (each travel dollar produces about 6 cents in state tax revenues, and 3 cents in local tax receipts). There are thr,;-ftypes of economic impoc,:> ■ the dollars initially spent by tourists that primarily benefit local commercial establishments such as lodging facilities, restaurants, and retail stores. ■ !1 - subsequent purchases by suppliers of materials and services to the primary businesses. - ■ I expenditures by the workers in the direct and indirect y_ _ businesses on consumer goods and services. Often it is not too difficult to develop an estimate of how many tourists come to an area because of a particular attraction or event; however, there are a number of reasons to visit the Outer Banks, the obvious ones being beach- or ocean -related, not bicycle -related. Even if tourists come for the purpose of bicycling, are they attracted by the overall quality of bicycling in the area (e.g., flat terrain, scenic views, and temperate climate), or by the quality of the bicycle facilities that are available (wide paved shoulders, multi -use paths, etc.)? The answer is probably not one or the other but some combination of both factors. No matter how scenic or flat, bicyclists are not likely to be attracted to an area where the bicycling is difficult or unsafe. in order to deal with these issues, several questions were included in the surveys that were designed to help determine the extent to which bicycling in general, and bicycle facilities in particular, were impor- tant to the decision to visit the area. This information was used to help assess the degree to which it could reasonably be argued that some of the economic benefits accruing from the tourists are attrib- uted to bicycling, or to bicycle facilities. Because of the uncertainties mentioned above, and the inherent dif- ficulty of developing a precise estimate in this kind of analysis, a range of estimates was developed to evaluate the number of bicyclists for whom it could reasonably be argued that they were strongly 8 NCSU Institute for Transportation Research and Education attracted to the Outer Banks by bicycling. High, mid-range and low estimates were developed as follows: ■ High Estimate It is estimated that at least four million tourists visit the northern Outer Banks each year. Seventeen percent of tourists responding to the general survey indicated that they bicycled while in the area, which translates to about 680,060 annual tourists who bicycle while there. This number was then adjusted to reflect that most tourists probably did not come to the northern Outer Banks primarily to bicycle. A factor of 15 percent was used, related to the percentage of bicyclists that reported that bicycling was very important in their decision to come to the area. This reduced the number of pertinent annual bicyclists to about 102,000. 0 Mid-range Estimate For a mid-range estimate, the high estimate was reduced by the percentage of respondents who also gave a high rating to the overall quality of bicycling facilities in the area. This reduced the number of pertinent annual cyclists to about 40,800. Low Estimate For the low estimate, the high estimate was reduced by the percentage of the respondents who, in addition to giving a high rating to the overall quality of bicycle facilities in the area also gave a high rating to the importance of bicycling in their decision to return to the area. This reduced the number to about 10,200 pertinent annual cyclists. This low estimate is similar to the estimate of annual riders developed independently from the bicycle traffic counts. It is likely that the traffic count data represents a very conservative estimate in that there are many cycling locations in the northern Outer Banks where the counting devices were not installed. To generate an annual expenditure figure, the estimated number of cyclists was multiplied by the average trip expenditures and then fed into an economic impact computer model that estimates both the dollar impact and the number of jobs created by this economic activity. This is summarized below. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation 9 These benefits compare very favorably to the cost of constructing the special bicycle facilities built in this area by NCDO`I' and the municipalities. The estimated expenditure of public funds is $6.7 million. A mid-range estimate of the economic benefits is $60 million annually. Therefore, the return on the investment in each year equals approximately nine times the initial investment. If the additional $2 mullion spent on bicycle improvements built as part of a highway or bridge project is added, the return on the investment is still very high with a sevenfold return each year. Recornmerdot-lops The study suggests that continued investment in bicycle facilities could only be expected to increase the favorable economic impact found in the northern Outer Banks and is therefore recommended by the NCDOT. These investments can also help North Carolina remain competitive with other nearby coastal states for bicycling tourists. The types of bicycle facility investments found to be most desired in this study are: More and/or wider bicycle paths and lanes. E More and/or wider paved shoulders on roads. In addition, it is recommended to: a Pursue opportunities to create linkages between existing bicycle facilities where possible. R Develop more bicycle lanes or paved shoulders on side streets away from the beach. 2 Upgrade existing bicycle facilities where necessary to meet national standards and build new facilities to these standards. ■ Increase efforts to promote the use of the bicycle facilities in the area. Investments in bicycle facilities in other areas would return similar benefits, whether an area already attracts tourists for other reasons, or whether the bicycle facilities are the primary attraction. 10 VCSU Institutefor Transportation Research and Education FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: MARY PAUL MELETIOU BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MANAGER INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND EDUCATION North Carolina State University (919) 515-8771 mpmeleti@unity.ncsu.edu NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION 1552 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1552 (919) 733-2804 email: bikeped_transportation@dot.state.nc.us www. ncdot. org/transit/bicycle/safety/safety_economicimpact.html Item 7: Other