TC 03-23-09 Meeting MinutesTO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
MEMORANDUM FAX: 540/665-6395
Board of Supervisors
John A. Bishop, AICP, Deputy Director - Transportation `TIAr'-
Transportation Committee Report for Meeting of March 23, 2009
March 31, 2009
The Transportation Committee met on March 23, 2009 at 8:30 a.m.
Members Present
Chuck DeHaven (voting)
Phil Lemieux (voting)
James Racey (voting)
Dave Burleson (voting)
George Kriz (liaison PC)
Gary Oates (liaison PC)
Lewis Boyer (liaison Stephens City)
Members Absent
Mark Davis (liaison Middletown)
***Items Requiring Action***
1. MPO Transit Study — Continued Discussion
This was the third time the Committee has discussed this item. After a significant amount of
discussion regarding different aspects of the transit priorities, the Committee voted to
recommend the following priority order for the Board to consider forwarding to the MPO.
Motion made by Phil Lemieux and seconded by James Racey passed unanimously. Staff has
attached the list of service alternatives provided by the consultant.
1. Coordination with the Shenandoah Area Agency on Aging, or similar agency, to pursue
additional federal funding for enhanced elderly and disabled services using the existing
agency infrastructure.
2. Enhanced focus on commuter services and parking to include working with the regional
commuter bus service to enhance service to Frederick County residents. Additionally, to
find locations in Frederick County that could be used as commuter parking for the bus
service as well as for park and ride users. There was significant discussion on this item
regarding potential opportunities to work with private industry to incentivize the provision
of commuter parking.
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
3. Corridor service to Middletown/LFCC in cooperation with the City and potentially the local
school systems as opposed to a totally County -supported service.
4. Route 7/Berryville Avenue
5. Valley Avenue to Cross Creek Village
6. Amherst Route to Wa1Mart
7. Apple Blossom Mall to 522 Corridor (the Committee wonders if the portion of this route
serving 522 north will be more timely upon the completion of the Tevis Street Bridge)
8. Northside to Rutherford Crossing (the Committee felt that this route would be best applied
by coordination with development in that area)
Finally, it has been an ongoing discussion point that it should be very clear in the report that
these are not promises or an actual implementation schedule, but an order of priorities to be
pursued when funding is available.
6. Other
Staff reviewed for the Committee the issues that were discussed at the VDOT public meeting on
March 12, 2009. After discussion, Mr. Lemieux motioned and Mr. Racey seconded that the
Committee recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution for submission that
highlights the concerns of Frederick County. The motion passed unanimously and staff was
directed to draft a resolution and email it to the Committee for feedback before including it in
the report to the Board. That resolution is attached.
***Items Not Requiring Action***
2. TIA Standard Update
Staff updated the Committee on the discussion of this item at the Planning Commission retreat.
Staff also noted the continuing concerns of the local development industry and the desire to
work with them to the maximum amount possible. The Committee directed staff to provide an
electronic copy of the most recent draft to representatives from the Top of Virginia Builders
Association for review and redlining of suggested changes.
3. Transportation Module Update
Staff updated the Committee on the discussion at the Development Impact Model Oversight
Committee and the Planning Commission Retreat, and highlighted the concerns that were
brought up at those meeting, particularly regarding how the information could be misinterpreted
by the public and developers. The Committee felt that the module is a valuable body of work
and provided good information, but was not coming forward at a good time.
The motion was made by Mr. Racey and seconded by Mr. Lemieux that the Committee review
the module on an annual basis unless otherwise directed by the Board of Supervisors.
4. December Meeting Date
The Committee voted to reschedule their December meeting date to December 21, 2009 with
the understanding that the meeting would be canceled unless it would delay any projects.
JAB/bad
3
Winchester -Frederick County Transit Services flan
SUMMARY OF SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
Service Alternative
Purpose
Annual
Operating
Cost
Capital
Needed
Potential Funding Options
#1- Extend Fixed Route Transit Services
Serve high need area and
One
Fares, S. 5307, JARC, State
Route 7/Berryville Avenue
identified transit destinations.
$84,500
vehicle
Operating, Frederick County
Fares, S. 5307, State Operating,
Seine additional destinations
One
City of Winchester, Frederick
Valley Avenue to Cross Creek Village
articulated by the public.
$84,500
vehicle
County
Serve additional destinations
Fares, S.5307, State Operating,
Amherst Route to WalMart
articulated by the public.
$28,700
0-1 vehicle
Frederick County
Serve additional destinations
One
Fares, S.5307, JARC, State
Apple Blossom Mall to 522 South Corridor
articulated by the public.
$84,500
vehicle
Operating, Frederick County
Serve additional destinations
One
Fares, S. 5307, JARC, State
Northside to Rutherford Crossing
articulated by the public.
$84,500
vehicle
Operating, Frederick County
Subtotal, if all chosen
$366,700
5
Note: Significant fixed route extensions would likely require another ADA complementary paratransit vehicle.
KFI
't
tetra
Table 1, Continued
"ffi ➢lei
Annual
Operating
Capital
Service Alternative
Purpose
Cost
Needed
Potential Funding Options
#2- Adjust Fixed Route Services
Provide link that was articulated
Link Apple Blossom with Amherst
by the public.
$0
0
None needed
Re -Configure Trolley Route
Improve performance.
$0
0
None needed
#3- Increase Days/Hours of Service
Provide retail workers and others
Fares, 5.5307, JARC, State
To 9:00 pm, Monday through Friday
with evening travel options.
$43,000
None
Operating, City of Winchester
Provide retail workers and others
Fares, 5.5307, JARC, State
To 9:00 pm, Saturdays
with evening travel options.
$35,000
None
Operating, City of Winchester
Provide mobility for riders on
Fares, S.5307, JARC, State
Sunday Services, eight-hour span
Sundays.
$71,000
None
Operating, City of Winchester
#4 Increase Frequency of Service
Provide more convenient travel
Monday -Friday, 30 minute Headways
options and potentially attract
more choice riders.
$456,000
3 vehicles
Fares, 5.5307, State Operating,
City of Winchester
"ffi ➢lei
Table 1, Continued
H1
KF
E��
Annual
Operating
Capital
Service Alternative
Purpose
Cost
Needed
Potential Funding Options
Benches
#5 Improve Passenger Amenities
Provide a more comfortable
transit experience.
capital only
and
shelters
S.5309, S.5309, City of
Winchester
Fares, Pre -purchased fares from
Serve a major travel corridor,
LFCC, 5.5307, S.5311, JARC,
#6- Corridor Service to Middletown
Stephens City, and the
Community College.
$148,000
1-2
vehicles
State Operating, Frederick
County,
Provide mobilitv in the
47- Regional Corridor Service
Shenandoah Valley
n.a.
n.a.
Fares, S.5311 (f)
#8- Improve Commuter Services
Valley Connector Expansion
5 p
Provide an alternative to driving
for long-distance commuters
g-
$189,000
n.a.
Fares, State Demonstration
funding, C��)
Park and Ride Lots
Support carpool, vanpool, and
commuter bus users
Varies
n.a.
VDOT, developers, City, and
County
H1
KF
E��
Table 1, Continued
Service Alternative
Purpose
Annual
Operating
Cost
Capital
Needed
Potential Funding Options
1#1_9 County -wide Demand Response
y'
One vehicle, M -F
$86,900
1 vehicle
Two vehicles, M -F
Provide needed mobility for
$173,800
2 vehicles
Three vehicles, M -F
people who cannot or do not
$260,700
3 vehicles
Fares, S.5311, State Operating
Four vehicles, M -F
drive.
$347,000
4 vehicles
funds, Frederick County
cJ � I '�C.�,'� _J � � : Cly v <�� �t c�✓1,. �_,c.-�� 1 � <�
PC
J
SUMMARY OF ORGANIZATIONAL ALTERNATIVES
Option 1
Option 2 Option 3
Option 4
Maintain Current
Create a new
Create a new
Create a new
Organizational
Structure
Transportation
District
Service District
Regional Transit
Authority -
Establish
[Services
Inter -governmental
Form Commission with
Establish service
Legislation enacted byupport
agreement between
composition determined
district by ordinance
the Virginia Generall
Transit
I City of Winchester,
by City of Winchester,
and governed by
Assembly
Frederick County, and
Frederick County, and the
development board or
i
the Town of Stephens
Town of Stephens City.
other body.
Transit Operation
Responsibility
City.
City of Winchester
New Transportation
District
New Service District
New regional entity
comprised of City
comprised of City of
of Winchester, Frederick
Winchester, Frederick
County, and the Town of
County, and the Town
Stephens Cit
of Stephens City.
Administrative 4
Use current Winchester
Creates new entity
Creates new entity
Creates new entity
Structure
Transit structure
(1) This refers to the entity s ability to raise revenue. The County and the City could choose to raise revenue, if desired, for
transit purposes currently.
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Crganizational
Maintain Current
Create a new
Create a new
Create a new
Characteristics
Organizational
Transportation
Service District
Regional Transit
Structure
District
Authority
Easy Implementation
Yes
No
No
No
L�y
Y
Ability to Address both
• Urban and Rural Public
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Transportation Needs
Opportunity to Raise
Profile of Transit in the r
No
Yes
Yes
_
Yes
Region
Virginia Legislation
No
No
No
Yes
Required
Ability to Raise New No
No
Yes
Yes
(1)
WRevenues
Independent Entity No
Yes
Yes
Yes
I Utilized Elsewhere in Yes
Yes
No
Yes
V;rginia
(1) This refers to the entity s ability to raise revenue. The County and the City could choose to raise revenue, if desired, for
transit purposes currently.
Option 1
Maintain Current
Option 2
Create a new
Option 3
Create a new
Option 4
Create a new
Organizational
Transportation
Service District
Regional Transit
Structure
District
Authority
Advazltages
Easy to implement,
With the existing
With the existing
Provides the ability to
requiring only an inter-
Virginia Code already
Virginia Code already
develop a dedicated
governmental
in place, enabling
in place, enabling
funding source.
agreement to expand
legislation is not
legislation is not
the base of service into
required.
required.
Allows for seamless
Frederick County.
transit services.
Allows for seamless
Allows for seamless
Allows for seamless
transit services.
transit services.
Creates entity
connectivity from
completely focused on
County -services to the
Creates entity
Creates entity
public transportation,
City's route network.
completely focused on
completely focused on
with ownership from
public transportation,
public transportation,
all jurisdictions.
with ownership from
with ownership from
the all jurisdictions.
all jurisdictions
Provides ability to
address both urban
Raises profile of transit
Raises profile of transit
and non -urban public
services and needs
services and needs
transportation needs.
throughout the region.
throughout the region.
Provides ability to
Provides ability to
address both urban
address both urban
and non -urban public
and non -urban public
transportation needs.
transportation needs.
Provides ability to raise
revenue.
Option 1
Maintain Current
Organizational
Structure
Option 2
Create a new
Transportation
District
Option 3
Create a new
Service District
Option 4
Create a new
Regional Transit
Authority
Disadvantages
Creates a new entity
that will have a variety
of administrative and
financial needs that are
currently provided by
Does not create
"ownership" for
Frederick County and
the Town of Stephens
City.
Creates a new entity
that will have a variety
of administrative and
financial needs that are
currently provided by
Requires legislation to
be enacted by the
Virginia General
Assembly.
The City continues to
have the major
responsibility for
the City (i.e.,
accounting, legal, cash
flow management,
human resources, risk
the City (i.e.,
accounting, legal, cash
flow management,
human resources, risk
Creates a new entity
that will have a variety
of administrative and
financial needs that are
transit, even with an
expanded service area.
management,
insurance, etc.).
management,
insurance, etc.).
currently provided by
the City (i.e.,
May not provide
structure to address
rural public
transportation needs.
The creation of a
Transportation District
does not provide any
new revenue
opportunities.
The mechanism for
raising revenue
(property taxes) may
not be politically
palatable.
accounting, legal, cash
flow management,
human resources, risk
management,
insurance, etc.).
Does not create a
transit -specific entity
that could be quasi-
independent and
potentially raise
revenue.
There are no other
examples in Virginia
that are using this
approach for delivery
of public transit
May be too formal a
structure for the
current situation.
Jurisdictions may feel
loss of local autonomy.
NJ
services.
RESOLUTION
BY THE
FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
VDOT SERVICE REDUCTIONS
The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, in regular meeting on the 8th day of April 2009,
adopted the following:
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has asked for comment on a
number of proposed changes to their service levels; and
WHEREAS, the proposed changes include reductions of road maintenance, consolidation of
residencies, and removal of land development functions to the district offices; and
WHEREAS, the reductions in road maintenance will lead to increased citizen safety concerns; and
WHEREAS, the removal of the land development function of the Edinburg Residency to the
Staunton District Office will result in a decrease in ability to effectively coordinate land development
functions between VDOT and Frederick County; and
WHEREAS, that decreased ability to effectively coordinate will result in lost opportunities to work
better with local development, decreased ability to innovatively address unique situations as they
arise, decreased efficiency, and potentially decreased quality of proffer packages at rezonings; and
WHEREAS, in recent years those efforts and coordination have resulted in millions of dollars in
savings on needed road improvements to State and County taxpayers; and
WHEREAS, new road construction funds are not forthcoming to replace the opportunities that will
be lost; and
WHEREAS, removal of the land development function to Staunton would reduce the quality of
reviews and make reviews of development take longer while being reviewed by individuals
overburdened by meeting the needs of the entire Staunton District, as opposed to the current situation
where reviews are done by individuals intimately familiar with Frederick County; and
WHEREAS, those issues will reduce the quality of development while slowing it down at a time
that the local, State, and National economies should not be working to slow development.
PDResl l 1-09
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County,
Virginia, requests that the VDOT and Commonwealth Transportation Board re-examines the
proposed service reductions and focus on cutbacks that will not ultimately have a higher cost than
savings, as is the case with the current proposal.
Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Gary A. Lofton
Gary W. Dove
Gene E. Fisher
Philip A. Lemieux
PDResl11-09
Bill M. Ewing
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.
A COPY ATTEST
John R. Riley, Jr.
Frederick County Administrator