The URL can be used to link to this page

TC 01-25-10 Meeting AgendaCOUNT V of FREDERICK Department of Punning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Transportation Committee FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Deputy Director - Transportation RF: .January 25, 2010 Transportation Committee Meeting DATE: January 18, 2010 The Frederick County Transportation Committee will be meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, January 25, 2010 in the first floor conference room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. AGENDA 1. Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study 2. Shady Elm Access Management Study Phase II 3. Route 7/Valley Mill Road area transportation alternatives discussion 4. MPO Long Range Plan Update 5. Other Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting. Attachments JAB/bad FILE COPY 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • C� _� Item 1: Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study Staff will present the draft study which is attached. Please review and be prepared to discuss at the meeting. Staff is seeking comments to forward to the Board of Supervisors. 2 Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study N Cameron St to Future Intersection of Haggerty Blvd and Route 37 Interchange Ramp 1, Prepared by, Michael Baker Jr., Inc. In Association with: Wilbur Smith & Associates OCTOBER 2009 f a a Prepared by, Michael Baker Jr., Inc. In Association with: Wilbur Smith & Associates OCTOBER 2009 DRAFT ROUTE 7 MULTIMODALL ;t7RKIT�OR STJTDYD October 2009 Prepared by: Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Baker With assistance from - Wilbur Smith & Associates Frederick County City of Winchester Virginia Department of Transportation Win -Fred MPO Disclaimer: The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s) who is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein, The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Virginia Department of Transportation and/or the Planning District Commission. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. VDOT acceptance of this report as evidence of fulfillment of the objectives of this planning study does not constitute endorsement/approval of the need for any recommended improvements nor does it constitute approval of their location and design or a commitment to fund any such improvements. Additional project level environmental impact assessments and/or studies of alternatives may be necessary. A T Off` � �NT_ ` p ,� i 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 3 Purposeand Need........................................................................................................... 3 StudyArea and Corridor................................................................................................. 4 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS...................................................................................... 6 ExistingGeometry.......................................................................................................... 6 ExistingLand Use /Zoning.......................................................................................... 11 Existing Traffic Volumes and Operating Conditions ................................................... 13 Existing Traffic Volumes and Operating Conditions ................................................... 17 Safety............................................................................................................................ 22 MultimodalFacilities.................................................................................................... 23 3.0 PROJECTED FUTURE CONDITIONS............................................................... 29 2035 Future Land Use................................................................................................... 29 2035 Traffic Forecasts Methodology............................................................................ 31 2035 Traffic Volumes................................................................................................... 31 2035 Traffic Deficiencies............................................................................................. 36 4.0 ROUTE 7 CORRIDOR RECOMMENDATIONS................................................ 42 Route 7 Study Area - Roadway Recommendations...................................................... 42 Route 7 Study Area - Intersection Recommendations.................................................. 43 Route 7 Study Area — Multimodal Reconunendations................................................. 47 Recommendations by Jurisdiction................................................................................ 52 Cityof Winchester........................................................................................................ 52 Right-of-Way................................................................................................................ 54 AccessManagement..................................................................................................... 55 LandUse Guidelines..................................................................................................... 65 MixedUse Development.............................................................................................. 65 5.0 CONTEXT SENSITIVE CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT ................................... 67 Early and Often Involvement........................................................................................ 67 Context Zones and Thoroughfare Type....._.................................................................. 67 Design and Plan Implementation.................................................................................. 68 Summary...................................................................................................................... 69 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 LIST OF FIGUIRES Figure1-1: Study Area Map............................................................................................... 5 Figure 2-1: Typical Sections along Route 7....................................................................... 6 Figure 2-2: Existing Intersection Location and Lane Configuration (1 of 3) ..................... 8 Figure 2-3: Existing Intersection Location and Lane Configuration (2 of 3) ..................... 9 Figure 2-4: Existing Intersection Location and Lane Configuration (3 of 3) ................... 10 Figure2-5: Existing Zoning.............................................................................................. 12 Figure 2-6: Existing 2008 Turning Movement Counts (1 of 3) ........................................ 14 Figure 2-7: Existing 2008 Turning Movement Counts (2 of 3) ........................................ 15 Figure 2-8: Existing 2008 Turning Movement Counts (3 of 3) ........................................ 16 FiZD gure 2-9: Virginia Inland Port and Surrounding Region ............................................... 26 Figure 3-1: Future Plarmed Land Use............................................................................... 30 Figure 3-2: Forecast Year 2035 Turning Movement Volumes (1 of 3) ............................ 33 Figure 3-3: Forecast Year 2035 Turning Movement Volumes (2 of 3) ............................ 34 Figure 3-4: Forecast Year 2035 Turning Movement Volumes (3 of 3) ............................ 35 Figure 4-1: Intersection Recommended Improvements.................................................... 45 Figure 4-2: Multimodal Recommendations...................................................................... 51 Figure 4-3: VDOT Access Management — Interchange Area Spacing Graphic ............... 57 Figure 4-4: Route 7 Interchange Area Spacing Analysis Graphic .................................... 59 Figure 4-5: Route 7 Interchange Area Spacing Analysis Graphic .................................... 60 Figure 4-6: Route 7 Access Management Example Recommendations (1 of 2) .............. 63 Figure 4-7: Route 7 Access Management Example Recommendations (2 of 2) .............. 64 Figure 4-8: First Floor Retail in Mixed Use Building, Standalone ................................... 65 Figure 4-9: First Floor Retail in Office Buildings, Creating Retail Center ...................... 66 Figure 5-1: Transect — Context Zones.............................................................................. 68 HT1® LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Historic Traffic Counts and Growth Rates ...................................................... 13 Table 2-2: Existing Route 7 Traffic Counts...................................................................... 13 Table 2.3: Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary ............................................ 19 Table 2.4: Existing Arterial Level of Service Summary ................................................... 21 Table 2.5. Intersection Crash Rates Summary ................................................................. 22 Table 3.1: Existing 2008 and Forecast 2035 Route 7 Mainline Volumes ....................... 32 Table 3.2: Forecast Year 2035 Expected Intersection Level of Service Summary .......... 39 Table 3.3: Existing and Future Arterial Level of Service Summary ................................ 41 Table 4.1: Intersection Improvements with Planning Level Cost Estimates ................... 44 Table 4.2: VDOT Access Management — Interchange Area Spacing Summary .............. 57 Table 4.3: Route 7 Interchange Area Spacing Analysis Summary ................................... 58 Table 4.4: VDOT Access Standards (Entrance, Intersection, Crossover) ....................... 61 2 DRAFT Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 180 INTRODUCTfON Purpose aiid Need The Route 7 Corridor in the City of Winchester and eastern Frederick County is a corridor of mixed land use, including areas of residential, retail and office development. In the City of Winchester, the western portion of this corridor, Route 7 is largely developed with residential and office uses. The central section, from Pleasant Valley Road to Interstate 81 is also largely developed with residential and retail uses. The eastern section of Route 7 is generally lightly developed with residential and retail at this time, but land use is likely to grow in the years ahead. This study is a cooperative multimodal project between MPO localities Frederick County and the City of Winchester to analyze existing and future planned development along the corridor to determine and plan to address future transportation impacts. This study is a multimodal corridor study that will analyze and document the many modes of transportation along this corridor, including freight movement via trucks, area transit, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. In particular, this Study will serve the following purposes: Document traffic patterns at the main intersections along Route 7 (E. Piccadilly Street, National Avenue, Berryville Avenue, and Berryville Pike) from N. Cameron Street in the City of Winchester to the eastern county line of Frederick County. Identify existing capacity deficiencies on Route 7 in 2008. Determine current access patterns and volumes of truck traffic along Route 7. Identify high -frequency crash locations along the corridor. 4 Document existing transit route and ridership, and identify possible deficiencies associated with service or amenities. Identify new potential Park and Ride lots locations. Identify possible pedestrian/bicycle facility integration. 0 Identify projected deficiencies on Route 7 for future conditions (Year 2035) based on future traffic growth and anticipated land use changes. • Provide concepts for roadway and intersection improvements and access management to address the identified deficiencies along the Route 7 Corridor. • Provide planning -level cost estimates for intersection improvement recommendations. This Corridor Plan will provide the Win -Fred MPO and VDOT with a tool to help advance projects in VDOT's Six -Year Construction Plan and to obtain needed right-of-way and roadway improvements when properties along the Corridor develop or redevelop. 3 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 Study Area and Corridor The Study Area is located along Virginia State Route 7 from N. Cameron Street in the City of Winchester to the eastern county line of Frederick County, covering a distance of over 5 miles. The study area includes the following eighteen intersections, which were analyzed as a part of this study. Piccadilly Street (Route 7) & N. Kent Street National Avenue (Route 7) & N. Pleasant Valley Rd Berryville Avenue (Route 7) & Battle Avenue Berryville Avenue (Route 7) & Baker Lane • Berryville Avenue (Route 7) & Shopping Center • Berryville Avenue (Route 7) & Fort Collier Road • Berryville Avenue (Route 7) & Atwell Avenue ® Berryville Avenue (Route 7) & Ross Street Berryville Pike (Route 7) & 1-81 SB Ramps • Berryville Pike (Route 7) & 1-81 NB Ramps Berryville Pike (Route 7) & Gateway Drive • Berryville Pike (Route 7) & Regency Lakes Drive ® Berryville Pike (Route 7) & Millbrook Drive / Blossom Drive Berryville Pike (Route 7) & First Woods Drive / Greenwood Drive © Berryville Pike (Route 7) & Morgan Mill Road Berryville Pike (Route 7) & Woods Mill Road Berryville Pike (Route 7) & Valley Mill Road • Berryville Pike (Route 7) & (Future) Haggerty Boulevard Figure 1-1 provides a detailed map of the Study Area and illustrates the location of the area in the Winchester region. 4 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 71, (7— 13 a q• X� 4' Route 7 Corridor Study L7egend N. Cameron St. to Future Intersection of Route 7 Study Corridor Lakes -County Jurisdictions Haggerty Blvd. and Route 37 Interchange Ramp Roadways Ponds -County Frederick County W + Interstate Wetlands - City City of Winchester S Figure 1.1 - Project Study Area Railroad City Park 0 1,500 3,000 6,000 Feet Streams D CD 0 0 0 V, IIM X� 4' Route 7 Corridor Study L7egend N. Cameron St. to Future Intersection of Route 7 Study Corridor Lakes -County Jurisdictions Haggerty Blvd. and Route 37 Interchange Ramp Roadways Ponds -County Frederick County W + Interstate Wetlands - City City of Winchester S Figure 1.1 - Project Study Area Railroad City Park 0 1,500 3,000 6,000 Feet Streams 2.0 E XISTING CONDITIONS This chapter identifies existing deficiencies and presents the traffic operating conditions along Route 7. A wide range of potential environmental, cultural, and social resources are located within the study area and should be considered fully in any subsequent National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) studies for any federally funded improvement project. This study, however, focused on specific conditions and resources along the corridor in order to determine individual recommendations and identify any major constraints to their implementation. Existing Geometry The Frederick County Comprehensive Plan and the Win -Fred MPO Transportation Plan both classify Route 7 as a major (primary) arterial road along its entire length in the Study Area. Curb and gutter are present within the City of Winchester corporate limits. Route 7, in Frederick County, east of the Interstate 81 interchange, has segments with paved and unpaved shoulders, segments with no shoulder, and a short segment with curb and gutter. Figure 2-1 shows typical sections at various segments along Route 7. At the western end of the corridor, Route 7 (E. Piccadilly Street / National Avenue) is a two-lane roadway with on -street parking and turn lanes at intersections. Right-of-way on East Piccadilly Street, from North Cameron St to North East Lane, varies from 56 feet to 58 feet wide. Along National Avenue, from North East Lane to Pleasant Valley Road, right-of-way varies from 42 feet to 50 feet and includes sidewalks on both sides of the street. The speed limit on this segment of Route 7 is 25 miles per hour (mph). From Pleasant Valley Road to Fort Collier Road, Route 7 (Berryville Avenue) is a four - Figure 2-1: Typical Sections along Route 7 Route 7, West of Pleasant Valley Rd Route 7, East of Pleasant Valley Rd Eastbound Route 7, East of Interstate 81 G DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 lane undivided roadway without turn lanes. Right-of-way along this segment is 54 feet wide, which includes a sidewalk on the north side of Route 7. The speed limit on this segment of Route 7 is 35 mph. In the early 1990's, Route 7 was upgraded from a three - lane roadway (1 -lane in each direction with a center turn lane) to the current four -lane configuration, seen today. A center median is present along Route 7 from west of Fort Collier Road to the Interstate 81 interchange. Route 7 (Berryville Avenue) along this segment is a divided four -lane highway with left turn lanes at signalized intersections. Exclusive right -turn lanes are not present in this segment, except for a right turn lane from westbound Route 7 to northbound Fort Collier Road. Right-of-way along this segment is 72 feet wide, which includes sidewalks on both sides of Route 7. The speed limit on this segment of Route 7 is 35 mph. East of Interstate 81, in Frederick County, Route 7 (Berryville Pike) is again a four -lane divided highway with turn lanes at intersections. East of First Woods Drive / Greenwood Drive, eastbound and westbound Route 7 become largely vertically separated with a heavily sloped median. Right-of-way in this area varies from 100 feet to 280 feet wide. The speed limit from Valley Mill Road (Route 659) to Woods Mill Road (Route 660) is 45 mph. From Woods Mill Road to the County Line the speed limit is 55 mph. As part of this study, 17 existing intersections and 1 future intersection were analyzed for capacity and safety deficiencies. Figure 2-2, Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4 show the location of the existing intersections and their existing lane configuration. 7 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 „mar�yypr� r pp ” K" tom, �`-•. -.J i - ,4-' r \ ; r' - µ 'r R.• ° I'•yr f ...♦ i? 0; .Q r �"'W.F r,-.,'.,"r I I{", . _ _ . , t #_ '\ ; . ' i r `yi. si;"�" �•,-l_ F' ''�_ �_��Ary �` Nw �`�6�n. .._� ' , - ♦�r�_.�y � ,S` "� r�� \�\ � r a i ' j. ..: - a.,.,� Y w - g..: t '1` '�'° a',� rwJ�•-fir � . ' :' *,�,,,,•.:.r- 41 "lr 7. ! y., # `� r ]r: _ & r `... X93 �t...� airu•` ,p1E' /r i 1I •• ` : _.M R++ r�09 .. ♦ r u a , n .. e `! ' ,,. - Q Y +� „ � / .P�"`f ,"7E�'.,• �° „�ti p. ? '`*�' Cdr e . r �• :.i_y, ,�'Z ":+�-`-' , ` .�a , " Prrvville 4� Elve aie ® �� 3 7 0 i 'a�'�"'�. '+J -1t", j-"p` 'v i, ,.^ ,' .. 'mss fir. ;•r: r h. �,7 + Ave f� 7 t�i.` � % a �' f t � •�� G,�r�T:] .9 �"' �,... �. ski V' der �, F ccadiu R' F y�T /� e. l ` WWI, WC � �+�T JF,7i � Rout � t tie"illy S' Fy �'�".`,, , 7T y t aSf e q r �[ rf);i � '�•� p sem., pr7` 'p"'1 `j" • rti� r •�{,,. :t (( m� U9/eia v.A.S ' ••a�,`[ :.' .. asY r7 �� Q Roule > :y • rh 7ig.6t 8 _ ♦ dJ � .••F'^• � `� , q e- _ �` �� ry .. ., • �. R 11 -` ! ,� ' F'•' R '. w 2 , +... :T : „"' IF. r " Rfi rfr r E ,. � °ura �. ,:�R♦°-�� ,�': '. gra � ` �' � _ - � db •`'tr � Wr •'r „; iR� �rrr ,_l " • r ` A"", - r, R. •v_,. -: ,, _ r- w�„ �; ' ,l r �^ tr ,\�eP Pie tom. 1�, ''rlAr'> ,� ^'S,ar '9�' _ n \�\` ,. }lea ,•a.. i fir, " ' •.; +- v :.:.. .f.. .." G '�e: .... .. � e •l $a ice► -"''.. .'Er �' dk r r i h� � ♦� i- :. � ,,�;,:� _, .�. N31i°nalgve �� 3et � °p'! nd n �` r .�� +d" , •'iC ^ - r °8ti.p�{-,�py��i � ,� f r �' 6 + / `\♦� t _ _ .?r• - - - '`' mm A_aW, ¢. . .s • mart y 'IT p Ail- etO^alAv., r'^+. r �'[ .i', -, r' r:� � d "fry x p, � S r� y r ( J r ��e •.�� - _ Q . lc�If-It .r • � .••f•�„ a '- �''.. y. �,r -e � ��4, �<' a r .C`�` *T nx _.L.._� "".crf ➢ r 6' � ""'' ;r+v � d r ��! y¢% \ ✓,.} f. '•r.. � t it. .'`S• tw• � :. , �D ..o� k. ,f .. ._:�� s ,,. f� �� r ` �, of e S Serryvri$ Ayd _ �` `` Q �• a sW ' 1' rrj�F4�k�t2 s •. . w # 4 :: . • r J •r: , n8% iA :ter '�'° .._ ,h \ f` t } . � ea�'T;Ih r , n '� t � :1 � q ;, • ;.iJ .: ,. 'fer .:. .< - . j`. P.. + ,r .i .�r. ! .: ...@ '�~ r d [s•. r• �y` ,� -d' T-1 'w &, aw. - .•.. J► P`-T { C ;r ,j,'yr. • <'a P (L '3 `.'t ` ,t" T i i' +F -;Q. i • F r ti +{'. 7 r. �•-7 , ::r. I , rlh., r. - M�-' v r� ., : i+ � ? ! {�'. ,F' R.: � ,. �, • e r, _ _ '►"` +'. �'"�''�`-��`�''� � � .i .^ + � • �._. ♦�`•r e� r ,,. E,r:ry Jc�.. ': ...7:.` j...v ._.. �: :'. '� . r _ �? Er. •:. 4- :" a+--. k _ ; a, '\. f-"' s -. ,,.n.�. - c , qp,x � . .. , .,. " rr+, r'��` --•. ;: .,�� ...,�. ` © wm " �esl8ii °a... n ,.t ' ' it � � ".� `� �'�l �1 R e,, • Y ' R' � ��f d". �,,, R - l -^� f � �� - '°°- Y °�,' - ry� - � kr`� .n.. a I Via, do <-��S r y ' p- •°"._e �i '•(. r'�• y�•rt.• a( ' erryville Ave a- 8 rrwAle I� ¢ - .,j �lekv " .-l- + -•.�, A�®� E_ Rau 7 ` 4 r f S '- j+,+.;: ". ' I r Rome a _ c ► - Y Re f, u, �•rr�,.,t, rrYviUe a r L• s • j i Iftyr J 99c6a'�p) i-OtF'+ "�': .' D . y .,.:w •\ • - ! r, Rou ' �►� •r .`'' %•' ?a.. ,. i.`,'h- R `rg �° .y.. • v .p • rt a )+�,,. '+e",��k['' +s r... •• 3S a �. e' •.sr. ! `_' •„ - _ 4 di R7 ti, �' d.� rr .\ •� � :Q,'r ..p '.-� -. - � �t. Q Ml- •r �� '.,p'r +"� t(.+ E' -t;. q �• spy^ _ � w - �`. t� + ..�"'�!,i , _ r % ..z,: ",. .. ,a ,, �laf�'P` �`F !w. '-l.. �F. r-..6:: / � E. �c••,�, r.' j dP�y� �� 1 � _ .w •�. �,. .... '+c., - -, f .\. : �,' _ ,r. c�� 7' qd " - 'A L', P, �� O.. s. P. � •�. .y''�• 1 �.�Y '9 V� .F F�n,, ` _ f.. i . i F r ' y a' ' '~r « - o � _•.'i, �;:. � - . ` w ,' 's /. P .: '„ `Rrf , �..f Pte% r`® `w _'� � y� '.{� r / 'rE 1r�`' ,R .gym � q. f+s ` �. ems. •,®Rw. ^• 'R" r . • . : eG - ` '•,t .zt.. , �, .y` E`. v"°`i ram �`c' 'Sv' '.N • f^' rlr.'` . `/'j"F'- ,-p ,. .. - i✓ ., ,,..r .. � ga® a�'' •� `. ►ir,Q� a f"p,. a • • �T • � is a "'RRR • .,g . F a. f ig ° � /- r " ' � 'i ir-(r -.�.,r ®,j .. i � � • � ° •d. A 7 C ` s � T r,'� i tl ►ii +S \ 4 W . rs . dr• a y=. ! FYI ... n ..•. �e1a, ..;. .`,+ -: - Q`# • a. �.- -.. ~? r' «��. _ ♦.� �.�v -. ! •"'��p •°� r`r: hail( Yr> �' .. �.. a•�,/♦. � �}�"/�-;�,-!�.,�' is y.� . .r .�,. rF• ) : Kr^. >-j ,rr, .,^ f, ,ti r +1 -'..� erL'+ t~ ,: - .1g�_ �.9?.� '''- A e f ;e-` , +. k i °`fir r' cV' J q / •� .� ii+T r,�.r-�*A��j1'�.� �'• el. .j`' � �._`�' �:" �... v i''a / "ai .'fit .. .•/ } "- 1 ' ' `4. y . $` p-� Pp.V� f � . . � � ' a.. T "�.D'. .r - � ` .)"' ' � - - i .r,,, ;,moi. r / h ' (� �'�I Y , r �'' ~ �. • �*.., rP'•, r �' ''',1 Cap9ifa /r " /(�p� " " r a y.a•, . ., L.�..:r r a Y- _ ®d •: .-.-, _ ..�; ,. <,r. ;-�� '-... �' -a.. "`Z.,? •ri.' .y i x q� Route 7 Corridor Study Legend - ry Streams Jurisdictions N. Cameron St. to Future Intersection of • Analyzed_Intersections --- �. Haggerty Blvd. and Route 37 Interchange Ramp ;Lakes-County L— J Frederick County W�� Pa� Route 7 Study Corridor ZI — Ponds -County �—� City of Winchester Figure 2-2 - Existing Lane Roadways Wetlands -City S Configuration (1 of 3) Interstate 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Railroad r r �yJ Ot w _ w- r -w I ' s � 4a,r. \v �1, J,'j'" '�� ti ^ay a_ a t '� P 'ls �,!: �.• 4 ` i. iF•, 5,.x,"1 s "'` 'r' �rtj+[. ey-. a "7> �c � � T♦ '• �. ) • ,y .• e, f '7'� ',iN � n�,d lF "t � .'i __ 4 �ll..,'�-� � >��. , 20 p • 4 y +r. '^.J '� r r �: � ( 1 1 a°N"i V - h � 1 � �.• � 21 . t • ti L ,..rte` ^ i •.. 4ff f` a ',,� `, _ -g� '�.�, �� j�: j `, �;ti., � • f. • � � l;�9 rjr ;% , •�- 't'- .ry ,,,{ 1 r-�ar� -'r'' � `� - -!,' :-'®.. ,' '-'+.� � t. .�.. ,s _ .,�kr: •Le'_i. �•; "a"r j" ,!' ,�- . 1f �f nA � ? / g'r i .,, •�`c` ,rx%f �x � w .-. d J "♦ Y I t J'� 'i � s � I 4 � {�`' s /.... •I�� o r ti ' •1,^ `5 - _ `r., R / s `� 1� ,ate F ;y , �� ,. .. " ,� � w ,.ti � ,f � -�"`.. _, - +.s, . • •,' ?J` -.y '^ ��. � r _'�" ..3 - r •1: >'R -.` - :1. a�^. i.r-• � I '1 ._. a� _ . ✓ - r e � `s T s', r. -r � rt ''a `>�� J.... �-• � , +rt ..r .w �l, 3.�1/ j !" `-•� -�" - ,l � '♦ - . t - •' '�J •+6, ;y;I° , r ` r -,i+$; ° p .f ,. 1 - .. ._ °o •.{�?� i / .,,rv• ��,. 1�4 t.. c .' I �"'>�"' 1• ✓� p -i � j _ "i` ♦ r may. r `s++l _ \ L � ice• •` i" �'t .,'�%fe•.'Ss� � t `+ _ _ - ' .y ->T'f• >/•\ ♦ ,rl. �`% '/ �+ ''! - of :..'♦\ ,;F~j .ti *� '" !„ .,�.`'_ 'P. e+t y.a i.•,*, ` +� s.. ''7 IC •fl,., �~ f�`ayP• ' - ' 1'' :�'^ " � . t. 4, , .+. t > ,, , , '. ' - ' - .a. . ,e :h'� , a a r.k , � �_ _ , , ,. , � Y,• ' �' , dit. fi..r;�. -'il.. . t,,. r J`.''i 1' 4; '�i. x 4"s • 1 ° r -"""i i '- .•., r�I �•'.�i.i�1 - y 00 a i ° 1►Nj - {.� _-'•�"'� m® sy''• kIf ..l ' ••-+ ® ` •+" 4. 'r _ • .k arae r It ♦te tr I _yam ,,, i 1 ^ .,� ' i lis - - rrt " ,a•rt'A r ' - - r ( .,, .... �f � 1 - i .: _ _� - ® - � - _ .• � ,� � . _. -- "�++��,,_ � til i+� t - �'� 3. a ✓ n�,' : �'.� 'r�' .ayi r R r ate. ` to a1 a te• i > j A, Y IIS, . >• ,' .�..,/�_ '- M r• ,{'",,4. .JY N� .� s • � �f� � _ �1. � �� errYville �'i�, � -'r,,. ,.• .:. - ", J � � • t , 4„<. � r '�*.�` ! Pike - ♦ -!.� , � i,1. � �.•' ,. .,' ..' �.< „t- !-�•.r ��'`v•1 a�q �,��. -r y s �J tea• ° [. _ • dam` •'- V' N �• �t GQ •% �-r. irk 'r. �a YTS ,+ d '��' - r - 'a.� - qr: - p �, fes.. 0.•fi'+G.'Ci,�. ...; ! '�+r_7 fdY N`�ille Pike ^t . • JF _. III - 9 _ • i�" * '-.- ,1'' �`' q,r' # f'i" Pike !c;' :� •.•P " . �, , Be •• OU rp� " � { , o- ti t u \ m ' m t I� • g le � � ^t, > 4 � _- 4 I. s 7� Ru to 1 ,.R-."*y.,.,:,N.+.,,t,. ,1f<+, ws.,S !P � :..�. M.'.-s�` . �54r, ,. ,� -1 t aw• - . X- y - ayu ac-: �'+ •pPt - rl-1 i. .".e _^J .1fi�• rh ' 8wrle �1. ' y.1�A,- ° f t .- � v<+'gy •�`% ;rl. �1 • �'•"� •. , ,r '' "0 • ��, : , ' 7 1 Route ^. p ```�.,� , rt - #j� 1 .,_ k? .�' /... ,A `! "' _ .. A �j .� -a-_•- ' J '�. �' —'►'\N '�i,4:. .. %r'>': '' .'. �P#.' E :k .y.. ` . *�.. ,9 `j "•7r * r +• - '�" i �, ,. a _ �. �. • r '� Q - i ' „'„ � m ,' „'". <. .. „�,�°N D h ° , x. p''.y+r >. �S { •°, ji �� # crTs �•- w -!tax `"� "t �1'. . i;• o c - :,. � a, p .0 -a."� "� °'`• J 1: i.. "S! f ° '1. ��i t„ -Ij `5 i.. ,,_y °� rt I - - � � �° A, T •!�. ��" -_ rGUr �, � t �� - '.,l,r'f�r r • t _ �'(^-�1,'�`� � � �w% .a j �. t AW im R � .�- • , 1•. - ,.. ,•;� ".� _. ;. _. x. t' ,•� ° S�'`aN�77 ^►ti �• v. - -Ty `r"• �'�."c'� °. j,•� `e, y"� �, �. .�� ,A � '�•�•.•_p ' f � � � 7 47 ,' S ,� e� - cc A 11 F 1 r, • Route 7 Corridor Study N. Cameron St. to Future Intersection of Haggerty Blvd. and Route 37 Interchange Ramp Figure 2-3 - Existing Lane Configuration (2 of 3) Legend Streams Analyzed_Intersections 1 ° -7 Lakes -County Route 7 Study Corridor "J} Ponds - County Roadways Wetlands - City Interstate — — Railroad N Ili E Y S 0 275 550 1,1 CO Feet IM: v - 1^ z g �-'+�`''q• .�� a, X • i3 Vii, �. __ „ � M�, � j,.._: d . , - . M y �I 16 a "I olow ., _ - 1fi 1 5 •• / ,.y a i "ac+ ` At- a y w _ , t.4 - 0, J s �• r� _ Js. R - - — u: 00 YS _r lb 1 ' � +R�'=. �t�s d� ; ic.,,;.�6a'�rr� �d4Y�' �' .: .. 1....0 _... � ." _� .. _ - _ �"•ewr•.z ... ..... �R`�"�1 ... _ - n. Baker Existing band Use / ening Existing zoning ordinance varies widely throughout the Route 7 Corridor study area. In the western section, the Route 7 area is largely developed with business and residential development. The area to the west of Pleasant Valley Road consists of office buildings features hest "' `ional Cemetery. The area is fully and houses aiiu the vviiiC�iCaier i�auviiai developed. From Pleasant Valley Road, east to Fort Collier Road, Route 7 is again a mix of business and residential development, with commercial business prevalent on the north side and single family housing to the south. There are currently no plans for new development or redevelopment in the near future. From Fort Collier Road to Interstate 81, Route 7 is strictly developed by commercial business, with potential for redevelopment in this area. From Interstate 81 to east of Millbrook Drive, the Route 7 area contains a mix of commercial business, industrial, and residential development, including the Gateway shopping center, immediately to the east of Interstate 81. Residential development is prevalent on both sides of Route 7, including heavy residential development off of Regency Lakes Drive and Valley Mill Road. Lighter residential development continues east along the Route 7 Corridor, from Millbrook Drive to Valley Mill Road to the east. Small pockets of business development occur in this area as well. The Winchester Wastewater Treatment plant is located on the south side of Route 7, near the County Line. The majority of this area is undeveloped. A map of the existing zoning in the City of Winchester and Frederick County is shown in Figure 2-5. DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 , 0", Route 7 Corridor Study N. Cameron St. to Future Intersection of Haggerty Blvd. and Route 37 Interchange Ramp Figure 2-5. Existing Zoning c.. Un 0 i PC Legend Route 7 Study Corridor Streams Frederick Co. Zoning Winchester Zoning Roadways Lakes MH1, RP- Residential/Performance District Residential District Interstate B1, B2, B3 - Business District Business District Railroad M1, M2 - Industrial District Public Use Mixed Use UP 1T n W+E S N 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet � i K :j `1 Un 0 i PC Legend Route 7 Study Corridor Streams Frederick Co. Zoning Winchester Zoning Roadways Lakes MH1, RP- Residential/Performance District Residential District Interstate B1, B2, B3 - Business District Business District Railroad M1, M2 - Industrial District Public Use Mixed Use UP 1T n W+E S N 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet � i K :j Existing Traffic Volumes and Operating Conditions Historic traffic counts were obtained from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) traffic count database. Table 2-1 documents historical traffic volumes from 2005-2007. Average annual growth rates along Route 7 within the City of Winchester have been moderate, between 1.0 - 2.4%. The VDOT database only contains one link for the Route 7 segment in Frederick County. This segment had level growth over the recent years. Table 2-1: Historic Traffic Counts and Growth Rates Roadway Location VDOT AADT by Year Average Annual Growth Rate 2005 2006 2007 Route 7 (Piccadilly St) Cameron Street to East Lane 9,400 9,300 9,800 2.1% Route 7 (East Lane) Piccadilly Street to National Avenue 8,500 8,500 8,900 2.4% Route 7 (National Ave) East Lane to Pleasant Valley Road 9,800 9,800 10,000 1.0% Route 7 (Berryville Ave) Pleasant Valley Rd to 0.2 MI west of ECL Winchester 24,000 24,000 25,000 2.1% Route 7 (Berryville Ave) 0.2 MI west of ECL Winchester to ECL Winchester 29,000 28,000 30,000 1.7% Route 7 (Berryville Pike) ECL Winchester to ECL Frederick Co. 32,000 32,000 32,000 0.0% Existing traffic counts were obtained from previous studies from the City of Winchester and from VDOT. Tube counts at three locations along Route 7 were conducted in May 2008. These tube counts were compared to the VDOT Statewide Planning System 2008 counts and are shown in Table 2-2. Table 2-2: Existina Route 7 Traffic Counts Roadway Location Daily Traffic Volume Tube Count - May 2008 VDOT SPS Count - 2008 Route 7 (National Ave) West of Pleasant Valley Rd 10,300 9,300 Route 7 (Berryville Ave) Pleasant Valley Rd to 1-81 Interchange 18,100 22,300 Route 7 (Berryville Pike) East of 1-81 Interchange 36,300 26,500 Turning movement counts were also conducted in May 2008 at key intersections and roadways to fill holes in the existing data throughout the study area. Together, existing traffic counts were developed for the study area and are shown in Figure 2-6 through Figure 2-8. 13 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 .�'" •� ,�-';)a,J� .� , 1M'+wr. `�i'�a�/ t^• t^- r -RS > .� 1 ,!` r : � f' � - / �r!' { ' � „ `fs�" `Ai' �' • � ` a,. ,,,C, A ' !� ... ! ""�'jw„I: f ,i'" . �.'r.. a''. r` ..,j • r< °� I d._ r .t'`r 'i vJ+\\.r. I� - 7'f "�" e'AMi''. J '� t lr fii �• n. f/ *.0 f, r y• Pte!; �r Fr�C T�.1 rf4' }' + s.` '%�'@ r s .rN,J'w 4M+. Ii rA #`�, a.i`'. ,r.'`r` -♦ t'>~. % i 't-.< r ''.Z:Lp`dlt ?1. �*$ �'- . '*, �` n . �-« - p r F f. - +'i, • . , 'j` ` Ir ��%�": ' . ' Ate= .• - �:' .. r• ' � � j" �• ` l` (` _� �a - 'f i `4!► v , s p�a•,w�n T�!' + . �, . .�-.. x� St _,��. \ aii i a / t` Y 1` _ .:'_' '/ L J. -�. , rr * T •`.'-'M�.9' 4 3p" '�' .r �. _ 4A .� W . r 0 r 'N. 8. s fF. , � a .;, i �:.r •{U :�i�)S :- r. � - ^I �0 • -R~P a �'' C r' •1 �(� t — N I. m a R� - ✓-r-P' \- _r Q .,.'{� ,..I�•* r,r!ra,�'r r/�.jj,e �.,,.��!`!,=.,,Ypr,,_r1 °t:y��.r,•.,Srj ,:,.. tq .r r�.,...-. y: .`.,iw,r ''+ v fii�s (.. °)Fote...�..',(t_:-,'�(IPa �II '-r,..@,.`li`/TI-�yB \'r: „ .t'.'�r." _` . �.-<.,. I.�..�d'"s.a.' ,. .S<r,r .'5s. �&fi' rt.'[f,'.. '.afRc,� cdai_,1s (�u�1x'm.+3p(:^.5O 7 a1 ) )17_S ) 8 .r_.•<6d2. 8. J 1�0 . _r.�;.Y «,�o c�A-- .^ �, ., , .,o sC`1``ry==D�=: (H'p-, ".r`ah•,. , a�► ._-ti `'.,,fesP.. x -".S!r- " rr4.F>a.•r) 'r,.R,te: °°tie.7 rr `!'+It 9 }. ,.r. . ... . w,'t," ,^.,`$.r''+•.'.F•`. ".v-.",,>J:+.-"e`._fi:k._,; ,*•.yx+--r �- .i'C.!.,{.',>•`7.y„.}��^,..ama.f¢ -.::.'.. -7•�_,- . ^,v�.,, L.�'"r.,.s,>.•.0 .-".....'.>°3R.„Z,,•%A., rw ��'°•.-a�i.- i.lr^�. i'i �Tt- �'d�'Yp,f1 ./r�y0`.��-r/rr�,j:._a,.-hLL'�,a>+,4?$.. r8rg%, /,w + `,1 (- ,,.q”•-'a,s a _. [e , �rry:.i ', - I„•. .f.�p.«:,._�7.:`. 6JC,. f,..} ' f.A .. .'M1,_.).'.8T �;.,.�_' �{7 ,$.;. •,..a,r•rc^' Rae�J.3 -�' L +,. _;-�r_,JEO. . ..`�E. an�F_.,v�--le:i :'Y,.@n'.i:a(_f_.•l:`t©. oN - _ ) ° ^j^-N-t�v'op �yaz.rd.•. ;a�-`�-°_,r. � �` t�3�e+26;*,N;sov;]_ - - 'rer ♦ rs:+ ..PeF`. st-Ja-r wr.t�+..d-.`3�.@..\o�Se�dS 1I,G~ d %9 � I ,R _/I .1 .^d. .l3N `br r,�nJ1_ is s .r,��'` ' ..a�t i+r, - •s{}J'yk-`JT�_ •,.,-...`,. . :y ' "1.°. rP• •'A¢ . .° y+�•+�4i..rSr�.l,'/`t�i,,•F.fr,a ..'®.LytC-' f -a.�ifai.f_.,F ,•-r-+ra.1 a�� .:S.;e-�;.y-.r.Ej, �Q. -i.':J V' ',.,-3t°astarrrr �z}' , •t! +I ." �qft*.�e,s\, D,^/Pf.M-Ii_,xe'. Pt_.F'o/r '1{a�Lr R,t �rr *r�T. _^t ,-•': ei•di..' `', �`,yv v�f+}"P ' �- a �^I ..�v ' !P�522.157 . '((s2t6o4). ) _,, + ,�/7�.a, �:�' f_ i r0 j "'Y"ll C:,� m3��75• a" .Y!'.�(,. 9 1�R21!•Px`)^l•(7)ank Y qs,y e < 65 (st) (63) 20 12 (7) (3s) 5 31 route(663 4lr43) sss) 690gi3. ,° :f J 111 9 , " (49)13 , (333) c0 . "I, (30)1, B.`6�"@�°~• .u,. ' ) to� 1 X .4 245 (2611 +. 14521 Ro1e7 ��b\ f Me e S3� „ (314CO (53) < 205 1571 37 . I t - r9 erryvi[de Ave !teBerr}B .LA64_Uv- Tr 41 ! '{*-',, - `�O`y�r`%'a r•�.': r'',•Jyr.rt.-.f, l,`per v. n- a„• . te',.. `,su-t�a.aIkr : � , .. . fi- r -r d/r' ,'� ”' @• .. �_'. '+, ( ` •J !rAr '?YI ♦(�r ..J. y",. �rrk1r, .. rr+br. F2'rre F QRr �'1 J'R, W r_. :. 'r 0./r , p` A ra t_' ) .. . ..,.'�, :�,..-.q•(.._ `, ;: . . •,'sf iy = ',►f1-.�,'rrf{-- .J ._-.^ _ � l,�-.4.,�. .y . p .^..^1 .. - - r: . ,j_ �Y_g�I .� •:.+y . .;,', - rrst.,.e .- ".i- ,A"..0f.a.: A`y,. Iac.j� l .r" .' - -w rp,e,iil:'�.f. ; i1 ;''S� _i /`.� } ^>f�y�•°"` -. t- C.�,.�,�.'^,ir, -^ r. <r LlPa,7, La 9famlf.•ja;'J.�{r'J'_r �14-71 i•�•°w.' . Ys,° '. r .•�.,�"�St�T`,r^nt.s`-. r'aP - � ��' �_ • I'! �,.P._."'l-'P♦"- v� `�._� _. - 1-♦ ^/� $,��_I•—.r`.r-Y- -l V i M. / 7 r 66 (78) y�;" L] 499 (596) 21 (35) '".a. . - . "-" 'p• rte�y Ber. ille 558 (633) f®tvdt,✓e Areye .ryl 0t u� 39) 9JRoule7(626) 340....* r �:. + �.! r /�-° i F ` �• ! • �y s•'. .. �, .',..rYryi+.�u • „ -, r t.}' - 7 1 62) 431...E Ber W+„v,. Y - v M . . ` t4• Y ock S#�w., _ • _ N j �yr Ave ille 725 8 ) p ,.• V°. - } � `'• , q n r IYA r r' 1() Ci (� . �.• 0 32 (5,) 55 P -: rrr.r '4 Y� rr r/ 1 .I a ♦ . ` ` Q i 976) B 7 s70 ,,�, ._wFaK,�h. ��F`.°�p - . '!r': 'llA.� ��` _ vY��i � ,;r.:.� rzs)5 e7 - q' w� �� Q t T u . p, •i% 7,yy, j. rfj� Sin . V ;' �.: ;r- ♦ r �, ` � � \ r! °r. r r'� r �F<� , j°` m �Y� .'t /r..:�� ,y^t a Ilk �rGh ,A F .. i • .. . -,,,:. ,. � ;'� � / 4�, :4, y.rt ,. zt �' �r'v �T�= ''•,�� t," � � r. Y.� ! i"'.Q��', t ",�,� •"1 ^�4. �!- l.. - r:. •Y. s , r .:I 1'C :1. #^s''I F}. et - 4 �- 'l .. °� m* . �f1i .s~' ' ''°�', ':-q�*. • y , ♦� �P -s�� ^,�" '_ �I - ^fir �� cf � `'� i°P•-� i r � �f I - t " St f` `iy..° ° 'i 1! g pp �` ia� 4; - - , }" Y• fp�y�t�r ._ , t 04 �.'t t �7..i[ 5,I%, +. R ,1• .. .`: _ " r y,� ` P'Y ,f .`� Or " r , I _ ., < °' �*r rt , ..,, «• S'r _ 'lT r'Af/'``- a P a �� '. .-•'1 A _ r l t � ^'» �TQ� n— '„ f n ._/ � ° n," O�" q• � �� ti R t r. , a pp P T r. i �.- . r � >: ,: �. a .• r. u, y.. _ � '. : - ' 'b. •fQ @ N •. Yt � P .b' ^�, P 4 N 4.-'L-:. • r. - 'i,�,-" r •: ,% .,F { u,-. Y, m - .. <i __ -y6 \ ern,! • Route 7 Corridor Study Legend N Streams Lane Group -Does Not Represent Actual Lane Geometry N. Cameron St. to Future Intersection of • Ana lyzed_Intersections AM Peak Hour Turn Movement WE Haggerty Blvd. and Route 37 Interchange Ramp Route 7 Study Corridor (###) PM Peak Hour Turn Movement aUrv.•„�, Figure 2-6 - Existing Intersection Roadways S Peak Hour Volumes (1 of 3) Interstate 0 250 500 1,000 Feet 4! Railroad - jj-J�'• �., r.. sy+ '1..� a. `' - ..T ..� �,,,,, .\: J,^ + �� .p. ''{:°<.s'?�� ;,j'�^i �i :,".�r h� t �` . + 69•;°t�d it Q1' J�.. r�{, •L {1 � ♦,` r __ .i` +'``` i1.9�. -•� ' BMJ:: •`.,.._ i [• y � -�f+. `� r, r ,T r. t v � _ l Y - a a: + j .. 1 ', " : ._.;;� Y. ;:'F:• I Y j rw f+ a pir''.Z° _ J7.• • t,c,r .ei ^ r . h" ctA f i , a KSI" ., '4 1 � t•'� r.) '., ,. � '. �! Y� _ � ` .. • '( - � '�"�. J' • _ l J . , , ,moi a 6 �� .. ' ' � y • �.. -/ • ,`h.. r 7 . # �� /� .i �: •r ' ,.r� },,,: r: W. fry f • i7 a� r �_ _ .%', , %_« / t` ><'s, ♦_. ''B.✓ c.n o: �. ,�y r •.r - , 1 i e,e� t-�.',v f.•a �` T ""I �, a �- 4v f 'i „ 7 j �% / .,j.�p�, '' ` � is :_' � ... ;� 1. _ . � •. • ♦ � tl,� S. � d�:`:u' ,) .�.1 t N - 1' � i • � _ __ .r. - .. •Ital. ✓. -. �`•L� , ♦-� rrri� ,y ::. �� .. �r j aP•/'• •T�'. �<• +r} •� !, a� y -+F _ ..• ,,)y—•` �G ^,�5,• Yty„y' wt P h' 7 '!:. r, � �., � .0 B - t B�I�,IB! P,i i .�`,ry A i- i '.i -H '•S '.*�.. � ��'. tir fj P :?•- - r ♦� � . ., - - '1';i_ rB �J t6.� {. ...% .,Y"'' /;rt:. �.:: y f', f'�'`^ Ra• J( ''.' sa_." ♦:. , ee u.3La- i ` .-..Lw' d'. . ' 4.<a t ,-` • (.�.J ..., ecR• ,.: m. ! ,1 .�•,s' f,! :. �.+�, •�:.. .a� �. _ i sew .•'_'."^---`sa •r, _ ." - "r+®.[f ,.a �® f. aM :.3 "1�� t �,;'!^... 3 Yr, sra� ,f! ; _ •� ! 4 _ e .! �= _ � �_ - F ilry 'B, ,.,— .. .� •1 •�I ,'�.f �f.. Z O V :T .s + i :amt* 'B , _ "] + ,0. ^•°'�i .a : �' t::.. r• � v. A' • � (•. "�Nz 4 ,� ".- ,y+.P^g B + ve r � _ � � � - : '.fR, w. '� � � �. � f, •A : J N ,Y _ Y i <: +- i •. ,t4'h;.., 1,, • '_. , a� �>, _ ,`+ B viNe .� 11 �ep (24) •.'s f- a: • - ,, ; E , .. J _.. •!�%_ - fit _ 1..£ <,7�f�� 1 B B _ _ y 4.^ '`lS 070)(7 • -® p 60 (22 c , .. , .Y �. • r•.. - _., r s.:`".. ., j+l !. / •.i �. •�• `dY ix "B�.' ^JM s1/+•fIR ��` t1 '� (32)iggv O1 } .•.. ,, , y.. ..� _ `. 16. , ., J ' �., : )1086 '>J � _.. ' „ i '- '" i . v ,a,'.. , •er o` �'r _ (s) (7401 44 jj r. ` -' ' 1 . i • ° a � ' 1. ,-. ," . i 'F 4, �ys"•, � 1096 (tt92) a x•:. n , � C + ®`1 r 'fin:. , .... _ �' '� ` •.,, �� .,,..'� -: !.. " mm . � 92 (144) X 1156 (1208) r zzo ,826976 �• �' 1 R J f a t° ESer s . oute 7 G� y R. � i 7, Prd�' T - �tg812 Pike V �Z tr •��'1 ''`+�, w.. �.. . '. '� ,'e .y. a..^{ e 4' ..__ i- "S e♦ 1 t� �o 4 t zoo) 1810 i.. ) {. ', ... �.r S 4r. � tE y • a .�. 1� � ►. y� C ,- �, o �i t' `�20 51 otet (1116) 1416 �♦ •-�1' • � ,�` , 1 •�'1 y�, -,`� "''B� n. � •'�B •{x. r y �., • 7J - !ti. � 's,'�, 1 < '.lF � � {.+>, 1 % jb 7-4 �•, �� ' 9'� 1�°`p m� # ae ! �,w u rr «�a �. �� a r ,,� �YF • �' ", '� fie. t '� '�+, '� '.� .!'.. - t • c "yf- �.! s `K 21124A * "ls^f_ • 1. <•r.r...-",.,,, S � � ,� � ;� � m .n 4. `�-r�.'*�-�.- t +! - Y 1�04� 1S3 lI�! �.r✓B�: , +1 � s: �. ? a ',.' � )' .,� "' � � - � - •y„ � .• r' �' � , ; . ^Y r `.n340 (372) `' y .` r,. -.`..! •+.*� C`2 -° r JY-. P , <.- .. '. }... +'•� - x : f e , 3 m e m m 632 (7752) r4 c, 28 (1176) •+n :. _ -. d�°q;M iJ 6 .. A : a x . `. , �:� +.� �l ..,,a.. ` C 996 (728) •qry N 32 (84-)-- 84) Route 7 .Y Fir �'I. _ • B S[r •' . �r ? EiA '• f ,r 16 (12) _ ..,,.�, .. w.,,« `•..'r:, _ _ ` N I' _"� . + I •.y ,� Ave BerrWille y,�_ r y. ,.' ,.y ��`• p ' . �d f f "� ' ` _ .'F �. 1 < Y« d _ � 'pb..:,. ^ a+-' ! , s'... r 'vo. ..,`.`w"r,•., -'.*,..�s.+r+. _ . •_ a'-!■ r> . •~ , � � ' •R T•v .,T B.Y.� " .a. ! - { 'a.l`�"+`Y J, ! • " j` • � '0.► "'a} ~3 "74 (24) 38 0 780Byy*1 t /Roe7 8 (244) 140 (16) s (aza) tao If c'_ S B« �•�- < �'.� {r_ ' - y; 'y' �•.l'ra;,4.: �. • �4 � �''� n �-... •+y 1 J , . • _ - ,. - � ....•� m N N { 1 m UW <4: n t.\, a , s ^•,ate_ rE.f• i! %I' I�rr 1.. '.r �!!•`�. ' o a � .� '•. - � �' 'a:, .- - `EL„ l L: arm #� ' .- s May >• - ti , - Jti i , +•: , - - • - v • ' -•-Ll r v. `, 1 \ + ... I tel' ' I •. J^ Fjaf _ , 3a ..,, . • : .q� y M. B• - s t •a- -v - ' • • fJt _ ,�.� `_.- l '< R y •t4 w is ' �• T iBt_ ` j �. _i ♦' i y 0 v w" r... ., •' ,� � ... , <. ' w p , f1,a.''4. a 4� p :' `� " •MYiF �$ '�I - r � _t ,•p,,, _. J a , Route 7 Corridor Study Legend Streams � Lane Group -Does Not Represent Actual Lane Geometry N. Cameron St. to Future Intersection of Ana lyzed_Intersections $ AM Peak Hour Turn Movement Haggerty Blvd. and Route 37 Interchange Ramp (###) PM Peak Hour Turn Movement SO I Route 7 Study Corridor S Figure 2-7 - Existing Intersection Roadways Peak Hour Volumes (2 of 3) Interstate 0 270 54.0 1,080 Feet Railroad r - • .- j(//j "-;'_ 'y„'1'i•T,�. .. '. _ ,. � �F `,fo t �` ,,„'* �' n`, ?• �� tom' - r .. y{ + R t 44 X. � `� -Y`•` t,. sem,. Yzx, r ,' '* R T •;�S', �. 1..:-R ''i. r /, - y f _\ �t , _ 38..E -.. �-''.•�• 'z _ f.�1_ � _� h +�• 1.M , .. ,'"� .a . ; . • . • -' <.,,, � .. sd - - � _. ' ..r_ ..•+;,ny..•.S ♦ a, i• ! t _ M = � 1.� J�I • :.�, i .. + � � r i t„� 9�- ,x ,' T 3: , �•. J • J ), I: - � "•tip J �.•, b,k ;. y,• ` d .. � +K�a ♦• B 1♦.. , s,$ a { - - s� e� •*� /?°mss:., r `'`� ,. ra'ti rF {Ye1:'; Yom; .r R � r � ♦, i• _ :,4 ..� .cr .s.F .' - ._�.q�I .. �''�'O!� � - 'r .•Y y � �Y - '�-°R t 4 _N. �w � I . r. , �� ., a . � �.�,> .. tip. .I'_ � ^•q j' � u:. 4 • j' • s , At + $. 1 -a 1. t ,. �`�'' � - .. --.. '°"<.. - r 'ft- • a i�r.--. .. - ' • it ,i. _ � Pke 113 }�4 - •"`P '�:, , • y g 83) .,� �, .. , • , F �Y .,`'” Y'... ` •<'i. � ��'• r $., r.. -• @> 10 �� (� z 34E'n (sJ h �.,..- ri,Y/e pie . '•.... •� ^•- - �f - '7 fsj %2s> r 0 �4g) - i 1174 °4!e> _" .. • .! +. o - ! .. ZF (1126) 3i J • , ! (8o) a R 1 (111) ' r• -'�. ".'yi. ' „AES' .�e:..y:. _ @taryp 2r8) r -•s .r •�: ,y- .•.. - ,Y. , ,t r # -b uric (D 1 R s'• „ c ' _ :,,� ; ,� , = �. '. ,. -•.... Vii'... ,.°;• � ,; `� '"� , � `, . Rol Route 7 Corridor Study Legend Streams �� i r Lane Group - Does Not Represent Actual Lane Geometry N. Cameron St. to Future Intersection of Analyzed_]ntersections #{ # AM Peak Hour Turn Movement Haggerty Blvd. and Route 37 Interchange Ramp 0 (###) PM Peak Hour Turn Movement �^��-�== Route 7 Study Corridor Figure 2-8 - Existing Intersection Roadways Peak Hour Volumes (3 of 3) Interstate Railroad 0 300 600 W+E S 1,200 Feet Existing Tra,`fic 'Voluines and Operating Conditions Capacity analyses were conducted for the baseline conditions at each of the 17 key intersections along US 1, US 17 and Route 606 using Synchro 7.0 software. The key output from the capacity analyses is level of service for each intersection. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of the operating conditions of a traffic stream on a transportation facility. There are six LOS categories (LOS A through LOS F) used to rate facilities. LOS A represents the best operating conditions with no congestion and LOS F the worst with heavy congestion. LOS C is desirable but LOS D is considered an acceptable LOS in most urban and suburban areas. Fourteen existing signalized intersections were investigated along with three stop - controlled intersections. Currently, eleven of the fourteen intersections are operating with an acceptable LOS D or better in both the AM and PM peak hour. The following signalized intersections are currently operating with an overall intersection LOS E or LOS F in either the AM or PM peak hour. • Intersection 2 — Route 7 (National Avenue/Berryville Avenue) @ N. Pleasant Valley Road — This intersection is currently operating at LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour. All turn movements and intersection approaches are operating at LOS C or better in the AM peak hour. The northbound approach is currently operating at LOS F in the PM peak hour. All other approaches at this intersection are operating at an acceptable LOS D or better in the AM and PM peak hours. • Intersection 10 — Route 7 (Berryville Pike) @ NB Interstate 81 Ramps / Route 659 (Valley Mill Road) — This intersection is currently operating at LOS D during the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour. The northbound approach is currently operating at LOS F in the AM peak hour. During the PM Peak Hour, the northbound approach from Route 659 (Valley Mill Road) is currently operating at LOS E, while the southbound approach from the Interstate 81 ramps is currently operating at LOS F. All other approaches at this intersection are operating at an acceptable LOS D or better in the AM and PM peak hours. • Intersection 14 — Route 7 (Berryville Pike) @ Route 656 (First Woods Drive / Greenwood Drive) — This intersection is currently operating at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour. The northbound approach from Greenwood Drive and the southbound approach from First Woods Drive are currently operating at LOS F in the AM peak hour. The westbound left turn movement from Route 7 is also operating at LOS F in the AM peak hour. During the PM Peak Hour, the northbound and southbound approaches are currently operating at LOS E. All other approaches at this intersection are operating at an acceptable LOS D or better in the AM and PM peak hours. 17 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 In addition to the signalized intersections, two stop -controlled intersections were also analyzed. Currently, one of the intersections has turn movements that are operating with an unacceptable LOS E or worse in either the AM or PM peak hour. The following stop -controlled intersection turn movements are currently operating at LOS E or LOS F in either the AM or PM peak hour. Intersection 17 — Route 7 (Berryville Pike) @ Route 659 (Valley Mill Road) — The westbound left turn movement is currently operating at LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour. For the signal warrant analysis, the volumes at each intersection were analyzed using the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Millennium Edition. Given the limited nature of this study and the limited amount of volume data collected, each intersection was analyzed only for its satisfaction of the Peak Hour signal warrant conditions (Signal Warrant 3). The Peak Hour signal warrant conditions apply to intersections where a large number of vehicles pass through the intersection in a relatively short time period. The two intersections of Route 7 / Morgan Mill Road (Route 660) and Benchmark Route 7 / Valley Mill Road (Route 659) do not currently meet the conditions of the Peak Hour signal warrant. While the major approach of Route 7 has a high traffic volume, the minor approaches do not meet the minimum volume threshold to warrant a traffic signal. It is important to note when assessing traffic signal needs that VDOT does not install a traffic signal until it meets warrants for eight hours and is approved by the District Traffic Engineer. Therefore, intersections of concern should be continuously monitored. The intersection of Route 7 (Berryville Avenue) and Atwell Street has recently changed from signalized operation to stop -controlled operation. This intersection should be monitored for any issues resulting from the change. Intersection LOS and 95th percentile queue length results from the Synchro software analysis are shown in Table 2.3. 18 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 Table 2.3: Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary 2008 Existing Intersection # Intersection Approach Lane Group L = Left T = Thru R = Right 95th% Queue [Length (ft) AM Peak Hour Approach Intersection LOS 95th % Queue Length (ft) PM Peak Hour ApPrLOSOosch Intersection LOS E/W Roadway NIS Roadway (ROUTE 7) (CROSS STREET) Eastbound L T -R 10 134 B 5 213 C 'Westbound T R 179 55 B 35 B 1 Piccadilly St N Kent St B B Northbound L -T -R 49 B 7B B Southbound L -T -R 78 B 81 S Eastbound L TR 25 244 C 33 451 D Westbound L T 192 C 55 2 64 D 2 Nallonal Ave i Berryville Ave Pleasant Valley Rd C E Northbound L -T 226 C R 28 562 F 125 Southbound L T -R 22 136 C 47 221 D Eastbound L -T -R 41 A 84 A Westbound L -T -R 58 A 78 A 3 Berryville Ave eatne Ave A A Northbound L -T -R 13 B 25 B Southbound L -T -R 22 B 35 B Eastbound L -T 57 A 137 B Westbound T -R 62 A 86 A 4 Berryville Ave Baker Ln A B Southbound R 16 B 127 33 B Eastbound L -T -R 34 A 81 A Westbound L -T -R 45 A 59 A 5 Berryville Ave GVS Entrance A A Southbound L 9 B R 6 28 B 15 Eastbound L T -R 21 175 C 62 357 E L 59 49 Westbound T 231 C 288 D 6 Berryville Ave Fort Collier Rd R 127 C 169 D Northbound L T -R 20 77 C 19 51 D Southbound L T -R 108 28 C 204 95 B Eastbound T R 0 A 0 B Westbound L T -R 2 0 A 1 0 B 7 Berryville Ave Atwell Ave N/A N/A Northbound L -T -R 17 D 22 C Southbound L -T -R 2 B 30 C Eastbound L T -R 5 54 A8 296 A Westbound L T -R 9 143 A 17 217 A g Berryville Ave Ross St A A Northbound L -T 26 D R 16 53 D 21 Southbound L -T R 39 15 D 51 19 D Eastbound L T -R 367 26B C 520 384 D Westbound L T 12 313 C 12 151 E 9 Berryville Ave I-61 $B Ramps C D Northbound L -T -R 50 D 102 E Southbound L R 291 1 57 D 421 58 E Table 2.3 (Cont.): Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary Intersection # Intersection Approach 2008 Existing Lane Group AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour L = Left T = Thou 95th % R = Right Queue Length (ft) Approach LOS Intersection LOS 95th Queue Length (ft) Approach LOS Intersection LOS ERoadway NV (ROUTE 7) N/S Roadway (CROSS STREET) 10 Berryville Ave 1-81 NB Ramps / Valley Mill Rd Eastbound L 169 C D 381 C E T 334 385 R 30 223 Westbound 41 B 18 D T 768 Northbound L 526 F 762 F T -R 388 424 Southbound L 407 D 490 E T 413 502 11 Berryville Ave Gateway Dr Eastbound L 41 A A 134 A B T 167 66 Westbound L 16 A 10 A T 21 73 R 0 0 Southbound L 19 C 85 D R 0 132 12 Berryville Ave Regency Lakes Dr Eastbound L 176 B 8 233 B B T -R 642 365 Westbound L 7 A 6 A T 215 136 R 0 6 Northbound L -T -R 28 D 45 E Southbound L -T 175 D 136 E R 44 51 13 Berryville Ave Millbrook Dr Eastbound L 121 B C 69 B B T 231 230 R 20 36 Westbound L 4 B 25 A T 141 58 R 1 Northbound L -T -R 458 E 125 E Southbound L -T 21 D 58 E R 30 59 14 Berryville Ave First Woods Dr / Greenwood Dr Eastbound L 204 C E 68 D D T 223 370 R 15 98 Westbound L 90 C 336 C T 223 252 R 24 8 Northbound L -T -R 664 F 347 E Southbound L -T 250 F 305 E R 30 47 15 Berryville Ave Morgan Mill Rd Eastbound L 8 D NIA 34 D N/A Westbound L 0 A 0 A T 0 0 R 0 0 Southbound T -R 10 C 7 B 16 Berryville Ave Woods Mill Rd Eastbound L 94 D B 96 E D Westbound L -T 343 B 331 A R 18 21 Southbound L 145 D 60 E R 47 50 17 Berryville Ave Valley Mill Rd Eastbound L 2 A N.'A 2 A N/A T 0 0 R 0 0 Westbound L 17 A 20 F T 0 0 Northbound L -R 79 D 8 D 18 Berryville Ave Haggerty Blvd (Future) Eastbound T -R - - - - - - Westbound L - - T - - Northbound L - - - - R - - Arterial Level of Service was also analyzed for the Route 7 Corridor. Arterial LOS is determined by the vehicle travel speed of a segment of a roadway. Arterial LOS is similar to intersection LOS in that both use the letters "A" through "F" to designate the different service levels. The average travel speed is calculated from the running speed and includes the control delay (stop signs and traffic lights) at intersections. Eastbound and westbound Route 7 were each analyzed in two sections, Berryville Ave (in the City of Winchester) and Berryville Pike (in Frederick County). The analysis shows that Route 7, overall, is current operating at LOS C or LOS D with some segments operating at LOS A/B and others at LOS E/F. Detailed results are shown below. Tahla 9 A• FYistinn Arterial I_PvPI n1` Service Summary Eastbound Berryville Ave Existing From To AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Arterial Arterial Arterial LOS Speed Arterial LOS Speed P P Pleasant Valley Rd Woodland Ave 19.9 C 18.5 C Woodland Ave Baker Lane 21.9 C 18.6 C Baker Lane CV5 Entrance 22.6 C 18.3 C CVS Entrance Elm St 12.3 E 8.0 F Elm St Ross St 21.4 C 18.7 C Total D 18.6 C 14.6 D Westbound Berryville Ave Existing From To AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Arterial Arterial Arterial LOS Speed Arterial LOS Speed P 1-81 Ross St 15.7 D 13.1 E Pleasant Valley Rd Fort Collier 13.1 E 9.6 F Woodland Ave CVS Entrance 24.7 B 22.3 C Baker Lane Baker Lane 16.9 D 16.8 D CVS Entrance Battle Ave 23.8 C 23.1 C Elm St Pleasant Valley Rd 12.0 E 13.3 E Total 17.1 D 15.3 1 D Eastbound Berryville Pike Existing From To AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Arterial Arterial Speed Arterial LOS Speed Arterial LOS P Ross St 1-81 SB Ramps 19.9 E 21.0 D 1-81 SB Ramps 1-81 NB Ramps 18.6 E 17.6 D 1-81 NB Ramps Gateway Blvd 30.1 C 31.1 B Gateway Blvd Regency Lakes Dr 25.1 D 28.0 B Regency Lakes Dr Millbrook Dr 29.6 C 27.7 C Millbrook Dr Greenwood Rd 26.2 D 18.5 D Total 24.5 D 22.6 D Westbound Berryville Pike Existing From To AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Arterial Arterial Speed Arterial LOS Speed Arterial LOS P East Woods MITI Rd Woods Mill Rd 31.7 C 35.0 B Woods Mill Rd First Woods Dr 26.2 D 37.2 A First Woods Dr Millbrook Dr 32.5 C 38.5 A Millbrook Dr Regency Lakes Dr 34.0 B 27.5 C Regency Lakes Dr Gateway Blvd 31.8 C 28.3 B Gateway Blvd 1-81 NB Ramps 23.5 D 12.0 F 1-81 NB Ramps 1-81 SB Ramps 18.4 E 20.4 D Total 24.5 C 14.6 C 21 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 ;Safety Crash data from 2003 through 2007 was obtained from the City of Winchester and V DO T for the Route 7 Corridor. The City of v Vinchester provided intersection crash data from 2005-2007, while VDOT provided 2004-2006 crash data for Frederick County. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) recommends that improvements be evaluated for intersections with a crash rate of over 2 crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV). As shown in Table 2.5 most of the intersections along Route 7 each have crash rates of less than 1.00 crashes per MEV. The intersection of Route 7 and Battle Avenue has a crash rate of 2.09 per million vehicles entering the intersection, which is just over the ITE threshold. Crash type "Angle" accounted for 66% of the crashes at his intersection, which could possibly be associated with a lack of sight distance. The intersection of Route 7 and Baker Lane has a crash rate of 3.01, also over the ITE threshold. Crash type "Rear End" attributed to 46% of the crashes at this location. This section of Route 7 and has no median and no turn lanes, which could contribute to the high accident rate. The intersection of Route 7 and Ross Street has a crash rate of 2.05, only slightly over the ITE threshold. The other analyzed intersections do not exceed the ITE threshold accident rates. Tahla 9 5• IntPrser_t nn Crash Rates SJrr3mary 22 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 Intersection # of Reported Crashes per Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 total year t Average Crashes per Million Entering Vehicles 1 Piccadilly St @ N. Kent St N/A 0 0 0 0 0.00 2 National Ave @ N. Pleasant Valle Rd N/A 10 9 9 28 1.12 3 Berryville Ave @ Battle Ave N/A 20 13 8 41 2.09 4 Berryville Ave @ Baker Lane N/A 25 16 22 63 3.01 5 Berryville Ave @ CVS / Shopping Center N/A 1 0 0 1 0.05 6 Berryville Ave @ Fort Collier Rd N/A 16 16 11 43 1.49 7 Berryville Ave @ Atwell Ave N/A 8 1 7 16 0.62 8 Berryville Ave @ Ross St N/A 16 16 24 56 2.05 9 Berryville Pke @ 1-81 SB Ramps N/A 4 9 0 13 0.26 10 Berryville Pke @ 1-81 NB Ramps N/A 1 1 0 2 0.03 11 Berryville Pke @ Gateway Dr 3 3 5 N/A 11 0.25 12 Berryville Pke @ Regency Lakes Dr 10 7 6 N/A 23 0.66 13 Berryville Pke @ Millbrook Dr / Blossom Dr 5 3 3 N/A 11 0.35 14 Berryville Pke @ First Woods Dr / Greenwood Di 5 1 5 N/A 11 0.29 15 Berryville Pke @ Morgan Mill Rd 6 5 4 N/A 15 0.58 16 Berryville Pke @ Woods Mill Rd 4 6 3 1 N/A 13 0.38 17 Berryville Pke @ Valley Mill Rd 3 2 10 1 N/A 15 0.55 22 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 Multimodal Facilities This section discusses existing and future multimodal facilities in the Route 7 corridor and makes recommendations for multimodal improvements to facilitate alternatives to single -occupant vehicle movements. In addition, this section discusses how future land use planning can be implemented in a manner that supports multimodal improvements. Data has been collected for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, freight and goods movement in the corridor, transit operations, and potential intermodal facilities such as park and ride lots. Recommendations have been developed based on field review, coordination with local trucking companies, and review of regional multimodal documents such as the regional bicycle and pedestrian planning study and the recommendations included in the regional transit plan. The recommendations contained in this section are consistent with those documents. Existing Conditions In the existing condition, the dominant mode of transportation within the Route 7 corridor is by private automobile. Alternative modes are accommodated more so to the west of the interchanges with Interstate 81 within the city limits of Winchester, where there are transit services and the provision of sidewalk networks that can meet demand for alternative modes. In general, alternative modes do not exist in the rest of the study corridor. The following sections discuss the existing conditions for the various modes. Bicycle The Federal Highway Administration has defined three types of bicycle users (A, B and C) to assist in describing different facility types and roadway conditions for bicyclists. Group A includes advanced or experienced riders who are comfortable riding with motor vehicle traffic. Group B includes basic or less confident adult riders, and Group C includes children riders. Currently, there is a lack of bicycle facilities along Route 7. Bike lanes or trails do not exist along the Route 7 study area. Thus, along most of the study corridors, only Group A bicycle users would likely ride. As part of the Win -Fred MPO Long Range Plan, Route 7 and other adjacent roads in the study area are planned to include multi -use paths for bicyclists and pedestrians. 23 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities along the corridor are generally sufficient within the City of Winchester and lacking in Frederick County. Sidewalks are present on both sides of Route 7 from the western boundary of the study area to Interstate 81. In Frederick County, Route 7 lacks any pedestrian facilities. Transit There is limited transit service operating in the corridor. One fixed route line operates on Berryville Avenue only within the City of Winchester to the west of the Interstate 81 interchange. As will be discussed in the recommendations section, extension of this service appears to be feasible along Route 7. Current ridership on the Berryville line was over 50,000 riders in 2008 according to data contained in the Transit Services Plan for WinFred Metropolitan Planning Organization. Freight Patterns The primary purpose of this section of the report is to focus on freight movements on Virginia Route 7 (Route 7) between N. Cameron Street to the future intersection of Haggerty Boulevard and Route 37 interchange ramp. The proximity of Route 7 to the Virginia Inland Port (VIP) suggests the corridor potentially could be impacted by freight movements associated with the VIP and surrounding freight -related developments. This freight assessment will help understand the following: + How trucks access VIP; Alternative routes to Route 7 near Winchester if VIP trucks use Route 7; and Any conceptual route improvements needed to make other routes feasible for additional truck traffic. Contacts with county officials, port representatives and trucking companies and a review of the available data have yielded the following conclusion: The VIP does not appear to be a significant contributor to truck volumes on Route 7. Truck traffic on Route 7 is likely generated from local establishments connecting to Interstate 81. It would be difficult to divert any of this traffic as any alternative routes would be less direct than Route 7 is now. These conclusions are supported by the following observations: The VIP processes 20,000 containers annually, which is unlikely to produce more than several hundred truck trips daily; 24 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 • VIP traffic is unlikely to use Route 7 due to the orientation of regional truck travel towards destinations for which Route 7 is not a likely route. The destinations or origins likely to generate truck volumes on Route 7 are between Interstate 81 and the Frederick County Line; • The potential shipping locations with IIIc highest likelihood of generating container traffic on Route 7 bound for the VIP are Sterling, VA, the Dulles airport area and Washington, D.C. Those locations generate very few container truck trips each month; • Trucks that service the Virginia Inland Port (VIP) use U.S. 340 and U.S. 522, which provide direct access to the VIP; • The majority of the local commercial and logistics development, likely destinations for much outbound container traffic, has occurred along the U.S. 522 corridor, away from Route 7, and • No more than 5 percent of the Average Annual Daily Traffic along Route 7 in the City of Winchester, Frederick County and Clarke County is classified as trucks. There are several activity centers and freight markets that attract freight traffic along key Virginia corridors. Several of these markets are directly or indirectly connected to Route 7. This section details the freight markets surrounding Route 7, as reflected in Figure 2-9. Frederick County/Winchester - The City of Winchester is an incorporated city within the boundaries of Frederick County. Winchester is only 50 minutes west of Dulles International Airport. Using 1-66, one can reach Winchester from Tyson's Corner, Northern Virginia, in just over an hour. Both the City of Winchester and Frederick County promote economic development and encourage many retailers, manufacturers and technology enterprises to be located within their borders. The County has focused on two freight intensive industries in its economic development efforts: • Food Processing -The food processing industry is a link between the agricultural and retail sectors and Winchester is the critical location for these companies to operate. Winchester is an attractive location for perishable products and packaged foods manufacturing operations. • Distribution - Located on the Interstate 81 corridor and at a mid -point on the east coast, Fredrick County is well suited for high-end assembly operations. Ford Distribution Center, Home Depot Distribution and Kohl's Distribution have taken advantage of the area's transportation system, workforce and tax advantages. Warren and Clarke Counties - Warren County is located in the Shenandoah Valley of northwestern Virginia and is approximately 70 miles from Washington, D.C., 110 miles from Baltimore and 135 miles from Richmond. The Virginia Inland Port is located in the county, approximately 15 miles south of Route 7. Clarke County is a rural county with a population of approximately 14,500. Over 97 percent of the county is zoned as either agricultural/open space or forestry. The 25 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 preservation of the rural landscape of the county has influenced many industries, business and residential developments to move farther west to Frederick County. Figure 2-9: Virginia Inland Port and Surrounding Region 26 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 Regional Routes Used by V?P Traffic This assessment focuses on the impact of VIP truck traffic on Route 7. Discussions with both VIP representatives and local freight -related industries suggest that Route 7 is not impacted significantly by VIP -generated traffic, because 1) VIP does not generate a large volume of truck traffic; and 2) VIP truck traffic does not use Route 7. VIP daily truck traffic is not estimated to exceed several hundred truck trips per day. Therefore, much of the truck traffic that is on U.S. 522 and U.S. 340 adjacent to VIP is a combination of VIP traffic and local warehousing/distribution center traffic. VIP traffic is oriented to Interstate 81, 1-66 and 1-70, using U.S. 522 and U.S. 340 to access the interstate system for regional destinations. In addition, U.S. 522 connects with U.S. 340 and provides a direct route to 1-70, which extends east and provides connectivity to Baltimore. According to James Davis, VIP's Mid -Atlantic Regional Manager, the most likely shipping locations of VIP international container traffic for which Route 7 is a viable routing option are: 1. Washington, D.C. 2. Dulles Airport area, VA 3. Sterling, VA The amount of container traffic that is generated by those locations bound for the Port of Virginia is very low. Additionally, only 60 containers monthly are shipped between Baltimore and the Port of Virginia, with no more than 10 percent of this estimated to be oriented to the VIP. It is unlikely, therefore that the VIP accounts for more than a very small percentage of Route 7's total daily truck traffic. Discussions with several freight carriers in the region that service both the Inland Port and the surrounding areas confirmed this finding. It was determined that much of their freight moving through Warren, Clarke and Frederick Counties is either destined for Baltimore or VIP. Carriers stated that Route 7 is typically not a route option for transporting goods to these locations. Route 7 is the most direct route between Interstate 81 and Loudoun County. As indicated in the first section, transportation costs represent almost 60 percent of logistics costs (before the fuel price increase of 2008); therefore truckers will use the most direct route to minimize travel costs. There does not appear to be any feasible alternative routes for the non -VIP truck traffic that is on Route 7. 27 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 Route 7 Truck Traffic 2007 VDOT traffic count data show that of the 32,000 vehicles that travel on Route 7 (in Loudoun County), four percent, or roughly 1,300 vehicles, are trucks. Secondly, the VIP processes 20,000 containers annually, which is unlikely to produce more than several hundred truck trips daily. Of that daily number, a small percentage is likely to use Route 7 due to the orientation of regional truck travel towards destinations for which VA 7 is not a likely route. The majority of the truck traffic on Route 7 is estimated to be traffic primarily coming from Interstate 81 heading towards the Washington, DC metropolitan area, more specifically to Loudoun County. The data along the corridor indicates that the amount of truck traffic on Route 7 decreases heading east past Loudoun County to Fairfax County and through the Cities of Falls Church and Alexandria. This is the most direct route for this traffic and feasible alternatives are not available. Park and Ride Lots There are no park and ride lots on Route 7 currently. Several regional studies have been conducted that have identified potential future locations and are discussed in the recommendations section. 28 DRAFT — Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 0.0 PROJECTED F Projections of future traffic along the Route 7 Corridor were developed for Year 2035. Various methods and sources were used in generating growth rates within our study area. These methods, described below, were utilized to determine future traffic levels in the study area for the horizon year. The highway capacity analysis presented in this chapter is based on a future roadway condition where no new roadway improvements are in place other than those already planned and programmed. 2035 Future Land Use Planned land use was obtained from the City of Winchester and Frederick County and compared to the respective existing zoning. The future land use of the City of Winchester is similar to the existing zoning in the study area. Currently zoned as a mostly residential, the southern side of Route 7 from Battle Avenue to Elm Street is planned to change to mixed use, a combination of residential, retail and office uses. Mixed land use is also planned to the north of Route 7 from Baker Lane to Fort Collier Road. Land use is also expected to change along Route 7 in Frederick County. From Interstate 81 to First Woods Drive/Greenwood Drive, Route 7 is currently zoned as a mix of residential and business development. Future land use calls for rezoning this area fronting Route 7 to exclusively business and commercial development. Residential development land use is planned to remain behind the business development and set back from Route 7. East of First Woods Drive / Greenwood Drive, the planned land use along Route 7 is expected to continue as residential development, eliminating the few patches of business zoned areas fronting Route 7. Currently unzoned, the Route 7 area near Route 659 (Valley Mill Road) and the Winchester Water Treatment plant is planned as "Long Range Future" land use. This is the area where the planned residential Haggerty Property is located. Future land use along the Route 7 study area is shown below in Figure 3-1. 29 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 o� cT N\ 10HOR yr C., 4P C Ook A\- % 00E41 1 .1 % I Proposed Alignment of e?� Gr If j Route 37 Bypass -A, N ? St °• r 4b'Cl S10,V Ok OR 'VOO.. 0+, 14 L4., 4, E* OR 011 It ST"TFORD A. C%, L 0 Vi C 10e, - AOle ,-. —V) .1, -- "", . I , " . — - - .. I I P,,, 0 , �Y- ZO 0 2 51 RY S 0 NIM �LL, % "ILL MLLE, 7 W., W-00STO. - K .--U R z & % IN, C z j G—NDALL GIR < bl? 41 "Z 40 % CT %0 '14 -Ij 04 2 C4, 00-wl—, STAFFOROOR :01 ARVR.,G CiR j, Route 7 Corridor Study Legend N — — FutureRt37 Frederick Co. Land Use Winchester Land Use N. Cameron St. to Future Intersection of Route 7 Study Corridor Residential Residential District W E 'f II�iII�l Haggerty Blvd. and Route 37 Interchange Ramp X Roadways Business Business District Interstate Public Use Public Use S Figure 3-1 - Future Land Use Railroad Historic Mixed Use; MU 0 1,000 2,000 4,1000 Feet Streams Industrial Long Range Future 2035 Traffic Forecasts Methodology Forecast traffic volumes were generated for the Year 2035 using the following methodology. 1) Historic traffic counts (2005-2007) were obtained from VDOT's Traffic Count Database. Traffic data prior to 2005 was available, but the data was deemed unreliable. Historic growth rates were therefore calculated for the key study area roads using the recent historic traffic volumes and generally ranged from 1.0- 2.5%. 2) VDOT's Transportation & Mobility Planning Division (TMPD) provided the 2003 base year and 2030 future year regional travel demand models, developed for the Win -Fred MPO. The 2030 future year was modeled both with and without the proposed Route 37 Bypass. The growth rates between 2003 base year model and both 2030 models were calculated. Without the Route 37 Bypass included, growth rates along Route 7 typically ranged from 1.5%-2.5%. Including the Route 37 Bypass in the model produced Route 7 growth rates between 0.5-1.5% in the City and virtually no growth in Frederick County, which is slightly lower than the model without the Route 37 Bypass. 3) Professional judgments, taking into account both historic growth rates and model generated growth rates, were used to select forecast growth rates for Route 7 in the study area. Coordination between the City of Winchester, Frederick County and VDOT occurred during this process. Taking the more conservative approach, growth rates were based off of the model without the Route 37 Bypass included. This decision was also made due to the uncertainty of the construction of the Route 37 Bypass, given the status of the current funding sources. 4) The recommended forecast growth rates (shown in the table below) were applied to the 2008 existing traffic volumes for the analyzed study area intersections to develop 2035 volumes. The volumes were then imported into Synchro and professional judgment was used to adjust the Route 7 through, left and right turn movements to balance traffic along the corridor. 9,035 Traffic Volumes The historic traffic volumes along the Route 7 Corridor, as shown in the previous chapter, were grown using the methodology described above to develop Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes along Route 7. Resulting 2035 traffic volumes are compared to existing volumes in Table 3.1. 31 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 Tnhln I I• Fxictinn 9nnR and Fnrar_asfi 2035 Route 7 rth inline Volumes Roadway Location Daily Traffic Volume a —'� Existing 2008 Forecast 2035 Route 7 (National Ave) West of Pleasant Valley Rd 10,300 15,900 Route 7 (Berryville Ave) Pleasant Valley Rd to 1-81 Interchange 18,100 27,900 Route 7 (Berryville Pke) East of 1-81 Interchange 36,300 55,900 Existing turn movement counts at key intersections throughout the study area were also grown to Year 2035. One new intersection is planned to be operating by Year 2035. This additional three- legged intersection is expected to be located along Route 7 between Route 659 (Valley Mill Road) and the Winchester Water Treatment facility. The new Haggerty Development, to be located south of Route 7, will have direct access to Route 7 via future Haggerty Boulevard. The Master Development Plan for the Haggerty Property calls for 300 units of detached and attached single family homes. Generated traffic volumes were taken from the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) report, dated September 2004. All generated peak hour traffic volumes were applied to the proposed intersection of the main development roadway, Haggerty Boulevard and Route 7. The peak hour volumes were then distributed to the proposed lane configuration based on the trip distribution from the TIA. The intersections and their AM and PM peak hour turning movements are shown in Figure 3-2, Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4. 32 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 r 3 A • • u _ N. r�• y J 'nr f i t f _ r _ LW4. w - �( m a'K ® j eh ., 2-• al : `• `� % try r . t . T r r 9 t,%i'. ;� envq S 7/ . J' © ¢ ' ♦ •d'. •. a t/ ,, .� ., � '. �"•.��f � �a e: � •,,W � _ CEJ s Q�~ � r� � �,. # LL x .' , °F. k�♦ c r:. I ' ' ...i "��7! - o o �4" ,R �, rJ L- s r '�.-- . �,,_ o 2r 's - ♦- ^•'TT-_ - `# d`r-.�- �-.. SQ''�.,�'y ti i ._t�si ` 't ' }'` ! Iyt7 '• •rnQse`= ♦�_.... �i�,, .B . rrue(380)L-r A. 740 7,s1'voer'r �o 10 (10 ) 860) A p7(t zso) "0 k,.. ♦•%f� fz'r• , ,!f _ �@.t cdauy srFf R �o 00 rr ��ty 1 9p) 3�sSt S + zjo (to) *`%cRu 490 q, 970 ule> 0(7p) (z0) �to) zo so) 3ptoR. r �. or ... 7 r •; d'J J• r _', ".! . „r.;_r„• : w«4 -•'e ,.'3�_r�4.r . ` y.. �y`7,.« f! A M 1 A,`1..� .J`,. • C ;Fe _`_. ' �J•LV/,� >}> "o) p 1 �831�t,tgi ;r�<-%nO) 13p . er ro o r ioi m im.":,o..'F I F` -7ti r,.-",-.1.�i -.e�►. 7 + Yd .,_ �,�.II.i,' -a , rnfY. .l,-yy7r ; ;r. '•.,♦.':s •Wa. f.�',:_`.x-.-7 -t{/-.n. "C .�'T- - +-'-'�d�Fd+tt:X'. rr U r / g.'�7a"•`� rrCF•.�.•at�� i=� - �_l,/y}�'�^!�. '.16.: k�9M. �',•°i. :1"+,. > .�' _:L�:•'-i-' •%r..r„.a� ',. Y".`+-�\•,- 4 A?O , A p -Ile�:' • �r , r'�_q.`til- ei 'a-o`�•e• X�X1`3o0 01�l•s«I�` B.a: ,o�2 Y 9da �0 �0 a�e ,•Sq1.d -c �. '�- r � t ,•._,i 1 .'w ”�••E1 �r� �.�-..r, .• - a .-. d �r ;�J;�• A,,�. .�a.',Tt'.s .1`�d,. �,r�kf . ,;x i'{•'f; . _ C+r �$fie.� .rr.. ¢a '�r� �ti'_� �d�a�'M1r��.r o♦/,- lR_ _t�d. ,nBi•'k..r,rrr aT. JslrhL.A F ! 350 (370) L d 460 (64 0) Rouef �rr i�It(Y.�.0.u, 1^ P• FQr� o. r rab,` ``,.• i:`4 -_J A 4p 0 f` (450) 290x- A 60 8iE�l^t ^ r_ ..� y8" �(•—(80) 60 - g T11, - 17 t f e AVe xI 3`e r A- •�:,r -O +y�•,, 1' i ^{ �t�`f.r fi■'°� e. .... ....,_i"�. -' ' :. tr r CP :. ,: M. �V�� .: , r .. ♦ 4 ♦ +, I !„_�$'i . �: _� _ ` _gip 6` m ..,. _, ».� : '::.... �' � r. ,.r id[t.-,. ..,♦ F: t��- :. i': r" RF�� w' a9.0 "'q <. .r m q;�. j `cL _ -+.- +� .„ .,rr � i .. s .,a - '• ,.,,�,..- _.{ � �' ,�„ f - ,. rr ..l ,� _ r S` w.. r ,1 G2 _ �� - - ' aFf - r - .. i N` i� ,., r r1, 'j.r a1 r --. . , r, ry:.. ,�y- r. 1'} ,'•- '. J` f:. .A - "' ! �I ,,pp w; _r F.. _ • u .. '>t_ t:'., � r ,�. Jr.-y�.�„k. _. ..,, }'° -J ^L ,�,' .:. r f �. • r r r ;� � _ T 3. l �,��Y` y� i � r.'Y • ... „ .� f.. rry. $q / /y�.. )dam, y•��,y - - r Ave ... : �:a►_ • r� ^ F.._^` t �. d j P ,”. F Y ^ L7•.'r ». n�°. �, ,s ;Ir �;srm r 2 Ake C S e 9 :te) Be 0 0 m N a ,P .�; :• _ 100 11 + - o ® a s _ t5 ,' }'j..L .y°:� t°:�;Y ' '.:+.►. °_�, ja`,vr7h/' �..s., t'" iI, , ,- atlQna,r _ L. �"' 710 (840) ` 30 (so) ! J� -e•. ,� . ? % r , rf' i4,- y. V@ �y'! Ber ille Ber villa o 79 890 � � Ave Ave 0 ( )�_ �., a ♦'- ,, ,; .. : r - p®t as(' & - +,. .'t- v - �� •t // =� �``,� ••�,, (1go) 1605 Route ! � FY Z ,. ^• ; .. / -. st ,.,, , ,, •e - S - (880) 480 (60) 20 �` Route . �- .;, f "'> r `< I }M `4Z� •< - x .. Ycb. * cG3 I'd �y (1080) 610 (tz 1 . [. ,s�J� . ti r. r . IAL- ick t j.� th 5t w ' r 7-k st •�.J"t _ r, �j �( a p r � y y� Ira dJVI r ' 6r� • � ` \ } .1;: E . �rpYq<� .� � � a* , .: 'T ��' �� t Y ss..r�� ,�. �`4• r. �`"` ,. �.l g, I iY rte_.• s '� �, t 3.Y ' .t yl�' 3 J eay ee J r. , i' .1 d{.' &B . J# .. ' �!° - - - - / y r, t'r' � r •�``/..• r �, ri k-1 f L �`�' -s, � ''1`' r �'� . � . J +' e- `gam , � ,a(7�r►t. �Q t r i s,. . � w , . . - � ,.. W � . _,,;' � -h �'. J' ,� • _.."�.�t, •..ter. ® _ �"' S -: � ... . .,fj•d * •tp'l-;r'1IT y„ .=T-/• ' '� ,• •+�4�, .-g ' �I'y11 r ps f pi r . R ve r ♦ - • ..+> rJ ,: r as a- J '.' a •-..`� Route 7 Corridor Study Legend Streams 41 t r Lane Group -Does Not Represent Actual Lane Geometry N. Cameron St. to Future Intersection of 0Analyzed_Intersections Haggerty Blvd. and Route 37 Interchange Ramp =f;77 Lakes -County ### AM Peak Hour Turn Movement Route 7 Study Corridor -,� Ponds -County (###) PM Peak Hour Turn Movement Figure 3-2 - Future Intersection Roadways F Wetlands - City Peak Hour Volumes (1 of 3) Interstate Railroad Ile *4 1020 (1210) (110) go so (90) (1370) 9pp (4p) 10 /' RouteER N W-� E S 0 250 500 1,000 Feet _ > a � • ' .,: '�+:. - "A ( -�.. . _ ....._ tel` � _ .�• � V• � �iM1:�i {, r y `r 1' , r s• fyy<,o ..�^.. ' «'< ` r i� d •- 'F....."-rsw � � ! . �.•••' "�• � \ � ''t � ``® .,� J 1 u_ ° ',`F.. .. .. R 'T .",r ' �`- ''° .. ! •r %` yr 1 •.. •t' ~•�'.-; r, .i^�`: ,rr' y \n ` N. �•�� 4i t ' � ,Jr. ,4y,`�, -. :1 .`•1t "r r +'y:+ � - i.- ```- - ',� � 7�• . ''wa �y� .r-t �.� �_. / - . , �' , A . i Yom. ,. ... . !r - •' _:., tC. _..• . _.. ,..., .�' .,:. .. .� c- ;�«r, a -.. '-r .ice 0.� y'i1' 7 , .. = ,.4 ) ,r :, - _ .•, . ,,. •a:.y rr j' e r y_ 4r�e 'q rigs _ 1 . �, t m , S A m IMF , .xy► y i e. - I-. y i„P•IM � m tF ,r .�` ..t. .!? < r � - t 9 , ) ,�I T j+ {�4�.. > -fir ! -� I e + f 'i•,+�' • - I.•_�. y s < r. s .lt?Mi, , • 1 .y , j`"'.. r r ,. ,a .y; , :f 1 . „ � +. •.>,. ... -. ir3 • ��' ..I Y . �, .. - b � tr it •!rte � i' 1 * .. '^ . errr., y ' ��. _ Ii j. ��{.. �. .l P- ./ /,.'1�''d' rri. �` .f "� .y '.... ;.. - r•�.� ,y �:.f, ..j�psC-..,. - r - i/'jy<.+.frYi: :n •I,/' f + a r4 r. r '* • '• • ';: • -r'": ` : <, , r - e ., --wa .'tir`-''�"�e c 9 a _ �; _ - # i. vt,+- f f �'•• 'mss - — _ r ,y , t'i '' w^ . ,,. .. -fir" 1 -.+.. .: g .. «•j"�, _ ,� - �.4 , �, :'�.;� .z. C+ ,l. � N :. n..�. > ✓- �,' _�•rr'" .. ,, - r � .-- . � , . , •. I s" _ ' `� • �`,.. i..•) � ,.a. 1 �t.� 'r5►. ; a' �?' - !"'..4.:rs: .� `� -././,.t1, '+' ♦4 '- ,.,„a'ar ".•� =s-a 'v^> t" _, c. '' _- ,;'"y4 ,,,,- f,.• n .•. _ w lob 1 , 0 m _ t Z dr �, ' .•.►a�• .Y, *' ✓... <.t� 7y. . �v`.,. �..rj� .A:.L1 7 i %'.p ' `" • ^. - ,,; 'i • . l y 5�, ,i7•�'•rf `..".' _ � <1- / t �• tta,; _, �r•>•-r. .a:'.s�': -•<?js} y-4+x �.,_� �`® $-' _Pt13(4 oJ� ,k1590 (16 50)0s D (341)4 (50) 230'T ±Ir..r.✓r`f _ y I , y ♦ .J: f•-j.,<%' 1' ":P ,.. �._ -r. +' 1, :,. 1 .q> ,�,.. = - R ' .' 71 'r.�y, . r` (220) )D Dy Route r .r ' r:: rr 9{ : �` �- 1 �..., , • i ,,,.; :.,_.. f; t • ,ti ,:tit _ i.• r'' ,y".�. m 1690 111 ) ;,� I„ i ° r` .. .t♦ ,r ;. �M . (, . ' ` � w,.....+�, '. �-•" +a r. �y Y/�',� � � � .�♦ 0w�1 ~ � � to 3) RUUte7 1{F A, • - q —r 4 .. \ ,-:r ; '•• Y• ''' . ♦ ' • let! L,50 (230) L'— 1790 (1870) ,yq . ''r_:, "1p .:. � .�F',' � •' r ,,f �••;\ .... 5-0. .s'- �. ', :.... • .f.,��. •' f. �'>', N ! ♦., {0 ke 40) )� I $BQrY�i @ - - - - a lr : ° �! zD (10) 1� a 1(slo) ,1110..► 'ty �1 r•lY. L'e ; 9 t r o I N \` w J' � -1:. s �' Bill==er RDuSe 7 ��,a 2 `�, -�;r _ (160) 1zo�, o ` ....+y � � �• a`I , y ��Y„' ,® . ♦ .�: F• "i a ,.- ` '. l2 �- t.•► — - - �l ,i1 1 00 nnl Pike 'g ..,iR • , �n�.a�ry.�t..�- - K�' • �� r- r s L 1 bn X19 (310) 280 r � f p.. .c •. .. y r F A �` .... i'. J7.1�ht• � � � • . � .s` .ten 10� Jle l (17 ,- � _ , e `'� _ i a.t .��.. a_ , +, ..,�,.{�•r�_�i'�► 4.�;. r�. A •'y �, os o � 2nl o (20)20 /' ` ~ .; � sl. �, ..� 1;� _ �' -'h.. _.r�.. � � m � �''- �g+•y �4 ��tr. "f r � Lam. �' � � _ � . 0 n . a O ` 0 a ffio ff z r� I� o LI N' • ry, �r �^�- f_"��' r � �: p: r,`_ PKe �a6o1?O.y�o � t1.'� r, _ 'i, ;. R _ ``Y- _• .. ,�� j -,� ,e "° `o`r `", f"� .c m r e d 340 l B3'_,r�-•^ �{�*'�j 4 980 (1780) 1430 :4' ♦1 -7 { „ 1540 (1130 4 s0 (130) Route? r- 1 Ave 63r Ille _ .. ^w '- �"'r, _t r. , �. ,.S ..,i,� „ ,nr *v" 7? }.� '"q � �(" F �•�i °•� 4. � "°.� � _�� ,� y _u� !� t: Ave ((((6116om 0� 0� wray>,* � s '• •� Sr ` �•ur �'?r''.r� '.+- - 1.4 Route 80) 220s <1 r* (500) 48D� 1700) 0) 1fi�� 1210 ) 8kr (30)10 .A r, i y m - Y r r jr•iF ♦ ^P • Q q y r 777 ' r , rPC . yea j} ems•. , n �, �.t. ,'�` • 'd `` •irk . - ,. `.. . ., . • ? r /l - " - + , 4 1I 11 j • 7 115 j'6' .� .�_ # r v�r .. . '..., :- .114 r �': ♦- I',t` •- ... +a'� %0. `�� • r e F, r� Route 7 Corridor Study Legend N Streams I t r Lane Group -Does Not Represent Actual Lane Geometry N. Cameron St. to Future Intersection of Analyzed_ Intersections ##### AM Peak Hour Turn Movement W® E Haggerty Blvd. and Route 37 Interchange Ramp'' Lakes -County `--•-'�� Route 7 Study Corridor FZZ Ponds - County () PM Peak Hour Turn Movement Figure 3-3 -Future Intersection Roadways _f .< Wetlands-City S 0 270 540 1,080 Feet Peak Hour Volumes (2 of 3) Interstate � — — Railroad ph` p�_r" � ° „ -• ,f,r 'l.tr „ 222 t � r ht:� •,. � - � •�- 77 IF �• <' ;, �:• I Proposed Alignment of .-7 � to 37 Bypassn. , :j zell e •. r Ak 44Y .4 Ilk �49 ' .. � moi• ��" � .!,f .. �,�`,�'+: ' + _ � �� - `•�- , 4,1Z, • 3 +fir Y t � r •/�� ' •. '� w>.j _ ,ly,.v •. . -' -.• . •� .. Sp'e �'. ♦,A� f •.c_t •,s'' K �,X � •� • , f r+ —y s ,�, �s,. .r'. .: . wi .. T� �_ - 1/ '(. 4t, a t . - •r }•� V, (loo) q0_, ^` 7j5 (�7s `M1•rA - h, 20 (1o) ,:• - • .., ,r m, • - if . OG o i _ rlo) .. ,� o ^ ` J 275 7s,o (7°pJ 3° �� 2p nOJI?2g0J r, (774p) 1ago ROut,2 0 _a t o a (13p 90 (27p) )say 761p hasp) o ?• \ d ) 783p ROOT 7 �/P�p .441 S 9t • �, � �� _, " }~�..` `,pa, - '��• ; ,S•';gea�'i'��'Ir�. ` #{ '"F" 'J� �T 'r.",�I'^ ��r�.q-,� 79, � 7soOr208p 'a q � - D r •! s 7O 4r �• �. tiw 4 ,•t 'r` r. } ' o I — 007 ! c,� .40 i �� f , ._ ,.cam .� • � .r 4+� Y `R a, • { . - r Legend Route 7 Corridor Study Streams 't"' 1 � Lane Group -Does Not Represent Actual Lane Geometry N. Cameron St. to Future Intersection of Analyzed_Intersections Haggerty Blvd. and Route 37 Interchange Ramp Lakes -County #�## AM Peak Hour Turn Movement W � R E Route 7 Study Corridor ;7/1Ponds - County (###) PM Peak Hour Turn Movement Figure 3-4 - Future Intersection Roadways 71177 Wetlands -City S Peak Hour Volumes (3 of 3) Interstate 0 350 700 1,400 Feet �� Railroad 2635 Traffic Deficiencies Capacity analyses were conducted for Year 2035 conditions at each of the key intersections along Route 7 using Synchro 7.0 software. Fifteen signalized intersections were investigated along with three stop -controlled intersections. By Year 2035, half of the sixteen signalized intersections are expected to operate with an acceptable LOS D or better in both the AM and PM peak hours. The following seven signalized intersections are expected to operate with an acceptable overall intersection LOS D or better in both the AM and PM peak hours. • Intersection 3 - Berryville Ave (Route 7) / Battle Avenue - This intersection is expected to continue to operate at LOS A during both the AM and PM peak hours. The northbound and southbound approaches of Battle Avenue are expected to operate at LOS B in the AM and PM peak hour. • Intersection 4 - Berryville Avenue (Route 7) / Baker Lane - This intersection is expected operate at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour in Year 2035. During the AM peak hour, the northbound and southbound approaches are expected to operate at LOS B, while the eastbound approach is expected to operate at LOS A. During the PM peak hour, the southbound approach is expected to operate at LOS F. The eastbound and westbound approaches are expected to operate at LOS D and LOS A, respectively. • Intersection 5 - Berryville Avenue (Route 7) / CVS Entrance - This intersection is expected operate at LOS A during the AM and PM peak hours in Year 2035. The eastbound and westbound approaches are expected to operate at LOS A in both the AM and PM peak hours. The southbound approach is expected to operate at LOS B in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour. • Intersection 8 - Berryville Avenue (Route 7) / Ross Street - This intersection is expected to operate at LOS B in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour. Both the northbound and southbound approaches are expected to operate at LOS D in the AM and PM peak hours. The eastbound and westbound approaches are both expected to operate at LOS B or better in the AM and PM peak hours. ® Intersection 11 - Berryville Pike (Route 7) / Gateway Drive - This intersection is expected to operate at LOS B in both the AM and PM peak hours. During the AM peak hour, the westbound Route 7 approach is expected to operate at LOS B, while the eastbound and southbound approaches are expected to operate at LOS C in Year 2035. During the PM peak hour, the eastbound and westbound 36 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 Route 7 approaches are expected to operate at LOS B, while the southbound approach is expected to operate at LOS D. Intersection 16 — Berryville Pike (Route 7) / Morgan Mill Drive (Route 660) — This intersection is expected to operate at LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour. During the AM peak hour, the westbound Route 7 approach is expected to operate at LOS C, while the eastbound Route 7 ramp and southbound Route 660 approaches are expected to operate at LOS D in Year 2035. During the PM peak hour, the westbound Route 7 approach is expected to operate at LOS B, while the eastbound Route 7 ramp and southbound Route 660 approaches are expected to operate at LOS E in Year 2035. • Intersection 18 — Berryville Pike (Route 7) / Haggerty Boulevard (Future) — Capacity analysis was performed on this future intersection based on expected traffic volumes generated from proposed development without the planned Route 37 Bypass included. Proposed lane configuration was taken from the Haggerty Property Road Plan, obtained from Frederick County. Traffic signal phasing was estimated and signal timings were optimized. This intersection is expected to operate at LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour. During the AM peak hour, the northbound Haggerty Boulevard approach is expected to operate at LOS C. The eastbound and westbound Route 7 approaches are expected to operate at LOS D and LOS A, respectively. During the PM peak hour, the northbound Haggerty Boulevard approach is expected to operate at LOS D, while the eastbound and westbound Route 7 approaches are both expected to operate at LOS B. The remaining eight signalized intersections are expected to operate with LOS E or LOS F in the AM and/or PM peak hour. In addition to the signalized intersections, the three stop -controlled intersections were also analyzed. By Year 2035, all of the stop - controlled intersections have turn movements that are operating with an unacceptable LOS E or worse in either the AM or PM peak hour. The following stop -controlled intersection turn movements are expected to operate at an unacceptable LOS E or LOS F in Year 2035. • Intersection 7 — Berryville Avenue (Route 7) / Atwell Avenue — The eastbound left turns at this intersection are expected to operate at LOS B in the AM and PM peak hours. The westbound left turns are expected to operate at LOS B in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour. The northbound approach is expected to operate at LOS E in the AM and LOS F in the PM peak hour. The southbound approach is expected to operate at LOS C in the AM and LOS F in the PM peak hour. 37 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 ® Intersection 15 — Route 7 (Berryville Pike) @ Route 656 (Morgan Mill Road) — The southbound left and right turn movements are expected to operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour. The eastbound Route 7 ramp movements are expected to operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours. • Intersection 17 — Route 7 (Berryville Pike) @ Route 659 (Valley Mill Road) — The westbound left turn and northbound left and right turn movements are expected to operate at LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours. For the signal warrant analysis, the volumes at each intersection were analyzed using the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Millennium Edition. Given the limited nature of this study and the limited amount of volume data collected, each intersection was analyzed only for its satisfaction of the Peak Hour signal warrant conditions (Signal Warrant 3). The Peak Hour signal warrant conditions apply to intersections where a large number of vehicles pass through the intersection in a relatively short time period. The intersection of Berryville Avenue / Atwell Street should continue to be monitored after the recent removal of the traffic signal. While neither of the other two stop - controlled intersections met peak hour signal warrants for the 2008 existing conditions, both of the stop -controlled intersections meet the conditions of the signal warrant in year 2035. It is important to note when assessing traffic signal needs that VDOT does not install a traffic signal until it meets warrants for eight hours and is approved by the District Traffic Engineer. Therefore, the intersections of concern should be continuously monitored. According to the growth rates, the Route 7 Corridor is expected to have moderate growth. However, over a 27 year period traffic volumes are expected to increase significantly by Year 2035. All of the major intersections and many of the smaller intersections are expected to operate above the capacity of the intersections in either eh AM or PM peak hour. As development continues in this area, operating conditions of these roadways and intersections will only worsen. Intersection LOS results, including 95th percentile queue lengths, from the Synchro software analysis for Year 2035 are compared to Existing 2008 LOS and shown in Table 3.2. 38 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 Table 3.2: Existing and Future Intersection Level of Service Summary 2008 Existing 2035 Future Intersection Lane Group AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection # Approach L = Len 95th % T = Thru 97t., 95th % 95th % R=Rightpproach Intersection Approach Intersection Queue OLOS Approach Intersection Approach Intersection ENV Roadway NIS Roadway LOS LOS LOS LeLength (ft) nueue LOS Length (ft) LOS Oueue LOS Length (ft) LOS (ROUTE 7) (CROSS STREET) Eastbound L 10 B C 22 C 472 F T -R 134 213 241 Westbound L 55 B 35 B 150D 112 E 1 Piccadilly St N Kent St B B D E T -R 179 193 373 417 Northbound L -T -R 49 B 78 B 82 B 150 C Southbound L -T -R 78 B 81 B 130 C 134 C L 25 33 36 46 Eastbound T -R 244 C D 451 420 E 786 F L 186 Westbound C 565 D 577 D 1205 F 2 National Ave / Pleasant Valley Rd T -R 192 C 214 E 299 344 L -T 226 562 599 961 Berryville Ave ry E F Northbowrd R 28 C 125 F 117 F 615 11F 22 Southbound T R 36 C 21 D 2811 b 16 A Eastbound L -T -R 41 A 84 A 68 A 204 A Westbound L -T -R 58 A 98 A 180 A 3 Berryville Ave Battle 78 A Ave A A 25 B A 36 B A Northbound L -T -R 13 8 25 B Southbound L -T -R 22 B 35 B 42 B 65 B Eastbound L -T 57 A 137 B 120 B 377 D Westbound T -R 62 A 110 A 130 A 4 Berryville Ave Baker Ln A 86 A B B D L 43 Southbound B 133 B 106 B 323 _ R 16 27 26 34' Eastbound L -T -R 34 A 81 A 54 A 154 A Westbound L -T -R 45 A 72 A 93 A 5 Berryville Ave CVS Entrance A 59 q q p q Southbound L 9 B 28 B 70 C 15 D R 6 15 10 25 L 21 Eastbound C 62 E 28 E 84 T R 75 357 281 578 L 59 49 57 43 Westbound T 231 C 288 D 362 D 478 6 Berryville Ave Fort Collier Rd R 127 C 169 D. 213 D 263 F Northbound L 20 C 19 D 27 D 27 D T -R 77 81 178 149 L 108 Southbound C 204 B 164 B 429 E T -R 28 95 35 138 Eastbound A B 2 6 14 B T R 0 0 0 0 Westbomrd L 2 A 1 B 3 B 3 C 7 Berryville Ave Atwell Ave N/A N/A N/A N/A T -R 0 0 0 0 Northbound L -T -R 17 D 22 C 62 E. N/A F Southbound L -T -R 2 a 30 C 7 C N/A F Eastbound A A A B T R 64 296 269 358 Westbound L 9 A 17 A 15 D 50 B 8 Berryville Ave Rs. S[ T -R 143 A 217 A 273 e 402 C L -T 26 Northbound D 63 D 41 D 9 D R 16 21 20 24 Southbound L -T 39 D 61 D 59 D 89 D R 16 19 20 23 L 367 Eastbound C 520 D 648 F 881 F T -R 268 384 492 814 Westbound C E 12 F 9 A 9 Berryville Ave1-81 SB Ramps T 3 3 C 151 D 334 F 32 F Northbound L -T -R 50 D 102 E 91 D 226 F L 291 Southbound D. 421 E 572 E 742 F R 57 58 69 72 Table 3.2 (Cont.): Existing and Future Intersection Level of Service Summary 2008 Existing 2035 Future Intersection Lane Group AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection # Approach L = Left T = Thru 95th % 95th % 95th % R =Right Approach Intersection Approach Intersection Right Queue Queue Queue Approach Intersectionoach Intersection EM/Roadway N!S Roadway LOS LOS LOS LOS Length (R) Length J11) LOS Length(it) LOS S LOS (ROUTE 7) (CROSS STREET) L 169 381 242 Eastbound T 334 C 385 C 874 F R 30 223 113 U L 41 Westbound T 244 B 168 718 D 39 752 F I-81 NB Ramps! 10 Berryville Ave Valley Mill Rd D E F F Northbound L 526 F T -R 388 762 F 424 773 F 596 L 407 Southbound D 490 E 732 F F T 413 502 754 Eastbound L 41'. A 134 A 39 C 155 B T 167 66 163 455 L 16 10 18 13 11 Berryville Ave Gateway Dr Weslbound T 21 A A 73 A B 50 B B 115 S 8 R 0 0 0 1 Southbound L 19 C 85 D 58 C 121 D R 0 132 62 254 L 176 Eastbound B 233 B 197 E 464 C T R 642 365 1151 705 L 7 6 12 12 Westbound T 215 A 136 A 730 E 1188 E 12 Berryville Ave Regency Lakes Or R 0 B S B 0 E 23 D Northbound L -T -R 28 D 45 E 51 D 71 E L -T 175 Southbound D 136 E 339 E 208 E R 44 51 54 63 L 121 69 134 93 Eastbound T 231 B 230 B 747 C 521 C R 20 36 19 93 L 4 25 5 29 13 Berryville Ave Millbrook Or Westbound T 141 B C 58 A S 182 F F 91 A B R 1 1 0 Northbound L -T -R 458 E 125 E 754 F 223 E L -T 21 Southbound D 58 E D 37 89 E R 30 59 37 85 L 204 68 239 65 Eastbound T 223 C 370 D 813 F 960 F R 15 98 17 184 L 90 336 88 50 74 Berryville Ave First Woods Dr! Westbound T 223 C E 252 C D 756 F F 985 E F Greenwood Or R 24 8 45 16 Northbound L -T -R 664 F 347 E 1117 F 656 F L -T 250 Southbound R 30 F 305 47 E 411 38 F SOS 67 F Eastbound L B D 34 D 68. F 278 F L 0 0 1 0 15 Berryville Ave Morgan Mill Rd Westbound T 0 A N/A 0 A N/A 0 A N/A 0 A N/A R 0 0 D 0 Sovlhbound T -R 10 C 7 B 48 E 56 F Eastbound L 94 D 96 E 109 D 106 E L -T 343 Westbound B 331 A 912 C 867 B 16 Berryville Ave Woods Mill Rd R 18 B 21 D 40 D 39 C L 145 D SouthboundRR 60 E 209 D60 91 EL 47 50 54 2 2 4 3 EastboundT 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 17 Berryville Ave Valley Mill Rd R0 N/A 0 NIA 0 NIA 0 N/A WestboundT�A 2Q F 502 F �F Northbound -R 79 ❑ 8 D 545 F 34 F Eastbound T -R D 501 8 Westbound T - - AC Be 18 Berryville Ave Haggerty Blvd(Fulure) - �30 680 Northbound - - C 30 D Route 7 arterial level of service was also analyzed for the future year. The analysis shows that Route 7, overall, is current operating at LOS C or LOS D, but is expected to worsen due to increased volume throughout the corridor. Without improvements, Berryville Avenue in the City of Winchester is expected to operate at LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour. Berryville Pike is expected to operate with LOS F in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour for the No -Build scenario. 'r-L,I- Z Z• =-;-+inr an,"A iii+rirn A r+crini I pvpl of Rp_rvir_p- Riimmary Eastbound Berryville Ave Existing 2035 Future From To AM Peak Hour Arterial Arterial Speed LOS PM Peak Hour Arterial Arterial Speed LOS AM Peak Hour Arterial Arterial Speed LOS PM Peak Hour Arterial Arterial Speed LOS Pleasant Valley Rd Woodland Ave 19.9 C 18.5 C 19.0 C 14.6 D Woodland Ave Baker Lane 21.9 C 18.6 C 18.6 C 9.0 F Baker Lane CVS Entrance 22.6 C 18.3 C 20.5 C 15.6 D CVS Entrance Elm St 12.3 E 8.0 F 7.8 F 1.6 F Elm St Ross St 21.4 C 18.7 C 19.5 C 14.9 D Total 11.8 18.6 C 14.6 D 14.8 D 5.2 F Westbound Berryville Ave Existing 2035 Future From To AM Peak Hour Arterial Arterial Speed LOS PM Peak Hour Arterial Arterial Speed LOS AM Peak Hour Arterial Arterial Speed LOS PM Peak Hour Arterial Arterial Speed LOS 1-81 Ross St 15.7 D 13.1 E 11.9 E 8.6 F Pleasant Valley Rd Fort Collier 13.1 E 9.6 F 9.3 F 2.4 F Woodland Ave CVS Entrance 24.7 B 22.3 C 22.9 C 21.8 C Baker Lane Baker Lane 16.9 D 16.8 D 16.4 D 17.7 D CVS Entrance Battle Ave 23.8 C 23.1 C 22.8 C 20.2 C Elm St Pleasant Valley Rd 12.0 E 13.3 E 11.9 E 11.8 E Total 17.1 D 15.3 D 14.7 D 7.5 F Eastbound Berryville Pike Existing 2035 Future From To AM Peak Hour Arterial Arterial Speed LOS PM Peak Hour Arterial Arterial Speed LOS AM Peak Hour Arterial Arterial Speed LOS PM Peak Hour Arterial Arterial Speed LOS Ross St 1-81 SB Ramps 19.9 E 21.0 D 16.0 E 16.5 E 1-81 SB Ramps 1-81 NB Ramps 18.6 E 17.6 D 4.4 F 12.3 F 1-81 NB Ramps Gateway Blvd 30.1 C 31.1 B 22.5 D 24.6 C Gateway Blvd Regency Lakes Dr 25.1 D 28.0 B 14.1 F 22.3 C Regency Lakes Dr Millbrook Dr 29.6 C 27.7 C 26.1 D 22.5 C Millbrook Dr Greenwood Rd 26.2 D 18.S D 11.6 F 9.3 F Total 24.5 D 22.6 D 11.6 F 15.3 E Westbound Berryville Pike Existing 2035 Future From To AM Peak Hour Arterial Arterial Speed LOS PM Peak Hour Arterial Arterial Speed LOS AM Peak Hour Arterial Arterial Speed LOS PM Peak Hour Arterial Arterial Speed LOS East Woods Mill Rd Woods Mill Rd 31.7 C 35.0 B 25.6 D 29.4 B Woods Mill Rd First Woods Dr 26.2 D 37.2 A 11.1 F 26.9 C First Woods Dr Millbrook Dr 32.5 C 38.5 A 18.8 E 34.8 B Millbrook Dr Regency Lakes Dr 34.0 B 27.5 C 13.1 F 11.3 F Regency Lakes Dr Gateway Blvd 31.8 C 28.3 B 25.0 D 21.5 D Gateway Blvd 1-81 NB Ramps 23.5 D 12.0 F 4.4 F 2.7 F 1-81 NB Ramps 1-81 SB Ramps 18.4 E 20.4 D 4.1 F 26.7C Total 24.5 c 14.6 C 10.9 F 14.5E DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 4.0 ROUTE 7 COR-NA,k-"E COMMENDATIONS .. V. The expected growth in the Route 7 Corridor will bring additional traffic to the study area and have a negative impact on the operation of area roadways and intersections. As shown in the previous chapter, these deficiencies are moderate to severe, with half of the intersections operating at poor levels of service (LOS E or LOS F) during one or both peak periods of the day. Diverting traffic off of Route 7 to help improve the corridor intersections to an acceptable LOS is very difficult due to the limited east -west connectivity through the immediate area. There are some simple geometric fixes for certain intersections, such as adding turn lanes, while others have no conventional solution. Ultimate solutions to Route 7 and the intersections will require right-of-way, impacting existing development, and has the potential to be very expensive. The recommendations developed consist of all of the improvements that would be needed to improve the study area roadways and intersections to acceptable operating conditions. Many of these improvements will be difficult to implement and will require significant political will and a long time frame. These recommendations will provide the City of Winchester, Frederick County and VDOT with a tool to help advance projects in VDOT's Six -Year Improvement Program and to obtain the needed right-of-way and roadway improvements when properties along the corridor develop or redevelop. Route 7 Study Area - Roadway Recommendations Mainline recommendations cover roadway improvements of Route 7 from N Cameron Street, in the City of Winchester, to the Frederick County / Clarke County Line. Traffic volumes along most segments of Route 7 are currently, and are expected to remain, under capacity through Year 2035. Spot improvements at intersections will help the Corridor in areas were congestion occurs. While traditional road widening is not recommended along the Route 7 Corridor, other roadway improvement recommendations should be considered. The Route 7 Corridor should adhere to VDOT design standards lane widths, shoulder widths, and lane striping/markings. Proper informational and directional signage should be provided where deemed needed. Access management along Route 7 should adhere to VDOT's Access Management Design Standards for Entrances and Intersections: Principal Arterials, as adopted in July 2008. Access management is further discussed at the end of this chapter, 42 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 Route 7 Study Area - Intersection Recommendations While no traditional widening improvements are recommended for the Route 7 Corridor, recommendations are necessary to improve the study area intersections to acceptable operating conditions (LOS D or better). These intersection improvements include providing new or additional turn lanes and improvements to or new traffic signals (including traffic signal optimization). The majority of the intersections are able to achieve LOS D or better through traditional intersection improvements. VDOT TMPD Planning Level Cost Estimates Methodology, updated in June 2006 and inflated to 2009 dollars, was utilized to provide the following typical planning level construction costs for the recommended improvements. The intersection improvement recommendations and cost estimates are listed below in Table 4.1. The recommendations are graphically represented in Figure 4-1. Total cost estimates were not developed for the overall corridor as not enough detail such as interchange types is known to get accurate cost estimates. Right-of-way costs and additional costs associated with the severe terrain in the eastern section of Frederick County are also highly variable. Judgment was used to estimate improvement costs that were not covered by the VDOT TMPD Planning Level Cost Estimates. 43 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 Tnhle 4.1: Intersection Improvements vvith Plannina Level *Cost Estimates Intersection Planning Level Cost Estimate Intersection Improvement (in 2009 $) IE9/we se/sa # Route 7 cross Street I Piccadilly St I: Kent St - Opitimize Traffic Signal Cycle Length and Phasing Splits $200,000 - Opitimize Traffic Signal Cycle Length and Phasing Splits 2 National Ave / Pleasant Valley Rd - Current Improvements $560,000 Berryville Ave Provide Exclusive EB right turn lane Provide Free Flow Ng ch,oneli,ed ri�ht turn I- 3 Berryville Ave Battle Ave - No improvements needed $0 - Option A: Opitimize Traffic Signal Cycle Length and Phasing Splits (overlap SB Provide exclusive WB right turn lane Improvement A: $380,000 4 Berryville Ave Baker Ln _Oright-turns)., ption B: Realign Maple Street with Baker Lane and provide 4 -leg intersection, Improvement B: $850,000 improve traffic signal (Long Term), Utilize Reverse -Frontage Road along Route 5 Berryville Ave Shopping Center - Realign Spruce St to tie into CVS Entrance intersection. Improve traffic signal $1,000,000 - Opitimize Traffic Signal Cycle Length and Phasing Splits (overlap WB right -turns) $425,000 6 Berryville Ave Fort Collier Rd _ Provide dual SB left turn lanes 7 Berryville Ave Atwe 11 Ave - No improvements needed $0 8 Berryville Ave Ross St - No improvements needed $0 - Opitimize Traffic Signal Cycle Length and Phasing Splits 9 Berryville Ave 1-81 SB Ramps - Redesign to eliminate offset NB approach $500,000 - Lengthen EB leftturn lane storage by eliminating crossoverat Ross St - Option A: Close Valley Mill Road access Option A: $500,000 10 Berryville Pke I-81 NB Ramps / _ Option B: Grade Separated Intersection Option B: $20M Valley Mill Rd _ Option C: Interchange Redesign Option C: $61.510 it Berryville Pke Gateway Or - New access to Valley Mill Road $1,125,000 12 Berryville Pke Regency Lakes Dr -Opitimize Traffic Signal Cycle Length and Phasing Splits $200,000 13 Berryville Pke Millbrook Dr - Opitimize Traffic Signal Cycle Length and Phasing Splits $605,000 _ Provide exclusive NB right & left turn lanes - Opitimize Traffic Signal Cycle Length and Phasing Splits 14 Berryville Pke First Woods Dr / - Provide NB exlcusive right and left turn lanes with additional thru lane $935,000 Greenwood Or - Provide SB exclusive left turn lane SS Berryville Pke Morgan Mill Rd - Close Intersection and Eliminate Median Crossover $100,000 16 Berryville Pke Woods Mill Rd -Opitimize Traffic Signal Cycle Length and Phasing Splits $300,000 - Extend EB merge area 500' - Future AM & PM Peak Hour Signal Warrants Met. Continue to monitor. Route 37 $0 17 Berryville Pke Valley Mill Rd Bypass Ramp Design will dictate future geometries (New Traffic Signal = $300,000) 18 Berryville Pke Haggerty Blvd -Design according to Haggerty Property Road Plan N/A (Future) 44 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 rt% .'4• '° �{'�S7• 'p' t + f+!� •.rt'i'. `m ... $,.-. - , , _:, •, . `� ,,_a: , `- -. .'I'. � eSp='� �.'ti^�. .».. t.- G1T$Ap� _r b � _ StudyWestern Single Point , x r - r' - g'' s•+"". ' �-. - A-`tea . _ >. "tx. s - - ` r °' r . �a PrP f a ,t €_- ..' \ Urban Interchange L' h l r . pr•f. 3t`c r`��$r" G5 -,m tC P$ f+ . t`t+ s° ,' f�, i_'• „� .moi`' �` a' O Ktp s OL _r a. ' : ^i" ao, P .> - s-v . -_... p. t'P...,s, 'r -.' s : F-,r.. e. a, _ tr. - :y . ' ��,.•. i _ +• � §` - �' - 4' , _ �". f L Berr ville Pike t . _ r .-}`. * - s�ri �" - F a ^ r, ±5►' :r A: Catr ®!`� . b ` r t RyS®ti �..:, Y 44 Op P XLtr a' _ - a`^ �C �;x•F �,. V'+,.,•tir- r �., _ _ t, �j',.:. _4; w,•;� - -'. � r } ;;� f �. .� r-..f'.�� E ,, - T I �iri• �"..- �. .,_.�,.,. - c, .'''..� r-rd�„ �"-„ ar9! m t , t. t� x, a C� , - : c� • e -•. "�' . .. .. ati .. - - - `• - . - : � ,a nlvi/le Au - �.�Pt r�t4 sc gid. j -, j , - ua • . •. 1 ' y� �' s / . - qV ,s,. x+m'.r T' . #ar �`` C=.' i r s7 , • %'.(r _ P 1 - y. - ! �' � 1r •-� ° �.' 'Sut � �.(� - a `, 3 r4 _ q ` _ w�• . : A i• it �r �. ty .. Q.t r ,. .� .t�: a i i #c_ ' '; -. `2: r : ° r�"r`,�I. r.' .:-t' r ,,� � _A .r a� .[, '�ti. ` .- -, _ �,_,pG- v` G w ai• 7 ' _ ,' sp=}• r+ f xp 1 5 �' _ t81R a t o'f'fr,�� .t ,e r.r• - - i.LE Ft 3. r �' �7'.. �-"L+ln % • y$$100 • F.. � , i • ,ir'.f-- � � I i Je ti ., �� , ' a a ,it p,�• v m 't �;` r .. A;� rr , e _u � ' � • a , � �I` t r m. i^ CK %. •.. •_ \\ �� r Ile Ave E'er 1!A«EY 1141 RD 44 -... : -•� of _ M '... � gac a _ m ar dle E r � _ . _.�C--�' . R°u!e > 1 _ Natio -44 R° _ I R°ute 7 Berryville Ave Q d-_ � : �' 3 Y•. ��99 - � - ESerM'ille Ave • .. ', "• y'1` - y �' �` 1 I 'a Roule , Roule ! Qac ' O� • ' 7 •..O •• ` • _ - r y:_; ?everse Frontage 1 A/ Or^et 't Tf i f '"•, ..P'4 fir•'' - V �- . !r - , s `! , :1 ' 4 _ fY K •F' dryr _U Eo .. _ .«.- �. Y -, � i .f1'+ ._ � � " : _ a^.. z > - �` w., ,,�� '..,; rr i_.�'. °} -f-�t. +* B . _ �, > � -'ra : : >a. ^P „•- I -, �' LL t' I { • 1, , 74 Eastern Study • tr. r wo.ds i .'''+wtil _ -,w'•t ., r� ter•` of I Proposed Alignment • g Route 37 Bypass Nk 13 L 4 ow it w l , ✓. � ,_ t ., •,a-€S�•4ID •s �-. -'"' � - _ i� r7jlC� 4+91 � - ,� - r , �,: - y a ?t * GL Q 04 A a _ - rYville Pike � �G. - -e y _ ip • Ill / y_gl,rryvale P111, , , 3 Rot- w Route 7 _.®—y Q yy. c3� � s a .ger 1 ��'� ' a ,y - y ' Aj —1 tqa p 9 �+ .e y p . S i i O -'~ .�Fe 3 . m r .-"1 't - • �r _ - lit -.C't I, ! 9 "ti k Route 7 Corridor Study Legend N N. Cameron St. to Future Intersection of - ---!Route 7 Study Corridor Existing Lane LOS C or better W E Haggerty Blvd. and Route 37 Interchange Ramp �_ 1 city Limits Recommended Lane Addition Figure 4-1 - Recommended Intersection O LOS Dorworse S I Improvements The majority of the intersection lane configurations and signal timings can be improved to reach LOS D or better in 2035. However, many of these recommendations are major improvements to intersections, possibly requiring large quantities of right-of-way, relocating businesses, extensive earthwork, and other constraints. The two intersections associated with the Interstate 81 ramps, however, are expected to operate above the intersection capacity, with no simple solution. Various options are presented for these intersections. A Interchange Redesign — The Interstate 81 Interchange at Route 7 is currently a partial cloverleaf with traffic signals at the ramp termini. The high mainline Route 7 volumes accompanied by the high ramp volumes result in over capacity intersections. Redesigning the interchange to provide more free flow movements, increasing capacity and decreasing intersection delay. Interchange redesign would require large amounts of right-of-way, relocation of business and residential units, and extensive earthwork. Redesigning the interchange may not be an economically feasible solution for these intersections. Grade Separated Intersection — Another option at these intersections would be grade -separated intersections. Such grade separations would allow thru movements to operate as free flow movements. An example of a grade separated intersections is a Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI). A SPUI would allow eastbound and westbound Route 7 thru movements to have free flow movements, while Route 7 left and right turns and minor approaches would intersect and be operated by a traffic signal. While not a complete interchange redesign, grade separated intersections could still require significant right-of-way and construction efforts. Grade separated intersections are also expensive. • Valley Mill Road Access Closure — There are current plans to eliminate the access of Valley Mill Road at this intersection. Valley Mill Road is expected to tie into the existing intersection of Route 7 / Gateway Boulevard. The resulting "T" intersection at the 1-81 northbound ramp intersection will need fewer signal phases and provide more green time to Route 7 through traffic. Eliminating the Valley Mill Road approach will also remove some of the demand at this intersection. Vehicles that would have previously used Valley Mill Road to access westbound Route 7 will use the new access at Gateway Boulevard and will still be serviced at the 1-81 northbound ramp intersection. Even with the reduced demand at this intersection it is expected to operate above capacity in the future. A specific study should be conducted to fully quantify the impacts from closing this intersection access and the redesign of the intersection at Gateway Boulevard. 46 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 Route 7 Study Area — Multimodal Recommendations A variety of multimodal improvements are shown in Figure 4-2 for the Route 7 Corridor. These multimodal improvements will not only enhance the movement of people and goods in the corridor by meeting potential future demand, but they also provide alternative modes of transportation in the corridor, which is especially critical to growing areas such as this study area. As discussed in the land use section of this report, the corridor is anticipated to continue to develop, especially to the east of the City of Winchester, and it is critical to ensure that all modes of transportation are integrated into the corridor. As development projects are proposed and reviewed in the future, multimodal improvements should be part of the comprehensive approach to meeting future needs in the Route 7 corridor. Bicycle A series of bicycle improvements are proposed in the corridor, including a network of potential bicycle connections that can be incorporated as part of shared use trails or side paths. As shown in the figure these new facilities that could accommodate bicycle movements include connections both north and south of Route 7, as well as crossing Route 7 in such locations as the proposed Route 37 corridor. These facilities are recommended to be at least 10 feet wide to meet space requirements for accessibility and bicycle movements and they do adhere to the MPO Draft Bike Plan adopted in 2007. The most significant bicycle enhancement would be the construction of a 10' Multi -Use Trail along Route 7 that connects to the sidewalk facilities in the City of Winchester at the Interstate 81 interchange to First Woods Drive. This improvement could be implemented as land use is converted in the corridor and is proposed outside of the existing right-of-way (that is to say, the trail would be more than just a striped lane for bicycles) due to the volumes and speeds using Route 7 that would make a striped lane incompatible for all cyclists, especially children who could use the trail to access the many schools in the corridor. Experienced cyclists would be encouraged to operate within the existing right-of-way as they currently do now. In addition to this multi -use trail, a series of key intersections are recommended for improvement in the following section and the designs for these intersections should provide for the movement of bicycles in the corridor. Pedestrian The proposed pedestrian improvements include the multi -use trails shown in the Figures as well as provision of enhancements over Interstate 81 and at several crossing points in the corridor. The extensive sidewalk network that exists within the City of Winchester is proposed to be extended from the current sidewalk on the south side of the Interstate 81 overpass to provide connections to the development at the interchange — basically 47 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 connecting to Valley Mill Road. This investment is needed to meet demand for walking between shopping destinations, residential development, and a local school and will enhance pedestrian safety in the vicinity of Interstate 81. In addition, enhanced pedestrian crosswalks and pedestrian signals are recommended at the following intersections: Q Interstate 81 Southbound Ramps Gateway Drive ® Regency Lakes Drive Millwood Drive First Woods Drive These improvements should include pedestrian signals and at a minimum, enhanced markings to indicate pedestrian crossings at all four approaches to the intersection. As part of the design, additional enhancements such as median pedestrian refuges, traffic calming measures, signage, and other safety features should be considered and implemented as appropriate. In addition to implementation of a comprehensive trail system, enhanced sidewalk connections, and a new multi -use trail along Route 7, the access management recommendations and transit investments should also enhance the pedestrian experience in the corridor. The access management recommendations will reduce the number of curb cuts along the corridor, and thus, also reduce potential vehicular — pedestrian conflict points significantly. Design enhancements and streetscape improvements that enhance the pedestrian scale should also be implemented as part of making investments in the corridor. These types of enhancements, such as pedestrian - scale lighting, wide sidewalks, additional plantings, and implementation of benches, receptacles and other amenities will serve as an indication to drivers that they need to change their behavior as they enter a more pedestrian -oriented corridor. Transit Transit is recommended to be extended along the Berryville corridor, which is consistent with the recommendations of the Transit Services Plan for WinFred Metropolitan Planning Organization. Two potential routes have been proposed that would provide connections to destinations in the corridor. One way to serve this area would be to extend the Berryville Avenue Route to make a short loop, following Valley Mill Road and then turning left into Greenwood, and left back onto Route 7. The bus could then pull into the Regency Lakes development and stop at the community center, than back out to Route 7 and serve the Gateway Center. The route would then come back into 48 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 Winchester as it does currently. The second potential route is to use it to serve the Salvation Army and the Huntington Manor Townhouse community adjacent to Fort Collier Road (close to Route 7). Both alternatives would provide access to high -need communities and the Gateway Center, as well as community centers and schools located within the corridor. Provision of additional transit and transit amenities in the corridor such as benches and shelters will also aid in converting the corridor from an auto -dominated corridor into a more multimodal corridor. Providing exclusive pull -off areas for the buses would also add to a more multimodal corridor and provide additional safety to the riders and operators of the transit service. Longer term additional transit service could be provided to future park-and-ride lots located in the study area, particularly in the vicinity of Route 37 as proposed. By providing transit services to park -and ride lots alternative means of transportation are provided, not only for more limited fixed — route service locally into Winchester, but also much more regional service and inter -regional, inter -city service that could help provide alternative connections between Route 7 commuters and the metropolitan Washington DC market. Park & Ride Two new Park & Ride lots are proposed within the study area. The first lot is proposed for just east of Interstate 81 and would be constructed as land use changed in the corridor. This lot would serve local transit trips as well as persons interested in forming carpools, vanpools, etc. The second lot would be located at the future Route 37 connection with Route 7 in the vicinity of the county line. By locating both lots near major cross -routes, there would be higher potential to capture multiple origins and destinations in the corridor. It is anticipated that the lot near Route 37 would be more commuter oriented in terms of the market it would capture since densities in this portion of the corridor are not anticipated to be high enough to support fixed -route transit. Travel Demand Management Travel demand management (TDM) programs can further decrease the traffic impacts of development in the Route 7 Corridor. A number of programs can be developed, many of which could coordinate with or be supported by the regional ridesharing and travel demand management programs of the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission (NSVRC). For example, the Valley Commuter Assistance Program (VCAP) is a "free ride -matching service that provides users the opportunity to connect with individuals who use similar commuting patterns." The VCAP offers coordination of carpooling, vanpooling, commuter buses and other services. The VCAP can help determine other commuting options or alternatives that fit individual's schedules. The VCAP can be beneficial by providing these services within the Route 7 Corridor. DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 The TDM strategies most relevant to the study area are ridesharing, flextime, and telecommuting. Employers who support these programs will help reduce peak period congestion. Specifically, ridesharing reduces vehicle trips through carpooling or vanpooling, but for success would need to be supported by a Guaranteed Ride Home program. Flextime has to be promoted by individual employers, but when successfully implemented, it serves to spread work trips across a longer period of time in the mornings and evenings, reducing peak congestion. Telecommuting options offered by local employers would reduce trips in the area, and incorporation of telework center(s) in the corridor would help reduce regional travel. In working with developers, the starting point for TDM programs may include designated parking for carpools and vanpools. A coordinated plan for the corridor, which could be incorporated into a corridor overlay plan, should include goals or targets for park and ride facilities and telework centers. These are items that could be proffered if corridor - level goals were established. Another mechanism to encourage success with TDM strategies is the establishment of a Transportation Management Association for the corridor. This would be a public-private agency supported by the MPO and corridor employers to provide information, coordination, and administration of travel demand management programs to foster their implementation and fulfillment of travel reduction goals. Programs should be available to encourage TDM strategies including subsidizing costs, rebates to employers, and other benefits. TDM strategies have been successful in many areas including Arlington, Virginia (Arlington County Commuter Services) and Montgomery County, Maryland (Montgomery County Commuter Services). Freight As discussed in the existing conditions section, there are no pressing needs for making freight improvements in the Route 7 corridor. Construction of the Route 37 project is not anticipated to change freight movements in the corridor — it will continue to serve primarily as a corridor for goods movement and freight destined to Winchester or other activity centers along Route 7 that require trucks to use this corridor. 50 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 � • 0. i do - 11 0. i •t, _ e 7 j� • . a. a > t f { r r. 41 n . r _ ^-. '�, ar. `r •Y *..}° ay.�r r : . '/� -- _ d, -.t * 1. v .ice .;•'� _.t,1 - —,q�_ a E . t - za r _ :.: r�{► i' ' r r». . i.., .' jr1. , . : .. ^•-3.., 'si _ t :r'"s y. 'tt,..—i— r , t 01 4 1� a� ry t � . _ , � r - _ �{. ,�'` ms`s • _ .. � R!4t "s x 1 ;' e . Rg +�� xE`'r��"�-_ m /4 '"`7 s •�- .'tip' a .a._ q"«+ M tr :` - Y % .-„- '. ,e. r. �r:. - _' • _, ,� ,. "d.„' .a1 •a• J►' mar � a: �. 7�,, .a.� ., tl d ...- "�,,.. +a:,, $' e`�,' , _, f •..' �«1 .�'^,� 'i.- ._ � — _ 9 .m , � �!, ''l jR �a I� Sr.: m°r•;1 •,. "r'law , 4 � - pt �r �.. �`'i•.><+ r + • _ llf 250 e' t 's y ., -_s s t ,.,. +°4 .Y3 t:.�� -t ' •'ter.. J - '1 , `+• -? -' s'3 .fit•+!",.� a.. _ : a t '- .'"�.�'•F. `! A.. -,i ; .. ...:, ..' - i f e r —a�1 ",�'4 °,� .a ar'a _ a • _ +Q a - t _ , , 1 Route 7 Corridor Study N. Cameron St. to Future Intersection of Haggerty Blvd. and Route 37 Interchange Ramp Figure 4-2: Multimodal Recommendations Legend — - FutureRt37 ;--- Recommended Bus Route Extension Existing Bus Routes Schools MPO Draft Bike/Ped Trails ■ ■ Recommended Sidewalk Extension Recommended Multi -Purpose Path Existing Sidewalks s — PedestrianCrosswalk aRecommended Park and Ride Lot a �� A' s ; . -. gt a 1 i m ,• , Proposed Alignment Route 37 Bypass M �� t �€. • E . - _ _ -.-b• - - to -r; � 'L • _.1�.+ v iii r_OW ,• ea a .._.. r3.. r � :1 � r Y .. 5. ��•`Pp�yyS."�M't_R. '.i. t < r' y,- •.. f - , a .. y, i z r r✓ u a` 1 .r r n r -a a :.• i -,. u ..�: . y -.- � ,a - .s;I , _ r 5a° OF -3, V. + � • 0. i do - 11 0. i •t, _ e 7 j� • . a. a > t f { r r. 41 n . r _ ^-. '�, ar. `r •Y *..}° ay.�r r : . '/� -- _ d, -.t * 1. v .ice .;•'� _.t,1 - —,q�_ a E . t - za r _ :.: r�{► i' ' r r». . i.., .' jr1. , . : .. ^•-3.., 'si _ t :r'"s y. 'tt,..—i— r , t 01 4 1� a� ry t � . _ , � r - _ �{. ,�'` ms`s • _ .. � R!4t "s x 1 ;' e . Rg +�� xE`'r��"�-_ m /4 '"`7 s •�- .'tip' a .a._ q"«+ M tr :` - Y % .-„- '. ,e. r. �r:. - _' • _, ,� ,. "d.„' .a1 •a• J►' mar � a: �. 7�,, .a.� ., tl d ...- "�,,.. +a:,, $' e`�,' , _, f •..' �«1 .�'^,� 'i.- ._ � — _ 9 .m , � �!, ''l jR �a I� Sr.: m°r•;1 •,. "r'law , 4 � - pt �r �.. �`'i•.><+ r + • _ llf 250 e' t 's y ., -_s s t ,.,. +°4 .Y3 t:.�� -t ' •'ter.. J - '1 , `+• -? -' s'3 .fit•+!",.� a.. _ : a t '- .'"�.�'•F. `! A.. -,i ; .. ...:, ..' - i f e r —a�1 ",�'4 °,� .a ar'a _ a • _ +Q a - t _ , , 1 Route 7 Corridor Study N. Cameron St. to Future Intersection of Haggerty Blvd. and Route 37 Interchange Ramp Figure 4-2: Multimodal Recommendations Legend — - FutureRt37 ;--- Recommended Bus Route Extension Existing Bus Routes Schools MPO Draft Bike/Ped Trails ■ ■ Recommended Sidewalk Extension Recommended Multi -Purpose Path Existing Sidewalks s — PedestrianCrosswalk aRecommended Park and Ride Lot ecoi ne *dations by Jurisdiction The recommendations discussed in Chapter 4.0 provide the City of Winchester, Frederick County and VDOT with a tool to ensure that as development occurs within the Route 7 Corridor, the capacity and safety of the corridor are maintained. The recommendations also provide a blueprint of the ultimate corridor so roadway and intersection improvement projects can be implemented and pursued in a fashion that results in a well-planned corridor with good operational characteristics. The recommendations discussed in Chapter 4.0 are prioritized by jurisdiction below based on need, cost and overall feasibility. Recommendations receiving a high priority are improvements that are expected to correct existing deficiencies and that could be implemented without significant impact to existing structures or development. Recommendations receiving a low priority are at intersections without immediate need or locations expected to be cost intensive without significant impact on the overall corridor. City of Winchester High Priority Recommendations: Intersection 2, Route 7 (National Avenue / Berryville Avenue) and Pleasant Valley Road: Continue with current improvements, providing additional westbound left turn lane and exclusive northbound left turn lane. In addition to the current improvements, an exclusive eastbound right turn should be provided. A northbound, channelized, free flow right turn lane should also be considered to handle the high volume expected in Year 2035. The traffic signal phasing and timings should be optimized following any improvements. Intersection 9, Route 7 (Berryville Avenue) and Interstate 81 Southbound Ramps: Additional storage is needed for the eastbound left turns. The City should consider the closure of the Ross Street intersection, closing the median and extending the eastbound left turn lane. Consideration should be given to eliminating the commercial access road (Shoney's / Five Guys) from this intersection. By creating a three-legged intersection, more green time would be available to the eastbound and westbound Route 7 movements. Level of service is expected to improve to LOS D for the AM and PM peak hours with this improvement. Right -in, right -out access could be considered as well as alternative access via potential reverse frontage road. The traffic signal phasing and timings should be optimized following any improvements. Intersection G, Route 7 (Berryville Avenue) and Fort Collier Road: An additional southbound left turn lane is needed to handle the high volume expected in Year 2035. The traffic signal phasing should be updated to include a westbound right turn overlap phase to allow westbound right turns concurrently with southbound left turn movements. This allows more green time for the right turn movements. Signal timings should also be optimized. 52 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 Low Priority Recommendations: Intersection 1, Route 7 (Piccadilly Street) and N Kent Street: Optimize traffic signal and phasing splits. Intersection 4, Route 7 (Berryville Avenue) and Baker Lane: An exclusive westbound right turn lane is recommended at this intersection. The offset intersection of Maple Street should be realigned to tie into Baker Lane. The traffic signal phasing should be updated to include a southbound right turn overlap phase. Signal timings should also be optimized. Frederick County High Priority Recommendations: intersection 10, Route 7 (Berryville Avenue) and Interstate 81 northbound ramps: This intersection is expected to operate above capacity by Year 2035. Various options were discussed in Chapter 4.0 to address the interchange area intersections. The Valley Mill Drive closure option does not have much impact on the overall delay and LOS of the intersection. A complete interchange redesign could potentially help the corridor in this area, but would require significant funding. Consideration should be given to make this a grade -separated Single Point Urban Interchange. While construction of such a grade separated intersection would require significant funding, this intersection would benefit from uninterrupted flow on Route 7. Feasibility of a grade separated intersection at this location would need to be further studied. Intersection 11, Route 7 (Berryville Pike) and Gateway Drive: As previously discussed, this intersection is planned to develop from a three-legged "T -intersection" to a traditional four -legged intersection with the realignment of Valley Mill Drive. Intersection 14, Route 7 (Berryville Pike) and Route 656 (First Woods Drive / Greenwood Drive): This intersection is currently operating with a poor LOS in the AM peak hour. This intersection needs major improvements to the northbound approach. Exclusive left and right turn lanes are needed at this intersection. An additional thru lane is expected to be needed as well. A second receiving lane would be required on First Woods Drive. An exclusive southbound left turn lane is also needed. While the steep grade along the Greenwood Drive approach would require significant earthwork, these improvements are necessary to achieve an acceptable LOS in the Year 2035. Intersection 17, Route 7 (Berryville Pike) and Route 659 (Valley Mill Road): This stop - controlled intersection is currently operating at a poor LOS. Existing conditions peak hour traffic signal warrants were not met at this intersection. However, peak hour signal warrants were met for Year 2035. The intersection should continue to be monitored and occasionally checked for signal warrants. It is important to note when assessing traffic signal needs that VDOT does not install a traffic signal until it meets warrants for eight hours and is approved by the District Traffic Engineer. Love Priority Recommendations: 53 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 intersection 12, Route 7 (Berryville Pike) and Regency Lakes Drive: Optimize traffic signal and phasing splits. Intersection 13, Route 7 (Berryville Pike) and Route 815 (Millbrook Drive): Exclusive left and right turns should be provided for the northbound approach. Traffic signal phasing and timings should also be optimized. Intersection 15, Route 7 (Berryville Pike) and Route 656 (Morgan Mill Road): This stop - controlled intersection is currently operating at an acceptable LOS, but is planned to be closed due to operational and safety issues. Alternative access to Route 7 is provided by First Woods Drive and Redbud Road (Route 661). Intersection 16, Route 7 (Berryville Pike) and Route 660 (Woods Mill Road): Traffic signal phasing and timings should also be optimized to ensure acceptable LOS in Year 2035. Similar in design to the Morgan Mill Road intersection, consideration should be given to the extension of the merge area onto eastbound Route 7, as limited sight distance and high vehicular speed in this area lead to safety concerns. Intersection 17 / Intersection 18, Route 7 (Berryville Pike) and Valley Mill Drive & (Future) Haggerty Boulevard: The proposed Route 37 Bypass interchange with Route 7 is expected to occur in the area of these intersections. Any major improvements to the intersections should be made in accordance with the Route 37 Bypass interchange construction. Although, not analyzed as part of this study, the intersection of Burnt Factory road should be monitored with the plans of the Route 37 Bypass. Route 37 Bypass ramp design could dictate closure of this intersection. The established list of priority projects should remain flexible to accommodate opportunities that result from the dedication of right-of-way, proffers or construction funds offered by private sources. Right -of -Way The recommendations provide the Win -Fred MPO with a blueprint of the future transportation needs for Route 7. Since many of the improvements will require right-of- way, the City, County and VDOT should work with developers to dedicate as much of the needed right-of-way and preserve the corridor from encroaching development. An aggressive preservation and dedication of right-of-way will enhance the feasibility of implementing the corridor recommendations by reducing the overall cost and preventing constraints. 54 DRAFT — Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study- October 2009 There are several key non -construction efforts that can be undertaken by the City of Winchester, Frederick County and VDOT to help preserve the capacity and operational performance of the Route 7 Corridor. These efforts include adhering to an access management strategy for the corridor, promoting a mix of land uses in new development that encourages trips making by modes other than the automobile, and utilizing travel demand management strategies throughout the Corridor. Access Management In addition to intersection and other roadway improvements, the localities must focus on the management of access to developed land to ensure efficient traffic flow and minimize hazards as development occurs in the study area, especially the middle of the study area, from Pleasant Valley Road in the City to Route 656 (First Woods Drive/Greenwood Drive). In July 2008, VDOT adopted access management standards that roadways need to adhere in the design of intersections, turn lanes, entrances and spacing of entrances, intersections, crossover medians and traffic signals. The goals of VDOT's Access Management Design Standards for Entrances and Intersections.- Principal ntersections.Principal Arterials are to: Reduce traffic congestion, ® Enhance public safety by decreasing traffic crash rates, • Support economic development by promoting the efficient movement of people and goods, Reduce the need for new highways and road widening by maximizing the performance of the existing state highways, and ® Preserve the public investment in new highways. In the western section of the project study area (west of Pleasant Valley Road), where development is mostly built out, an urban area grid network is present. This area has many parallel roads, which helps distribution of traffic. This section of Route 7 has relatively low traffic volumes and features many one-way streets. Along this section, few businesses and houses have fronting access to Route 7. The residential units on the southern side of Route 7 have reverse frontage access to Jolly Lane, a parallel roadway to National Avenue. The City of Winchester should look to preserve this urban area grid network to help preserve this section of Route 7. From Pleasant Valley Road to Interstate 81, the Route 7 Corridor is a mix of dense residential and retail business. This section of Route 7 again has residential development on the south side with some reverse frontage to an alley between Route 7 55 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 and Frederick Avenue. The north side of Route 7 is primarily retail development with many access points. As development and redevelopment occurs in this section of Route 7, the City of Winchester should look for ways to consolidate access points fronting Route 7. The City should continue to proactively investigate the use of interparcel connections or reverse frontage access roads occurring behind the first row of development along Route 7. With these parallel roadways, the City should look for opportunities for developments currently fronting Route 7 to access the reverse frontage road instead of direct access to Route 7. Reverse frontage roadways would intersect with cross streets, such as Fort Collier Road and Baker Lane, which have access to Route 7. This would help regulate access along Route 7 and help increase traffic flow throughout the corridor. The VDOT access management regulations have standards for spacing of traffic signals, crossover median breaks and right -in right -out access points near interchange ramps. The Interstate 81 interchange is located between significant development in the City and the County. The VDOT spacing standards for commercial entrances and intersections near interchange ramps on principal arterials are shown in Table 4.2 and Figure 4-3. M DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 TahRA Q 9- VIMT Arr_PSS Manaaament — Interchanae Area SDacina Summary Spacing Standards for Commercial Entrances and Intersections Near Interchange Areas on Multilane Principal Arterial Crossroads Type of Spacing Dimension Area X Y Z M Urban 750' 2620' 990'' 990 Rural 1320' 26L0' 1320' 1320' 1-Igure 4-3: VUU I Access IVlanagement— im:L-ru"ailge Ntrea opctt;my %jicipmx, LU 8U! I 1 I E I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I --------------------_----- -�- I I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I x lyl ((�� M ! I v - 1 1 1 I 1�1 rM j EH2x — Distance t o first approach on the right. right irslright outo ".r Y = Distance to first mejcx Intersection. No four-Isggod Irda ectian may be placed I between ramp terminals and the first "Jar Intersection. E I z = Distance between the last access connoc4on and the atartof W. taper for the on-ramp_ M — Distance to fist directional median openk-0. No hdf medlen opanings are allowed In nontraversable medlans up to the first major Irdersecllon. The Route 7 interchange area was analyzed using the VDOT spacing regulations. The results are shown below in Table 4.3 and shown in Figure 4-4. It is shown that the interchange area of Route 7 is lacking in access management. The City and the County should continue to look for opportunities to consolidate access in this area in an attempt to bring the area up to VDOT standards. 57 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 TahlP A =5 RniAi- 7 interchanae Area Snacina Analvsis Summary 58 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 Route 7 Location Description of VDOT Spacing Dimension VDOT Standard Interchange Area X = Distance to first approach on the 750 ft 120 ft right; right in / right out only Y = Distance to first major intersection. No four -legged intersection may be 2640 ft 410 ft Route 7 Westbound placed between ramp terminals and the (West of 1-81) first major intersection. M = Distance to first directional median opening. No full median openings are 990 ft 200 ft allowed in non -traversable medians up to the first major intersection. Route 7 Eastbound X = Distance to first approach on the 750 ft 120 ft (East of 1-81) right; right in / right out only Y = Distance to first major intersection. No four -legged intersection may be 2640 ft 750 ft placed between ramp terminals and the Route 7 Westbound first major intersection. (East of I-81) Z = Distance between the last access connection and the start of the taper for 990 ft 750 ft the on-ramp. 58 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 a.- F. r , 100 £`r 4." • � _ � ... , toCO ` tItr :t Fir `�., ` - -° y fr 15+ fi 0 r+ r� `con ay st, r ;r 4 [ "�► Aa moi_, . n; .r, `�'�'1 _ �."� s► '; ,t,..� - .rte , �'� � '., 44 _ �,-',::'T_ . ,. y r s �/ SIS�•i [ ^y" �•`17"- Ffj , �y � 1lp 4k yf Y� �<Il•t ; � �+�r+� � _ z `4c .[�r.� : �^'� ` : � � � r�flF �,�� 4� t f � s ice RT4 r $ - .., r + �. _. app`• 71 i :.t. �' �"�.../�'_ cry � •: r, # J v, 71 fl€� : +_•'_ 4µ�ga" .tom.,' �Yr•�,_ - ti♦� 'T11': _ �• , .. +.,.. n _ S! - y i �: .. * t _— .• _ ter, ,e .. �-'' _ :.'�a R. r� ". b. • K.i; ! I{ +♦ } p' _ f -o r " ` •.'� r , M y t — � k J! u. w o -r.. m � �� -' .d.. _ .e "_ _ — "- w� r� � s"'.'.SrF *f�`S'4� ��` ^`-a�`h�•., — r� b 00 �-y -- . - ' Berr y-".,"� fir+ �' �•. •+i a !A i ? s;.; b �a I Be u f �w . ,'`�- .:.: • + �y� derlck �- �- �^,-. fir• � , e Pt 9, 3 r � r . r a» g s. nuft ... 4 ,mow '•. -i „� . . , .. '.. �_ "" h ++. -`'�< 1.- }'r� � , 4�, •. _ � � . t .,� -:s"�„ ^ � w a„eq"�'"- I Ate, w` c �. f7Y " d 1 / i+} �•;'r. � -: �'�t �•°d-� � 'wyk Y k, + r� `h- �V�f � '�i`+ '"� t' .4` �^ r P t ... � _"mow .6 1.^. T lj b , ['1,'L'; acs j S+ t' ,j ed: t 4 � '"; .. -+a • � � , ,.h .. '�- `' - .`- '±� `'' •`l ' . ^!'. r � •�. , � *'�• ti T x V i . R _ '14%pe 4, +�.• '::r 1 % ;'y'.l • r• I %1 411 »1 [ } *;,t` s < @ •, rpt _. ! :+' ^.. fit, � <'• r , a d®(`, • �' til s »' w Route 7 Corridor Study N. Cameron St- to Future Intersection of Haggerty Blvd- and Route 37 Interchange Ramp Figure 4-4: Interchange Area Access Management Legend X = Distance to first approach on the right; right in/right out only �_ __� City Limits X' = Recommended distance to first approach on the right; right in/right out only M = Distance to first directional median opening W= Recommended distance to first directional median opening Y = Distance to first major intersection Y' = Recommended distance to first major intersection 0 125 250 N w� E 500 Feet a I _ r ! ■ 0 OF— A - a: - R r _ , '{. 1r ,AL 'r i � J ti > ,a i 10 ,r ) •fit '✓ • . +. F !o Via,^ ft' !. s' i wool tW Is .a..11ViRh } y • `" j� .• P wy s .40 « : 3 ` — Wr «; Zia -- ---- .a v� y !' m li r w "'111 i ii `i ;.rt '� �n r. ',• •fir r •��• • . yamw ilf. ' a • � ,,.,. � ,� a ,.... , / r �' • '.:: � t ,,1[ � "'' ...+ .--.. �. .-. i" �� -�.'roti • ,: :--. - fid.'.q�.- .i'r`Cr,��r'+.� jj. w:. _ r.... .•; _ Y+L ,. r ,. a'., •' '4c. R' ' 4, f,��s. ,'P sy �,..•: Y .rt'� •' f�.�_ Ij OL �..s"' '�( i ► q d �•* r y/ 7 h Jo rte'` i- iT��[}1y -�di •'� 1• t• • tif� • ,•'` J • �• ^Ti R, tif� - I(s I '� - _ P - .. . C��i� ,s•��• � "'�' r . ``� - � al V ,S • `► �nR . , .�i . .. � e r r e ?'t , lT # r �, r _S-�� R '� � �V `" f ' �,.. "' " .k • r ' `` . "f ii� y. , ,� 5+' . .•.. � :d .. ar .A,•. "f i�� }/t { wr ._ . Amm r � dr ,S7ip mmom 17] i.�a `` . } r ''> Af > ' 1 t�r�,. FC/Vx°It . P If DAIRY CORNER P�•i� r ` • L 4 r1' 'R • ` R• >, r j . !%� . ' kk . ,, j Y ,• �+ is r Jpw '.� t It \ ...5;.." � r..;. S'��+., � '. L �•.. _^ -St•^` �:,. .• .. .. _ j� t' �,�I r j' •, raj' °,.�t�. r�"� •^w ,� �,�. .�j,A`. ` •"' fel:, - r'r ` r ♦ - i r �.`. r .� ,�,�, . - ��/� � .� iT , e; Y yyRR r We• y '{ �' • .... „_:. ,.I _ '°®kms r , _ '.i_ '. r • ,.� _, -- _ N Route 7 Corridor Study Legend A. X = Distance to first approach on the right; right in/right out only A. N. Cameron St. to Future Intersection of X' = Recommended distance to first approach on the right; right in/right out only W� JE Haggerty Blvd" and Route 37 Interchange Ramp Y =Distance to first major intersection Y' = Recommended distance to first major intersection S Figure 4-5: Interchange Area Z = Distance between the last access connection 0 125 250 500 Feet N Access Managementand the start of the taper for the on-ramp r Rrs Z = Recommended distance between the last access connection and the start of the taver for the on-ramp As development increases in Frederick County, east of Interstate 81, the County should look for opportunities to regulate interparcel connections, site access restrictions, traffic signal and access point spacing and other measures to help maintain traffic flow along Route 7. In the eastern part of the study area, Route 7 is mostly undeveloped. It is recommended that Frederick County monitor potential development and rezoning, while preserving proper intersection spacing. In all, these regulations seek to balance the land development right of property owners against the need to maintain acceptable traffic conditions along Route 7. Ensuring these regulations are strictly adhered to will likely maintain acceptable levels of traffic congestion on Route 7 longer than if these regulations did not exist, thus extending its capacity and limiting delay. VDOT spacing regulations for commercial entrances, intersections and crossover locations are shown in Table 4.4. Table 4.4: VDOT Access Standards (Entrance, Intersection, Crossover) Spacing Standards for Commercial Entrances, Intersections, and Crossovers Centerline to Centerline Spacing in Feet Highway Legal Functional Speed Unsignalized Partial Access Classification Limit Signalized Intersections 8 One or Two Way (mph) Cl IntersectionsQ Full Access Entrance EntrancesC Urban : - 30 mph 1.760 1,050 270 Principal 35 to 45 mph 2,640 1,3201 325 Arterial =50 mph 2,640 1,320 510 Rural (- . 30 mph 2,640 1,320 270 Principal 35 to 45 mph 2:640 1,320 440 Arterial - 50 mph 2.640 1.760 585 These spacing standards were taken into account to develop examples of access management and consolidation along the Route 7 Corridor from Pleasant Valley Road to First Woods Drive. A combination of direct access restriction, right-in/right-out access, full access (median breaks), and traffic signals were used as example recommendations to improve traffic flow and throughout the Route 7 Corridor. Reducing access points also improves safety by reducing the total number of potential conflict points. A typical intersection of a four -lane roadway with a thru two-lane roadway has 40 possible vehicle conflict points. Converting this intersection to two separate right-in/right-out access points would reduce this number to four. Consolidating access points would remove potential conflict points from a location all together. Coll DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 The access management location recommendations are not intended to be all-inclusive nor are expected to handle all potential access situations; therefore, good engineering judgment needs to be used in applying them. Figure 4-6 and Figure 4-7 show example access consolidation recommendations for this area. The City of Winchester currently has plans for updated land use and future development plans along the Route 7 Corridor. A detailed schematic diagram, provided by the City, was reviewed and will be included in the City's Comprehensive Plan Update. 62 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 - r `- �'- F f �, � �.. �"'; '', r ids � �,'> ��J/a°�'p r %• � �„,� 1 p �,• ��. `.� .. 'A• J „"�. + t f r �'•e'^` •'^' � • , - x" . �. � � / . �. 1 i t N r � •�- � ! P P - - � - � � r '� d • .Qty Vii` �+ •r•' bF c@� f` _ l ti Iota„_df s C .+.•a _.w •'�� Wk � �g r Cin 5' ,+. ~ '-.. - �. _ ,: •. t _r.• '��°^ a ��r,�, r F ,.�� . 4@pa-'.+ �"=�,°A 71 r- CJ , ° palf y �All, rr. + ervcf , v ,4 V@ -- .. � �-r,*. r "._ , ,C'.. . ..- ��-••i'4' • .' `+.4 •pf'F � ��i .`� If•' r t ,r. .a m , t9/�f`7gV@ L.s_ t f.`< K t' '^FEb #F �. { �TR ,- r — a r . - 4 r' �'`��,, •f t IT r Provide Post Office access`' `. ; on Pleasant Valley Road � . i. I i .y t s g # rh •. I a : Maple St if +. Realignment - .. �I,cA. Spr 4d1 ,� .A - �►' 6f i� - '!,, _ , r• uce St t �r iL �, '� ”: Realignment - .- ,_ a p e..� # C P V R .. ,.,Y � a- � � 7' � ��) *+,.. ... •' ,. { ,.. •., `- s � yq., Ry � v+ �, eft.-yam . �• ��. i « . A y� ± 9i ``!�'�.� ea "•. CIf'AVe f.. 3 _ i �+�' - ."., arra �' -._ •' • • ^ - - Ave , c R r� t @ t f@fid/ • -�,. ..�1 .' Z m.f - ". E. 'ia. '' w ?+ 4 •%'', *c _ i. s "Y 44 ;4 , .A,t- i�'" ,•e:.. R... s . - %� 1 3.R . '«� _ "fie' ` f . ..� -4�►, a - e � ^f �. � , 4 ;, r"' - r• ''�": � F awl' _. � � ' rf 1 :,,.. f_ r v. •_' r- ..� f �; a7�, �+ �"`:.a. ! ,�` r` +KOCliti�'�' -�r �� ._ t. �.� - C_ _ � +®.• d x fj► _ �t f P ,.. l,�T !'a r " mac. � � �'h +.:< � . � � 4- � t � r ' � � t - t T ,+ •' � � • .{ t ,., , . !' p. ,.. fi ', :r CJ r t E..! f .J ,.:;_ � r ., :'u`�- d'a�s - �.- .•!i f : c � �l � e � �'�`J' Potential interparcel connection Ir * ..e` iib+ ..:., i per. :.�.- .��•-f •..4., -' -` - w..� �'r`"'_. ,� " upon redevelopment 4 s e • 9r '41P , Q V ¢ ' t �" f is i Ei{ ti `y � C d V w -r - qS ` i - \ "L 0.'m -_. ► • ~ 7 : .,; � '. _ . � ... � -.. � a-. � +> < 1 Fa �gd` t,,r "" � .ate S� + ,, • �g� !! w A6, F"Tlp ! Route 7 Corridor Study Legend N N. Cameron St. to Future Intersection of W �► E Signalized Intersection Recommended Right-In / ■ Haggerty Blvd. and Route 37 Interchange Ramp ;�; g Right-Out Access Point �VVV/ Recommended Access Q Recommended Full Access S Figure 4-6: Route 7 Access Managment Consolidation (Median Break) 500 250 0 500 Feet Example Recommendations (1 of 2) — ` `w , ;.,DyjAYNE L •a fir.` �N*t � a.•� ' p• -,Y �_ .. r v� x � , t i� FfRS; WD ODS Aj �j � t �.' •+.;. �`•-�� 'Q• .� ,.1� , y: s`4y* �F: • ": t K �•-il( der' i,•a � y jQ ► t' -i- :a �fi.+ _ au,n ;. R_. - 5 ..f .�-.- ,� Q ' e�� r.`j{-_�� d.._1 r �1i f � \ f • _. ~ 2} ay •+ 4s"^Ras; - r a a • . A dY' ' I..: �„ 4 ® p Sy`,�•' , I LU f • 1 ` .. r p.•i w f.,•. x ,.,� -^*� a,•t-s.� x`'e !4 a�-_'. -, !�-�.�.E it P�K�!-� - .••+'i' .t +f'i'r '�} erMw RVI R ,w - P rn t 'a -� »A •...` _'` RFtYVILLE PlIK +fit -• p-�Y � �• '.-`. � .z ' ,�., +w - -- :. �x� i ! � _ ire, n-�� r '�'� r - ry ft � - •-y :fie ,- �� .. .. ,�. •'.wt>w' H'.�,."y /� � K �,, :.1 � li �,'�`�.,11'{ a`" �•,e'� �Y-'^ � � ., ;g, � �.. ,.. ` �•,1•',f,•_ • ... � s "'•'�•`, �' �,} �- -_.. !. ,�•' s 1 7 3 ' lq ik to CO 1b 11 ..Y . , i..� 7 t r, • a.��F=.01..r a q' ~! • Z fY'~\`_ . - • !,Re_'g x ."�.• •,�' -moi .. '.� ' J ` •:_' L� t. "! �► .w° - `� w''^ sem,,. _ M `* •.�'�''�".s - 's «-"r^" � err` '•.•�!+�y,:^ `-gid-' s-� . �� '%'�`"� / �.� .� �"� ,P t 'g Y •1 1 � �� ...p �+.... �' Consolidated) Access �,A""°* „� �I_ • c ¢ _ `. �i ,r -'fit" *' w-: s;tiaJ •/' �._.r'�.�,•.•, �r� '"""•i ""1 - I_ y a_-+ 1.1° '.r. _ C: "�4`.i.. 1� -• 'q tr 4 r,. 1, h. from Cole Ln to •,t P� (�.v'i enc Lakes Dr ° '. 1 1 .0.; • Regency ~�- "� `.�� 1 r - e✓oR � . ,. �'^ .. ` �,.. M .. _ e eo ;^ y IF 1 I .. ... } •- ° f' . ,�►., Realignment of Valley Mill Road ► t , }'r. . a R to tie into Getty Lane �. "�. • 4 ,•e hf,lI. .. `� 7RR , l •., r' "\R. ' 'a L��' "� . ; ;, .,,, � G � O r: • IGH^�' •i a .fa - .` ". q�® �' `•'_ F'to®BNw , ^ c •t I _ .Y. f • ,fir. +'c' ' i •. p,�R �sD � t�ay,;� bf . I R 1 , 0 ILk JW r .:♦11111T (1�10S3311ER filE4QLIV Route 7 Corridor Study Legend N N. Cameron St. to Future Intersection of Recommended Right-In / W �, E Haggerty Blvd. and Route 37 Interchange Ramp Signalized Intersection Right-Out Access Point ., Recommended Access O Recommended Full Access S Figure 4-7: Route 7 Access Managment Consolidation (Median Break) 500 250 0 500 Feet Example Recommendations 12 of 2) • Land Use Gv.idelin s Policies to reduce trip generation at the site level include mixed-use development and multimodal access. Modes to be accommodated in site design in addition to autos include bicycle, pedestrian and transit. These practices, in combination with site design that maximizes interparcel connectivity, can greatly reduce the traffic burden on the main highway corridor. Mixed Use Development Traditional separation of land uses requires travel between sites, such as office and retail areas, which in turn puts pressure on the transportation corridors that connect those areas. When development sites allow a mixture of uses, some of those trips can occur off the main transportation corridors, and a portion of trips may be able to shift away from auto mode entirely. This mixture of land uses is a centerpiece of the "smart growth" concept. In the context of the Route 7 Corridor, two approaches to mixed-use development seem viable. The first concept is to allow retail uses on the ground floor of light industrial and office buildings. Figure 4-8 and Figure 4-9 show two scales at which this can be done — one that is more dominated by the office use, and one that also creates a retail center. 65 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 The second approach to mixed-use development is to use the "first row" lots along Route 7 to focus on retail, with office and light industrial uses behind these areas, incorporating extensive interparcel access as described in the previous section. The interparcel connections will help reduce traffic on Route 7 and foster shorter vehicle trips; however, for this approach to be most effective, attention to multimodal planning and pedestrian access is needed in the design guidelines so that vehicle trips can also be reduced in number. DRAFT — Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 5.0 CONTEXT SENSITIVE COR13UDOR DEVELOPMENT There are also efforts that can be undertaken by the City of Winchester, Frederick County, Win -Fred MPO, and VDOT to help develop the Route 7 Corridor in a more context based development process. Developing Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) for a corridor is a practice that incorporates public interest, needs and constraints to develop solutions for that corridor or area. CSS offers a process that helps design corridors to match the existing character of the area, including the infrastructure and the environment. Context Sensitive Solutions are not based on traditional corridor design characteristics, such as Level of Service and traffic demand, which was developed earlier in this report. CSS instead takes into account the broader purpose of the corridor in an attempt to have an appropriately developed design that balances traditional needs with the context of the corridor. CSS practices allow flexibility in design to make the corridor adaptive to the surroundings. The following sections overview certain CSS principles that pertain to corridor development and that could be used as enhancements to to implementation of improvements in the Route 7 Corridor. Early and Often. Involvement Much of the success of Context Sensitive Solutions lies in the involvement of multiple interested parties throughout the process. Transportation planners and engineers, land use planners, designers and stakeholders should work together to develop plans and designs for corridor development. Together, corridor visions and goals can be developed with a sense for the community. Having an understanding of what the community wants as well as the support from the public creates successful projects by eliminating incompatibilities with surroundings, identifying community impacts and values, and encouraging stakeholder participation throughout the process. Purpose and need of any project should be clearly stated and should focus on goals for the project instead of solutions. Keeping all parties informed and involved help develop focused plans for corridors like Route 7. Context Zones and Thoroughfare Type The Route 7 Corridor is a special area due to the many types of land use and different characteristics along the corridor from within the City of Winchester, through Frederick County, to the county boundary with Clarke County. Developing Context Sensitive Solutions for corridors similar to the Route 7 Corridor is done by developing Context Zones. Context Zones are used to describe the feel and character of a corridor and are based on the idea of the Transect, the transition from urban character to rural character. 67 DRAFT — Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 Figure 5-1 shows Context Zones in a transect from Natural Zone (rural) to Assigned District (urban). Figure 5-1: Transect — Context Zones R U R A L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IT R AN S E C T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U R B AN — RURAL CONTEXT ZONES URBAN CONTEXT ZONES I DISTRICTS RICTSno A al I r li � r. It, NATURAL RURAL C-1 f� �} SUBURBAN (� GENERAL / URBAN '+ C URBAN RE ZONE �tA/� AsoIGNED DA DISTRICT �'� Source: Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company. The Route 7 Corridor generally consists of C-2 (Rural Zone) in eastern Frederick County, C-3 (Suburban Zone) in western Frederick County and eastern Winchester, and C-4 (General Urban Zone) in the western area of the route 7 corridor study area. These context zones help define sections of the corridor that may have different development goals and thus, different design needs for the corridor. Thoroughfare types and functional classifications can be used to aide in the design of project roadways and can be based on the characteristic of each context zone. Various types of thoroughfares include rural highway, high- and low -speed boulevards, avenues, and streets; each having its own design criteria. With the Route 7 Corridor having a wide transect range, from urban to rural, the developed context zones would dictate the type of thoroughfare and other street characteristics — including the potential for vary ing landscape treatments, traffic control measures, or other design component that can make the corridor respectful of the surrounding uses. Design and flan Implementation Once the context zones and thoroughfare types are established for a corridor, alternative design and plan implementation take place. It is import ant that community involvement remains part of this process. Any alternative design should adhere to the purpose and need statement that was developed early on in the process. Design elements can include desired operating speeds, medians, transit options, sidewalks, landscaping, lighting, parking, and consolidated driveways. All presented project alternatives should 68 DRAFT -Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study -October 2009 �'� `i'.. �'U ZONE ZONE 4'J 4'� URBAN ZONE GENiERZONE CO Source: Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company. The Route 7 Corridor generally consists of C-2 (Rural Zone) in eastern Frederick County, C-3 (Suburban Zone) in western Frederick County and eastern Winchester, and C-4 (General Urban Zone) in the western area of the route 7 corridor study area. These context zones help define sections of the corridor that may have different development goals and thus, different design needs for the corridor. Thoroughfare types and functional classifications can be used to aide in the design of project roadways and can be based on the characteristic of each context zone. Various types of thoroughfares include rural highway, high- and low -speed boulevards, avenues, and streets; each having its own design criteria. With the Route 7 Corridor having a wide transect range, from urban to rural, the developed context zones would dictate the type of thoroughfare and other street characteristics — including the potential for vary ing landscape treatments, traffic control measures, or other design component that can make the corridor respectful of the surrounding uses. Design and flan Implementation Once the context zones and thoroughfare types are established for a corridor, alternative design and plan implementation take place. It is import ant that community involvement remains part of this process. Any alternative design should adhere to the purpose and need statement that was developed early on in the process. Design elements can include desired operating speeds, medians, transit options, sidewalks, landscaping, lighting, parking, and consolidated driveways. All presented project alternatives should 68 DRAFT -Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study -October 2009 consider cost comparison, economic and environmental impacts, with minimal disruption to the community. Any alternative projects should have public perception of sustainability in the community. Context Sensitive Solution practices allow for flexibility in the development of any alternatives. Summary Developing Context Sensitive Solutions is an all inclusive process from the beginning stages of project scoping to the final design implementation. The goal of CSS is to design a transportation facility that conforms to its surroundings and community objectives. The development of Context Sensitive Solutions for the Route 7 Corridor will help continue to transition the Corridor as redevelopment in the area occurs. 69 DRAFT - Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study - October 2009 Item 2: Shady Elm Access Management Study Phase II Staff will present the draft study which is attached. Please review and be prepared to discuss at the meeting. Staff is seeking comments to forward to the Board of Supervisors. 3 Beady Elim Access M C-31 its �l'emenl t Study rheas 11 Draft Report Prepared for the Winchester - Frederick County Metropolitan Planning Organization December, 2009 WINIF.�W�-�FRED HNTB V.POT Shady Elm Access Management Stud — Phase II HNTB Corporation i T� MIUE' OF CONTENTS Disclaimer.................................................................................................................................................................... l A. Introduction ................... -- .................. ........... ............................................................................................. ......2 3. B. Summary Of Phase I Study......................--...................................................................................................4 F. 1. Existing Network Configuration.................................................................................................................4 1. 2. Existing Traffic Operations..........................................................................................................................4 2. 3. Future Developments....................................................................................................................................7 3. 4. Future Roadway Network Improvements.....................................................I............................................9 G. 5. Future No Build Conditions........................................................................................................................9 1. 6. Phase I Recommended Alternative.......................................................................................................... 12 C. Phase 11 2035 Traffic Conditions................................................................................................................. 14 1. Assumptions and Methodology for Trip Forecast and Assignment ................................................... 14 D. Development of Phase II Tier I Alternatives............................................................................................. 16 1. Issues to be Addressed by the Proposed Alternatives............................................................................ 16 2. Basic features of Tier 1 Alternatives......................................................................................................... 17 E. Preliminary Evaluation and Selection of Tier 2 Alternatives................................................................... 25 1. Evaluation Criteria..................................................................................................................................... 25 2. Evaluation Matrix....................................................................................................................................... 25 3. Selection of Tier 2 Alternatives................................................................................................................. 26 F. Phase II Tier 2 Alternatives........................................................................................................................... 28 1. Alternative 1C............................................................................................................................................. 28 2. Alternative 6................................................................................................................................................ 32 3. Alternative 5................................................................................................................................................ 39 G. Evaluation of Tier 2 Alternatives...........................................................................................................•..... 43 1. Measures of Effectiveness for Evaluation of Alternatives ........... ............................... -......................... 43 2. Quantitative Measures............................................................................................................................... 44 3. Qualitative Measures..........................................................................._...................................................... 51 4, Evaluation Matrix....................................................................................................................................... 51 H. Recommended Alternative........................................................................................................................... 55 1. Analysis of Performance for Alternative 1D........................................................................................... 55 2. Justification for Recommending Alternative ID................................................._.................................. 59 3. Final Comments and Next Steps ........................................ --- ......................... ....................................... 60 Shady Elm Access Management Study - Phase II HNTB Corporation LIST OF TABLES Table1: Existing Travel Times..................................................................................................................................7 Table2: Existing Operating Speeds..........................................................................................................................7 Table 3: Origin -Destination Table for 2035 PM Peak Hoar Conditions ......................................................... 15 Table 4: Evaluation of Preliminary Alternatives.................................................................................................. 26 Table 5: Tier 2 Alternatives - Average travel times............................................................................................. 44 Table 6: Tier 2 Alternatives - Average and Maximum Queue Lengths........................................................... 48 Table 7: Main Assumptions Used for Construction Cost Estimate.................................................................. 49 Table 8: Tier 2 Alternatives - Construction Cost Evaluation (millions of dollars) ........................................ 50 Table 8: Tier 2 Alternatives - Right -of -Way Cost Evaluation (millions of dollars) ....................................... 50 Table 10: Tier 2 Alternatives - Evaluation of Qualitative Measures................................................................. 51 Table 11: Tier 2 Alternatives - Evaluation Matrix.............................................................................................. 53 Table 12: Alternative 1D - Average travel times................................................................................................. 55 Table 13: Alternative 1D - Segment Density and LOS....................................................................................... 55 Table 14: Alternative 1D - Intersection Delay and LOS.................................................................................... 56 Table 15: Alternative 1 D - ROW Cost Estimate................................................................................................ 57 Table 16: Alternative 1 D - Cost Estimate (2009 Millions of Dollars)............................................................. 58 Table 17: Tier 2 Alternatives - Final Evaluation Matrix (Including Recommended Alternative ID)......... 59 LIST nc FIGURES Figure1: Study Area...................................................................................................................................................3 Figure 2: 2007 Existing Volumes PM Peak Hour..................................................................................................5 Figure 3: 2007 Existing PM Peak Hour Levels of Service (LOS).........................................................................6 Figure 4: Proposed Development Locations...........................................................................................................8 Figure 5: Planned Interchange Improvements at I-81/Route 37 - Ultimate Configuration ......................... 10 Figure 6: No Build Alternative Forecast Volumes - Year 2035 PM Peak Hour .............................................. 11 Figure 7: Phase I - Alternative 2 Modified - Preferred Alternative.................................................................. 13 Figure 8: Tier 1 Preliminary Alternatives - Alternative IA............................................................................... 17 Figure 9: Tier 1 Preliminary Alternatives - Alternative 1B ................................................................................ 18 Figure 10: Tier 1 Preliminary Alternatives - Alternative 2................................................................................ 19 Figure 11: Tier 1 Preliminary Alternatives - Alternative 3................................................................................ 20 Figure 12: Tier 1 Preliminary Alternatives - Alternative 4................................................................................ 21 Figure 13: Tier 1 Preliminary Alternatives - Alternative 5................................................................................ 22 Figure 14: Tier 1 Preliminary Alternatives - Alternative 6................................................................................ 23 Figure 15: Tier 1 Preliminary Alternatives - Alternative 7................................................................................ 24 Figure 16: Configuration of Tier 2 Alternatives - Alternative 1C..................................................................... 29 Figure 17: Alternative 1C - Route 11 Lane Configuration................................................................................. 30 Figure 18: Alternative 1 C - Shady Elm Road Lane Configuration ................................................................... 30 Figure 19: Alternative I C Forecast Volumes - Year 2035 PM Peak Hour ...................................................... 31 Figure 20: Configuration of Alternative 6A......................................................................................................... 33 Figure 21: Configuration of Alternative 6B.......................................................................................................... 34 Shady Elm Access Management Study - Phase II HN78 Corporation Figure 22: Configuration of Alternative 6C......................................................................................................... 35 Figure 23: Alternative 6A and Alternative 6C - Route 11 Lane Configuration .............................................. 36 Figure 24: Alternative 6B - Route 11 Lane Configuration................................................................................. 37 Figure 25: Alternative 6 Forecast Volumes - Year 2035 PM Peak Hour ......................................................... 38 Figure 26: Configuration of Alternative 5............................................................................................................ 40 Figure 27: Alternative 5 - I-81/Route37 Interchange Lane Configuration.. .... ............................................... 41 Figure 28: Alternative 5 Forecast Volumes - Year 2035 PM Peak Hour ......................................................... 42 Figure 29: Alternative 1C - LOS Evaluation........................................................................................................ 45 Figure 30: Alternative 6A - LOS Evaluation........................................................................................................ 46 Figure 31: AIternative 6B - LOS Evaluation........................................................................................................ 46 Figure 32: Alternative 6C - LOS Evaluation........................................................................................................ 47 Figure 33: Alternative 5 - LOS Evaluation........................................................................................................... 47 Figure 34: Alternative 1D Forecast Volumes - Year 2035 PM Peak Hour ...................................................... 54 Figure 35: Alternative 1D - 2035 PM Peak Hour Levels of Service................................................................... 57 Figure 36: Recommended Alternative 1D Roadway Network.........................................................................- 61 Figure 37: Alternative 11): Detail of Lane Configuration at Shady Elm Road/ Route 37 Interchange......... 62 Figure 38: Alternative 1D: Detail of Lane Configuration at Route I1 Roundabouts ...................................... 63 Figure 39: Alternative 1D: Detail of Lane Configuration at Route 11 South Roundabout ............................ 64 Figure 40: Alternative 1D: Detail of Lane Configuration at Route 11 North Roundabout ........................... 65 Figure 41: Alternative 1D: Detail of Lane Configuration at Route 11 and Connector to 1-81 SB— ............. 66 LIST of APPENDICES Appendix A: Phase I - Technical Memorandum #1 - Final Existing Conditions Report Appendix B: Tier I Alternatives Appendix C: Operational Analysis - VISSIM Outputs Appendix D: Tier 2 Alternatives - Cost Analysis Shady Elm Access Management Study — Phase II HNTB Corporation 1 SHADY ELM AG' -CESS MANAGEMENT STUDY - PHASE. If WiNFRED MPO DRAFT REPORT Disclaimer The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s) who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Cormnonwealth Transportation Board. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. FHWA acceptance of this report as evidence of fulfillment of the objectives of this planning study does not constitute endorsement / approval of the need for any recommended improvements nor does it constitute approval of their location and design or a commitment to fund any such improvements. Additional project level environmental impact assessments and/or studies of alternatives may be necessary. This report has been prepared for the Winchester — Frederick County Metropolitan Planning Organization with funding provided by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Shady Elm Access Management Study — Phase II HNTB Corporation 2 SHADY ELM ACCESS MANAGEMENT STUDY w PHASE 11 WINFRED MP® - DRAFT REPORT A. Introduction An Access Management Study for Route 37 was completed in November 2007 by HNTB. This Study, which is referred in this document as "Phase I Study" assessed the impacts of the proposed Route 37/I-81 interchange and of increased traffic associated with approved and planned developments in the area. The Phase I Study developed recommendations to improve traffic operations in the vicinity of the Route 37/Route 11 interchange while providing adequate access to local developments. The study also determined if the interchange could function adequately and meet all the projected traffic needs in the area. Since the completion of the Phase I Study, additional impacts and assumptions have been identified. The purpose of this new study (Phase II Study) is to develop and evaluate new roadway concepts for the study area based on those refined assumptions and, in addition, address other pending issues from the Phase I Study such as areas of poor levels of service that would result with the implementation of the previous recommended alternative. The Phase II study focused on evaluating roadway access alternatives for Route 37, Route 11, and Shady Elm Road consistent with the I-81 interchange ultimate design configuration and also consistent with the 2035 peak -hour traffic forecast scenarios. The study evaluated two sets of roadway concepts in different levels of detail, which were conceptualized to provide adequate access, connections, and operation through 2035. The study held a series of workshops, in which the study team selected alternatives for further refinements and ultimately a preferred roadway concept to meet the objectives. Figure 1 shows the study area for this Phase II Study. The area encompasses the existing I-81 / Route 37 interchange, the Route 37/Route 11 Interchange, Middle Road as its western limit and it extends to Apple Valley Road (Route 651) on the North and to Springdale Road (Route 649) on the South. Early in the study, the study team explored developing preliminary alternatives and roadway connections west of Shady Elm including a potential Route 37 / Middle Road interchange. However, those roadway connections were considered significantly less effective to deal with the operational issues at hand and less convenient for drivers. In addition, the roadway network east of Middle Road provides sufficient connectivity and redundancies through the Shady Elm Road, Apple Valley Road, and the future Renaissance Drive system, which can be used to solve the operational and safety issues generated by the proximity of the 1-81 interchange and the Route 37/Route 11 interchange. Therefore, the study focused on developing roadway alternatives that included the Shady Elm Rd / Route 37 interchange as a given and assumed Renaissance Drive would be in place by the year 2035. This report summarizes the methodology, results, and recommendations from the study. It provides an overview of the existing conditions in the study area as well as the main findings from the Phase I Study. The report presents the new alternatives, their evaluation based on the agreed evaluation criteria and the selected alternative. Shady Elm Access Management Study — Phase II HNTB Corporation 4 B. Summary Of Phase I Study This section summarizes previous findings from the Phase I Study referent to existing and no - build future conditions for the study area. This summary is important to understand the context of the study and compare the operational results for the proposed alternatives. More detailed information on existing and no -build conditions can be found in Appendix A: Existing Conditions Report. i. Existing Network Configuration The Route 37 / Interstate 81 interchange is less than one quarter of a mile from the Route 37 / US 11 interchange. Route 37 is a rural four -lane divided highway within the study area. It is classified as a limited access principal arterial west of US 11 and a principal arterial east of US 11. Interstate 81 is a rural four -lane divided highway classified as a limited access principal arterial. US 1 I is primarily two to three lanes within the study area and classified as a major collector. 2. Existing Traffic Operations During the Phase I Study current year traffic volumes were developed to analyze existing intersection levels of service in the morning and afternoon peak periods. Volumes from different sources were balanced to create a consistent set of turning movements. Existing volumes for the PM peak -hour condition are shown in Figure 2. For the Phase II Study, the PM peak hour was selected for the analysis because based on the analysis conducted in the Phase I Study, the PM Peak hour is more critical than the AM peak hour. Levels of service (LOS) were calculated using Synchro 7 traffic analysis software. The results for the intersections in the study area are shown in Figure 3. Phase I Study included 16 intersections in the study area. Of these seven are operating at an acceptable level of service (LOS C or better in the PM peak hours), four are marginal (LOS D in the PM peak), and five are failing (LOS E or worse). It should be noted that although the overall intersection LOS is adequate the LOS by movement is variable. Particularly the Route 37 Ramps, both east- and west bound, have approaches that are failing in the PM peak hours. In addition, the study team conducted travel times on Route 37 and US 11. The results are shown in Table 1. Travel times were fairly consistent between runs, more so in the morning than in the afternoon. Route 37 had greater variations in travel time than US 11, which could be attributed to the shorter length. Existing operating speeds generally appear reasonable on all segments. As Table 2 indicates, Route 37 operates particularly slowly westbound at midday. However, only two travel time runs were made at that time, and the variation in travel time between those two runs was high. Therefore, typical operation may not have been observed. Shady Elm Access Management Study — Phase II HNTB Corporation 5 Figure 2: 2007 Existing Volumes PM Peak Hour Existing Volumes PM 1410 1460 70 f l T 50 260 1150 I j .y. 20 T E 3B0'. 170 1460 r, 230 310 F 920 iue- �: I 50 j 7 30 10 1 400 t4 L 690 i 490 140 • O E E- 490 -Z E- 490 6U 1150 820 370 20 -J r i Route 37 Y _ 5370 -► 1070 - . 590 940 1820 - ► 1000 -► e- -` 850 14 84 01 10 300 1 T 820 - 600 50 r 100 200 160 940 t 60 l 1 N 1140 1100 Shady Elm Access Management Study — Phase II HNTB Corporation 6 Figure 3: 2007 Existing PM Peak Hour Levels of Service (LOS) I Ln m < rr fa n; _ I n J L a A L J L A R yrs 1. 1, -1A A ., ,. n;,� 0 GD 3L 0 a n :n :3 >F JI r� 3 J111111110- 0 X n U't r F r -r <_ 'Dt"` 7 II -c � •r A JL JIL 4=3 J L L A I 1rA I— J L �- J L L ; IF A rn I C Tasker Rd L —` Hillandale Ln O 0 O e � u m il Shady Elm Access Management Study— Phase II HNTB Corporation 7 - Table 1: Existing Travel Times US 11 southbound 5:41 7:51 from Te vis Street to Mill Lane US 11 northbound 5:34 8:29 from Mill Lane to Te vis Street Route 37 eastbound 2:01 2:16 from Shady Elm Road to Tasker Road Route 37 westbound 1:30 1:53 from Tasker Road to Shady Elm Road Table 2: Existing Operating Speeds US 11 southbound 34 25 from Te vis Street to Mill Lane US 11 northbound 35 23 from Mill Lane to Te vis Street Route 37 eastbound 28 25 from Shady Elm Road to Tasker Road Route 37 westbound 38 30 from Tasker Road to Shady Elm Road 3. Future Developments Several new developments are planned for the vicinity of the Interstate 81 / Route 37 interchange. The following developments are anticipated to be in place by year 2035. Crosspointe Center, located east of Interstate 81, served by an extended Route 37, consisting of a mix of residential, office, and retail. • Villages at Artrip, located southeast of the Route 37 / Interstate 81 interchange, consisting of a mix of residential, office, retail, and recreational space. Kernstown Commons, located southwest of the Route 37 / Interstate 81 interchange, consisting of a mix of retail and hotel uses. v Commonwealth Business Park, Ventures 1, located north of the Route 37 / US 11 interchange, potentially consisting of a mix of retail and light industrial uses. a Hilda Maye Meadows, located on the north side of Apple Valley Road, consisting of residential units and a community center. Shady Elm development, located south of Route 37 and east of Shady Elm Road, consisting of a mix of office and industrial development. The Carbaugh site, located directly south of the Shady Elm parcel, assumed to be a similar office and industrial development. o The Shoemaker development, located west of US 11, consisting of a mix of office and retail. Shady Elm Access Management Study — Phase II HNTB Corporation I a The GE parcel, located north of Route 37 and east of Shady Elm Road, consisting of light industrial and office development. 0; The Artillery Business Center Plan located south of Route 37 in an area between Shady Elm Road and the CSX rail tracks (added in Phase II Study). The location of these developments is shown in Figure 4. Figure 4: Proposed Development Locations IV aokfield 4op Snyder �f �'� Opaqu C rc 1 Z � y 9 �amiyr c .Z F9Ida Maye Wadows �0N C �s �o Hoo a S GE Wit_ Comm mwealth S lines Park Cl Artillery Business Center Q Shady Elm �y1 Kernstown Commons Carbaugh St Shoemaker 00 -_ sspoints �9a picket t-gtaKe Vlllagosat Artrip G inkapirt � e �p �peR �O � 0 5001,000 2,000 Feet Q �� kende eAr—� Shady Elm Access Management Study — Phase II HNTB Corporation 4. Future Roadway Network Improvements 0 Route 37 is planned to be extended to the east to form a bypass around the east side of Winchester. Part of this extension would be constructed through developer proffer. The proposed typical section is a rural four -lane divided highway with grade separations at major crossing roadways. Some engineering funds are in the Win -Fred MPO's Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP) for this new highway. The Interstate 81 / Route 37 interchange is to be rebuilt. Some engineering funds are in the CLRP for this improvement. The reconfiguration will be phased, starting with reconstructing the ramp termini farther apart while retaining a diamond interchange. This first phase is anticipated to be in place by 2015. The ultimate full cloverleaf, as shown in Figure S, is expected to be in place by 2035. Tasker Road would be relocated approximately 1300 feet to the east and the intersection with Route 37 would be grade separated. In addition, the CLRP calls for widening Interstate 81 to eight lanes (four general purpose lanes and four collector -distributor lanes) within the study area. In the Win -Fred MPO's Vision Plan, Shady Elm Road is proposed to become an urban four -lane divided roadway including an interchange with Route 37. Shady Elm Road runs parallel to Interstate 81, nearly a mile to the west of the interstate. The local Vision Plan also calls for improvements to the Route 37 / US 11 interchange, for a new urban four -lane divided roadway called Warrior Drive parallel to and east of Interstate 81, and for a two-lane road to be named Renaissance Drive connecting Shady Elm Road and Route l I as part of the Artillery Business Center Plan. A list of planned improvements being considered as part of the "no build" network for this study is shown Appendix A: Existing Conditions Report. 5. Future No Build Conditions The No Build condition in 2035 includes a diamond interchange at Warrior Drive, traffic signals at the Route 37 / US 11 ramp termini, a new connector road between Shady Elm Road and US 11 approximately 3,000 feet south of Route 37, and a full cloverleaf interchange at Route 37 and Interstate 81. a. Network Features and Issues The No Build alternative maintains the existing connectivity with US 11. It also maintains the short weaving section between US I I and Interstate 81 along Route 37. The main purpose of this study, which is to develop solutions to this problematic weaving area, would remain unaddressed in the No Build case. Because the existing westbound to northbound ramp at US 11 is removed, traffic volumes increase on the remaining westbound exit ramp. This, in turn, increases left turns at the terminus of this ramp at US 11. Shady Elm Access Management Study — Phase II HNTB Corporation b. Forecast No -Build Volumes Forecast PM peals -hour volumes for the No Build alternative in 2035 are given in Figure 6. Sourc( _ Virginia, Milepost: 310, February 16, 2007. Figure 5: Planned Interchange Improvements at 1-81/Route 37 - Ultimate Configuration 10 Shady Elm Access Management Study — Phase II HNTB Corporation 11 Figure 6: No Build Alternative Forecast Volumes - Year 2035 PM Peak Hour 2035 No Build PM 490 545 1920 1748 Forecast 1 1 1 420 15000 300 2190 200* I 0 J + 900 e � 940 -J' 436 808 7 E } N 505 t *7 I 1335 7 1202 450 610 M X310 1100 4F— 2358 W �— 2358 1502 2837 j 2333 1501 961 a Route 37 +� 39?5 y 3388 —► 5223 —► 3130 ► 3085 —► 2125 -� 950 2-10 273'5 587 1110 7{85 2093 1300 r' t 900 340 460 -j 945 840 E' 68 760 370 Ip } 519 7 725 1'P76 i p 490 545 l t N 1305 1900 Shady Elm Access Management Study — Phase II HNTB Corporation 12 6. phase I Recommended Alternative During the Phase I Study, a number of preliminary alternatives were developed and presented at a workshop with VDOT and jurisdictional stakeholders. These alternatives were: • A: Urban diamond at Interstate 81 and half cloverleaf at US 11 • B: Cloverleaf at Interstate 81 with diamond interchange at Shady Elm Road; US 11 accessed off Shady Elm Road • C: Realigned US 11 • D: Cloverleaf at Interstate 81 with signalized intersection at Shady Elm Road; US 11 accessed off Shady Elm Road • E: Continuous flow intersection at Interstate 81 and half cloverleaf at US 11 • F: Cloverleaf at Interstate 81 and half cloverleaf at US 11, with collector -distributor roads on Route 37 • G: Three level interchange proposed by the Crosspointe project These alternatives were analyzed as conceptual layouts. After discussions, the study team agreed to move forward with three refined build alternatives. After detailed evaluation of several measures of effectiveness including traffic operation, cost, right of way needs, connectivity, and others, the Study Team recommended Alternative 2 as the preferred one. This alternative, shown in Figure 7 incorporates collector -distributor roads in both directions along Route 37 within the study area to separate local traffic from through traffic. This feature allows maintaining connectivity to Interstate 81, US 11, and Shady Elm Road while having weaving movements take place in a safer, lower -speed environment. Alternative 2 offers improved traffic operations over the No Build and performs acceptably in 2035 in terms of travel time, intersection delay, and density. The Phase I — preferred alternative required acquisition of right-of-way on both sides of Route 37 west of Interstate 81. In addition, the right-of-way acquired for the eastward extension of Route 37 must also accommodate the collector -distributor roads. Alternative 2 required new grade separations at Shady Elm Road, the CSX Railroad, US 11, Interstate 81, and Warrior Drive. Alternative 2 also had the greatest amount of additional pavement among the alternatives. As such, Alternative 2 was anticipated to cost about $127 million and have the greatest constructability issues among the alternatives. The operational analysis of the Phase -I preferred alternative showed that while most of the network operated at adequate levels of service, the WB weave on Route 37 between I-81 and US Route 11 and the WB weave on Route 37 between US I I and Shady EIm operated at LOS F during the PM peak hour. Shady Elm Access Management Study Phase II HNTB Corporation 13 Figure 7: Phase I - Alternative 2 Modified - Preferred Alternative jyj • r Phase i :AIatud ��" �.. . _, yy w - 7 ` Recom�lended Aite� native � .. '"-`�`: _ AL, A rind IIve " y `' s` ; I '* 0 300 6001,200 rr, ' I�Fee C.*onceptual Layout . � � � ate•. �i • �.� ,� � �� 4 -of -Way Rigg ' "• .�� .'�� _y ., .�'� ��, , _, l,�� .- �• � ��,=�� 'fk�+: �,_�,_... 'EXitfrig ropErtyLines NV L Route r) ^�% I� S- ♦ _�. . ?• ".� � t ° '«i: "Y .y ,�' , r'' $ s r. •' �'w.� a f .. ,t� r ;t` 's`�••.. + t.e Jiw Pi'i. i --rine y� i Qy'av i(fi {'�\7 '+ 6 • rt ed S',.q �k •` '. 1Tt fM�JR 4' a. y7 /{ T.•_n� .f�•. " •4 • I .. S I• _ r !1 Alternative 4 «.; t �'oadway itnpro�'ements •. l-8 Interchange '�'"• i It Cie a e yan�t , Roadway ImprovElments • P f , 7 f v Route 3 ? Extension f ? o J ,I.. .,, tom• s �. L rS•.. Z '�.-•''.+a ��• .l rf ,}' f ta St I % ! •1^ • k `'a .�fLfy• M ,��1.,•hp, . i w J ., � x•13 '• fes..x. i�� ` f /rte. ` 'C 3\\ �••�� - ' ` -` i; �s - - y• °Y, t' 9''4"y a' �`� r '` "TrJ / •,,r y'r+ a 4 jj -• r �f� , I. `V'ixaBr4 � :�''• ' e ' � r �fi� � °"a,� `- ... •• , .i `:�I moi`'✓ ' .,tib'?' <;3f " w •- ° x Q Y y '",t�le ai �+. F • r ,, t �•, ' /y g.P ,..#:. .r i • t a�+ »' * +. - 1111•• B !a � _ 1r�' 'n �a •.°�. _ { , j Fi"� •� ,�^ �,�`�>�' -.-- orf' �'�' ;-.ifr"�' ..j �, �� . � ��a - �.. t+ t, 4� • .fir , 1� a p r� - w ~ t, �,% +-• e�q 4 _ r Shady Elm Access Management Study — Phase II HNTB Corporation 14 C. Phase 112035 " r affio Conditions "r. Assumptions and Miethodology for Trip Forecast and assignment The operational analysis conducted for the Phase II of the Access Management Study was based on the traffic forecasts obtained during Phase I. The study focused on evaluating the operational conditions for the 2035 PM peak hour scenario. This scenario represents the most conservative conditions for the analysis as shown in the results from the Phase I Study. The following methodology was used in the development of 2035 PM peak -hour traffic volumes and in determining the origins and destinations of trips in the study area. Existing counts were taken within the study area. The counts were balanced and smoothed based on engineering judgment and input from VDOT and local stakeholders. C Regional travel demand models were run for the base year and the future years in the no - build configuration and for each of the build alternatives planned improvements as listed in Section B. Special consideration was given to the future Stephens City Western Bypass, a western connection that would tie into the Route 37/I-81 interchange through Shady Elm Road, as well as to the connection to Warrior Drive in the southern portion of the County. Development along these two corridors would have the most significant impact on traffic growth in the study area. g Volume growth factors on a link basis were computed from the regional travel demand model outputs. o Existing volumes were factored up using the growth factors. The grown volumes were then balanced and smoothed. * Forecast traffic volumes from traffic impact studies were added to the balanced grown volumes when the new developments were not fully accounted for in the regional model. G Further adjustments were made to ensure consistency between alternatives and that development traffic was adequately reflected. These adjustments were made in consultation with VDOT. Based on these volumes (at the origins and destinations), an Origin -Destination (OD) table was developed. Eight origins and eight destinations were identified for the study area. The OD tables for 2035 AM and PM peak hour were calculated based on trip distribution methodology using a doubly -constrained gravity model. A constant impedance factor of `1' was assumed for all OD pairs. The sum of productions and attractions were balanced iteratively to match with total productions and attractions to derive a balanced OD table. Table 3 shows the balanced OD table for the 2035 PM peak hour. Shady Elm Agcgss Management Study— Phase 11 HNT5 Qorporation -3 Table 3: Origin -Destination Table for 2035 PM Peak Hour Conditions is 16 h-; 13 r 9 6, ' 5 VA Route 37 11 7 4 3 Shady Elm Road US Route 11 1-$1. 1 z Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 16 D. Development of Phase II Tier 1 Alternatives A series of preliminary alternatives were developed and presented at a workshop with VDOT and jurisdictional stakeholders. The basic characteristics of each of these alternatives are presented in the following section. All alternatives assumed the construction of the full cloverleaf 1-81 / Route 37 interchange, the widening of Interstate 81 to eight lanes (four general purpose lanes and four collector -distributor lanes), the widening of Shady Elm Road to become an urban four -lane divided roadway, and the construction of a new diamond interchange at Shady Elm Road and Route 37. Furthermore, the new proposed alternatives focus on the operational, safety, and connectivity issues in the area west of Interstate 81, assuming that east of 1-81 the following improvements will be in place: • Tasker Road would be relocated approximately 1300 feet to the east and the intersection with Route 37 and would be grade separated New urban four -lane divided roadway called Warrior Drive parallel to and east of Interstate 81. 1. issues to be Addressed by the Proposed Alternatives A number of issues needed to be addressed by each of the proposed alternatives in order to improved upon those that were developed during the Phase I Study. These included: • Operational Issues: due to the high volumes forecasted for the PM peak hour in the year 2035, significant weaving resulted on both westbound and eastbound Route 37 due to close proximity of the Route 37 / Route 11 interchange to the Route 37 / 1-81 interchange. While the Phase -I recommended alternative mitigated most of the operational issues by segregating weaving volumes to use collector -distributor roads, some severe weaving still remained in the Phase I Recommended Concept in the westbound and eastbound directions on Route 37. One of the objectives of the Phase II proposed alternatives was to improve this operational issue. Safety Issues: the close proximity between the interchanges did not provide adequate positive and intuitive guidance for drivers. These resulted in safety concerns with the previous recommended concept. 4P Connectivity Issues: there is a strong desire by all stakeholders that the recommended roadway concept maintain direct connections to all destinations within the study area. While this is one of the goals in the development of the concepts, it is also recognized that maintaining the existing connectivity may not be possible if adequate levels of service and safety are to be achieved. • Development Issues: In the same manner, the roadway network to be recommended needs to minimize impact on existing and future developments as well as provide adequate access to them. The first tier of alternatives consisted of eight different roadway concepts developed to improve Shams Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 17 on each of the issues listed above. 2. Basic features of Tier i Alternatives Alternative 1 k: In this alternative there is no direct access from/to I-81 and Route 37 WB to/from Route 11. Instead, a loop ramp is provided east of Shady Elm Road. Access to Shady Elm Road from/to Route 37 is provided through collector -distributor roads adjacent to Route 37. This alternative requires new grade separations for the CSX Railroad and for the loop ramp east of Shady Elm Road above Route 37. The schematic of this alternative is shown in Error! Reference source not. found. and in Appendix B. Figure 8: Tier 1 Preliminary Alternatives - Alternative to Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 18 Alternative I B: This alternative is similar to Alternative IA with the addition of a direct ramp that connects I-81 southbound to US Route 11. This connection reduces overall travel time for a significant portion of the traffic volume from 1-81. The schematic of this alternative is shown in Figure 9 and in Appendix B. Figure 9: 'bier 1 Preliminary Alternatives - Alternative 1B r -al -f c Patterns'. Irti�ffi a':e lrrzftic EIrecticn Only) t-•-��--- proposed I -S1 I�.rcrchanwt� �rcp; c -c3 P.CceSs i:t1provement ' EASA19 P.Cad" r7� S!gnall-ed Intersectlail Bridges i Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 19 Alit a ea 3}..ra 'f. This alternative establishes direct connection between all points (origins and destinations) within the study area. Direct access between 1-81 and Route Ilis provided through braided ramps to eliminate weaving with traffic continuing to Route 37 and to Shady Elm. Furthermore, a roundabout is provided at the intersection of the ramps from I-81 SB/ Route 37 WB with Route 11. A loop ramp west of Route 11 allows vehicles from the roundabout to access Route 37 EB and I-81. This alternative requires construction of at least eight grade separations in addition to the braided ramps. The schematic of this alternative is shown in Figure 10 and in Appendix B. Figure 10: Tier 1 Preliminary Alternatives - Alternative 2 711 Trafffc patterns: (Indlca;�s T,, Glrncticn On y) t �--- - 4 Proposed I -E1 Interchan.e '' `' "• Shady Eire'RaL to 11 Prapc•sc d a.cccss _rr aro'dcrnL:nt ' ° •`.* ---� > Exlstl a Roadway 5,'gnelized Intersecdor, r> Bridges p �, !1 . Kkk t Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation ?o Alternative 3: In this alternative direct access between I-81 and Route Ilis provided through direct ramps connecting to at grade intersections on each side of Route 37. There is no direct access from Route 11 NB and SB to Route 37 EB. This alternative requires construction of at least three new bridges in addition to the flyover to connect Route 11 with 1-81 NB. This alternative also requires widening of the bridge at Route 37 across Route 11. The schematic of this alternative is shown in Figure I1 and in Appendix B. Figure 11: Tier 1 Preliminary Alternatives - Alternative 3 T -affdc Patterns tc 75 7raffir G`tr e _J. Onk-) """"� I-81 rnter&rEr:ce Sha . -;'y Elira/Route 1. y1 Propas a Access lmprm,'e"'--t f �---- FAs ling Roadway � �r S19ncii_ej Intersection, irk. AL r.. ,� _ ref• 1_..._._�:� Shady Elm Phase 11 Access Study HNTB Corporation 21 Alternative 4: In this alternative direct access from 1-81 SB to Route I1 is provided through a new ramp. There is no direct access from Route 11 SB to I-81 SB. A box rotary is provided at Route 11/ Route 37 junction to allow vehicles from Route 11 to access Route 37 EB / 1-81. This alternative requires construction of at least seven new bridges in addition to the box rotary. The schematic of this alternative is shown in Figure 12 and in Appendix B. Figure 12: Tier 1 Preliminary Alternatives - Alternative 4 Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 22 Alternative 5: This alternative establishes direct connection between all points (origins and destinations) within the study area. Direct access between I-81 and Route 11 is provided through new ramps. Ramps to/from I-81 are realigned to merge/diverge from left side on Route 37. This alternative requires widening of the bridge at Route 37 across Route 11. The schematic of this alternative is shown in Figure 13 and in Appendix B. Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 23 Alternative 6: This alternative establishes direct connections between all points (origins and destinations) within the study area. Direct access between I-81 and Route 11 is provided through new ramps. Access to/from Route 11 from/to Route 37 is provided through elevated ramps. Furthermore, an elevated rotary is provided north of Route 11. This alternative requires construction of at least four new bridges in addition to the elevated rotary. The schematic of this alternative is shown in Figure 14 and in Appendix B. Figure 14: Tier 1 Preliminary Alternatives - Alternative 6 Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 24 Alternative 7: This alternative establishes direct connection between all points (origins and destinations) within the study area. A Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) is provided at Route Il / Route 37 interchange. Direct access between I-81 and Route 11 is provided through new ramps. This alternative requires construction of at least four new bridges in addition to the SPUI. The schematic of this alternative is shown in Figure 15 and in Appendix B. Figure 15: Tier 1 Preliminary Alternatives - Alternative 7 07 4 z74 P .. s t1 t� x a f ' S. ,,✓ 1 , a , rafic Patterns: lnil -r;e:, Tra`'`k Ulsecfan O,11y! + rrome�_d f-51 InCercn�nJ^ ` - •�, hl 'r!2• f it / ouYe }.� � � r. - � - _. . ir.1,2- cca01 ;r, - '• Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 25 Preliminary Evaluation and Selection of Fier ,? Alternatives 1. Evaluation Criteria The study team identified the following qualitative criteria for evaluating the preliminary alternatives developed for the study: - Travel distance: whether travel distance for the alternative between network origins and destinations is significantly greater than those from the existing and no -build conditions - Traffic operations: whether traffic operations for intersections and for weaving segments in the study area are within acceptable LOS criteria for the alternative. LOS of service for intersections and for arterial weaving segments was calculated using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). - Right of Way (ROW): whether the alternative requires significant ROW acquisition for its implementation. - Connectivity: whether the alternative provides direct access from/ to roads within the study area. Special attention was given at the connection between I-81 and Route 11. - Cost: whether the alternative would incur high cost for construction. This factor is mostly related to cost of new grade separated structures required for the alternative. - Constructability: whether the alternative involves high levels of complexity for its construction. - Signage: whether certain routes in the alternative require dense and descriptive signage in order to provide positive guidance and wayfinding to drivers. - Traffic safety: whether the alternative results in potential unsafe movements of vehicles and/or pedestrians. - Environmental impacts: whether the construction of the alternative could potentially result in adverse environmental impacts. - Phasing: whether the alternative can be implemented in reasonable phases that will provide adequate connectivity and operation. The objective of the qualitative evaluation was to select two or three alternatives, or combination of them, with enough merit to move on to the next level of refinement and for more detailed analysis and evaluation. Based on the qualitative criteria listed above, the study team evaluated the eight preliminary alternatives in a workshop and selected three alternatives to carry on to the next level of analysis. 2. Evaluation Matrix Table 4 summarizes the preliminary evaluation of all alternatives based on the evaluation factors listed above. Shady Elm Phase 11 Access Study HNTB Corporation 26 Table 4: Evaluation of Preliminary Alternatives Criteria Travel Distance Alt 1A Alt 113 Alt 2- A -it 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 00 Alt 7 Traffic Operation ROW Connectivity Cost Constructability Signage Traffic Safety Environmental Impacts Phasing OVERALL 0 0 Ash W (' J7 Key: C) Best in class Good Fair Worst in class More details on the evaluation of each alternative and their pros and cons can be found in Appendix B of this report. 3. Selection of Tier 2 Alternatives After completing the preliminary evaluation, the study team agreed to move forward with three alternatives for further refinements and for more detailed evaluation. These alternatives are as Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation - 27 follows: - Alternative 1 with modifications: the main issue with Alternative lA and 1B was the poor level of service that resulted on the eastbound and westbound weaves on the collector - distributor roads parallel to Route 37. The proposed modification for this alternative included the elimination of the loop ramp east of Shady Elm Road. Instead, vehicles would use Shady Elm Road to loop around and access Route 11. With this modification, the weave is significantly reduced if not eliminated thus the traffic operation is expected to improve. In this alternative a ramp from Route 11 provides direct access to I-81 SB. Furthermore, a roundabout is proposed at the intersection of the ramps from I-81 SB/ Route 37 WB with Route 11. - Alternative 6 with modifications: The proposed rotary north of Route 11 is realigned to use the existing underpass on Route 37 instead of the originally proposed overpass. - Alternative 5: This alternative is retained without any modifications Sha, Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corooration 28 F. Phase Il Tier 2 Alternatives 1. Alternative 1C The configuration of Alternative IC is shown in Figure 16. Some details showing lane configuration for Route 11 and Shady Elm Road are shown in Figure 17 and Figure 18 respectively (Note that these are snapshots extracted from the VISSIM Micro -simulation model). The 2035 PM peak hour link volumes for this alternative are shown in Figure 19. Main features of this alternative are summarized as follows: ® Vehicles from I-81 and Route 37 WB use Shady Elm Road to loop around and access Route 11. As a result, the travel distance from/to I-81 and Route 37 WB to/from Route 11 is significantly greater than existing travel distance. ® Two collector -distributor roads are provided on each side of Route 37 to collect traffic movements between 1-81 and Route 11 as well as all traffic headed to Shady Elm Road. Q An urban diamond is provided for the interchange of Route 37 and Shady Elm. Both on and off -ramps from/to Route 37 are signalized at the intersection with Shady Elm. Both signals are coordinated to provide maximum throughput for the looping volume headed from/to Route 11. A direct connection is added from Route 11 to I-81 SB. The addition of this ramp reduces the looping volume on Shady Elm Road by approximately 900 vehicles/hour and therefore improves significantly the operation of the Shady Elm interchange. * A full signalized intersection is provided at the EB C -D road ramp and Route 11. • A roundabout is provided on Route 11, North of Route 37 at the confluence of I-81 SB off ramp to Route 11, Route 1 I NB and SB, and the WB C -D road to Shady Elm. Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 29 Fiaure 16: Corfiauration of Tier 2 Acternatives - Alternative 1C Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 30_____ Figure 17: Alternative 1C - Route 11 Lane Configuration Figure 18: Alternative 1,' - Shady E'lm Road Lane Configuration Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 31 Figure 19: Alternative 1C Forecast Volumes - Year 2035 PM Peak Hour 49J �5i370 E Zs° 2498 2425 .,1942 20 6 2D0 J -- 335 j 329 489-� }I 3551 i 118871 3.3 O� 509 L 91s 774 535 Shady Elm ltd - 676 822 2538 ^2729 loan 1574 �$ �4as 1479 275 U 1092 1863 9 _. 1263 1822Route 11 : 2268 147 33 _ 2053 1754 1809 289 L 900 a, 2402 1396.. 1602 1075 34p 625 1262 .....=�,y_ .. N Legend Signalized Intersection 1611 2498 Rotary Route 37 Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 32 - 2. Alternative 6 As part of this alternative, three different configurations were analyzed — Alternative 6A, Alternative 6B and Alternative 6C. In all three of the alternatives, vehicles from I-81 and WB Route 37 access Route 11 using the proposed rotary located north of Route 11. As a result, the travel distance to all the destination points is comparable to the existing travel distance. In Alternative 6B, traffic from Shady Elm EB and Route 11 SB access I-81 through a proposed loop ramp. The addition of this ramp reduces the weave on the NB segment of the rotary. In Alternative 6C, the intersections on southbound and northbound approaches to the rotary are partially signalized. These additions improve traffic operations and reduce weaving on the rotary. The configurations of Alternative 6A, Alternative 6 B and Alternative 6C are shown in Figure 20, Figure 21 and Figure 22 respectively. Route 11 lane configuration details for Alternative 6A and Alternative 6C is shown in :Figure 23. Route 11 lane configuration details for Alternative 6B is shown in Figure 24.The 2035 PM peak hour link volumes for Alternative 6 are shown in Figure 25 Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 33 Shady Elm Phase 11 Access Study HNTB Corporation 34 r iyui te-i-- i. �-U I I I I YU I CILIQII U I /-%I Lt:I I IOLIVV UL) W Modification Loop Ramp for traff1cfrom Shady Elm EB and Rte 1.1.SB to 1-81. The addition of this ramp reduces theweave on the Rotary NB segment Trafffc Patterns: (Ind[catEzS Trafflic CIrec-!on 0 n I y) Droprasec !-SI Interchange Shady Elm/pOute 1,1. Prciposf-md Access improvernenz Slyn-J.hzed Litersec-don 16L N Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 35 rigure zz: c:onnguration or Hiiernanve bu : n a� 4� •• '= / , 4r—A ER:y� w i Modification Partially signalized intersections on SB and NB approachestothe Rotary. These additions improve operation and reduce weaving on the Rotary. Traffic Patterns. (Indicvtes Tr�.ff c G[recort Only) Proposed I-81 Interchange Shady Eine/Route I.'- Proposed .`{proposed Acc-ass rr, provernent Exytrnr Rmadv✓zy Signe)@zed fntersecton Shady Elm Phase II Access Stuff HNTB Corporation 36 23- Alternative 6A and Alternative 6C - Route 11 Lane Configuration Shady Elm Phase II Access Study. HNTB Corporation 37 Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 38 Figure 25: Alternative 6 Forecast Volumes - Year 2035 PM Peak Hour 4941 1370 z8o 2498 2425 200 170 206_J y 335 325 489 i! 351 fj 1161 333 774 _ . 535 Shady Elm Rd 676 � 822 2725, F 3055 1863 _ . 1831 86,? 1812 ! ,_ 1822 �. Rete 11 / 1233 1754 d — 1197 1418 1809 7 �7 J � �� 1289 V k AF 900 370 2402 1396_ 1602 1075 340 625 2262 N Legend Signalized Intersection 1611 2498 Route 37 Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 39 3. Alternative 5 The configuration of Alternative 5 is shown in Figure 26. Lane configuration details for the I-81 / Route 37 interchange are shown in Figure 27. The 2035 PM peak hour link volumes for this alternative are shown in Figure 28. Direct access between I-81 and Route 11 is provided through new connectors. The travel distance to all destination points is comparable to the existing travel distance. Furthermore, the elevated ramps are provided to/from I-81 merge/diverge from the left side on Route 37. This eliminates the weaving condition for traffic entering or exiting Route 37 from/to I-81. As a result, Alternative 5 improves significantly both access and traffic operation on Route 37. Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 40 Shady Elm Access Management Study— Phase II HNTB Corporation Figure 27: Alternative 5 - 1-81/Route37 Interchange Lane Configuration Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 42 Figure 28: Alternative 5 Forecast Volumes - Year 2035 PM Peak Hour I370 Zzso � H 2498 2425 �Z00 4 �r170 _ 206 ,c- 335 489.-j 325 351 1< 1333 L—,---j4 t- X06 � 774 535 Shady Elm Rd 676 822 249 i 75 j� 302 j326 836 1565 �J y 2099 2155 2467 3 28 I-89 135 1589 - = 1343 437 2348 r �'` 836 1891 Ro to 11 :Ar � 1478 1863 1589 �. 485 1822 1478 27 1589 691,220 fyw� tiff �' 10 900 3-70,, 289 2402 1396 1-81 1602 I 1075 40 '625 1262 N Legend Signalized Intersection 1611 2498 Route 37 Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 43 G. Evaluation of Tier 2 Alternatives 1. Measures of Effectiveness for Evaluation of Alternatives HNTB used the VISSIM micro -simulation model to analyze the tier 2 set of alternatives. In evaluating the alternatives, HNTB examined a number of measures of effectiveness (MOE), some numerical and some qualitative. Each alternative was then ranked for each MOE. Based on the weight assigned to each MOE, an overall rank for each alternative was determined. The highest ranked alternative was advanced as the recommended alternative. Six quantitative measures of effectiveness were considered. These measures are listed below. Travel Time: Travel times (in seconds) were computed from VISSIM outputs along the following eight paths: 1. I-81 southbound to Route 11 southbound 2. 1-81 southbound to Route 11 northbound 3. I-81 southbound to Shady Elm Road southbound 4. 1-81 southbound to Shady Elm Road northbound 5. I-81 northbound to Route 11 northbound 6. I-81 northbound to Route 11 southbound 7. I-81 northbound to Shady Elm Road northbound 8. I-81 northbound to Shady Elm Road southbound • Roadway bevel of Service: Average density (in vehicles per mile per lane) was computed for merge, diverge and weave sections on Route 37 and Route 11. Density was computed based on outputs from the VISSIM micro -simulations. The levels of service for each of the segments were determined using the criteria and thresholds specified in the HCM. • Intersection Delay and Level of Service: Average intersection delay and approach delay (in seconds per vehicle) were computed for all the signalized intersections within the study area. Delay was computed based on outputs from VISSIM micro -simulations. The levels of service for each of the segments were determined based on criteria and delay thresholds specified in the HCM. Queues: Average queue lengths (in feet) and maximum queue lengths (in feet) were computed for every ramp, intersection, and roundabout approaches. Queues were computed based on outputs from the VISSIM micro -simulations. Cost: Conceptual-level/order of magnitude construction cost estimates, considering the amount of new roadway and new bridges were estimated for each of the alternatives. m Right -of -Way: Potential land acquisition requirements for each alternative were quantified as right-of-way cost. In addition, six qualitative measures were evaluated. These measures are listed below. Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 44 Connectivity: A qualitative review of the degree of connectivity maintained in the revised roadway network was carried out for each alternative. Constructability: A qualitative review of complexity of construction and maintenance of traffic was carried out for each alternative. Signage: A qualitative review of signage requirements was carried out for each alternative. © Environmental Impacts: a qualitative review of potential environmental impacts was carried out for each alternative. Safe : A qualitative review of sight distances, decision distances, and potential sideswipe accident locations was carried for each alternative. Phase Implementation: A qualitative review of the ability of implementing an alternative in phases was carried out for each alternative. 2. Quantitative Measures The following tables summarize the results of the analysis for each of the quantitative measures of effectiveness. a. Travel Time Table 5 reports the average travel times in seconds along the eight paths described in the previous section. Alternative I C and Alternative 6A generate higher travel times for paths from I- 81 NB to Route 11 as vehicle need to either loop around Shady Elm Road or use the rotary located north of Route 11. In Alternative 5, direct access to Route 1 I from I-81 is provided. Hence this alternative generates the lowest travel time for paths between I-81NB and Route 11. Alternative 5 generally outperforms Alternative 1C and Alternative 6C on the travel time measure. Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 45 Note: Shaded cells in green and light red are the best and the worst in class for the particular route respectively. b. Leve( of Service Figure 29 to Figure 33 depict the level of service (LOS) for critical merge, diverge and weave sections of the roadways (based on average density) for each alternative. These figures also illustrate the intersection LOS (based on average delay per vehicle) for each alternative. Alternative 5 generates LOS C or better on all highway sections and intersection approaches. This is due to separate connector roads between I-81 and Route 1. Furthermore, this configuration eliminates potential weaving segments on Route 11 and Route 37. Alternative 6A performs poorly with LOS F on weave sections at Route 37/ I-81 ramps and the Route 1 I rotary. This is due to the short weaving distance available for traffic accessing Route 11 from Route 37. Absence of signal control or loop ramp within the rotary further deteriorates the traffic operation along Route 11. Overall, Alternative 5 outperforms the other alternatives in terms of LOS. All levels of service for Alternative 5 are C or better. Further details on LOS evaluation for highway segments and intersections are provided in Appendix C: Operational Analysis — VISSIM Outputs. Figure 29: Alternative 1C - LOS Evaluation r Ir NX, 13 F� Approach Delay D � I El�i q ! `E� r` ;F 2 C Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 46 rlgUfe JUV HllefHaLIVe OH - LVJ GValuaL1Vl1 ,yd ` ! � A F t d F F I F LF t, F v! Figure 31: Alternative 6B - LOS Evaluation I �%❑ D �t e «., E F d ��, C �^ Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 47 — --- 1 �1 % A l R /r J 1 D� Figure 33: Alternative 5 - LOS Evaluation gt4. �t f _5 4 9t'..j❑ B t • 'h 4 p i it F 1 a C Shay Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 48 c. Queues For each alternative, average queue lengths (in feet) and maximum queue lengths (in feet) were computed for all ramp approaches and intersection approaches. Summary of queue length at different approaches for each alternative are provided in Table 6. Further details on queue evaluation for ramp and intersection approaches are provided in Appendix C: Operational Analysis — VISSIM Outputs. Table 6: Tier 2 Alternatives - Average and Maximum Queue Lengths Note: denotes that movement is not applicable for the particular Alternative d. Construction Cost Conceptual-level/order of magnitude construction costs were estimated for the alternatives. Table 7 summarizes the main assumptions used for the cost estimate. Table 8 shows the results of the cost estimate for each alternative. It is important to note that the cost for construction of the Shady Elm/Route 37 interchange and the widening of Shady Elm Road to a four -lane roadway is not included in the cost estimate. Improvements on Shady Elm Road were considered as given for all the alternatives. WB I - I - - I - I - I - I - - 110 1066 Route & NB I 79 11005 1586 I 1674 i 557 I 1674 I 962 I 1674 I 158 I 606 R WB CD Road SB I 1 I 333 I 1196 I 1674 I 0 I 0 I 345 I 1329 I 262 1050 EB I 767 11674 - I - I - I - I - I - I 26 I 592 Route 11 & NB I 676 11674 1597 I 1674 I 0 I 0 I 740 I 1674 I 15 I 466 EB CD Road SB I 514 11548 I 1600 I 1674 I 0 1130 I 36 I 567 I 135 I 1280 WB I 336 I 1674 2 I 103 I 4 I 78 I 4 I 96 I 5 82 Shady Elm & NB I 113 I 347 30 I 281 I 27 I 278 I 27 I 358 I 32 540 WB CD Road SB I 460 11403 i 24 I 205 I 27 j 180 I 23 I 188 I 23 I 196 EB I 1524 ( 1674 I 24 I 232 I 23 I 214 I 23 I 219 I 22 212 Shady Elm & NB I 57 325 I 15 I 231 16 I 223 I 15 I 195 I 17 227 EB CD Road SB 113 I 593 I 24 I 210 25 I 196 I 25 I 166 I 28 I 194 Route 11 & EB - I - - I I I - I - I 6 111 Ramp from NB - - - 16 393 1-81 SB SB f I - I I - I - I - I - I - I 90 I 1014 Route 11 & 13 398 NB Ramp to ! 1-81 SB SB - I _ _ 40 767 Note: denotes that movement is not applicable for the particular Alternative d. Construction Cost Conceptual-level/order of magnitude construction costs were estimated for the alternatives. Table 7 summarizes the main assumptions used for the cost estimate. Table 8 shows the results of the cost estimate for each alternative. It is important to note that the cost for construction of the Shady Elm/Route 37 interchange and the widening of Shady Elm Road to a four -lane roadway is not included in the cost estimate. Improvements on Shady Elm Road were considered as given for all the alternatives. Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation _ 49 Alternative 1C has the lowest construction cost among all the alternatives. This alternative requires the reconfiguration/widening of two bridges along Shady Elm Road (above Route 37) and construction of a roundabout. The construction cost estimates for Alternative 6A, Alternative 6B and Alternative 6C are very similar. Among them, Alternative 6 B is estimated to have a higher cost as it requires construction of a loop ramp at the rotary. Alternative 5 is estimated to have the highest cost as this concept requires construction of flyover ramps between I-81 and Route 37. This alternative also requires the construction of separate connectors between I-81 and Route 11. Table 7: Main Assumptions Used for Construction Cost Estimate Roadway Im®rovement Cost Item Unit VJ n �Cost Roadway Square Feet $12 Bridge Square Feet $200 Traffic Signals per Intersection $200,000 Additional Items included based on Roadway Improvement Cost Description Drainage and Stormwater Management Items 0.30 * Roadway Improvement Cost Roadside Development and Incidental Items 0.20 * Roadway Improvement Cost Signing and Pavement Marking Items 0.20 * Roadway Improvement Cost Maintenance of Traffic Items 0.15 * Roadway Improvement Cost Lighting 0.10 * Roadway Improvement Cost Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 50 Table 8: Tier 2 Alternatives "I - Construction Cost Evaluation (millions of dollars) At grade roadways 7.6 8.1 8.7 8.1 5.9 On structure roadways 3.5 7.0 7.8 7.0 17.3 Roadway Sub -total 11.1 15.1 16.5 15.1 23.2 Additional Items Based on Percentage of Roadway Subtotal including: Drainage (30%) • Roadside Development and incidental items (20%) 10.5 14.4 15.7 14.4 22.0 • Signing and pavement marking (20%) • MOT (15%) • Lighting (10%) Traffic Signals 0.2 - - 0.4 0.8 Items Based on Project Subtotal including: • Construction Surveying (1% of Project Subtotal) • Mobilization [$80,000 + 5% x (Project Subtotal - 11.2 15.1 16.5 15.3 23.5 $1,000,000)] • Engineering (15% of Project Subtotal) • Contingency (30% of Project Subtotal) Total Cost 33.0 44.6 48.7 45.2 69.5 (1) Cost estimates for all alternatives do not include the cost for improvements on Shady Elm Road and for the construction of the Shady Elm Rd/Route 37 Interchange except for those additional costs related with improvements beyond what is originally proposed in the CLRP. Further details on the construction cost estimates for the alternatives are provided in Appendix D: Cost Analysis. e. Right -of -Way Cost Right-of-way (ROW) costs have been estimated for the alternatives, as given in Table 9 Alternative 1C is estimated to have the highest ROW cost while Alternative 5 is estimated to have lower ROW cost. Further details on the construction cost estimates for the alternatives are provided in Appendix D: Cost Analysis. Table 9: Tier 2 Alternatives - Right -of -Way Cost Evaluation (millions of dollars) ROW required (Acres) 11.81 6.30 10.71 6.30 6.00 Total Cost 4.15 2.21 3.75 2.21 2.10 Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 51 3. Qualitative Measures Table 10 summarizes the evaluation of the qualitative measures for each of the tier 2 alternatives. Table 10: Tier 2 Alternatives - Evaluation of Qualitative Measures 4. Evaluation Matrix Table i 1 details the results of the final evaluation using a weighting factor for each of the measures of effectiveness. Each measure of effectiveness was quantified from 1 to 5, being 1 the worst condition and 5 the best condition. The weight factor used for each MOE was developed in conjunction with the jurisdictional stakeholders during the evaluation workshop. The following are the findings from the final weighted evaluation of the five Tier 2 alternatives (IC, 6A, 6B, 6C, and 5): • Alternatives 6A, 6B, and 6C were clearly outperformed by Alternative 1 C and Alternative 5. 0 Alternative 5 has the highest score among A alternatives, however construction cost and the required additional right-of-way was a concern for the study team. o Alternative 1C score was close to Alternative 5. The main issue lowering the score of IC was the poor traffic operation resulted in some segments of the network including the southbound approach from Route 37 to Shady Elm Road, the westbound C -D road, and Connectivity Fair Excellent Excellent Excellent Good Some Some Some complexity to Some complexity to complexity construct complexity to construct constructing the Constructability Easy underpass construct underpass flyovers under Route underpass under Route between 1-81 SB 37 under Route 37 37 and Route 37 Signage Poor Good Good Good Very Good Some potential Environmental None None None None for impacts with Impacts new ramps to/from 1-81 SB Safety Very Good Poor Good Good Very Good Yes Loop Ramp Ability to be Ramp from Rte from Rotary to Implemented in 11 to 1-81 SB No 1-81 can be No Yes Phases can be provided provided at a at a later year later year 4. Evaluation Matrix Table i 1 details the results of the final evaluation using a weighting factor for each of the measures of effectiveness. Each measure of effectiveness was quantified from 1 to 5, being 1 the worst condition and 5 the best condition. The weight factor used for each MOE was developed in conjunction with the jurisdictional stakeholders during the evaluation workshop. The following are the findings from the final weighted evaluation of the five Tier 2 alternatives (IC, 6A, 6B, 6C, and 5): • Alternatives 6A, 6B, and 6C were clearly outperformed by Alternative 1 C and Alternative 5. 0 Alternative 5 has the highest score among A alternatives, however construction cost and the required additional right-of-way was a concern for the study team. o Alternative 1C score was close to Alternative 5. The main issue lowering the score of IC was the poor traffic operation resulted in some segments of the network including the southbound approach from Route 37 to Shady Elm Road, the westbound C -D road, and Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 52 the intersection of Route 11 with the eastbound C -D road. Based on the analysis of the results, the study team proposed additional modifications to Alternative 1C in order to improve its traffic operations. The modifications (Alternative 1D) included the following elements: Changes in the assumptions for traffic assignment: to this point the study did not consider any diversion of local traffic to alternate routes based on the inconvenience of the circulation presented by the proposed roadway network configuration. However, it is unlikely that drivers will keep existing travel patterns if there are other options that provide better travel time or convenience. Therefore, the study team agreed on diverting some of the trips to alternate routes. These are as follows: o Vehicles traveling on Shady Elm and headed to Route 11 North of Route 37 will use Apple Valley Road instead of the eastbound C -D road parallel to Route 37. o Vehicles traveling on Route 37 westbound and headed to Route 11 North of Route 37 will turn right at the off -ramp with Shady Elm and continue to Apple Valley Road instead of turning left on Shady Elm Road and looping around to Route 11. o These trip diversions resulted in a reduction of roughly 30 percent of the looping volumes on the C -D roads. o The outcome from the changes in trip assignments was an improved traffic operation for the overall alternative. Replacement of the signalized intersection at Route 11 and the eastbound C -D road for a roundabout a Provision of a direct ramp connecting to 1-81 SB south C -D road starting roughly 700 feet south of the roundabout at Route 11 and the eastbound Route 37 C -D road Figure 34 shows the 2035 PM peak -hour volumes resulted from the changes in trip assignments in Alternative 1D. Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 53 Table 11: Tier 2 Alternatives - Evaluation Matrix Traffic Operation 1 2 1 3 2 5 Travel Time o.6 2 1 2 3 5 Cost 0.7 5 4 3 3 2 Additional Right of o.8 3 5 3 3 2 Way Requirement Connectivity 0.5 2 3 3 3 4 Constructability 0.5 5 4 3 4 2 Wayfinding o.6 2 3 3 3 4 Environmental 0.5 5 5 5 5 4 Impacts Safety 1 5 3 4 4 5 Ability to be Implemented in 0.2 5 1 3 3 4 Phases OVERALL 22.3 19.4 20.6 20.7 24.2 Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 54 Figure 34: Alternative 1D Forecast Volumes - Year 2035 PM Peak Hour zas 370 zso 2498 2425 e 4941 J y \ 200 0 ,,1443 20� t — 335 325 489 351 � � /} I �" e 1391 V1 l' 509 Shady `lm Rd 676 > 1 1863 485 1479 275 w L 19 8729 I - 1 f\1092 535 1863�. 1263 1822 Route 11 75\ 2268 3147 1554 533 1754 1310 I 289 1�0� L ,ti1 L ti 1- 900 70 2402 1396, \ 1602_ 1075 340 625 1262 �...t., N 16111 L4y Route 37 Legend } Signalized Intersection Rotary Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 55 H. Recommended Alternative Based on the detailed evaluation of the tier 2 alternatives, it is recommended that Alternative 1C be modified and advanced as the preferred alternative as Alternative 1D. Modifications for Alternative 1D are listed in Section CA. 1. Analysis of Performance for Alternative 1D MOE results from the analysis of Alternative 1D are summarizes in Table 12 to Table 15. Figure 35 depicts levels of service for weaving segments and intersections. As depicted, Alternative 1 D shows significant improvements in operation compared to Alternative 1C. Table 17 shows the updated evaluation matrix including Alternative 1D. As shown, the improvement in operation brings this alternative as the one with the highest score based on the established criteria. Table 12: Alternative 1D - Average travel times Table 13: Alternative 1D - Segment Density and LOS Route 37 EB Weave 18.56 Travel Time Segment Travel Time 1-81 SB to Rte 11 SB 123.36 1-81 SB to Rte 11 NB 73.7 1-81 SB to Shady Elm Road SB 170.28 1-81 SB to Shady Elm Road NB 145.34 1-81 NB to Rte 11 SB 322.6 1-81 NB to Shady Elm Road NB 197.76 1-81 NB to Shady Elm Road SB 217.08 Shady Elm NB to Rte 11 SB 114.94 Shady Elm NB to Rte 11 NB 267.06 Shady Elm SB to Rte 11 SB 201.22 Shady Elm SB to Rte 11 NB 408.05 Table 13: Alternative 1D - Segment Density and LOS Route 37 EB Weave 18.56 B Rte 37 WB Weave 33.60 p Rte 37 WB Merge from Shady Elm 21.69 C Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 56 Table 14: Alternative 1D - Intersection Delav and LOS DelaV per Intersection Route 11 & WB CD Road NB 5.6 A SB 1.84 A Total 4.05 A Route 11 & EB CD Road NB 0.82 A SB 0.67 A EB 8.86 A Total 5.24 A Shady Elm & WB CD Road WB 17.35 B NB 80.66 E/F SB 48.38 D Total 31.07 C Shady Elm & EB CD Road EB 78.47 E NB 36.95 D SB 13.50 B Total 41.65 D Route 11 & Connector to SB 1-81 NB 11.86 B SB _ 14.74 B Total 13.51 B Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 57 riyuic or. r+uVI IIOUVr. .v Table 15: Alternative 1 D — ROW Cost Estimate (2009 Millions of Dollars) ROW required (Acres) 10.26 Total Cost 3.60 Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 58 Table 16: Alternative 1 D — Cost Estimates (1) (2009 Millions of Dollars) At grade roadways 8.2 On structure roadways 3.5 Roadway Sub -total 11.7 Additional Items Based on Percentage of Roadway Subtotal including: • Drainage (30%) • Roadside Development and Incidental items (20%) 11.1 • Signing and pavement marking (20%) • MOT (15%) • Lighting (10%) Traffic Signals 0.2 Items Based on Project Subtotal including: • Construction Surveying (1% of Project Subtotal) • Mobilization [$80,000 + 5% x (Project Subtotal - 11.7 $1,000,000)] Engineering (15% of Project Subtotal) Contingency (30% of Project Subtotal) Total Cost 34.7 TOTAL COST (Including ROW Cost) 38.2 (1) Cost estimates for all alternatives do not include the cost for improvements on Shady Elm Road and for the construction of the Shady Elm Rd/Route 37 Interchange except for those additional costs related with improvements beyond what is originally proposed in the CLRP. Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 59 Table 17: Tier 2 Alternatives - Final Evaluation Matrix (Including Recommended Alternative 1D) Traffic Operation 1 2 1 3 2 5 3 Travel Time o.6 2 1 2 3 5 3 Cost 0.7 5 4 3 3 2 5 Additional Right of o.8 3 5 3 3 2 3 Way Requirement Connectivity 0.5 2 3 3 3 4 3 Constructability 0.5 5 4 3 4 2 5 Wayfinding o.6 2 3 3 3 4 2 Environmental 0.5 5 5 5 5 4 5 Impacts Safety 1 5 3 4 4 5 5 Ability to be i Implemented in 0.2 5 1 3 3 4 5 Phases OVERALL 22.3 19.4 2o.6 20.7 24.2 24.4 Figure 36 depicts the overall recommended Alternative 1D. Figure 37 to Figure 39 depict more detail on lane configuration for the Shady Elm/Route 37 Interchange, the Route 11 roundabouts on each side of Route 37, and the connector from Route 11 to I-81 southbound. 2. Justification for Recommending Alternative ID As shown in Table 17, overall, Alternative 1D performs the best among the Tier 2 alternatives. In addition Alternative 1D outscores all other alternatives, except for Alternative 5, for all measures of effectiveness. While Alternative 5 provides an exceptional level of service, its construction cost and construction complexity make it less beneficial in the aggregate. In addition, the modifications implemented from Alternative IC to Alternative ID significantly improved the operation on the critical weaving segments and intersections in the concept. Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 60 Travel time is adequate for this concept. Even though there is an increase in travel time for traffic flows that required looping around Shady Elm Road in order to access Route 11 or vice versa, overall travel times are comparable or below those obtained from other alternatives. Connectivity is limited in Alternative ID as some direct connection between Route 37 and Route 11 have been eliminated making it necessary to use the Shady Elm "loop -around" connection. While this presents an inconvenience and a wayfinding issue for drivers, the study team believes that this is a small price to pay for a fraction of the users in order to achieve a "balanced" roadway alternative. Alternative ID is a balanced roadway concept in the sense that it operates at adequate levels of service, provides good access and connectivity for most drivers, it is safe, has no environmental impacts, and has the ability to be implemented in phases (for instance, the roundabouts could be implemented at a later phase when traffic reaches levels that a signalized intersection would not operate well). In other words, Alternative 1D generates the highest return for the minimum capital investment (Lowest construction cost). 3. Final Comments and Next Steps The study team recommends Alternative 1D as a feasible roadway concept that addresses the operational, safety, connectivity, and access to development issues listed in Section D.1 at a reasonable construction cost. It is important to note, that while the study area encompassed Middle Road as its western limit, the study team found no need to include an alternative contemplating additional improvements in that area such as a Middle Road/Route 37 interchange. The long distance separating Middle Road from the I-81/Route 37 interchange, from Route 11, and from existing and proposed future development locations makes this option significantly less convenient and efficient to provide solutions to the issues at hand. The Shady Elm phase Il Study generated roadway configuration plans at a conceptual/planning level. plans shown in Figure 36 to Figure 41 have been extracted from the VISSIM simulation model and, as such, they provide a basic understanding of the lane configuration, topology, and connectivity of the roadway network. However, they are not intended for design use. Shady Elm Access Management Study - Phase II HN t ,, corporation 62 Figure 37: Alternative 11): Detail of Lane Configuration at Shady Elm Road/ Route 37 Interchange Shady Elm Road/ ��__ '• � ,4, .fir. t � .�- -- -.P -- �----�-�-- Route 37 4 Interchange t R®ad r 10 ry w {l Vpry «�► v Note. r 7" .fir NOT INTENDED FOR DESIGN : �� 1 Onlyforgraphic representation # r of the proposed roadway and r ti lane configuration .�' Shady Elm Phas,j Access Study HNTB Corporation 63 Figure 38: Alternative 11): Detail of Lane Configuration at Route 11 Roundabouts G oil Proposed V "! Modificationsto ''. Route 11 / Route 37 40 .�, V" ! Interchan e " ..� , ti r r Rou ! te1 , i 4 - „r. Note: i e NOT INTENDED FOR DESIGN Onlyforgraphic representation ' - • " �`' of the proposed roadway and lane configuration • - ~ i -'� • Shady Elm Phaa,, j Access Study HNTB Corporation 64 Figure 39: Alternative 1D: Detail of Lane Configuration at Route 11 South Roundabout Route 11 South Roundabout -y/9 i Route VNEW Note: NOT INTENDED FOR DESIGN Onlyforgraphic representation of the proposed roadway and lane configuration a° Shady Elm Phasc , Access Study HNTB Corporation 65 Figure 40: Alternative 1D: Detail of Lane Configuration at Route 11 North Roundabout Route 11 North Roundabout Note: NOT INTENDED FOR DESIGN Onlyforgraphic representation of the proposed roadway and lane configuration V. -�Ydmr'� mog\\ lu Shady Elm Phas,o Access Study HNTB Corporation 66 Figure 41: Alternative 1D: Detail of Lane Configuration at Route 11 and Connector to 1-81 SB 1-81 SB Connector from Route 11 r a _ ' n o „S a V Note: 00 ,c NOT INTENDED FOR DESIGN W7 Onlyforgraphic representation W of the proposed roadway and lane configuration C7 • Item 3: Route 7/ Valley Mill Road Area transportation alternatives At the meeting, staff will present a number of transportation alternatives for your discussion and response. Staff is anticipating that the discussion will lead additional development or, to an alternative, for recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. 11 Item 4: IVfP® Long Range Pian Update Attached please find the draft project list for the vision plan component of the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan update. This item is for your discussion and input. 2035 WinFred MPO L RTP Vision Plan List Draft Road Name roject ID Roadway SectionVision Plan Improvement Keep Project Modify Project Completed Project C _�omments 1-81 1 MP 305-307 Widen 1-81 to 6 lanes X 2 Exit 310 Widen 1-81 to 6 -lane section transitioning to Project 3 (MP 310-313) Stephens City: X Winchester: X (Winchester: Should consider 2 -lane CD roads instead since improved Exit 310 laiready calls for C -D lanes 3 MP 310-313 Widen 1-81 with 2 -lane CD roads in both directions X 4 Interchange at MP 311/13attaile Drive Interchange on 1-81 New Interchange X Frederick: Assess progress of project 5 MP 313-317 Widen 1-81 to 6 lanes & widen Senseny Road & Woodstock Lane Bridqes over I-81 X Winchester: Partial Winchester: Abrams Creek bridge done 5a MP 317 — 319 Widen 1-81 to 6 lanes Stephens City: X Winchester: X Winchester: Should consider 2 -lane CD !roads instead since new interchange at MP 1318 already calls for C -D lanes 6 MP 319-321 Widen 1-81 to 6 lanes X 7 MP 321-324 Widen 1-81 to 6 lanes & widen Cedar Hill Road bridge overt -81 X 8 Interchange @ MP 307 Route 277 Relocate Existing Interchange to the south X 9 Interchange @ MP 310 Route 37S/642 Construct Full Cloverleaf Interchange with C -D roads X 10 Interchange @ MP 313 Improve Interchange X (Winchester: Replace bridge deck 10a Exit 313 Replace and Upgrade Bridge Deck IPartially funded through Federal sources 11 Interchange @ MP 315 Improve Interchange X 12 Interchange @ MP 317 Improve Interchange and add one -lane C -D roads between Exit 317 and new Exit 318 X 13 Interchange at MP 318 Construct Full Cloverleaf Interchange with C -D roads to accommodate Route 37 X Frederick: Clover leaf not feasible reference 13a Interchange @ MP 321 Replace 3 lane bridge and relocate Waverly Rd X 13b Interchange MP 323 Turn lane improvements X 13c Cedar Hill Rd Decellerate/Accellerate Lanes New Project Exit 307 Relocation of Interchange New Project Near City/County Line Hogue Run Bridge New Project Stephens City Bypass - US 11 North to South Connection to Relocated Exit 307 Interchange US Route 11 14 Rt 37 to South of City Limits along Rt 11 Widen to 4 -lane divided cross section with LT Lanes X 14a South City Limits to Tevis Street Upgrades to existing section including curb and gutter, sidewalk, bike lanes X 15 Martinsburg Pike Junction with Route 37 (existing junction) Improvements to Off Ramp X 16 Martinsburg Pike - Route 37 Junction to 1-81 Widen to 6 -lane divided cross section X 17 1-81 to West Virginia Line Widen to 4 -lane divided cross section X New Project Interchange improvements to south Route 11/Route 37 Interchange Intersection and Through Lane Upgrades, Ramp Modifications New Project Route 11 South at Opequon Avenue and Shawnee Drive Inersection Improvements and Access Management New Project Entire Section of Route 11 Access Management Improvements MIS WinFrprl IMP® LRTP Vision Pian List Draft Road Name roject ID I Roadway Section ��-�DisionPlan improvement Keep Project 1 Modify Project Completed Project Comments New Project Redbud Road Connection Disconnect and Realign to Deet Snowden Bridge Blvd New Project Hopewell Rd and Brucetown Rd Align Intersections Route 17/50 18 Carpers Valley Road to Sulphur Springs Road Widen to 6 -lane cross section Frederick: Check number of lanes needed X via model 19 Sulphur Springs Road to Relocated Route 522 Widen to 6 -lane cross section Frederick: Check number of lanes needed X via model 20 Relocated Route 522 to 1-81 Widen to 6 -lane cross section Frederick: Check number of lanes needed X via model 21 I-81 to Apple Blossom Drive Juba] Early bridge over relocated Millwood Avenue/Frontage Road with ramp to EB Route 17/50. Realign Apple Blossom Drive to intersect with University Drive at traffic signal X =rederick: Revisit this project New Project Entie County Section of Route 50 access Management improvements Route 50 22 Amherst Street between Keating Drive & Route 37 Widen to 6 -lane cross section X Partially Completed in Winchester 23 Route 50 Between Rt 37 and Poor House Road Widen to 6 -lane cross section =rederick: Check number of lanes needed Winchester: X? ✓ia model R^vte 37 24 Interchange with US Route 11 (South of City) Study the feasibility of maintaining future direct access to Route 11 by modeling alternative designs to 1-81, Route 11, Route 37/Stephens City Western Bypass (Shady Elm Interchange) to determine the most desirable modification which maintains transportation service to the Route 11 Corridor in light of the anticipated 2030 traffic volume. ':Ninchester: Replace with Alternative Stephens City: X Winchester: X recommended in HNTB study 25 Interchange with Route 651 (Shady Elm Road) New Diamond Interchange ',Vinchester: Replace with Alternative X recommended in HNTB study 26 Interchange with Cedar Creek Grade Signal on Southbound, Roundabout on Northbound, feasibility study on roundabout Winchester: X?/Stephens City: X 27 Interchange with West Juba[ Early Drive Construct new diamond interchange with realignment of Merrimans Lane - north side T into Jubal Early Drive, dVinchester: Replace with Willow Run south side connect into interchange Ste hens City- X Winchester: X orofferred improvement 28 Interchange with US Route 50 Improve Interchange Stephens City: X Winchester: X Partially Completed 29 Interchange with US Route 522 Improve Interchange Stephens City: X Winchester: X 29a Interchange at Winchester Medical Center Improvements to allow medical center access to western campus X New Project Rt 11 - Stephens City Western Bypass On -Street Parking and Widening Route 277 30 1-81 to Route 641 Widen to 4 -lane divided cross section X 31 Route 641 to White Oak Road (Route 636) Widen to 4 -lane divided cross section X 32 White Oak Road to US Route 522/US Route 340 Widen to 4 -lane divided cross section New Project Entire County Section of Route 50 Access Management improvements New Project Triangle Study Projects New Project South Frederick Parkway at Intersection of Route 277 and Route 522 Relocation of Exit 307 to Route 277 2035 WinFred FAPO !RTP Vision Plan moist Draft Road Name roject ID jRoadway Section IVision P1an Improvement Keep Project Modify Project Completed Project Comments N e;W Project ntersection of Route 277 and Route 522 Extension of existing route approximately 1.75 miles west to new intersection with Route 522 approximately 1.25 miles north New Project South Frederick Parkway batween 277 Extension to 522 and existing Route 277 Create connector road from existing Route 277 New Project Double Church Road Improve road to South Frederick Parkway New Project Hudson Hollow Road Improve and realign to South Frederick Parkway Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622) 33 Rt 37 to City Boundary Line Widen to 4 -lane cross section New Project Route 37 Interchange Grade Improvements Route 522 34 Intersection with Tasker Road Traffic Siqnalization and Turn Lane 35 Intersection with Macedonia Church Road Install traffic signal 36 Intersection with Papermill Road Relocate to south opposite new school entrance/Victory Blvd Extension 37 Airport Road to US Route 17/50 Relocate US Route 522 to the east. Existing US Route 522 to be closed at northern end to serve local traffic only. 38 W ck Street to 0.2 miles north of Winchester CL Widen to 4 -lane cross section ",w Project Tevis Street to Ryco Lane Realignment ate 641 Double Church Road 39 lWarren Co Line to Route 277 Upgrade existing two-lane road Route 642 Tasker Road 40 JUS Route 522 to Lakeside Drive Widen to 4 -lane cross section New Project Route 37 Improvements New Project Papermill Road Extension from North of Route 37 Route 651 (Shady Elm Road 42 Apple Valley Road (Route 652) to Proposed Route 651 Extension Widen to 4 lane cross section and expanding intersection Stephens City: X i Winchester: Should modify this project or !add new one to smooth out curve where thru- movement exists at intersection of Shady Winchester: X !Elm and Apple Valley Rd (near GE Plant) Route 652 (Apple Valle Road 43 US Route 11 to Middle Road Widen to 2 -lane with Turn Lanes i Featherbed Lane 44 South Loudoun St to South Pleasant Valley Road Widen to 4 -lane cross section !Winchester: Upgrade existing 2 -lane cross X !section with LT lane at Abrams Creek Dr Battaile Drive 45 New South Pleasant Valley Road Extension to Shawnee Drive Widen to 4 -lane cross section X Shawnee Drive 46 Battaile Drive to US Route 11 Widen to 4 -lane cross section X Greenwood Road Route 656 47 ISenseny Road to Valley Mill Road Upqrade existing 2 -lane cross section Sulphur Springs Road Route 655 j 48 US Route 17/50 to Greenwood Road Upgrade existing 2 -lane cross section Weems Lane 49 Roosevelt Blvd to US Route 11 Widen to 4 -lane section with LT lanes at intersections X 2035 WinFred IRAPO LRTP Vision Plan List ®raft Road Name Project ID Roadway Sectionision an Improvement rovement KeeProject Modify Project Comleted Project om s p p Pa ermill Road 50 1-81 to Shawnee Drive Remove bridge over 1-81 in conjunction with Project #4 at Battaile Dr. Interchanqe X Hope Drive Extension 51 Wilson Blvd to Papermill Road (3 lanes) Construct 3 -lane cross section as part of Papermill Road relocation X Papermill Road Relocation 51a Hope Drive to South Pleasant Valley Road (5 lanes) Widen to 4 -lane section with LT lanes at intersections Stephens City: X Winchester: X New Project Snowden Bridge - Tevis Street Realignment 51 b Bradford Ct to Relocated Papermill Road/Hope Drive Extension Construct 2 -lane cross section as part of Papermill Road relocation X White Oak Road 52 US Route 522 to Tasker Road Widen to 4 -lane cross section X ''o;2Ct Rainville Road New Collector Road Old Charles Town Road 53 US Route 11 to New Stephenson Villaqe Boulevard Widen to 3 -lane cross section Jordan Springs Road 55 101d Charles Town Road to Woods Mill Road improve existing 2 -lane road Woods Mill Road 56 Jordan Springs Road to Route 7 improve existing 2 -lane road anning Drive 57 S nseny Road to Valley Mill Road Widen to 4 -lane cross section New Project Senseny Road to Sulphur Springs Rd Extension New Project Sulphur Springs Road to Route 50 Extension Inverlee Way 58 Route 17/50 to Senseny Road JWiden to 4 -lane cross section r.ew Project route 5:01 Soistli -and West Intersection with Route 522 relocation Warrior Drive Stephens City: X 59 Route 277 to Opequon Creek (north of Route 642) JVViden to 4 -lane cross section Sena P.; o,eC Route 277 to South Frederick Parkway Extend and Widen to 4 -lane Cross Section Route 7 59A Clarke County line to 1-81 lWiden to 6 -lane cross section X New Project Access 110anagement Improvements airfax Street Main Street Route 37 60 1-81 @ Crosspointe to US Route 522 Construct 4 -lane limited access divided highway X 61 US Route 522 to Routes 17/50 Construct 4 -lane limited access divided highway X 62 Routes 17/50 to Route 7 Construct 4 -lane limited access divided highway X 99 Route 7 to 1-81 at MP 318 Construct 4 -lane controlled access divided highway X 64 1-81 at MP 318 to Route 37 west of industrial ark Construct 4 -lane limited access divided highway X 65 1 Route 37 @ Warrior Drive Construct interchange X 66 Route 37 @ Route 522 Construct interchange X 67 Route 37 @ Route 17/50 Construct interchange X 68 Route 37 @ Senseny Road Construct interchange X 69 Route 37 @ Route 7 Construct interchange X :id Rou:e 11 forth Warrior Drive 2035 WinFred MPO LRTP Vision Pian List Draft KUdU rvarne rrotecr iuKoaaway section ..:.T..,.=:.:a-:.��..a-�•a,..,.�.�.�.,:Q�:..��.��..� 70 O e uon Creek to Battaile Drive East Extended Vision Plan Improvement ..�3..f_...��...._��_.,_+,��.�.��:.�..-.sa-r.��:.z.:.�. �V.:.�....:�.�_..-:.�..�....� Construct 4-1ane cross section Keep Project -( Modify Protect Completed Project Comments - ...��...man- -.- 71 Battaile Drive East Extended to E Tevis Street Construct 4-1ane cross section Airport Road Extension 72 JUS Route 522 to Warrior Drive Construct 4 -lane cross section East Tevis Street Extension 73 Legge Blvd to Warrior Drive lConstruct 4-1ane cross section X 73a lWarrior Drive to US Route 522Construct 4-1ane cross section Relocation of Pa ermill Road 74 JWest of US Route 522 Realign 2-1ane road X Pleasant Valley Road Extension 75 East Cedarmeade Avenue to Battaile Drive Construct 4-1ane cross section X Jubal Earl Drive Extension 76 lExisting West Jubal Early Drive to Route 37 Construct 4-1ane cross section X Route 11 -Route 651 Connector 77 1 US Route 11 to Route 651 Extension Construct 2-1ane cross section Battaile Drive Extension 78 Shawnee Drive to Warrior Drive Construct 4-1ane cross section X Brooke Road Extension 79 US Route 11 to Route 522 Construct 4-1ane cross section X Route 642 (Tasker Road) Extension 80 Existing Route 642 to US Route 11 Construct 4-1ane cross section 81 US Route 11 to Route 651 Extension Construct 4-1ane cross section r.-,jte 644 Extension 82 US Route 522 to Lakeside Drive Construct 2-1ane cross section Aylor Road (Route 647) Realignment 83 Relocate intersection with Route 277 to the east Construct 3 -lane cross section Shady Elm Road (Route 651) Extension 84 Stephens City Bypass - US 11 North to South Construct 4-1ane cross section 85 US Route 11 to 1-81 Relocated 1-81 MP 307 Interchange Construct 4-1ane cross section plus bridge over US Route 11 86 1-81 to Warrior Drive at Route 277 Construct 4-1ane cross section 87 Interchange Connection to US Route 11 via East/West Connector Unsi nalized intersection access onto Route 651 Extension East/West Connector Road (South of Fairfax Street) 88 US Route 11 to Route 651 Extension Construct 2-1ane cross section to connect Route 11 to interchanqe with Route 651 Ext Meadow Branch Avenue 89 Extension to US Route 50 Construct 4-1ane cross section X Victory Road 90 Airport Road to Route 522 near school & realigned Pa ermill Rd Construct 4-1ane cross section Legge Boulevard 91 Completion - Patsy Cline Blvd to Frontage Road Construct 3-1ane cross section X Route 11/Route 651 Connector (South of Route 37) 92 US Route 11 to Route 651 Construct 2-1ane cross section 2035 WinFred MPO LRT'P elision Plan List Draft Road Name roject ID yRoadway Section lVision Plan lmprovement Keep Project Modify Project Completed Project Comments Ste hensons Village Boulevard 94 Old Charles Town Road to US Route 11 Construct 4 -lane cross section Willow Run Drive 95 IJubal Early Drive to Cedar Creek Grade Construct 4 -lane cross section X Route 7-Senseny Road Connector 96 Route 7 to Senseny Road Construct 4 -lane cross section Stonewall Industrial Park Connector 97 Lenoir Drive to Route 37 Construct one -lane, one-way SB roadway Poorhouse Road Route 50 North and West New Collector Road Botanical Road Route 50 North and East New Collector Road Route 522 Extension Fort Collier Road Brick Kiln Road Relocate Intersection i Non -Highway F rojects Park and Ride Facilities US Route 522 near Tasker Road Route 7 to Snowden Snowden to Clarke Count o. 1blic Transit Extend Transit Service into Frederick County (2 routes) X iWinchester: Replace w/ recommendations in Transit Study Improve Transit Dependibility (Frequency, Amenities, Reliability, Info) X !Winchester: Replace w/ recommendations in !Transit Study Improve Express Bus Service to the Washington, DC Region X Winchester: Replace w/ recommendations in Transit Study Future Passenger Rail Service along 1-81 Corridor X Access Management Develop Access Management Plan for Route 17/50 X ! Develop Access Management Plan for US Route 522 Effects on Stephens City Western Bypass Intersecion at Fairfax Street through White Oak Rd. or Route 522 Winchester: Is study of Rte 522 N X? warranted? Develop Access Management Plan for US Route 11 X Develop Access Management Plan for Pleasant Valley Road Corridor X Telecommuting Explore feasibility of creating a Regional Telework Center Travel Demand Management X Flexible Work Hours X Air Quality Improvement/Congestion Management Consider potential improvements if EPA Deferral is rescinded after 2007 X ;Winchester: Update to latest standard Ozone Alert days X Car pooling X Traffic signal s chronization X ! Electric Hookups at Truck stops to reduce idling X i • Item 5: Other