TC 03-23-09 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK
TO: Frederick County Transportation Committee
FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Deputy Director - Transportation
RE: March 23, 2009 Transportation Committee Meeting
DATE: March 16, 2009
The Frederick County Transportation Committee will be meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday,
March 23, 2009 in the first floor meeting room of the Frederick County Administration
Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia.
AGENDA
1. MPO Transit Study Continued Discussion
2. TIA Standards Update
3. Transportation Module Update
4. December Meeting Date
5. Article Review
6. 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: MPO Transit Study -Continued Discussion
A number of members of the Committee were able to attend the work session held at the
Timbrook Center by the MPO at which the information on this study was presented. The
technical reports 1, 2, and 3 are still available on the MPO website (www.winfredmpo.org).
What is needed now is for a recommendation for what alternatives to pursue in what order to
send forward to the Board of Supervisors.
Staff will bring a summary of our recommendations to the meeting that is based off of all the
previous discussion that has taken place with Committee members to date.
2
Item 2: TIA Standards Update
Attached please find a copy of the most recent version of the County's proposed TIA standards.
Staff has presented this version to the local development interests and has been told that the
following outstanding concerns still exist:
1. They feel Chapter 527 should be sufficient.
2. They feel there is too much subjectivity in the current draft, though they did note that
is has greatly improved and that this is the best draft to date.
3. They have concerns over the inclusion of VDOT in County -required TIA's.
4. Their largest concerns lay in the potential requirement of TIA's at site plan state.
Following that meeting, staff presented a summary of all the information to date at the annual
Planning Commission Retreat.
At the retreat, it appeared that there was support for the program. The request that we did
receive was for an outline of how things worked before, how they work now, and how they
would work under the program. Staff will be outlining this and providing a handout at the
meeting.
3
Traffic Impact Analysis Standards
Draft 411/24/08
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is required in order to allow County Officials and staff the
opportunity to assess the impact of a proposed development. The TIA should provide sufficient
information to allow this assessment to take place. Any application that includes a TIA, as
determined by planning staff, which does not meet the standards laid out herein, shall not be
considered complete. These TIA standards shall be applicable to rezonings, master plans,
subdivisions, and site plans.
When a TIA is required
Any action that meets the thresholds outlined in the Virginia Department of Transportation
Chapter 527 regulations shall require a TIA (see attached VDOT table). Additionally, Frederick
County may choose to require a TIA under the following scenarios:
For Site Plans:
1. When one has not been done previously AND the development is expected to
generate 100 or more vehicle trip ends in the peak hour.
For Master Plans and Subdivisions:
1. When a TIA that models the development that is being master planned or subdivided
has not previously been done.
If item 1 has been satisfied, then none of the following items would apply:
2. Any proposed action that is expected to generate 1,200 or more vehicle trip ends per
day or 100 or more vehicle trip ends in the peak hour and has not previously lead a
TIA done for similar or greater trip generation. Additionally, staff may require a TIA
for any level of traffic generation on corridors facing significant congestion or safety
concerns as determined by the professional judgment of the planning staff.
3. A change in use that, while not resulting in greater trip generation, results in a
significant change in trip demographics or peak travel times resulting in an unstudied
impact on the transportation system.
For Rezonings:
All rezoning shall require a TIA unless waived by planning staff.
2
Process and Report Requirements
1. Submit a determination form to planning staff which will be used to determine
whether the project requires a TIA and whether it will require a VDOT Chapter 527
submittal.
2. Each TIA will be required to undergo a formal scoping meeting with VDOT and
County staff at the regular VDOT engineers meeting. The applicant shall be
responsible for scheduling the scoping meeting and it will be the responsibility of
planning staff to make sure they are in attendance. Applicants will not be required to
re -scope the project due to a failure of planning staff to attend the original scoping
meeting.
3. Each submittal must include the following:
a. All required VDOT copies and payment for Chapter 527 submittal, and all items
on the attached checklists which can be found in the Traffic Impact Analysis
Regulations Administrative Guidelines published by VDOT in September 2007.
Utilize the subdivision plat or site plan package checklist for master plans.
b. One paper copy (or PDF or CD) and one CD with modeling files. If submitting
PDF copy of the report, both report and modeling files may be on the same CD.
4. Each TIA must include the following:
a. An executive summary which summarizes the development, significant findings
of the TIA, and impacts of proposed mitigation.
b. Sections on existing traffic, existing traffic with build -out year background traffic,
existing traffic with build -out year background and development generated traffic,
existing traffic with full background traffic, and existing traffic with full
background and development traffic. In certain situations it may be appropriate to
eliminate some of the above scenarios or to have other scenarios included; the
planning staff in concert with VDOT is enabled to make these modifications at
the scoping meeting with the applicant.
c. The TIA must include all proposed access points, with details about access type.
d. Accident Data for the most recent three year period to include accident type and
severity.
e. Appendices that include output report sheets from the analysis software grouped
according to location.
f. Planning staff and/or VDOT may require additional analysis as required by the
uniqueness of each development.
Technical Details
1. Trip generation must be determined using the most recent addition of the ITE Trip
Generation Report unless agreed to by VDOT and planning staff. Only trip
generation methodology approved by VDOT and planning staff at the scoping
meeting may be used.
2. The TIA must depict a worst case scenario allowable under the proposed zoning as
determined by planning staff. The applicant may depict a less than worst case
scenario if their proposed proffers would limit their development activities to uses
that produce equal or less traffic than what is depicted in the TIA.
5
3. Only scenarios approved by VDOT and planning staff may be included in the TIA. If
the applicant wishes to include other scenarios in their presentation to the Board of
Supervisors and/or Planning Commission, that will be allowable.
4. Existing signal timings provided by VDOT must be used for existing conditions.
However, where existing signal timings are not operating optimally as demonstrated
by the applicant and agreed to by VDOT, an improved signal timing plan may be
used if that plan will be provided to VDOT.
5. Level of Service (LOS) must be considered for all movements and approaches and
shown graphically in the report.
6. When level of service does not meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan, the
report must include suggested improvements that would meet the requirements of the
Comprehensive Plan.
7. When a new signal is proposed, arterial level of service must be analyzed. This must
include a signal progression analysis if warranted.
8. When conditions of existing or existing with background scenarios result in level of
service F, additional analysis must be done when development traffic is added in so
that the impacts of the new development may be considered. Items to include when
doing this comparison are intersection capacity utilization, changes in delays, queue
lengths, and vehicle to capacity ratio. Planning staff could also consider additional
analysis that would depict the development impacts in this situation.
G
Item 3: Transportation Module Update
Attached please find supporting materials on this item. Staff was present at the meeting of the
development impact model oversight committee. There was a significant amount of discussion
regarding the applicability and appropriateness of the module at that meeting. The following
points resulted from that discussion:
• That this will give the impression that Frederick County is closed for business.
• That the timing, given the economic climate, may not be right for this to move
forward.
• That we may be better served by doing an impact fee or proffer model.
Staff presented this information to the Board and Planning Commission at the Planning
Commission Retreat.
At that meeting, it was the consensus that while an evaluative tool is likely needed, this module
is not currently ready to move forward.
7
M I A71ORANDU
-.'OUNTY of FREDERICK
[?f v3 i 'i:3?'r3 FTt of l' la in ng Ir: 3-?evel /p d"'sient
T 0: Development Impact Model — Oversight Committee
FROMI: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP. Planning Director.
SUBJECT: .January 23, 2009 DIM - OC Yi eeting
DATE: January 8, 2009
The Development Impact Model - Oversight Comi-nittee (DIM -OC) will be meetino on
Friday, January 23, 2009 at 8:00 Ali'➢ in the Planning Department Conference Raorn
of the County Administration Building. 107 North Kent Street. Suite 202, Winchester,
Virginia. The DIM -OC will discuss the following aocnda item:
AGENDA
L Review of New Transportation ?Module Component of the De,,zlopr,~ient Impact
Model.
Please contact our department if you are unable to attend chis meetino.
ERL/bad
Attachment: Transportation Module memorandum
1117 North Kent _ .Virginia 4�kt_. 000
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Development Impact Mode- Oversight Committee
John A. Bishop,`UCP. Depuv. Director - Transponation
Transportation Module
January 7, 2009
x'-'OUNTY of FREDERICK
c4' P- ._n 7 ott! P;_ 31�(o pri(c))t
As you are aware; staff and the Transnort,at;on Urnmitte: h—vt,been working wit.l. G consulapt
to create a' transportation module for the devil^prnem impact model. This is a rrstilt of t
A
direCtive from t11e Board of Supervisors and. w .s intended to create a told chat woul+i a,�slst the
Coutity in evaluating d .elopment impacts aril iiidustl-ia.: reroi_ir2�
in order to dctermine now offered proff r -s con_oare" with t?,c impacts r,� chc site.l r��m spat#'
lierspectiUc, this mouu:e will gine that guidance r� a it will b,.- incumbent upon the Board oil -
Supervisors to determine: to what o ton, tlicy feel the imoeots shouid be addressed before
approving a rezoning. Staff would also r� tip that tits ef'f�)l� i� i:<<�related to the creation of traffic
impact analysis standards for the Couw-y.
The user'; manual for the new module is attached and shoals nswer maty questions you niay
have about how itis: inouel works. it stxould be noted that the outputs of is to ira tsportat'son
module do riot li-nipact the outputs of the ot: cr nodules the d-:-elopmcrt iMPL1Ct ztiouel•.
jAB/bad
10'7 North rent rf Si,irs ` i2 • Winchester, Virginia216 ' -5000
�tm
T"- r—
470'. SA�'G.AmORE RCAD SU 7E 5240 SET. ESDA, ND 20S 6
Ischled3ise
T: 800.424.43: 8 : 301.320.486C
Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants 80, ANNANDALE ROAD PASADENA, CA 91 i 05-:4'04
-: 81 3.790.61 70 F: 8.8.79C.6235
W W V,/J-SC-:'ERS:5E_COM
To: John Bishop, AICD, Deputy Director-Transporta on
Frederick County, Virginia
From: L. Carson Bise II, AICP, President
TischlerBise, Inc.
Date: December 10, 2008
Subject: Description of Transportation Methodology Utilized in Development Impact
Model
The methodology developed for the transportation. module of the County's Development
Impact Model uses an incremental expansion approach. As shown in Figure 1, weekday vehicle
trip ends and trip length adjustments by type of development are multiplied by the number of
trips to arrive at the arterial vehicle miles of travel (VMT). Using the change in VMT over time
as a function of increased demand, the annual average lane -miles needed to maintain current
level -of -service is figured. This approach calculates how much infrastructure is needed to
support new development. It calculates an average vehicle mile of travel (VMT) for each type
of land use and determines how much it will cost per VMT to provide that amount of
infrastructure, namely lane miles.
Fsca! Imoact Analys..s .:rnpact Fes • \evl ::lui:. 5 'c::�.F�: S � Eccno, -.. Iirr:ac-nail'S'.� • Fisc S�"iw":'E' .
Figure 1: Transportation Methadology
Vehicle Miles of Travel by Type of
Development
multiplied by Lane Miles Per
Vehicle "dile of Travel
multiplied by Construction Cost
Per Lane bile
I. E"' i i_ f ; l X11 CE
VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL
VMT is the product of the number of vehicle trips multiplied by the average trip length.
Vehicle trips are discussed below. To derive average trip length in Frederick County rewires an
inventory of current lane miles and a lane capacity standard. Each of these components is
discussed in turn.
VEHICLE TRIPS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT INTREDERICK COUNTY
Vehicle trips are average weekday vehicle trip ends from the reference book, Trip Generation,
7th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in 2003. A vehicle trip
end represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were
placed across a driveway). To calculate road impacts, trip generation rates are adjusted to
avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. For all nonresidential
development except commercial/shopping center development, the trip adjustment factor is 50
percent. As documented in the Fifth Edition of Trip Generation (see Table VII -1 of the 5th
edition, 1991), there is an inverse relationship between shopping center size and pass -by trips.
Therefore, appropriate trip adjustment factors have been calculated according to shopping
center size. (See Figure 2.) For commercial/shopping center development (ITE code 820), the trip
adjustment factor is less than 50 percent because retail uses attract vehicles as they pass by on
arterial and collector roads. For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on the
way home from work, the convenience store is not the primary destination. For a small -size
shopping center of 50,000 square feet of floor area, the ITE manna: indicates that on average 48
percent of the vehicles that enter are passing by on their way to some other primary destination.
The remaining 52 percent of attraction trips have the shopping center as their primary
destination. Because attraction trips are half of all trips, the trip adjustment factor is 52 percent
multiplied by 50 percent, or approximately 26 percent of the trip ends.
I~igure 2: C ornmercial/Shopping Center Trip hates and Pass -By Adjustments
Shappisrg Cer:ten
f11'E 820)
Sf b CN
f' u3t�ff1LJ1"
Flo ar AY�c
P= -3y
I_rj,A-a'.
f.``IDG:w uFsl
�r�,"'e
L~ut3flY
25
56.46%
22°<
50
48.29%
26%,
100
41.31%
29'110
200
35.33%
3 201f
400
30.220iS
35"'o
600
2-1.58%
36%
so -s— i'7'Syd �.rPll'T..^7�'
,'wt -t-* Of T7CwhiS�Gi7: :".,[9: i
*B ased on the rrF, data in Table TJII-1
of the 5t
Shappisrg Cer:ten
f11'E 820)
+ u �
f' u3t�ff1LJ1"
y 758.
110.32
4,328
886.56
y 791
67.91
10,656
53.28
16, 720
41.80
2� 767
36.27
�i PPYS, 000
hedition of
Trip Gene2:31to . the bestiaendline cccielationbet-ween pass -by trips
sr_d+looz azea is a po-srer cumme. T to equation used to dezi ti the pass -by trip
percentage is 116.63 x (i%5: "-0..2 5).
The relationship between development units in Frederick County and travel demand is
documented in the following two Figures. Figure 3 summarizes the input variables to be used
in the model. The variables with mint green are ITE trip rates and adjustment factors.' The
variables with blue shading are factors from the National Personal Transportation Survey
(NPTS) data (see the section below on Average Trip Length Adjustment by Type of Land Use
for further discussion), and the yellow are entries provided by the user of the model that are
used to calibrate the model to the existing road network, and are discussed further below.
' Trip rates used in this analysis are intended to be averages for prototypical development in the County. Actual
traffic demand may vary according to specific land uses.
--- _W -, 'T-
Figure 3: input Variables for Road Capital--npact Methodology
*KSF stands for 1,000 square feet
# Average trip length is weighted to account fort' length variation by type of
land use. As documented by the National Personal Transportation Survey
(see Table 5) vehicle trips from residential development are approximately 122%
of the average trip length. Conversely, shopping trips associated with
commercial development are roughly 68% of the average trip length while other
nonresidential development typically account for trips that are 75% of the average
trip length.
`Knowing current vehicle trips, lane miles currently accomrnodatin.0 the existing
travel and lane capacity, it is possible to derive the average trip length. The average
,ANT MILES
Vehicular travel within Frederick County requires a system of controlled access roads, major
and minor arterials, major and minor collectors, major access roads, and local streets provided
by the Commonwealth of Virginia and/or Frederick County. However, the intent of the
transportation module of the Development Impact Model is to measure the impact or, non -local
streets (i.e. minor arterial roads and collectors). Based on data provided by the County there are
a total of 157.68 lane miles of arterials within the Sewer and Water Service Area. This factor is
shown below in Figure 4. It is important to note that this does not include major arterials such
as Route 50, Route 522, etc., as it was the shared opinion of TischlerBise and staff that is would
drastically overstate the level of service standard used to determine the capital impact.
Trips Ends
Ad] Factor
Single Family Units
9.57
50%0
Townhomes
5.86
50%
Apartments
6.591
50%
Housing Unit Type 4
0.001
50% I
Housing Unit Tv 5
0.00
1 50%
Housing Unit Type 6
0.00
1 50%
Housing Unit Type 7
0.00
50%
Housing Unit Type 8
0.00
50%
Retail Sf
67.91
j' 32%
Office Sf
15.65 j
50%
Nonresidential Type 3 Sf
0.00
On/o
,Nonresidential Type 4 Sf
0'r,00
O0i9 i
Nonresidential Type 5 Sf
0,00
0%
Nonresidential Type 6 Sf
0.00
0%
Residential Trip Length#
Commercial Trip Length#
68%
Other Nonres Trip Length#
75%"
Capacity Per Lane
4,.300 Trips
Avo Miles/Tri **
3.60 Mles
*KSF stands for 1,000 square feet
# Average trip length is weighted to account fort' length variation by type of
land use. As documented by the National Personal Transportation Survey
(see Table 5) vehicle trips from residential development are approximately 122%
of the average trip length. Conversely, shopping trips associated with
commercial development are roughly 68% of the average trip length while other
nonresidential development typically account for trips that are 75% of the average
trip length.
`Knowing current vehicle trips, lane miles currently accomrnodatin.0 the existing
travel and lane capacity, it is possible to derive the average trip length. The average
,ANT MILES
Vehicular travel within Frederick County requires a system of controlled access roads, major
and minor arterials, major and minor collectors, major access roads, and local streets provided
by the Commonwealth of Virginia and/or Frederick County. However, the intent of the
transportation module of the Development Impact Model is to measure the impact or, non -local
streets (i.e. minor arterial roads and collectors). Based on data provided by the County there are
a total of 157.68 lane miles of arterials within the Sewer and Water Service Area. This factor is
shown below in Figure 4. It is important to note that this does not include major arterials such
as Route 50, Route 522, etc., as it was the shared opinion of TischlerBise and staff that is would
drastically overstate the level of service standard used to determine the capital impact.
figure 4: Base Year Inventory for Road Capacity Calculations
Capital Facilities Standards and Costs
LANE CAPACITY
The transportation impacts are based on a lane capacity standard of 4,300 vehicles per lane,
which is an average day volume for a three -lane, minor arterial street operating at level of
service "C."
AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH
The average trip length is determined through a series of iterations in the Development Impact
Model. Knowing current vehicle trips, lane -miles currently accommodating the existing travel
(157.68) and lane capacity (4,300), it is possible to derive the average trip length. TischlerBise
determined the average trip length on County arterials to be 3.6 miles. The basic formula for
calculating the average trip length is to multiply the lane miles by the capacity and divide by
the number of trips.
Figure 5 shows the variables used to calculate vehicle miles of travel. As Figure 4 indicates,
new and existing vehicle trips are multiplied by the average miles per trip and multiplied again
by the trip length adjustment factors by land use (tip length adjustment is discussed further
below). To determine the average trip length, the user should perform a series of sensitivity
evaluations until the average trip length entered into cell E24 results in cell K52 approximating
cell B64, which is the input shown above in Figure 4.
Countywide
Need For
LOS by
Current
Facility Type
Base Year Inventory•
Facility Based On:
Capital Facility
COSI/Un:t
Arterial Roads
157.65 Lane Miles
DIRECT EN'TRY
$3.20C.000 Per Lane Vile
USEFUL
FACILITY
LIFE:
New Facility (years):
30
----------------------------------
LAG/LEAD
-------------------------------------
Funding to
---------------------------------------------
FUNDING NMTHOD:
---------------------
---------------------------------
TMC:
Delivery (years):
0 1 Percent Bonded:
C%
LANE CAPACITY
The transportation impacts are based on a lane capacity standard of 4,300 vehicles per lane,
which is an average day volume for a three -lane, minor arterial street operating at level of
service "C."
AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH
The average trip length is determined through a series of iterations in the Development Impact
Model. Knowing current vehicle trips, lane -miles currently accommodating the existing travel
(157.68) and lane capacity (4,300), it is possible to derive the average trip length. TischlerBise
determined the average trip length on County arterials to be 3.6 miles. The basic formula for
calculating the average trip length is to multiply the lane miles by the capacity and divide by
the number of trips.
Figure 5 shows the variables used to calculate vehicle miles of travel. As Figure 4 indicates,
new and existing vehicle trips are multiplied by the average miles per trip and multiplied again
by the trip length adjustment factors by land use (tip length adjustment is discussed further
below). To determine the average trip length, the user should perform a series of sensitivity
evaluations until the average trip length entered into cell E24 results in cell K52 approximating
cell B64, which is the input shown above in Figure 4.
-ig re 5: Calculation. of Vehldes Miks of + ravel (V:IM" n
Road Capital Facilities
.. C�pi:ai FaaL:ie:. titae:d�: ds wC Cos::.
Start ? ;en: ¢:ms - mfc...
_ .�... Car.:al Farlices Drn —d Add. ;ed C.r
R—dCF Scr—o"CjA. —_•..
model COnnt'C: to . •t RG lwd Rodd M... •, ITunt", !Alt: Of. EMC('....
AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH ADJUSTMENT BY TYPE OF ,AND USE
The average trip length is weighted to account for trip length variation by type of land use. As
documented by the National Personal Transportation Survey (see Table 5 in the 1999
publication by Federal Highway Administration.) vehicle trips from residential development,
for Home-based work trips, social and recreational purposes, are approximately 122 percent of
the average trip length. Conversely, shopping trips associated with commercial development
are roughly 68 percent of the average trip length while other nonresidential development
typically account for trips that are 75 percent of the average trip length.
iI
r
Mont Mud
P9W/4W loan— OM1 A— VMy 1pA.fN •aoW
V
�sm. FMnWt
'
�'w•O!t'M9ent1 �fna GMetwv - -• .-..
.,n A-0,
U—
hn•nWl to!" T. r:<k 199rwpfln N9rt Nenr '6JVumF9rmW-
TD
TiAr• Aerrrin<t-NLinq- yngp9nl 41snlger ll[�i/tNrerom St:etu9r.
Aenov!:rrc9n s•]7 l..lutlr fO�mu:s „'no9•. `�n•.nn r•^
JCNtunit Snell
SF' ,N—H.24-
p
C
Co•r Pt. U,, --T C.I.v 6.. fn. F,.W P ^'
Road Capital Facilities
.. C�pi:ai FaaL:ie:. titae:d�: ds wC Cos::.
Start ? ;en: ¢:ms - mfc...
_ .�... Car.:al Farlices Drn —d Add. ;ed C.r
R—dCF Scr—o"CjA. —_•..
model COnnt'C: to . •t RG lwd Rodd M... •, ITunt", !Alt: Of. EMC('....
AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH ADJUSTMENT BY TYPE OF ,AND USE
The average trip length is weighted to account for trip length variation by type of land use. As
documented by the National Personal Transportation Survey (see Table 5 in the 1999
publication by Federal Highway Administration.) vehicle trips from residential development,
for Home-based work trips, social and recreational purposes, are approximately 122 percent of
the average trip length. Conversely, shopping trips associated with commercial development
are roughly 68 percent of the average trip length while other nonresidential development
typically account for trips that are 75 percent of the average trip length.
iI
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS INCREMENTAL EXPANSION COMPONENT
Figure 6 below shows projected travel demand based on the input variables above.
Development projections at the top of the figure are multiplied by the input variables from the
previous table to yield average weekday travel demand on roads the County will need to
contribute funding for. Trip generation rates and trip adjustment factors convert projected
development into average weekday vehicle trips, shown in the center, boxed, portion of the
figure. For example, in the year 2012 the projected 200 new single family -detached housing
units will produce 239 weekday trips 200 x 9.57 x 50"x, = 957).
This incremental expansion method documents the current level -of -service (LOS) of the system,
based on an existing service standard (provided by the County to be LOS C, or 4,300 vehicle trip
capacity per arterial lane). Using this method, the Development Impact Mode, measure the cost
to expand or provide additional capacity, as needed, to accommodate new development and to
maintain the current LOS. An incremental expansion method is best suited for improvements
that will be made in regular increments, with LOS standards based on current conditions in the
community. Further, it indirectly provides the County with a plan, calculating how many lane -
miles will need to be constructed each year to maintain the LOS provided existing residents.
Figure 6 shows the expected future demand on the County's road system. The County has
confirmed that the current system has 521 arteriai lane -miles. Thus, maintaining the current
LOS builds off the current system demands.
Fig=ure 6: Reads Capacity Needs Based or, Future Demand
Base
1
2
3
4
5
Existing and New Development
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Ex Lu
Sisig:c F:zrnily Des -ached
19,228
19,2_'8
I9,228
19,228
19,:25
10,,2'8
Single Family -Attached
2,106
2,106
2,106
2,106
2,106
2,106
Multifamily
1,538
1,528
1. X28
1,528
1,528
1,528
Mobile Home/Other
2,376
2,376
',376
2,376
2,376
2,376
Exeti,�lvs
Vait/crrtid
Ind./Flex
4,406
4,406
4,406
4,406
4,406
4,406
Reta1
1,679
1,679
1,679
1,679
1,h79
';679
Office
1,487
1,457
1,457
1,487
1,457
1,437
:7'cz,,Dt-,dop17m
Single Family Units
u"
10;,
200
2016
20,01
200
Townhomes
0
50
100
150
200
250
Apartments
G
0C
G
C
^
V
Housing Unit Type 4
0
n
0
0
10
Housing Unit Type 5
C
C
C
0
0
n
Housing Unit Type 6
0
0
0
0
0
0
Housing Unit Type 7
0
G
0
0
0
Housing Unit Type S
0
0
0
0
0
0
Retail Sf
G
10 000
10;000
16,000
16,000
10,060
Office St
C
u
C
C
0
Nonresidential Type 3 Sf
0
C
C
G
0
G
Nonresidential Type 4 Sf
0
C
0
C
0
0
Nonresidential Type 5 Sf
0
0
G
C
0
0
Nonresidential Type 6 Sf
0
G
0
0
0
0
Existing and New Vehcle Trips
2007
2005
2009
2010
2011
2012
Exith?gDewspnv&
Residential
109,139
109,134
109,139
109,139
109,139
1079,139
Retail
36,633
,36,633
35,633
36,633
36,633
36,633
Other Nonresidential
39,699
39,699
39,699
39,699
39,699
39,699
A'eaDc�dgpmm
Single Family Units
0
479
957
957
957
957
Townhomus
0
147
293
440
586
733
Apartments
0
0
0
0
0
C
Housing Unit Type 4
0
C
0
0
C
0
Housing Unit Type 5
0
0
0
0
G
0
Housing Unit Type 6
0
0
0
G
0
G
Housing Unit Type 7
0
0
0
0
0
Housing Unit Type S
0
0
0
0
0
0
Retail Sf
n
217
_
217
217
217
217
Office Sf
C
0
0
0
0
0
Nonresidential Type 3 Sf
0
G
0
0
G
G
Nonresidential Type 4 Sf
C
0
0
0
0
0
Nonresidential Type 5 Sf
C
C
0
C
Nonresidential Tvoe 6 Sf
0
C
0
10
0
0
0
0
TOTAL TRIPS
0
842
1,467
1,614
1,7610
1,907
ARTERIAL SWT
676,2016
679,483
682,228
682,872
653,515
654,159
ARTERIAL IN M
157.3
158
155.7
158.5
159
159.1
ANI. ARTERIAL LN MI
0.7
0.7
0.1
102
0.1
Item 4: December Meeting Date
There appears to be conflicts with the meeting scheduled for December 28, 2009. Staff would
recommend setting the meeting for December 21, 2009 with the understanding that we will have
a goal of cancelling the meeting unless the work load renders that detrimental to ongoing
projects.
Item 5: Article Review
Drivers Question Proposed VDOT Cuts
Verona, Va.
Posted: 4:42 PM Mar 12, 2009
Last Updated: 1:58 PM Mar 13, 2009
Reporter: Michael Hyland
Email Address: mhyland,c whsv.com
Drivers Question Cuts
Al Al a
Many of the rest areas along Interstate 81 could be closing under a proposal presented to the
Commonwealth Transportation Board in February.
The Virginia Department of Transportation is facing a $2.6 -billion budget shortfall.
So it's trying to cut costs, but some drivers and legislators are angry about this proposal. Now,
they're getting a chance to share their frustration with VDOT. The department is holding a
public meeting in Verona Thursday night at 6 p.m.
Some drivers say some of the proposed cuts are simply dangerous. The rest area near mile
marker 232 is one of the 25 that would close, and some drivers say VDOT's effort to save
money is putting people at risk.
"You got to go, you got to go," says driver Rodney Gibson.
However, you may not be able to go at the rest area anymore.
Maryann Puglisi frequently drives from Washington, D.C. to Natural Bridge. Trips down I-81
are a common thing for her.
"If safety is an issue out on the highway, which it is, I don't like the idea that I'm going to be
driving on the road with a bunch of really tired people," says Puglisi.
VDOT even has the word safety written on the plaque where they ask for driver's comments.
The department says closing the rest areas would save $12 million annually. The only ones that
would stay open on I-81 would be the welcome centers at the northern and southern state lines.
"This place should be bigger," says Gibson, who drives back and forth from Pennsylvania to
0
North Carolina.
The rest area in northern Augusta County is a usual stop for him.
"Where [are] you going to put the people, the cars and stuff? We need an appropriation for this,"
says Gibson.
Drivers may not have just themselves and other people to think about when they need to stop.
Some of them also have pets that travel with them.
Ted Hansen is driving to Atlanta with his dog, Desiree. If the rest area closes, they may look for
a different route to Atlanta that bypasses the Valley.
"And, I would suppose some of the merchants along this route might want to think a little bit
about that kind of thing as well. Because in a half hour we're going to stop and get lunch. If
we're not doing that, well...," comments Hansen.
Find this article at:
http://www.whsv.com/news/headlines/41167682.html
10
Lawmakers Rap VDOT Plan
Valley Legislators, Concerned For Safety, Pledge Review
By Jeff Mellott
HARRISONBURG - A state proposal to reclassify some roads so that they receive less care - particularly
during bad weather - would imperil public safety as well as the local economy, according to county
representatives and lawmakers from the Valley.
The reclassification is one component of the Virginia Department of Transportation's plan to cut $2.6 billion
in spending through 2014.
Sen. Mark Obenshain, R -Harrisonburg, and Del. Todd Gilbert, R -Woodstock, expressed those concerns in a
letter to VDOT Commissioner David S. Ekern.
In the letter, dated Thursday, the lawmakers said they understood the state's difficult budget situation.
"The dramatic reduction in maintenance and snow and ice removal standards, however, poses a direct
threat to the safety and well-being of rural Virginians," Gilbert and Obenshain wrote.
Legislative Pledges
Del. Steve Landes, R -Weyers Cave, has pledged to urge fellow lawmakers to initiate a legislative review of
the VDOT cost-cutting plan called "Blueprint for the Future."
Landes made that vow during Thursday night's public hearing on the VDOT proposal at the Augusta County
Government Center in Verona.
And Gilbert told department officials at the hearing that he would intensify his efforts to make it more
accountable for its spending.
One way in which the state hopes to save money is by reducing roadside and roadway maintenance in some
areas.
The plan proposes reclassifying some state roads with the result they will get less maintenance and could be
temporarily closed because of bad weather.
Ekern tried to assure his audience of about 300 people that snow and emergency road service would not be
compromised.
But Landes called the statement inaccurate based on VDOT's proposal.
"Do you all realize that there is another part of Virginia other than Northern Virginia and the Hampton Roads
area? Citizens do cross to this side of the mountain," Landes said.
Rockingham Concerns
The budget plan has raised several concerns among members of the Rockingham County Board of
Supervisors.
The county, which is 854 square miles in size, has 8,831 children in school traveling 15,182 miles each day,
said Rockingham County Administrator Joe Paxton at the hearing. The county relies on VDOT to maintain its
roads to an appropriate standard so that those students can be safely transported, Paxton said.
Paxton said that based on the department's proposal, 19 percent of Rockingham's roads would get little or
no service. Another 57 percent of the roads would be classified so they would get a greatly reduced level of
maintenance, especially during inclement weather, he said.
Closing the Verona and Luray residency offices - as the plan calls for - and consolidating them into the
Rockingham County office will only compound the service problems, Paxton said.
If the residency administrator must serve three or four counties comprising an area of 2,000 -plus square
miles, Paxton said, then VDOT would have to change how it addresses emergency issues.
"As the number one agricultural county in the commonwealth, the board [of supervisors] believes we must
maintain a system of roads and bridges that allow for the easy movement of people and goods to enhance
our local economy, as well as the commonwealth's," Paxton said.
At the hearing, all six members of the Page County Board of Supervisors lined up in the order of their
districts to voice similar concerns about the plan.
VDOT's proposal, the Page supervisors contended, would reduce road service and make travel on them more
difficult for everyone, including emergency services.
"Houses are going to burn," predicted Page County Supervisor Carol Lee Fischer -Strickler. "People are going
to die from [having] no rescue squad."
Best Bang For The Buck?
Safety concerns extended to the proposal in the VDOT plan to close almost all the rest areas on Interstate
81.
Landes called the idea the most illogical he's ever heard. Responding to a question before addressing state
officials, he said "we are going to have a public safety problem."
"What about all the truckers that are going to be stopped along the road because of the mandates to rest?"
Landes asked.
Among Gilbert's criticisms of the cost-cutting proposal was his perception that VDOT developed it without a
serious effort to find the most efficient way to reduce spending.
Gilbert also criticized VDOT officials for being resistant to an external audit to improve the department's
performance.
Jim Davis, the Staunton District's Commonwealth Transportation Board representative, responded that
VDOT was the most audited organization that he knows of.
Contact Jeff Mellott at 574-6290 or jmellott(,i�nronline.eom
12
Officials conduct cutback hearing
Leave a comment
By Preston Knight
pknight(anvdaily. com
VERONA -- The Virginia Department of Transportation has some wising up to do, several
government officials said during a public hearing Thursday night at the Augusta County
Government Center.
The meeting allowed VDOT officials to receive comment from Staunton District residents on a
proposal to cut $2.6 billion from its expenses. As of the 6 p.m. start time, 51 people, including
representatives from all counties in the Northern Shenandoah Valley, were signed up to speak.
Del. Steve Landes, R -Weyers Cave, had the most blunt statement among officials when talking
about the proposed closing of the Verona residency.
"That's just stupid," he told VDOT officials.
Landes's displeasure with the plan, which includes closing 25 rest areas, eliminating thousands of
jobs and shutting down 15 residencies, mirrors concerns made publicly by Del. Todd Gilbert, R -
Woodstock, this week. He continued his adamant stance against the reductions, which he calls an
attack on rural Virginia and a ploy to get the General Assembly to raise taxes, after Landes spoke
Thursday.
"I fully intend to branch out and start a new hobby to constantly take a look at what you do right
and wrong," Gilbert said.
Clarke, Frederick and Warren counties, officials said, are concerned with the closing of the
Luray residency and the likelihood that services will be lost as a result. The Edinburg residency
will absorb Clarke and Warren counties into its coverage area.
Richard Shickle, chairman of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, said the county would
have an increased burden to respond to road problems because the Edinburg residency will be
busier, and Warren County Administrator Douglas P. Stanley said the decision to have Edinburg
be the residency makes no practical sense. Instead, he said, the office should be relocated to
Front Royal or Strasburg.
The potential loss in services, according to a memo from Pamela McInnis, the superintendent of
Warren County Public Schools, also could lead to as many as 35 additional days of schools lost.
Gravel roads will be graded only once a year and will not have additional gravel spread to cover
bare spots, causing undue wear and tear on equipment, the memo states.
Shenandoah County District 2 Supervisor Steve Baker also shared concerns about the loss of
services on secondary roads. Additionally, he said the closure of rest areas would be "very
detrimental" to the Interstate 81 corridor. According to the plan, only I-81 rest areas at
southbound Clear Brook and northbound Bristol would remain.
13
To overcome reductions in revenue from federal aid and state taxes, $2 billion in highway
construction projects, totaling about 800 projects, will be reduced in the next six years, VDOT
Commissioner David Eckert said. The rest of the reductions at administrative and service levels
would account for the remaining $600 million, including $12 million a year saved by closing 25
rest areas. Virginia's 411 rest areas cost $2 i million a year to operate, Eckert said.
Closing rest areas, however, is not a wise idea from a tourism standpoint, according to John
Crim, who owns the Quality Inn and Johnny Appleseed Restaurant in New Market. In a prepared
statement, he said property owners all agree that closing rest areas would be "disastrous" to the
state's tourism business.
Written comments can be submitted to VDOT through April 15. For more information, visit
www.virginiadot.org.
14
Item 6: Other
15