Loading...
TC 01-25-10 Meeting MinutesTO: Board of Supervisors MEMORANDUM COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Deputy Director - Transportation1�e RE: Transportation Committee Report for Meeting of January 25, 2010 DATE: February 4, 2010 The Transportation Committee met on January 25, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. Members Present Chuck DeHaven (voting) Gary Lofton (voting) Dave Burleson (voting) James Racey (voting) George Kriz (liaison PC) Gary Oates (liaison PC) Levis Boyer (liaison Stephens City) Members Absent Mark Davis (liaison Middletown) ***Items Requiring Action*** 1. Carmcuse Industrial Access Rail Support 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 On staff's recommendation, the Committee modified the agenda to consider the attached request for support from Carmeuse Lime and Stone of Northern Virginia. Carmeuse is seeking a resolution of support to obtain rail access funds from the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transit. This rail enhancement to their operations is expected to take truck trips off of Route 11. On a motion by Mr. Lofton and seconded by Mr. Burleson, the Committee recommended that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution of support. Motion passed unanimously. Resolution is enclosed. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 2. Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study NOTE. Staff is prepared to make a presentation if desired by the Board. Summary maps of the access management recommendations are attached and the full study is available electronically at www.winfredmpo.org or staff can provide paper or cd copy upon request. The Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study has been undertaken by Michael Baker Corporation under contract with the WinFred MPO. Staff has been involved in the development and review of the report on the MPO Technical Advisory Committee and Project Steering Committee level. The purpose of the report is to review the existing and planned future conditions along the Route 7 corridor and make recommendations for access management and improved traffic flow in the area. Following discussion, the Committee recommended that the Board of Supervisors recommend the following items to the MPO. 1. That the existing Valley Mill Road connection be maintained as a right -in only if allowable at the time of the interchange improvements in that area. 2. That the Sheets at the intersection of Route 7 and Regency Lakes Drive limit their entrances along Regency Lakes Drive to one that is located as far back from the intersection as practicable. The Committee also agreed that if the master planned road that will cross the rear frontage is implemented, an entrance should be established at that location and all Regency Lakes Drive entrances would be eliminated. 3. That the language in the plan dealing with Park and Ride lots should be less specific regarding their location so as to offer maximum flexibility in finding suitable locations. 3. Shady Elm Access Management Study Phase II NOTE. Staff is prepared to make a presentation if desired by the Board. A summary map of the consultant's recommended alternative is attached along with the level of service diagram for that alternative, the scoring sheet for all the alternatives, and the cost comparison of the alternatives. The full study is available electronically at www.winfredmpo.org or staff can provide paper or cd copy upon request. The Shady Elm Access Management Study Phase II has been undertaken by HNTB under contract with the VDOT. Staff has been involved in the development and review of the report on the MPO Technical Advisory Committee and Project Steering Committee level. The purpose of this study and its predecessor has been to determine ways to maintain access between Route 11 and Route 37 upon the development of the future planned interchange between I-81 and Route 37 while adding access for Shady Elm Drive. 2 Following discussion, the Committee recommended that the Board of Supervisors recommend the following items to the MPO. 1. Look at the Tasker Road overpass to determine if it was included in the modeling. 2. Consider access to the property located on the Northeast quadrant of the intersection of Route 37 and Route 11, 3. Consider removal of the traffic signal at Commonwealth Court and limiting left turn movements from that roadway (this would be in conjunction with provided access as noted in item 2). 4. Consider the addition of a Northbound I-81 ramp directly to Route 11 for the recommended alternative. 5. Hold another public meeting with a more extensive notification process. 6. Provide examples of signage that would be required with the recommended alternative. ***Items Not Requiring Action*** 4. Route Walley Mill Road Area Transportation Alternatives Staff presented the attached preliminary alternatives to generate some initial discussion at the committee level. The committee directed staff to continue study on alternative 3 and create a new alternative which will be called alternative 4. 5. MPO Long Range Plan Update Staff advised the Committee that the MPO Long Range Plan update is progressing well. The current focus is on developing the `Vision Plan List'. This is the wish list of projects which is not financially constrained and which is envisioned to be needed to mitigate the long future transportation needs. The Committee received the attached list and did not have any comments. 6. Other JAB/bad 3 LAwsON AND SILEK, P.L.C. 120 EXETER DRIVE, SUITE 200 POST OFFICE BOX 2740 WINCHESTER, VA 22604 TELEPHONE: (540) 665-0050 FACSIMILE: (540) 722-4051 January 22, 2010 John A. Bishop, AICP, Deputy Director — Transportation County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 VIA HAND DELIVERY Dear John: L L ^� ! THOMAS MOORE LAWSON • TLAWSON(i4LSPLC.COM Re: Rail Grant Our File No. 462.006 As a follow up to our previous telephone conversation, enclosed please find a Railroad Fund application for work at Carmeuse's plant in Middletown. This work will enhance operations at Carmeuse and allow for more transportation by rail as opposed to using the highways. As you know, I have had conversations with Kevin Page and also Jim Davis. I understand that Frederick County has already received payment for the maximum monies it is allowed for this fiscal year, but I have also been advised that we can ask for a waiver and receive additional funds. As I understand it, the first step is to get this information to you so it can be shown to the Transportation Committee. Further, I understand the Committee meets on Monday. If at all possible, I would like to have this presented to the Frederick County Transportation Committee for their consideration. Once we have their anticipated recommendation, I will follow up with the formal waiver request from Jim Davis. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. Very t yours, Thory. as oore Lawson TML:atd Enclosure cc: Carmeuse Lime & Stone FRONT RUY.kL ADDRESS: POST OFFICE BOX 602, FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA 22630, TELEPHONE: (540) 635-9415, FACSIMILE: (540)635 -9421.E -MAIL: JSILEKCILAWSONANDSILEK.COM FAIRF.AX ADDRESS: 10805 MAIN STREET, SUITE 200, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030, TELEPHONE: (703) 352-2615, FACSIMILE: (703) 352-4190, E-MAIL: THOA1ASO.LAWSONC.�VERIZON.NET Attachment I COMMONWEALTH Or VIRGINL4, DEPARTTdENT OF RAIL AND ]PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRL&L ACCESS RAILROAD TRACKS APPLICATION DATE: APPLICATION November 16, 2009 APPLICANT: Q -N Minerals (Chemstone) Company d/b/a Carmeuse Time & Stone of Northerhil Virginia CONTACT PERSON: Bob Carter' TELEPHONE NUMBER: — J412) 995-5588 DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S ORGANIZATION (CITY, COUNTY, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ETC.): Limestone mining and processing activities Middletown, Frederick County, Virginia INDUSTRYIBUSINESS TO BE SERVED BY PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL ACCESS TRACK: Rail improvements will allow the plant to supply FGD limestone to two large power plants in Maryland ADDRESS: (Plant) 351 McCune road, Middletown, VA 22645 CONTACTPERSON: games Bottom., Area operations Manager TELEPHONE NUMBER:, (540) 465-5161 X146 PROPOSED OR EXISTING LOCATION: Plant site at Middletown, VA DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Unit train track and system installation to hold and load Yd -100 car shipmefits of high calcium limestone LENGTH OF PROPOSED TRACK:. 10,000 feet ESTIMATED COST: $2.1 million REQUESTED AMOUNT OF RAIL ACCESS FUNDS: $450,000 THE APPRO UMATE CAPITAL OUTLAY OF THE INDUSTRY TO CONSTRUCT AND EQUIP IT'S PROPOSED NEW FACILITY: $10,470,000 (estimated) 7 THE APPROXIMATE CAPITAL OUTLAY TO CONSTRUCT AND EQUIP ITS PROPOSED EXPANSION: N/A ESTIMATED ANNUAL NUMBER OF CARLOADS AND COMMODITY TYPES TO BE HANDLED ON THE PROPOSED NEW TRACK: Approximately 2600.carloads per year of limestone IF A NEW INDUSTRY, THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PEOPLE TO BE EMPLOYED: NIA IF AN EXISTING INDUSTRY, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE CURRENTLY EMPLOYED: 2 7� AND THE ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT TO BE CREATED BY THE EXPANSION: - 0 RAILROAD THAT WILL SERVE BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY: CSXT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTATION IS TO BE INCLUDED WITH THE APPLICATION. 1. RESOLUTION FROM THE LOCAL GOVERNING BODY SUPPORTING THE PROJECT AND REQUESTING THE RAIL INDUSTRIAL ACCESS FUNDS. 2. LOCATION SKETCH SHOWING THE LOCATION OF TIE SITE ON AN AREA MAP. 3. DRAWING OF THE PROPOSED TRACK PROJECT SHOWING THE CLEAR POINT (S). 4. SIGNED APPLICANTA NDUSTRY CERTIFICATION 5. DOCUMENTATION THAT THE RAILROAD OWNING THE MAIN LINE TO WHICH THE PROPOSED ACCESS TRACK WILL CONNECT HAS AGREED TO: A. SERVING THE INDUSTRY OR BUSINESS. B. APPROVING AND/OR PARTICIPATING IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED ACCESS TRACK. C. MAKING TEE FACIiITIES AVAILABLE FOR USE BY ALL COMMON CARRIERS USING THE RAILWAY SYSTEM TO WHICH THE INDUSTRIAL ACCESS TRACK CONNECTS. 6. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THE BUSINESS. Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Stud, H Cameron St to Future Intersection of Haggerty Blvd and Route 37 Interchange Ramp r J` Prepared by: Michael Baker Jr., Inc. in Association with Wilbue Su,-Othi & Associates OCTOBER 2009 7 _ I ; ! � � �,], � ,.,T-, - � .>.. ." - .p•s .. r _ - - rs. � ','` _ F �'�' `-'moi"... .F T •fir • .; fir^ .'`' �� ,: •- � k ., rt �\. �l. f tr�- '. , tam �r .,,�'°�,.._ . Y,'.._� � ,� - ��' P'z � f f - pq 9 - 'D _ _ �'• '" -iqi �°�•. t �I R _ �'�;;A«[ - �-. `~ •�R ' —.' - Y Y 11 fly " � -�. 1 1 er ,. ',1.•-,� orf �� i - ,. - r s' or w lip tt " • `a � i M d �,.- • w' � t r � i• ,. •. . 1 t1 a '-� A -s— � mak.. i. • ` , y► Provide Post Office access a on Pleasant Valley Road f _ rw T Maple St {�► ® ^` �, ,., � - ► Realignment • l , _ ' - 1 — _ - a �. ttyV[., •�-+ 4-1 Spruce St l _ � e • r 3� Realignment rr�,.` _ tir- I- • r 7 ry• ' • - .. i'fL � e •-• .v � ` tom- "`;. a r.., A '* Ave !# r r r - L I , • f[ • y� r \ . . , aS . r L*W - 71 , w e • a . - k I 7*.. _ •,.. �- f Potential interparcel connection s, ' • -,': t� ' $� . R , Yi rs' @- upon redevelopment v +n a :° ° � • � .. a .`� _ L 1 • ~ • ilr, �e �. � Y,+ � ~ 'M. _ � - •d � 'ic ♦ •✓ w� a , C1 ,Q '�� ~1. 'W4 �� ,.:,. .� r f +r } rt."'` ..' fes' C d t !�• ; x' _ ' x 7 -' .. s .mss •. .► •,. . ` •. , w of .!+�\ ,/.: .. � � �',� �- �. • ,.' °�� 'i ` �'__ .�.a E„ •rte.. ,tu a. * a'Y„g _ N Route 7 Corridor Study Legend `, 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 S Recommended Access ® Recommended Full Access Figure 4-6: Route 7 Access Managment Consolidation (Median Break) 500 250 0 500 Feetlow 01a Example Recommendations (1 of 2) ak 7}s _ . _ � • � per`s . , �; •' �• �:• `` YNE•p�-',.--r hof 1 s i ;+f. > - `;• � ter' � 't / ,•. ! yf t (- '�77 _ a ' y WOODS 3`rqb z'M� !� ' '"'� r - ( Y �7 �• + ®a ,:fir `►.~i..' � �Y .� 3.r_f a �,r,. .a , i, .+ _ - ( `+• ` t.t • - N. ' r t a .... .•. t I N'! L ibp lb . `!/•.fit �. - 41" L. z om_ - � g� . ty � t°.✓ r'* �. , »`^:s.. ,9 •_ - 'x' `*�. - r �; � t.'� � � �--' «rc.._ r _ � 4'ir!y�' � •,'� - r i i F '`• - i."; ...• a °' ._s _ -77 � �at� t� a-.' � +,nom! .. �,.,.�' 1{�Y4, � •f .�" `7�r. w y Q �r-- BERRYVIt.LE P '• IKE 0lo 1t Co .� ti r � � - � '�'' � - � o _,rye I R t� r � �y'�„1.N t _ �`pi'ES •S�]•,`r `. � t � • � r> .e 2 . - t�� s I t i! ,v 1 f � _y } , �, y ' �. _ ti _ _ , �.. �� _ ' '�c 9 e+ � 't•A O - ��� I � � r f y ! . � <� , 'i •, ;, "� •" �;..'�:.• .Y ,f`' Lr t�"m -"_ .�..; b T �, � "a'r,, 'u'*' ,,' `! l�'� '� �'�^ �"•�,�-Zkt d .• - . •,.t. sL �..s .. I '� „' +-'h _..-.�� 1j' 1 �"�:� •+,.. .'� 1 t Uls �a3� .i.® `u. s."•.. °i a - *`�.a�, •--""t �'" f .. *. "� Consolidated Access .i T,—+--"""'� u•�i- r-. • ... `"4." „n - .., " from Cole I_n to-----�"t '�.".� (�; R �, * •0 - p� Ik ®:!e .s, Regency Lakes Dr .. ..-`..t ""."� �-,` • ` *� Ar' .. r r►. y r r L ,fir "��A a ..Y,�I • ~t EL()^ �p ` Qp F ® i9 . V , bnt .. - . -•.. �f .�- 1C3 ''r � 1. - J •:. ,o Y - .., _ i t '�'�, � _, '.. T : f Realignment of Valley Mill Road �.� 3 $<' '� to tie into Getty Lane �s , c 4" . ' ," ' r x• 1 i s w a"i /y C AFL •!�,;. �; " 1 1 p - � • ¢ry ^ +y +� t 94 S tl +r w`� H `•� . 1,. y _ vTx .e``+ +�`. �" ,: �T-I•."'....r. `.. ,.. ,,,�„ M [# :� r. _ � _fit I - -_ i." ..._ j �•.j rk .��1 ,� �� : �. + y_,,; r.r - e -• _- -..� _. - _ _ ,. I ! � �.L..y: *fes, �i _ .', �+. _ l�v ��_:�. / � Jr 'a� •�.. - .; I • - _ # • NiGN r �>r `p � � .A�. -� I , Q 1, p ..� ' ; ' 1�t,i�+ r,�•' �iJr:. '� -•� � "�" '::s � . Y„ i+ • S S 1 A Atvr) Cr 14 CO F y Z f a PA�,` 1 "If ,}- .rVA'�tJL+ 4T*p- •tltjAV ' i COPPER �a �V • _ SRR RQ w v .a F",�" w -_ .. �t.�DS7�t� :. 'E�.D � ?'�k � - . � ; x~ts. t'. `--•.-�'f � �..e... � r - � 1 a "a' W - 4 -.. - _ _ 14 Route 7 Corridor Study Legend N N. Cameron St. to Future Intersection of r W E Signalized Intersection �ecommene HaggertyBlvd. and Route 37 Interchange Ramp Right -Out Access Point z 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) . Prepared By MNTB �b1 Funded By: V OT Shady Elm Access Management Study — Phase II HNTB Corporation TABLE OF CONTENTS Disclaimer.................................................................................................................................................................... I A. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................2 B. Summary Of Phase I Study..............................................................................................................................4 1. Existing Network Configuration.................................................................................................................4 2. Existing Traffic Operations..........................................................................................................................4 3. Future Developments....................................................................................................................................7 4. Future Roadway Network Improvements..................................................................................................9 5. Future No Build Conditions........................................................................................................................9 6. Phase I Recommended Alternative.......................................................................................................... 12 C. Phase 112035 Traffic Conditions................................................................................................................. 14 1. Assumptions and Methodology for Trip Forecast and Assignment ................................................... 14 D. Development of Phase 11 Tier 1 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 1D.................................................................................... 60 3. Final Comments and Next Steps.............................................................................................................. 61 Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 50 Table 8: Tier 2 Alternatives "' - Construction Cost Evaluation (millions of dollars) me M-41(Ti-IN 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 - 21.2 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. d. 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 58 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 59 Table 16: Alternative 1 D — Cost Estimates (1) (2009 Millions of Dollars) Cost Item Alt 1D .] 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 WIA 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 (30.1 of Project Subtotal) Total Cost 34.7 TOTAL COST (Including ROW Cost) 38.2 tl� 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 60 Table 17: Tier 2 Alternatives - Final Evaluation Matrix (Including Recommended Alternative 1 Traffic Operation 1 2 1 3 2 5 4 Travel Time 0.6 2 1 2 3 5 3 Cost 0.8 5 4 3 3 2 5 Additional Right of 0.7 2 5 3 5 5 3 Way Requirement Connectivity 0.5 2 3 3 3 4 3 Constructability 0.7 5 4 3 4 2 5 Wayfinding 0.4 2 3 3 3 4 2 Environmental Impacts 0.5 5 5 5 5 4 5 Safety 1 5 3 4 4 5 5 Ability to be Implemented in 0.4 5 1 3 3 4 5 Phases OVERALL 23.4 19.7 21.2 22.9 26.7 27.2 Figure 36 depicts the overall recommended Alternative 1D. Figure 37 to Figure 41 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 1-81 southbound. 2. Justification for Recommending Alternative 1D 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 Shady Elm Phase II Access Study HNTB Corporation 61 implemented from Alternative 1C to Alternative 1D significantly improved the operation on the critical weaving segments and intersections in the concept. 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 1D 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 1D 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 11 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. Existing Eastern Road Plan (Alternative 1) Alternative 3 14 ja mo j d6 s, i �� is 3 ''i�_ I -+�i�tjlt��l �. .��tx �.� '" tl !} r,r� �,�•., `, � lid oLa.�... "Ap _ �. , �• ter+ 203511 in red MPC LPIriF-1 Vision Plea Ust Draft Road Name roject ID Roadway Section ision Plan Improvement Keep Project Modify Project Completed Project Comments 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 already 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/Battaile 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 Bridges over 1-81 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 318 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 0 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 Partially 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 Q MP 323 Turn lane improvements X 13c Cedar Hill Rd Decellerate/Accellerate Lanes New Project E,, -,it 307 Relocation of Intercharge New Project Near CitylCounty Line Hogue Rein Bridge New Pro ect Stephens City Bypass - US 11 North to SouthConnection to Relocated Ea:i% 307 Irterchange US Route 11 14 Rt 37 to South of City Limits along Rt 11 Widen to 4 -lame 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 a Project Interchange improvements to south Route 11/Route 37 Interchange interseetien and Through Lane Upgraces, Ramp €�9odific=_tions New Project Route 11 South at Opeauon Avenue and Shawnee Drive Inersection lrnp+rovesre:,ts and Access 1..ian2gsm, ent Nev,j Project Entire Sect;on of R"ou,e 11 Access Mznagenner??_ Lmprovemen:= 2035 WinFred MPO LRTP Vision Flan List Draft Road Name 3roject ID Roadway Section Vision Plan Improvement � Keep Project . Modify YPr„ject Completed Project comments Nen Pro of r edbud F. Cos necfion Disconnect an--ject c e Blvd New Project Hopeialebi Rd and Brucefown Rd A ig n 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 1-81 to Apple Blossom Drive Jubal 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 Frederick: Revisit this project P.levv r roiect Entire Coy rty of P.cute 50 Access iiflanas,e: .)rovements Route 50 22 Amherst Street between Keating Drive & Route 37 Widen to 6 -lane cross section X Pa5dic3bly Corrapiste:] to Winchester 23 Route 50 Between Rt 37 and Poor House Road Widen to 6 -lane cross section Frederick: Check number of lanes needed Winchester: X? via model R -lite 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. Winchester: Replace with Alternative Stephens City: X Winchester: X -ecommended in HNTB study 25 Interchange with Route 651 (Shady Elm Road) New Diamond Interchange Winchester: 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 Jubal Early Drive Construct new diamond interchange with realignment of Merrimans Lane - north side T into Jubal Early Drive, Winchester: Replace with Willow Run south side connect into interchange Stephens City: X Winchester: X profferred improvement 28 Interchange with US Route 50 Improve Interchange Stephens City: X Winchester: X pa Bally 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 - �u-i Fr C. a C t Rt 11 - Stephens City'Afesteri'3 Bj;",+r^^,-ss On Street Parking and Widening Route 277 30 1-81 to Route 641 Widen to ='.--bane di -tided cross section X 31 Route 641 to White Oak Road (Route 636) Widen to "-Ea::e divided cross section X 32 White Oak Road to US Route 522/US Route 340 Widen to 44ane divided cross section He -vv Prcii2-ci Entb-e County Lection of Route 50 ~Access iala gags -went improvements EOeliv Prone ;t Triangle ogle Study Projects New Project South Frederick Parkway at Intersection cf Route 277 and Route 522 Relocation of Exit 307 to Route 277 2035 WinFred iVdPO i_RTP Vision Pian List Draft Road Name i`` 7, `r©jact Droject ID Roadway Section Vision Plan Improvement Keep Project Modify Project Completed Project Comments %P.tersection of Ro_ _ 277 and Polite 522 �xtensi©n of exist --V✓est to nevv i:➢tersectiC a vvi'ih Poole 522 ap roxirately 1.25 mil=s north Ne'vu Project South Frederick Parkway batVVae^ 277 Extension to 522 and existipg Rout -,2177 Create connec'_or road f=om ex!stirg Route 277 New Proiec't Double Church Road lm rove road to South Frederick Parkway � Neulf r` ^ -t Hudson 6-lollow Road ;aaprove and realign to South Frederick Parkway Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622) 33 Rt 37 to City Boundary Line Widen to 4 -lane cross section Hev✓ s` -' Route 37!ntarchanga Grade Im ro,,ements Route 522 34 Intersection with Tasker Road Traffic Signalization 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 s Prosect Tev!s Street to Ryco Lane tReal!enment Lite 641 (Double Church Road 39 lWarren Co Line to Route 277 Upgrade existing two-lane road Route 642 Tasker Road 40 US Route 522 to Lakeside Drive Widen to 4 -lane cross section New Project Route 37 lmpro:amgnts =trV Pr^jeet aperraill ?o_d Extension from Morfh 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 Winchester: Should modify this project or add new one to smooth out curve where thru- inovement exists at intersection of Shady Stephens City: X Winchester: X ;Elrn and Apple Valley Rd (near GE Plant) Route 652 (Apple Valle Road 43 US Route 11 to Middle Road .'i'iden to 2 -lane with Turn Lanes Featherbed Lane 44 South Loudoun St to South Pleasant Valley Road Widen to 4 -lane cross section I'vVinchester: Upgrade existing 2 -lane cross X 1aection 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 11Widen to 4 -lane cross section X Greenwood Road Route 656 47 ISenseny Road to Valley Mill Road Upgrade existing 2 -lane cross section Sulphur Springs Road Route 655 48 1 US Route 17/50 to Greenwood Road Upgrade existing 2 -lane cross section Weems Lane 49 1 Roosevelt Blvd to US Route 11 JWiden to 4 -lane section with LT lanes at intersections X 2035 WinFred MPO LRTP Visi®n Plan List Draft rcoau rvame rrolect w =,a .. Koaaway section Vision Plan Improvement om Keep Modify Project Cleted Project Comments ProjectCompleted menu PapermillfRoad _ 50 1-81 to Shawnee Drive Remove bridge over 1-81 in conjunction with Project #4 at Battaile Dr. Interchange X f 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 51 a Nope Drive to South Pleasant Valley Road (5 lanes) Widen to 4 -lane section with LT lanes at intersections Stephens City: X Winchester: X New Projeci Snowden Eruclga Construct Interdhange Tevis Street Realignment 51b 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 b law p roisct R inviile Road 8devv Collector c cad Old Charles Town Road 53 US Route 11 to New Stephenson Village Boulevard JWiden to 3 -lane cross section Jordan Springs Road 55 Old Charles Town Road to Woods Mill Road Im rove existing2-lane road Woods Mill Road -----Tim 56 Jordan Springs Road to Route 7 prove existing 2 -lane road .nning Drive 57 Senseny Road to Valley Mill Road Widen to 4 -lane cross section New Project Sensany goad to Sulphur Springs Rd Extarnsaon New Project Sulphur Springs Road to Route 50 Dtensicn Inverlee Way 58 Route 17/50 to Senseny Road JWiden to 4 -lane cross section KaW Project Route 50 South and Vvilest I, er : routed alocation Warrior Drive Stephens City: X 59 Route 277 to Opequon Creek (north of Route 642) Widen to 4 -lane cross section New Project Route 277 to S:: ick Parkway Extend and Widen to 4 -lane Cross Saction Route 7 59A Clarke County line to 1-81 Widen to 6 -lane cross section X New Project ,access ManLL�ament —noroi3eu eiats Fah -Fag :street Main Street Vti r' .0 �da ndulg Route 37 60 1-81 a 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 hiqhwaV X 65 Route 37 a Warrior Drive Construct interchange X j 66 Route 37 Route 522 Construct interchange X 67 Route 37 @ Route 17/50 68 Route 37 @ Senseny Road Construct interchange Construct interchange X X 69 Route 37 Q Route 7 Construct interchange X iilevq Project Betvaeen Route 50 and Route 11 North Operational and Safety Improve -men's Warrior Drive 2035 Win red MPO LRTP Vision Plan List Draft Road Name Project ID Moadway Section Ivislon rlarl nuNluvelnent 70 O e uon Creek to Battaile Drive East Extended Construct 4 -lane cross section 71 Battaile Drive East Extended to E Tevis Street lConstruct 4 -lane cross section Airport Road Extension 72 US Route 522 to Warrior Drive lConstruct 4 -lane cross section East Tevis Street Extension X 73 Legge Blvd to Warrior Drive Construct 4 -lane cross section 73a Warrior Drive to US Route 522 Construct 4 -lane cross section Relocation of Pa ermill Raad X 74 JWest of US Route 522 IRealign 2 -lane road Pleasant Valley Road Extension X 75 East Cedarmeade Avenue to Battaile Drive Construct 4 -lane cross section Jubal Earl Drive Extension 76 Existing West Jubal Early Drive to Route 37 lConstruct 4 -lane cross section X Route 17 -Route 657 Connector 77 1 US Route 11 to Route 651 Extension I Construct 2 -lane cross section Battaile Drive Extension X 78 Shawnee Drive to Warrior Drive Construct 4 -lane cross section Brooke Road Extension X 79 US Route 11 to Route 522 Construct 4 -lane cross section Route 642 (Tasker Road) F-+ension 80 Existinq Route 642 to US Route 11 Construct 4 -lane cross section 81 US Route 11 to Route 651 Extension Construct 4 -lane cross section 1—ate 644 Extension 82 US Route 522 to Lakeside Drive Construct 2 -lane 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 -lane cross section 85 US Route 11 to 1-81 Relocated 1-81 MP 307 Interchange Construct 4 -lane cross section plus bridge over US Route 11 86 1-81 to Warrior Drive at Route 277 Construct 4 -lane cross section 87 Inter chan a 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 -lane cross section to connect Route 11 to interchange with Route 651 Ext Meadow Branch Avenue X 89 Extension to US Route 50 Construct 4 -lane cross section Victory Road 90 Airport Road to Route 522 near school & realigned Pa ermill Rd Construct 4 -lane cross section Legge Boulevard 91 Completion - Pats Cline Blvd to Frontage Road Construct 3 -lane cross section X Route 11/Route 651 Connector (South of Route 37) 92 US Route 11 to Route 651 lConstruct 2 -lane cross section 2035 WnFred MPO LRTP Vision Pian (List Draft Road Name_ roject ID Roadway Section on Plan Improvement Keep Project �F m Modify Project Completed Project Comments y _ Ste hensons Village Boulevard 94 Old Charles Town Road to US Route 11 Construct 4 -lane cross section Willow Run Drive 95 JJubal Early Drive to Cedar Creek Grade Construct 4 -lane cross section X Route 7-Senseny Road Connector Route 7 to Sensen 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 59 Horth °,gest Beery CoFec for Road botanical Road -and Route 50 Hodh and East Slew Collector Road Route 522 - :tension ort Collisr Road Brick Kiln Road Relocate Intersection Non -highway Projects Park and Ride Facilities US Route 522 near Tasker Road Route 7 to Snowden Snowden to Clarke Count clic Transit Extend Transit Service into Frederick County (2 routes) X Winchester: 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 1,11estern Eypass lntersecion at Fa:rfz : Street B rough Wh¢te teak 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 RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE UTILIZATION OF INDUSTRIAL ACCESS RAILROAD TRACK FUNDS The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, in regular meeting on the 10th day of February 2010, adopted the following: WHEREAS, O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Company d/b/a Carmeuse Lime and Stone of Northern Virginia has expressed its intent and desire to the Board of Supervisors to locate its commercial business or industrial operations in Frederick County; and WHEREAS, O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Company d/b/a Carmeuse Lime and Stone of Northern Virginia and its operation will require rail access; and WHEREAS, The officials of O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Company d/b/a Carmeuse Lime and Stone of Northern Virginia have reported to the County their intent to apply for industrial access railroad track funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia's Department of Rail and Public Transportation in the amount of $450,000.00; and WHEREAS, O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Company d/b/a Carmeuse Lime and Stone of Northern Virginia has requested that the Board of Supervisors provide a resolution supporting its application for said funds which are administered by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation.; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, hereby endorses and supports the application of O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Company d/b/a Carmeuse Lime and Stone of Northern Virginia for $450,000.00 in industrial access railroad track funds; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors hereby makes known its desire and intent to assist the Commonwealth Transportation Board in providing the maximum financial assistance to O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Company d/b/a Carmeuse Lime and Stone of Northern Virginia, for the purpose of locating its business, commercial or industrial facility in Frederick County. PDRes#05-10 ADOPTED this 10th day of February, 2010. This resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Gary A. Lofton Gary W. Dove Gene E. Fisher Christopher E. Collins PDRes#05-10 Bill M. Ewing Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. A COPY ATTEST John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator