Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
TC 06-28-10 Meeting Agenda
COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Transportation Committee FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Deputy Director - Transportation RE: .June 28, 2010 Transportation Committee Meeting DATE: June 21, 2010 The Frederick County Transportation Committee will be meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, .June 28, 2010 in the first floor conference room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. AGENDA 1. Route 522 South Draft Report 2. Comprehensive Plan Update 3. Fox Drive State Route Number 4. Other Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting. Attachments JAB/bad I+ILE COPi' 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Item 1: Route 522 South Draft Report Staff has just received the draft Route 522 study from the Metropolitan Planning Organization. As the document is lengthy, please review the items at the following web address to download: hftps:Heftp. mbakercorp.com?wtdQ[D=W UJ N VVILQkdXRipnZVM4NXp3eA== If you have any difficulty, please contact planning staff for a paper copy. Please take some time to review the draft report so that we may discuss it at the meeting. 2 DRAFT Prepared by; Michael Baker Jr., Inc. In Association with: Renaissance Planning Group JUNE 2010 DRAFT ROUTE 522 MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR STUDY l��Tr uE 1IN..�H]T�!Iti FREDERICK CK OU.a,..l TAT C LAIC, ISE COUNTY WARREN COUNTY June, 2010 Prepared by: Michael Baker Jr., Inc. With assistance from: RENAISSANIZE PLANNING GROUP 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. 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1 Purposeand Need........................................................................................................... I StudyArea and Corridor................................................................................................. 2 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS...................................................................................... 5 ExistingGeometry.......................................................................................................... 5 ExistingZoning............................................................................................................... 7 ExistingTraffic Volumes................................................................................................ 9 Existing Operating Conditions...................................................................................... 11 Safety............................................................................................................................ 20 ExistingMultimodal Facilities...................................................................................... 22 Other Roadway Deficiencies........................................................................................ 28 3.0 PROJECTED FUTURE CONDITIONS............................................................... 30 2035 Future Land Use................................................................................................... 30 2035 Traffic Forecasts Methodology............................................................................ 34 Forecast 2035 Future Traffic Volumes......................................................................... 36 2035 Traffic Deficiencies............................................................................................. 37 OtherModes and Summary.......................................................................................... 45 4.0 ROUTE 522 CORRIDOR RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 47 Route 522 Corridor - Roadway Capacity Recommendations ....................................... 47 Route 522 Corridor - Intersection Recommendations.................................................. 48 Route 522 Corridor — Other Capacity Improvement Recommendations ...................... 58 Land Use Guidelines/Context Zone Summary............................................................. 62 Other Growth Management Techniques....................................................................... 67 Route 522 Corridor — Multimodal Recommendations.................................................. 69 ProjectPrioritization..................................................................................................... 73 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study- June 2010 II. I� T- OF FTG RES Figure1-1: Study Area Map.............................................................................................. 4 Figure 2-1: Typical Sections along Route 522.................................................................. 5 Figure2-2: Existing Zoning............................................................................................... 8 Figure 2-3: Existing Traffic Conditions (1 of 4).............................................................. 14 Figure 2-4: Existing Traffic Conditions (2 of 4).............................................................. 15 Figure 2-5: Existing Traffic Conditions (3 of 4).............................................................. 16 Figure 2-6: Existing Traffic Conditions (4 of 4).............................................................. 17 Figure 2-7: Existing Sidewalk Locations......................................................................... 22 Figure 2-8: Virginia Inland Port and Surrounding Region .............................................. 26 Figure 2-9: Example of Median Crossover Not Meeting VDOT Regulation .................. 29 Figure 2-10: Example of Commercial Access Not Meeting VDOT Regulation ............. 29 Figure 3-1: City of Winchester Future Land Use............................................................ 30 Figure 3-2: Frederick County Future Land Use............................................................... 31 Figure 3-3: Frederick County Development Areas.......................................................... 32 Figure 3-4: Airport Support Area.................................................................................... 32 Figure 3-5: Future Land Use at Double Tollgate............................................................. 33 Figure 3-6: Warren County Future Land Use along US 522 ........................................... 33 Figure 3-7: Future Year 2035 Traffic Conditions (1 of 4) ............................................... 41 Figure 3-8: Future Year 2035 Traffic Conditions (2 of 4) ............................................... 42 Figure 3-9: Future Year 2035 Traffic Conditions (3 of 4) ............................................... 43 Figure 3-10: Future Year 2035 Traffic Conditions (4 of 4) .............................................. 44 Figure 4-1: Conceptual Sketch of Grade Separation....................................................... 59 Figure 4-2: MPO Vision Plan Projects............................................................................ 60 Figure 4-3: Context Zone Map........................................................................................ 63 III. LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Historic Traffic Counts and Growth Rates ....................................................... 9 Table 2.2: Existing Route 522 Traffic Counts................................................................. 10 Table 2.3: Existing Conditions Level of Service Summary ............................................ 12 Table 2.4: Existing Roadway Level of Service Summary ............................................... 19 Table 2.5: Intersection Crash Rates Summary................................................................. 21. Table 2.6: Roadway Link Crash Rates Summary............................................................ 21 Table 3.1: Horizon Year 2035 Future Roadway Traffic Volumes .................................. 36 Table 3.2: Year 2035 Future Conditions Level of Service Summary .............................. 39 Table 3.3: Future Roadway Level of Service Summary .................................................. 45 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 1.0 INTRODUCTION Purpose and Need The Route 522 Corridor, spanning from the southeastern section of the City of Winchester to north of the Town of Front Royal, is a corridor of mixed land use, including areas of residential, retail and rural development. The northern section of the Route 522 Study Corridor, near Interstate 81, is largely developed with mostly retail and some residential uses. The central section, including southeastern Frederick County, western Clarke County, and northern Warren County, is rural in nature with low-density rural residential uses with pockets of retail and industrial land uses. The southern section of the Route 522 Corridor, near Interstate 66, is again largely developed with mostly retail land use and is one of the most rapidly developing sections of the corridor. This is a cooperative project between the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission (NSVRC), the Winchester -Frederick MPO (Win -Fred) and the localities of the City of Winchester, Frederick County, Clarke County, and Warren County to analyze existing and future planned development and travel demand along the corridor to address future transportation needs. This study is a multimodal corridor study that analyzes and documents 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: • Collect highway performance measures (i.e. traffic counts, accident data, congestion/delay studies, recent traffic impact analysis, etc.) to determine the operational efficiency of the corridor. • Determine current access patterns and volumes of truck traffic along Route 522. Freight movement via trucks to the Virginia Inland Port will be studied to determine access needs and /or signage and routing improvements. • Information on safety will be gathered from previous studies in the corridor and field observation to determine short-term and long-term safety needs in the corridor. + Access management and corridor preservation recommendations will be determined for the corridor that address the needs of adjacent existing and potential future land uses. • Coordination of land use issues will be analyzed to determine future growth trends in the corridor and to assess the need for additional land use controls and 1 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 ordinances in the corridor that will minimize the transportation impacts of future growth. • In addition, the potential for additional transit routes, bicycle and pedestrian facilities to be located within this corridor will be identified. The development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities will include not only routes along the Route 522 Corridor, but also look at needs to link bicycle and pedestrian generators along the corridor, such as major or planned residential development to activity centers or schools. New potential Park and ride lot locations will be determined as per the MPO Long -Range Plan. • Identify projected deficiencies on Route 522 for build -out future conditions 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 522 Corridor. This study will provide the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission (NSVRC), the Winchester -Frederick MPO (Win -Fred), the localities and VDOT with a tool to help identify corridor needs as future land use driven development advances throughout the Route 522 Corridor and surrounding areas. Study Area and Corridor The Study Area is located along Route 522 from S. Pleasant Valley Road in the City of Winchester to south of Interstate 66 in Warren County, covering a distance of over 10 miles. The study area includes the following 22 intersections, which were analyzed as a part of this study. • Rte 522 (Millwood Ave) & S Pleasant Valley Rd • Rte 522 (Millwood Ave) & Frontage Rd • Rte 522 (Millwood Ave) & 1-81 SB • Rte 522 (Millwood Pke) & 1-81 NB / Front Royal Pke • Rte 522 (Front Royal Pke) & Costello Drive • Rte 522 (Front Royal Pke) & Airport Rd • Rte 522 (Front Royal Pke) & Papermill Rd • Rte 522 (Front Royal Pke) & Macedonia Church Road • Rte 522 (Front Royal Pke) & Tasker Rd • Rte 522 (Front Royal Pke) & Moranto Manor • Rte 522 (Front Royal Pke) & Lord Fairfax Hwy (Rte 277 & Rte 340) • Rte 522 (Front Royal Pke) & Lake Frederick • Rte 522 (Front Royal Pke) & Rocky Glen Dr • Rte 522 (Front Royal Pke / Winchester Rd) & Ashby Station Rd • Rte 522 (Winchester Rd) & Fairground Rd 2 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 • Rte 522 (Winchester Rd) & Toray Dr • Rte 522 (Winchester Rd) & Rockland Rd • Rte 522 (Winchester Rd) & Reliance Rd • Rte 522 (Winchester Rd) & Country Club Rd (Townsend Dr) • Rte 522 (Winchester Rd) & 1-66 EB • Rte 522 (Winchester Rd) & 1-66 WB • Rte 522 (Winchester Rd) & Riverton (North) Figure 1-1 provides a detailed map of the study area and analyzed intersections and illustrates the location of the area in the northwestern Virginia region. DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study From MiIIwood Avenue & 5 Pleasant Valley Road (Winchester) to Riverton Road (Front Royal) l S+Ktsm{ ro-ri ElBrn., 1 r EW4 Y _ circ Yr7rd V+ew EMrnnnegtij } - -� - bdlrnrr,l Rid.drd''(- 8y l71un;o • r t t`, sNp r IN V444, _ ' A—I Elcrnent ,v (( I `[tiler Y'pfYa hlrifi �I )°r' � i + . •�•�a� � rail r 1 w. T 77� i r r 4 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS This chapter identifies existing deficiencies and presents the traffic operating conditions along Route 522. 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 Figure 2-1: Typical Sections along Route 522 Route 522 (Millwood Avenue and Apple Blossom Drive) in the City of Winchester, from S. Pleasant Valley Road to Jubal Early Drive, is classified as a Minor Arterial roadway. Curb and gutter are present along this section of Route 522. Right of way varies from 70 - 80 feet in this segment. Route 522 continues on Jubal Early Drive, east of Apple Blossom Drive. This segment, through Interstate 81 and into Frederick County, is classified as a Principal Arterial roadway. This segment has four lanes, features curb and gutter, a raised center median, and 80 — 90 feet of right-of-way. Right-of-way expands at the interchange area. In Frederick County, east of Interstate 81, Route 522/50/17 (Millwood Avenue) is classified once again as a Minor Arterial roadway. Route 522 splits off from Route 50/17 and continues north/south as Front Royal Pike. This roadway segment from I- 81 to south of Route 644 (Papermill Road) is five lanes, two lanes in each direction and a center bi-directional turn lane. Right-of- way ranges from 60 - 100 feet in this area. A speed limit of 35 mph is posted from Route 522117/50, west of Interstate 81 Route 522, north of Double Tollgate DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Route 522, north of Interstate 66 F1 Millwood Avenue (Route 50/17) to north of Bufflick Road and 45 mph from north of Bufflick Road to Airport Road. From south of Route 644 to the Frederick County / Clarke County line, Route 522 (Front Royal Pike) is a four -lane divided roadway with a raised center median and varying right- of-way from 100 — 180 feet. A two mile segment of Route 522 (Stonewall Jackson Highway) runs through Clarke County and intersects Routes 277 and 340 (Lord Fairfax Highway), known as the Double Tollgate area. Throughout this two-mile segment, Route 522 continues as a four -lane divided highway with a raised center median and right-of-way varying from 150 — 190 feet. A speed limit of 45 mph is posted in the Double Tollgate area. In Warren County, from the Clarke County line to south of Interstate 66, Route 522 (Winchester Road) continues mostly as a four -lane divided highway with right-of-way ranging from 130 — 270 feet. A short segment of Route 522 becomes five -lane (two southbound, three northbound) from Interstate 66 to north of Country Club Road. This section features curb and gutter with right-of-way ranging from 130 — 370 feet. As part of this study, 22 existing intersections were analyzed for capacity and safety deficiencies. The location of the existing intersections and their existing lane configuration are shown with the analysis presented later in this chapter. 51 DRAFT - Route S22 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Existing Zoning The US 522 Corridor has a wide range of zoning classifications along it, including residential, agricultural, commercial and industrial zoned properties. In the northern section of the study corridor, in the City of Winchester and Frederick County, US 522 (Millwood Avenue, Millwood Pike, Front Royal Pike) consists of Highway Commercial zoned properties mixed with a Commercial Industrial district. Areas within the City of Winchester and Frederick Road, south of Costello Drive, are highly developed as the Apple Blossom Mall, Delco Plaza and other big box retail outlets are located along this section of US 522. South of Costello Drive, in Frederick County, the corridor becomes much less developed, as parcels are predominantly residential or agricultural zoned properties with a few commercial or business zoned properties sparsely located along the corridor. Further south along the corridor in Clarke County, all properties are zoned AOC (Agricultural, Open Space, Conservation), with the exception of a small Commercial Highway zoned district at the junction of US 522 and Lord Fairfax Highway (US 340). Properties in Warren County primarily consist of Industrial and Commercial zoned parcels, with a small pocket of residential zoned properties existing at the US 522 intersection with Reliance Road. The industrial zoned property is located on the east side of US 522 and is the site of the Virginia Inland Port, while the commercial properties are located on the west side of US 522. A map of the existing zoning along the study corridor is shown in Figure 123 A map of the existing zoning in the City of Winchester and Frederick County is shown in Figure 2-2. 7 DRAFT - Route S22 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 v'� Iib l : rt x!• ;n I {, � i r I Zoning By Locality j Winchester2 - - Central Business Dsnct - � - _ __ M'� I i Commence II 1 D'—t HlgMvay Cammerc al Dlsfict Ed—Iii l tA>n and Puclic Use DlsMct '" ..vcr. • JJ//�� p { _ Health services Dist+ct . Medical Center Dismcl �. Figher education D isnot htsnsv lndisna Dsmd UIii Inco t' I Disco -t High Dsnsty R.—N41 Di=_tie Umited High De,sity Residential Dlsmct "\, 37e' — % • _ Law Density Fes dentlN Dis;tic[ _ ......._ - � Medium Density Rasidarbal Dismpt I, Planned Dsysloprrent - f Residential Business Distil .� 7 R sidential Olfce Delldl Warren County �"'� `✓ Agnculturel �l cpmme'ciai r \ 1 iRes Area - - n.- `-• %--'P ° , Ind, Vial Residential One - Rurel Reside -tai Suhuroan Residwillal Frederick County *k AgnpUllural � � B1 Business, Neg-to—pd Dlsmct) 1 32 (a oiness G -J Demat) 133 (Bus rest Indus -rel Trnslilon Distract) EM (Extractive M nufectur ng Diva) \s9r 1 HE Mip.,Ed—t., D!.M) Ii (Inousl.ial Ug tD;sticl) M2 (Industrial Genam Dists¢) _ ' • - '-- } M6 (Mwlca Suolxirt D'•ic0 MH1 ITdcdile Home Ccn rlry Dis[nc[) RP (RI Pdrf.,,arn. Dsmo) r R4(Fe demi lFlamed Comm.nity Dsidct) .-,Re(Residential Racreatpnalcommu-tyDlsmce RA (Aural aea D,strc-) Clarke County O ADO (Agnicuft—J, Open space Conson oh.n: }G B Ieuslnessj CH IComme id Hg�n,ay: r _ CN (Comme lel Neighborhood) RR Hurel Reeide^lap se r P a N e 4 Existing Traffic Volumes Historic traffic counts were obtained from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) traffic count database. Table 2.1 documents Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes from 2005-2008. Average annual growth rates along the Route 522 study area segments have ranged from -3.5% to 2.7%. The majority of the segments have experienced a decrease in traffic volumes since 2005. The weakened economy in recent years has had an impact and reduced traffic volumes not just along the Route 522 Corridor, but on a state-wide and nation-wide level as well. Table 2.1 also shows heavy truck percentage on each segment of the Route 522 study area. Connecting Interstates 66 and 81, the Route 522 Corridor is home to the Virginia Inland Port (VIP). VIP handles 20,000 containers annually, generating several hundred truck trips utilizing Route 522. As shown in the table, the heavy truck percentage is between 3% and 5% outside of the Interstate 66 and 81 interchanges. Between the interchanges, the truck traffic ranges from 14% to 17% of the daily traffic volume. Table 2.1: Historic Traffic Counts and Growth Rates Source: Virginia uepartment oT I ransportatlon Into center — I rank uata Traffic counts were conducted along the study area corridor to supplement existing traffic count data obtained from previous studies in the corridor. Pneumatic tube counts and intersection turn movement counts were conducted in early June 2009. 9 DRAFT - Route S22 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 VDOT AADT Average Locality Roadway Location Heavy Annual Growth 2005 2006 2007 2008 Trucks Rate Route 522 S Pleasant Valley Rd to Jubal 13,000 13,000 14.000 13,000 3% 0.0% City of (Millwood Ave) Early Dr Winchester Route 522 Jubal Early Dr to 1-81 26.000 25.000 28,000 25.000 3% -1.3% (Millwood Ave) Route 522 1-81 to Millwood Pike (50) 35,000 35,000 38.000 37,000 5% 1.9% (Millwood Pike) Route 522 Millwood Pike (50) to 15,000 15,000 16,000 14 000 15% -2.2% Frederick (Front Royal Pike) Papermill Rd (644) Co Route 522 Papermill Rd (644) to 16,000 16,000 16,000 15,000 14 % 2.1 (Front Royal Pike) Macedonia Church Rd (642) Route 522 Macedonia Church Rd (642) 14,000 14.000 14 000 14.000 14% 0.0% (Front Royal Pike) to Clarke Co CL Route 522 Frederick Co CL to Double 14,000 14,000 14 000 13,000 14% -2.4% (Stonewall Jackson Hwy) Tollgate Clarke Co Route 522 Double Tollgate to Warren Co 19.000 19.000 19,000 17.000 17% -3.5% (Stonewall Jackson Hwy) CL Route 522 NCL Warren Co to Reliance 19,000 19.000 19,000 17,000 16% -3.5% (Winchester Rd) Rd (627) Warren Co Route 522 Reliance Rd (627) to 1-66 22 000 22,000 22,000 22,000 15% 0.0% (Winchester Rd) Route 522 1-66 to NCL Front Royal 25,000 25,000 25,001) 27,000 4% 2.7% (Winchester Rd) Source: Virginia uepartment oT I ransportatlon Into center — I rank uata Traffic counts were conducted along the study area corridor to supplement existing traffic count data obtained from previous studies in the corridor. Pneumatic tube counts and intersection turn movement counts were conducted in early June 2009. 9 DRAFT - Route S22 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Tube counts were conducted at six locations along Route 522. Four locations featured classification counts to record heavy truck percentages for comparison against the VDOT data. The other two count locations were conducted as volume -only tube counts. These Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes were compared to the VDOT Statewide Planning System 2008 counts and are shown in Table 2.2. Table 2.2: Existing Route 522 Traffic Counts Turning movement counts were also conducted in June 2009 at key intersections along the Route 522 Corridor. Recent traffic studies were review and new turn movement counts were conducted to supplement the existing data throughout the study area. Based on this data existing AM and PM peak hour turn movement volumes were developed for the study area intersections. The AM and PM peak hour intersection volumes are shown with the analysis results in the next section. 10 DRAFT - Route S22 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 2008 2009 2009 AM 2009 PM % Locality Roadway Location AADT ADT Peak Peak Heavy (VDOT) (Count) Hour Hour Trucks Volume Volume Route 522 South of (Millwood Ave) Pleasant Valley 13,000 15,200 895 1,255 Rd City of Winchester Route 522 Apple Blossom (Millwood Ave) Dr to Jubal NIA 8,100 603 651 6.8% Early Dr Route 522 North of 14,000 21,600 1,198 1,681 - (Front Royal Pike) Costello Dr Frederick Co Route 522 North of Double 14,000 13,800 875 1,145 17.0% (Front Royal Pike) Tollgate Route 522 North of County 22,000 21,700 1,316 1,726 16.6% (Winchester Rd) Club Rd Warren Co Route 522 South of 1-66 27,000 29,700 1,892 2,555 6.5% (Winchester Rd) Turning movement counts were also conducted in June 2009 at key intersections along the Route 522 Corridor. Recent traffic studies were review and new turn movement counts were conducted to supplement the existing data throughout the study area. Based on this data existing AM and PM peak hour turn movement volumes were developed for the study area intersections. The AM and PM peak hour intersection volumes are shown with the analysis results in the next section. 10 DRAFT - Route S22 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Existing Operating Conditions Capacity analyses were conducted for the existing conditions at each of the 22 key intersections along Route 522 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. Detailed LOS and 95th percentile queue length results from the Synchro software analysis are shown in Table 2.3. Existing traffic conditions, including existing turn movement counts, lane geometry, and movement LOS, are shown in Figure 2-3 through Figure 2-6. Fifteen existing signalized intersections were investigated along with seven stop - controlled intersections. Currently, fourteen of the fifteen signalized intersections are operating with an acceptable overall intersection 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 3 — Route 522 (Millwood Pike) @ 1-81 Southbound Ramps — This intersection is currently operating at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour. The southbound approach (1-81 Southbound Ramp) is currently operating at LOS F in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour. This poor approach level of service contributes to the overall intersection LOS E in the AM peak hour. All other approaches at this intersection are operating at an acceptable LOS D or better in the AM and PM peak hours. In addition to the signalized intersections, seven stop -controlled intersections were also analyzed. Shown below, two of the intersections have turn movements that are currently operating with an unacceptable LOS E or worse in either the AM or PM peak hour. • Intersection 17 — Route 522 (Winchester Road) @ Route 658 (Rockland Road) — The westbound left -right shared lane turn movements are currently operating at LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour. • Intersection 22 — Route 522 (Winchester Road) @ Route 637 (Riverton Road) — The westbound minor approach left -right shared lane turn movements are currently operating at LOS F in the PM peak hour. All approaches are operating at LOS C or better in the AM peak hour. 11 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Table 2.3: Existing Conditions Level of Service Summary Ex!sting Year 2008 Intersactian Lane Group AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Ir'.t—ctlan9 Operation App,oach L=Left T =Thru 85th R=Right 05th%Queue Length (fl) Movement LOS Approaoh LOS Inrstio teecn LOS Length �ftl Movement LOS Approach LOS Intersection LOS EPN Roadway NIS Roadway L 80 C 41 D Eastbound T 628 F E 780 F E R 166 D 204 C L 55 D 100 E Westbound T 379 E E 559 E E 1 Signalized Millwood Ave Pleasant Valley Rd R 395 E D 388 E D Northbound bound 232 F D 328 F ❑ T -R 123 S 358 C L 103 B 71 D Southbound T 248 C C 397 1 D D R 0 A D 1 A Esatbow.d L 13 D B 54 E D T -R 1U9 B 567 D t^resMcund L T -R 98 94 B A A 136 34 B A .A 2 Signalized Millwood Pike Frontage Rd B C Dlurtnbound L 28 ❑ U 48 D E ?-R 48 ❑ 176 E Soullffiauntl L -T 28 D D 26 D D R D 26 D Northbound T 43 A A 156 B A R 0 A 5 A 3 Signalized Millwood Pike 1-81 SB Ramps L 252 D E 442 F C Westbound T 481 C C 360 A C Southbound R 348 F F 299 E E 115 C 535 D Eastbound T 170 .A B 330 1 B C R 0 A 0 A L 50 1 C its ❑ Westbound T 147 8 e 122 C C 681 NB Ramps/From Royal R 0 A 0 4 Shgnabzsd Mlllwootl Pike Pike E C L 172 C 45A D NnrtBbound T 140 C 300 C D R 9 C 07 B L 125 ❑ 19' E Bnufhbountl T 59 D B 86 U ❑ R 0 A 0 A Eastbound L -T 37 D D 41 E E R D 3 D Westbound L T -R 84 38 D C D 142 81 D D ❑ 5 Signalized Costello Dnve Route 522 B C Nokhbound TLR 171 C C 288 D D Ecuthbound A 9 1 B T`R 14 A A Westbound L 107 D D 42 C C R 41 D 25 C Northbound T 125 A A 173 4 A Z Signalrzed Anport Road Route 522 A A P i3 A i7 A Seu dbourd T W A A 7 A .4 Eastbound L -R 170 0 D 390 E E Northbound L 75 A A 79 A A 7 Slgnalaed Pepermill Rd Route 522 B C (Route 644) T 76 A 104 A Southbound T -R 124 8 B 198 B B Eastbound L -R 51 C C 38 C C Northbound. L T 1 0 A A A 2 0 A A A 8 Sin p- Controlled RI—donna Church Rd (Ro to 842; Route 522 WA N/A L 0 A 0 A SWIthbound T 0 A .A 0 A A R 1 0 A 0 A Eastbound L R 25 2B B A B 36 36 C A C Stop- Tasker Rd Northbound T 0 A A 10 A A 9 Controlled (Route 642) Route 522 WA NIA L 0 NIA 0 NIA Southbound T 0 A A 0A A R 0 A 0 A Eastbound L R 9 12 E E E 22 $ E E E Northbound T 70 B P A A i0 Si9nal,zea MBYaMO Manor Or Route 527 A 1114 A L $ E 6 E Southbound T 78 A A 83 A A R 6 A 2 F. E83to—ol L -T R 215 46 D C C 133 50 D D D Westbound L T -R 106 93 D C D 171 328 C D D Lord Fairfax Hwy (Rte 277 8 Route 522 L 104 D C 182 E D 11 Signalized Rte 340) Northbound T 145 C C 213 C C R 45 C 52 C L 02 D 59 D Southbound T 141 C C 180 C C R 14 C 21 C Table 2.3: Existing Conditions Level of Service Summary (cont.) Existing Vear2008 Intersection Lane Group AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection # Operation Approach L = Left T = Th,Right R=Right 95th%Queue MaLOS Approach Intersection 95th % Movement Approach Intersection EMl Roaaway N/S Roadway Length (ft) LOS LOS LOS L�gth (ft) LOS LOS LOS EBSSGJIInl L R 21 8 D D D 20 8 D D D Northbound T 4 A A 88 A A 12 Smnalaed Lek. Fred.nck Route 522 A A L 0 N/A 0 NIP. Southbound T 100 A A. 112 w A R 8 A 11 A Westbound R D A A 1 B A Northbound T R 0 0 A A q 0 D A A A 13 Ston Cbntrclletl Rocky Glen Dr Route 522 N/A NIA Southbound T 0 A A 0 1 A A Eeatbuuncl L -T -R 4 C C 5 D D We 1b.—I L-T•R 2 C 6 3 B tl'+abound N!A R 0 A A 0 A 4 Stop Ashoy 6teRG (Roula Route 522 NJ4 14 C.—lied 339 L 0 A 0 A. Southbound T 0 A A 0 A A R 0 A 0 A Westbound L R 46 23 C C C 75 31 C C C L 0 A 0 A 15 Signalized Fairground Rd (Route 661) Route 522 Northbound T103 A A A 143 A A A R 17 A 16 A Southbound L T 62 48 D A A 49 74 D A A Westix-hd L R 83 12 _ C C C 110 21 C 0 C L 0 A 0 16 Slgnallzer: Tony on Route 522 Northbound T 182 B B B 196 B B B R 213 i0 B 6cutiIoundI- T 107 C A. A 5 152 C A A Westbound L -R 92mc D 100 F F Northbound T R 0 0A 0 D A A A Z; Rockland Rd (Rout. 658) Route 522 N/A N/A Scuthbould L T 4A 0 5 0 A A A A Ease+ound L R 15C 5 O10 10 C C C Relienca Rd(Rothe 627) Route $22 N/A NIA N.,khbound T 0 A 9 0 A B Southbound T -R 0 A A D N S L 16 D 70 D Eastbourd T35 D D 1 61 D D R 34 D 71 D L 74 D 139 D Westbound T 30 C C 91 D D Signalizetl Country Club Rd I Townsend Route 522 R 24 C C 49 D C L 65 D 172 D 19 pr(RWe855) Northbound T 182 B B 153 B C R 21 3 32 B L 50 D 76 D Southbound T 215 B C 317 C C R 19 B 50 B 1Nes8wund L R 28 68 C ^A D 94 72 C C C ^_0 B:gnel¢ed I.68 WB Route 522 A Northbound 135 A A 193 A 4 Southbound T 110 A A 735 A A L 109 C33 C Eastbound LT 109 C C 34 C D R 75 C 183 D 21 Signalized 1-66 EB Route 522 T 231 B B A $65 B B A Northbound R 30 N/A 24 N/A Southbound L T 202 92 N/A D 3 148 157 N/A D e Westbound L -R i2 C C 190 F F Northboua3 T R 0 0 A A A 0 0 .4 A A 22 Stop- RNerton Road Route 52: WA NIA Oorltrolled Soudrbound L 2 B B 6 8 0 A B T 0 A Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study aM From Millwood Avenue & 5 Pleasant Valley Road (Winchester) to Riverton Road (Front Royal) 7. W '14 9 10 AMPeak Hour PM Peak How Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study . From Millwood Avenue & S Pleasant Valley Road (Winchester) to Riverton Road` (Front Royal) f. AM Peak Hour PM Peak How Interstate Ramp Int—e.fion Movement Level of Service LOSA-8 m / LOSC u LOS 'ltr' LOSE - F S , AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour It j x - x a i� �J AMPeTak Hour PM�PeakH�our � _ `- �Y► Y'' , r. /_ � �� /_ / ftp It V � E !of. - � AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ti AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour a�41 11 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 peak hour volume signal warrant analysis showed only one intersection, Route 522 / Riverton Road, which met the AM or PM peak hour warrant. 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, this intersection of concern should be continuously monitored. In 2008, a VDOT traffic signal warrant study was conducted for the intersection of Route 522 (Front Royal Pike) and Route 756 (Macedonia Church Road). A twelve hour set of traffic data was used to determine whether the warrants provided by the MUTCD were satisfied. The study found that the intersection does warrant a traffic signal based on the procedures described in the MUTCD. VDOT funding has been requested, but has not yet been approved. 18 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Roadway Level of Service was also analyzed using Highway Capacity Software (HCS+) for the Route 522 Corridor at various locations along the corridor. Roadway LOS is determined by the peak hour roadway volumes as well as roadway characteristics such as roadway type, lane width, free flow speed, truck percentage and other factors. Roadway LOS is similar to intersection LOS in that both use the letters "A" through "F" to designate the different service levels. Table 2.4 shows the existing conditions Roadway LOS for the analyzed segments of Route 522. Tahle 2.4: Existina Roadwav Level of Service Summary The Roadway Level of Service results show that the entire corridor is currently operating at Level of Service D or better. The roadway segments along Route 522/50/17, near the 1-81 interchange in the City of Winchester and Frederick County, are operating at LOS C and LOS D, respectively. Volumes are moderate to high and are expected to increase in the future, creating a worse Level of Service. The rural areas of the corridor are currently operating between LOS A and LOS C. 19 DRAFT - Route S22 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 2009 Locality Roadway Location # Lanes HCM 2009 ADT Roadway Methodology (Count) Level of Service Route 522 South of Pleasant 4 Urban Street 15,200 B (Millwood Ave) Valley Rd City of Route 522 Apple Blossom Dr to 2 Urban Street 8,100 B Winchester (Millwood Ave) Jubal Early Dr Route 522 Jubal Early Dr to 4 Urban Street 27,700 C (Millwood Ave) 1-81 SB Ramps Route 522 1-81 SB Ramps to 1-81 4 Urban Street 37,300 D (Millwood Ave) NB Ramps Frederick Route 522 North of Costello Dr 4 Rural Multilane 21,600 B Co (Front Royal Pike) Route 522 North of Double 4 Rural Multilane 13,800 A (Front Royal Pike) Tollgate Route 522 North of County Club 4 Rural Multilane 21,700 B (Winchester Rd) Rd Warren Co Route 522 South of 1-66 4 Rural Multilane 29,700 C (Winchester Rd) The Roadway Level of Service results show that the entire corridor is currently operating at Level of Service D or better. The roadway segments along Route 522/50/17, near the 1-81 interchange in the City of Winchester and Frederick County, are operating at LOS C and LOS D, respectively. Volumes are moderate to high and are expected to increase in the future, creating a worse Level of Service. The rural areas of the corridor are currently operating between LOS A and LOS C. 19 DRAFT - Route S22 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Safety Crash data from 2006 through 2008 was obtained from the City of Winchester and VDOT for the portion of the Route 522 Corridor north of Double Tollgate Road. This safety analysis was conducted to complement the August 2008 VDOT Study, US 340/522 Geometrics and Safety Survey, and only contains data from the northern terminus of the previous study (Double Tollgate) through the northern terminus of this study area (City of Winchester). 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 the northern portion of Route 522 have crash rates of less than 1.00 crashes per MEV. The intersection of Millwood Avenue and Pleasant Valley Road has a crash rate of 3.27 per million vehicles entering the intersection, which is over the ITE threshold. For the portion of Route 522 south of Double Tollgate Road, crash data from the US 340/522 Geometric and Safety Survey was used for the analysis. The data for this study was collected from 2003 to 2007. The intersections of Route 522 with Double Tollgate Road, Fairground Road, and Reliance Road average 2.4 to 4.2 crashes per year. Traffic volume data is not available for these intersections, however when compared to the average crash data from the northern portion of the Route 522 Corridor, it seems that these intersections will be below the threshold of 1.00 crashes per MEV. Crash data was also analyzed for roadway segments along Route 522. Only intersection data and not link data was available from Pleasant Valley Road to Front Royal Pike. The statewide crash rate for primary roadways is 161 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The crash rate in the Staunton Region is 111 crashes per 100 million VMT. As shown in Table 2.6, all of the roadway links along Route 522 have crash rates less than the statewide average; however the section of Route 522 from the 1-81 northbound ramps to Papermill Road (Route 644) has a crash rate of 126 per 100 million VMT which exceeds the Staunton Region crash rate. This may be due to the number of access points along this portion of the facility as well as the more developed residential and commercial land uses. The crash data showed that there were 162 crashes along the northern portion of the Route 522 Corridor during the three year period. Approximately 33 percent of these were "Angle" type crashes, 25 percent were "Rear End" type, and 16 percent were "Fixed Object Off -Road". "Angle" and "Rear End" type accidents are often associated with at shared left turn lane. 20 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Table 2.5: Intersection Crash Rates Summary From To Link Length Avg #Crashes acc ADT per 100M Vehicle Miles Traveled Pleasant Valley Rd Frontage Rd Millwood Ave @ NO DATA 38 Frontage Rd 1-81 SB Ramps 1-81 SB Ramps 1-81 NB Ramps/Front Royal Pike North of Study Area I-81 NB Ramps/Front Royal Pike 0.19 NA 37,000 NA 1-81 NB Ramps/Front Royal Pike Papermill Rd (644) 2.43 16 14,000 126 Papermill Rd (644) Clark/Frederick Co Line 4.69 13 14,500 54 Clark/Frederick Co Line Double Tollgate 0.3 0.8 13,000 56 Double Tollgate Warren/Clark Co Line 1.8 7.6 17,000 68 Warren/Clark Co Line Reliance Rd 4.5 14.2 17,000 51 Reliance Rd 1-66 1.5 10.2 22,000 85 I-66 Warren Co Line/Front Royal 0 0.7 NO DATA 7 6ource: t;rasn rtecoras trom aty of Winchester Nolice Department, VDO7 Table 2.6: Roadwav Link Crash Rates Summary auuce. U ash Recorus morn City of vvincnester Ponce Department, VDO l 21 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Intersection 2006 2007 2008 Average # Accidents per year Average Crashes per Million Entering Vehicles 1 Millwood Ave @ Pleasant Valley Rd 38 19 40 30.8 2.46 2 Millwood Pike @ Frontage Rd 13 14 10 11.0 0.71 3 Millwood Pike @ 1-81 SB Ramps 0 2 0 0.8 0.05 4 Millwood Pike @ I-81 NB Ramps/Front Royal Pike 1 1 2 1.3 0.06 5 Costello Dr @ Rte 522 1 1 1 1.0 0.11 6 Airport Rd @ Rte 522 0 2 0 0.7 0.09 7 Papermill Rd (644) @ Rte 522 0 3 0 1.0 0.15 8 Macedonia Church Rd (642) @ Rte 522 3 4 2 3.0 0.63 9 Tasker Rd (642) @ Rte 522 0 3 1 1.0 0.22 10 Maranto Manor Dr @ Rte 522 NA NA NA NA NA auuce. U ash Recorus morn City of vvincnester Ponce Department, VDO l 21 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Existing Multimodal Facilities This section discusses existing multimodal facilities .n the Route 522 Corridor. Recommendations for multimodal improvements to facilitate alternatives to single - occupant vehicle movements will be based on existing and future need and presented in the Recommendations chapter of this report. Data has been collected for pedestrian and bicycle facilities, freight and goods movement in the corridor, transit operations, and potential intermodal facilities such as park and ride lots. In the corridor's existing condition, the dominant mode of transportation within the Route 522 Corridor is by private automobile. Alternative modes are accommodated more so to the north of the I- 81 interchanges, 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. Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks exist along Route 522 within the City of Winchester and along the Route 522 Corridor in Frederick County, to the area of Costello Drive. Pedestrian facilities along the corridor are generally sufficient within the City of Winchester and Frederick County as sidewalks and crosswalks are part of the Route 522 streetscape and provide connection between commercial and mixed use developments in the area. Existing sidewalks are shown in Figure 2-7. Pedestrian facilities become non-existent along the rest of the Route 522 Corridor, south of Costello Drive and the Costco / Delco Plaza shopping center. Pedestrian facilities are lacking in the more rural sections of the study area; particularly in Frederick, Clark and Warren Counties. Figure 2-7: Existin DRAFT - Route S22 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 q Sidewalk Locations M ti r,=eat �.._ 22 Bicycle Currently, there is a lack of bicycle facilities along US 522. With the exception of a single shared -use path along Macedonia Church Rd, south of Armel Elementary School, there are no other existing bike lanes or multi-purpose trails along or adjacent to the US 522 study corridor. As a result of minimal bicycle accommodations currently existing along most of the study corridor, only bicycle users who are comfortable riding with motor vehicle traffic would likely ride on the current state of Route 522. Transit The Route 522 Corridor is served by one fixed route line of Win -Tran that operates within the corporate limits of Winchester. Win -Tran Route 3, the Apple Blossom Mall route, is a fixed route service that operates between Winchester City Hall and the Apple Blossom Mall area. On weekdays, Route 3 departs City Hall every hour on the hour between 6AM and 7PM and on Saturdays between 9AM and 4PM. The Apple Blossom Mall route departs City Hall and then travels along Braddock St and Cork St before heading south along Parkway St. and Pleasant Valley Rd. to the Apple Blossom Mall area. On its inbound route, the Apple Blossom Route takes a more direct route to City Hall, as it follows Route 522 for the entire inbound route. According to ridership figures obtained from the Winchester Department of Transportation, the Apple Blossom Mall route served 18,283 riders between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009. In addition to the fixed route public transportation service, the Route 522 Corridor is also served by para -transit services. Para -transit is a curb -to -curb service available to citizens who are unable to utilize the regular fixed -route public transit system. Win -Tran operates para -transit services within the City of Winchester, while Virginia Regional Transit (VRT) operates a demand response service in Clark, Frederick and Warren Counties. Freight Patterns Freight is a vital contributor to the local economy as truck traffic accounts for up to 17 % of vehicles along the US 522 Corridor (VDOT Traffic Count Data). Furthermore, truck traffic from the Virginia Inland Port uses US 522 to access 1-81, 1-66 and 1-70 via US 340. Due to the important linkage US 522 has to the Interstate Highway System, incorporating freight accommodations is needed to allow the free flow movement of goods and services within and through the region. By addressing freight needs in this 23 DRAFT - Route S22 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 study, the US 522 Corridor will be better able to limit the negative impacts that freight and truck traffic often have on regional roadways. Virginia Inland Port: The Virginia Inland Port (VIP) is a major generator of truck traffic along the US 522 Corridor. The Virginia Inland Port is located on US 522 in Warren County, approximately one mile north of 1-66. The VIP is an inland intermodal container transfer facility for containers to transfer across modes for cargo shipped to and from the marine terminals in the Hampton Roads area. Along with the marine terminals in the Hampton Roads area, the Virginia Inland Port is one of four facilities that have been consolidated into the "Port of Virginia" by the Virginia Port Authority and processed 24,500 containers in 2009. The VIP is connected to rail owned and operated by Norfolk Southern and is part of the Crescent Corridor initiative. The Crescent Corridor is a key north -south rail corridor that provides intermodal freight service between the Southeast United States and New England. Norfolk Southern plans to improve efficiency along the Crescent Corridor by upgrading rail infrastructure in order to provide double -stacking services that will increase container capacity. Contacts with county officials, port representatives and trucking companies and a review of the available data have yielded the following conclusion: • While located directly on Route 522, the VIP does not appear to be a significant contributor to the high truck volume percentage on Route 522, between Interstates 66 and 81. The average number of containers processed daily (less than 100) at the VIP would equate to under one -percent of the average daily traffic along Route 522. The high percentage of truck traffic along Route 522 may be caused by cut -through traffic between Interstates 66 and 81, creating a more direct route and also bypassing a truck weigh station along I-81. It would be difficult to divert any of this traffic without impacting the local freight activity centers, including local retailers and distribution centers. These conclusions are supported by the following observations: • Since 2004, the VIP processes an average of 31,400 containers annually, which is unlikely to produce more than several hundred truck trips daily; • 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, and • Heavy truck percentages range from seven to seventeen percent of the Average Annual Daily Traffic along Route522 in the City of Winchester, Frederick County, Clarke County, and Warren County. 24 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 • While the VIP container traffic adds to the number of heavy trucks on Route 522, the high percentage of heavy trucks along Route 522 may be caused by cut -through traffic between Interstates 66 and 81, and other freight activity centers along the corridor. 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 522. This section details the freight markets surrounding Route 522, as reflected in Figure 2-8. 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, with direct access to the Route 522 Corridor. 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 preservation of the rural landscape of the county has influenced many industries, business and residential developments to move farther west to Frederick County. 25 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Figure 2-8: Virginia Inland Port and Surrounding Region 26 DRAFT - Route S22Multimodal Corridor Study ' June Z01O Regional Routes Used by VIP Traffic This assessment focuses on the impact of VIP truck traffic on Route 522. Discussions with both VIP representatives and local freight -related industries suggest that Route 522, while directly used by VIP freight, is not impacted significantly by VIP -generated traffic, simply because VIP does not generate a large volume of truck traffic. 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. 522/340, adjacent to VIP, is a combination of local warehousing/distribution center traffic and other possible cut - through 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. Park and Ride Lots VDOT maintains park and ride facilities across the Commonwealth in efforts to reduce congestion through the encouragement of carpooling. The US 522 Corridor is served by the Crooked Run and the Double Tollgate Park & Ride lots. The Crooked Run lot is owned by Warren County and is located just south of US 66 in Front Royal at the intersection of US 522 and Riverton Road. The Crooked Run facility has 262 spaces available and is also served by the Valley Connection express bus service to Northern Virginia and Washington D.C. The Double Tollgate lot is a VDOT owned facility located at the US 522 intersection with Ray Hope Lane, just south of VA 277/340 and has 187 spaces available. 27 DRAFT - Route S22 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Other Roadway Deficiencies A field visit was conducted to assess the safety and access of the US 522 Corridor and to build upon the VDOT US 340/522 Geometrics and Safety Survey, dated August 2008. The focus of the field visit was the northern section of the corridor from Lord Fairfax Parkway (Route 277 / 340) in Clarke County, through the 1-81 interchange, to Pleasant Valley Road in the City of Winchester. The southern portion of the corridor, south of Lord Fairfax Parkway is discussed in the VDOT US 340/522 Geometrics and Safety Survey. The typical section for most of the Route 522 Corridor is up to VDOT standards. South of Papermill Road (Route 644), the typical section of US 522 is two twelve -foot lanes in each direction, the shoulders are a minimum of six feet, and there is a raised or depressed median at least twelve feet wide, except where left -turn lanes are present. North of Papermill Road, US 522 is five lanes, with the center lane being a shared left - turn lane. Curb and gutter are present on both sides of the roadway. The access point spacing throughout the corridor does not meet the standards set by VDOT's Access Management Design Standards for Entrances and Intersections: Principal Arterials. The VDOT access management regulations state that unsignalized crossovers on rural principal arterials should be spaced at distances of at least 1,760 feet for roadways with speed limits of 50 miles per hour or greater. Some of the commercial access points throughout the corridor also do not meet the VDOT regulation of 585 feet for a rural arterial or the 325 feet for an urban arterial. This is especially true for the northern portion of US 522 leading into the City of Winchester as many commercial access points are in close proximity to each other. Figure 2-9 and Figure 2-10 show examples of close proximity access points along the corridor. Other deficiencies in the northern portion of the US 522 are discussed in Appendix A: • Missing portions of sidewalk and below -standard pedestrian ramps (Also shown in Figure 2-10) • Deteriorating pavement conditions and pavement markings. • Inoperable pedestrian signals and pedestal poles missing signal heads. • Trailblazing signs that are not standard sizes. • Possible drainage issues and/or puddling. 28 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Figure 2-9: Example of Median crossover Not Meeting VDOT Regulation Figure 2-10: Example of Commercial Access Not Meeting VDOT Regulation 29 DRAFT -- Route S22 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 3.0 PROJECTED FUTURE CONDITIONS Projections of future traffic along the Route 522 Corridor were developed for the Horizon Year 2035. Various methods and sources were used in generating future condition traffic volumes within our study area. These methods, described below, were utilized to determine future traffic levels in the study area for the Horizon Year 2035. 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 in the regional plan. 2035 Future Land Use Planned land use was obtained from the City of Winchester, Frederick County, Clarke County, and Warren County and compared to the respective existing zoning. The planned and expected land use along the corridor was analyzed to determine the expected corridor growth. The Route 522 Corridor in the City of Winchester is a short but heavily traveled portion of the study area. The Millwood Avenue and Jubal Early Drive area is composed of relatively mature and stable land uses, including institutional (Shenandoah University) and commercial (Apple Blossom Mall) areas. Local land use policies are focused on infill and redevelopment of adjacent commercial uses. A corridor overlay district controls property setbacks and controls design of adjacent uses. The Frederick County future land use is shown for the study area in Figure 3-1. Figure 3-1: City of Winchester Future Land Use Source: City of Wnchester Comprehensive Plan Map 30 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 1 p ,a r1�F, ffifY- nyy�pi:, Source: City of Wnchester Comprehensive Plan Map 30 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Similar to its existing zoning, Frederick County has a variety of planned future land uses, ranging from Urban Development Areas (UDA) to rural conservation areas. Frederick County implements a policy of channeling growth into UDAs and Sewer and Water Service Areas (SWSA) with a more urban character. The Route 522 study area, from the Interstate 81 interchange to south of Papermill Road, is labeled as a UDA. The UDA picks up again on the west side of the Route 522 Corridor, from W Parkins Mill Road to south of Armel Road. From there a SWSA, on the west side of Route 522, extends south to Maranto Manor Drive. South of Maranto Manor Drive is expected to remain rural in character. The Frederick County future land use is shown for the study area in Figure 3-2. I-n.fern V—ft:'h I. C—Wu f"u—E; It7"VI"" S.a r4 4:.,tu S ,.x A-; Rc w ti;:l �_°�' 1'i:em:d Unit dk•4c'., yn:: al lmlitvu'i.';d tGa:e li�auta,n(i� b. nh r Figure 3-2: Frederick County Future Land Use Source: Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Map 31 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Figure 3-3: Frederick County Also in the Frederick County 2007 Development Areas Comprehensive Plan, potential locations of Neighborhood Villages and Urban Centers are identified. Both the Neighborhood Villages and - Urban Centers are intended to create mixed-use neighborhoods that incorporate residential, commercial, retail, educational and public uses into walkable neighborhoods with half mile walk , sheds. As stated in the Frederick County d. �•' Comprehensive Plan, Neighborhood Villages "are envisioned to be compact centers that focus and complement the surrounding neighborhoods, are walkable and designed at a human scale, and which are supported by existing and planned 1 ; road networks." The Urban Centers are intended to be more intensive than the neighborhood , Villages containing higher densities and a larger commercial core designed around a public space which would serve as a focal point of the development. One Neighborhood Village and one Urban Center are planned within '/4 mile of Route 522. The potential Urban Center is located on the west side of Route 522, between Airport Road and Papermill Road. The potential Neighborhood Village is located on the east side of Route 522, south of Papermill Road. Both are shown in Figure 3-3. The Winchester Regional Airport is located in the vicinity of the study area, off of Airport Road, in Frederick County. Historically, there have been conflicts between residential communities and airports, citing fly -over areas Figure 3-4: Airport Support Area and noise sensitive areas surrounding airports. , ,. `` ` r� i f, To address this, the Winchester Regional Airport Authority developed an Airport Support Area for the airport. The support area extends to the east of Route 522 from the intersection of Route 522/Route 50 to south of the C intersection of Route 522/Airport Road, shown in Figure 3-4. As stated in the Frederick County 2007 Comprehensive Plan, this area would prohibit further residential rezoning to ` ti protect the fly -over areas and noise sensitive areas and ensure continued airport use and Av" `i'°' 2 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 future airport expansion. Business, low rise commercial development, and industrial land uses should be the primary uses in the airport support area. Figure 3-5: Future Land Use at Double Tollgate Clarke County is a predominately rural county and the future land uses are designed to keep the majority of land in Clarke County as AOC (Agricultural, Open Space and Conservation). The Double Tollgate (Intersection of US 340 and US 522) is the sole area along the US 522 Corridor in Clarke County to be designated as something other than AOC. The Clarke County Comprehensive plan has a Business Intersection Area Plan for the Double Tollgate, which indicates that the area will consist of a zoned highway commercial area. This is consistent with the findings of the existing land use conditions. Clarke County is currently working on land use guideline standards for the Double Tollgate area. In Warren County, parcels along the US 522 Corridor are designated to have future land uses virtually identical to those of the current zoning ordinance. The future designated land uses along the corridor consist of commercial parcels on the west side of US 522/ US 340 and industrial land uses along the east side of the roadway. Minor changes in the future designated land uses, call for three proposed commercial areas to infill parcels that are currently agricultural zoned properties that are located adjacently to already commercially zoned properties. DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Figure 3-6: Warren County Future Land Use along US 522 33 2035 Traffic Forecasts Methodology Forecast traffic volumes were generated for the Horizon Year 2035 using the following methodology. 1) Historic traffic counts (2005-2008) were obtained from VDOT's Traffic Count Database. At most roadway segments the 2008 traffic volume was less than the 2005 traffic volume, resulting in a negative growth rate. Therefore, the historic traffic growth rate was not used, as it would not accurately reflect the anticipated growth in the corridor. 2) Many developments are planned and expected within the next 25 years throughout the study area. Meetings were conducted with each locality's planning department to better understand the anticipated future land use and proposed developments in the Route 522 Corridor. These plans were compared to the existing VDOT Winchester Region Travel Demand Model's 2030 socioeconomic data. The travel demand model is a tool to calculate and forecast existing or future demand on a transportation network. The Traffic Analysis Zones JAZ) in the model only extend to the MPO boundary, including the City of Winchester and Frederick County, while the model's roadway network extends to the Town of Front Royal. The MPO localities identified areas within the model network where the current future land use socioeconomic data (population and employment) from the VDOT Model did not accurately represent future development data. The model's socioeconomic data was updated based on these planned developments. Not being in the MPO area, Clarke County and Warren County planners identified planned and potential developments along the Route 522 Corridor to be accounted for in projecting future traffic volumes. 3) Taking into account the length of the corridor, and its large development potential, it was decided that a simple straight growth rate would not accurately reflect traffic conditions at the intersection level, which is a focus of this study. Future large-scale development projects would impact the intersection traffic volumes in specific locations more significantly than applying a straight growth rate along the entire corridor. Four large scale developments were identified along the corridor that would have significant impacts at various study area intersections. These developments are: a. Russell 150 (Frederick County - near Airport Road) — A mixed use development with a proposed 285 residential units, 440,000 square feet (sf.) of commercial retail, and 264,000 sf. of office space. b. Wal-Mart @ Eastgate (Frederick County — near Tasker Road) — Proposed plans call for 152,000 sf of retail. 34 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 c. Cedarville Center (Warren County — near Rockland Road) — A proposed 750,000 sf. commercial development d. Crooked Run II (Warren County — near Country Club Road) — A proposed 800,000 sf. Commercial development The traffic impact studies for these developments were utilized to help develop AM and PM peak hour site trips at each development. Trip distributions, trip assignments, driveway locations, and other data from the traffic studies were used in generating the trips at the intersections and along Route 522. 4) The VDOT Winchester Region Travel Demand Model was run with the updated socioeconomic data based on the input from the localities. The four large developments were not included in the model. The model roadway network remained the same except for a roadway connection between East Tevis Road (Winchester) and Route 522 (Frederick). This connection is a planned project with VDOT's Revenue Sharing program, requiring a 50% local match, which will provide an additional connection from Winchester over Interstate 81 and into Frederick County. This connection is expected to divert a significant amount of vehicles away from the Interstate 81 interchange area of Route 522/50/17. The model output generated a growth rate for different sections of the corridor, which was then applied to the existing count data to develop 2035 background traffic volumes. The trips generated from the large developments were added to the background traffic volumes to determine the overall 2035 future traffic. Horizon Year 2035 A.M. and P.M. peak hour volumes were generated for the study area intersections. Daily roadway segment volumes were also developed for analysis. 5) The proposed Route 37 Bypass was not accounted for in the travel demand model network. This decision was made due to the uncertainty of the construction of the Route 37 Bypass, given the status of the current funding sources. Should the Route 37 Bypass be constructed it would be assumed that some of the traffic using Route 522 would be diverted to Route 37, reducing overall traffic along Route 522. By not modeling the Route 37 Bypass, a more conservative approach was taken developing future traffic volumes. 35 DRAFT - Route S22 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Forecast 2035 Future Traffic Volumes As described in the methodology section, the existing intersection and roadway traffic volumes were forecast to Horizon Year 2035. Future year intersection turn movements were developed for the AM and PM peak hours and Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes were developed for the roadway segments analyzed in the existing conditions. Resulting 2035 roadway traffic volumes along Route 522 are compared to existing volumes in Table 3.1. Tahle 3.1 - Horizon Year 2035 Future Roadwav Traffic Volumes *ADT denotes Average Daily Traffic Existing turn movement counts at key intersections throughout the Route 522 study area were also grown to Year 2035 based on model output and development trip generation. A number of planned changes to the intersections are expected by Year 2035, including the following. • The Russell 150 development is planned to develop across from the existing Route 522 / Airport Road intersection (Intersection 6). The development would access Route 522 at this existing intersection. 36 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Projected Resulting Locality Roadway Location 2009 ADT 2035 Average (Count) Roadway Annual Growth Volume Rate (AAGR) Route 522 South of Pleasant 15,200 19,200 1.0% (Millwood Ave) Valley Rd City of Route 522 Apple Blossom Dr to 8,100 10,200 1.0% Winchester (Millwood Ave) Jubal Early Dr Route 522 Jubal Early Dr to 27,700 37,500 1.4% (Millwood Ave) 1-81 SB Ramps Route 522 1-81 SB Ramps to 1-81 37,300 54,200 1.7% (Millwood Ave) NB Ramps Route 522 Frederick (Front Royal North of Costello Dr 21,600 44,000 4.0% Co Pike Route 522 North of Double (Front Royal Tollgate 13,800 26,400 3.5% Pike Route 522 North of County Club 21,700 40,400 3.3% (Winchester Rd) Rd Warren Co Route 522 South of 1-66 29,700 45,100 2.0% (Winchester Rd) *ADT denotes Average Daily Traffic Existing turn movement counts at key intersections throughout the Route 522 study area were also grown to Year 2035 based on model output and development trip generation. A number of planned changes to the intersections are expected by Year 2035, including the following. • The Russell 150 development is planned to develop across from the existing Route 522 / Airport Road intersection (Intersection 6). The development would access Route 522 at this existing intersection. 36 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 • The intersection of Route 522 / Macedonia Church Road (Intersection 8) is expected to be signalized, as VDOT currently has requested for the signalization. • The intersection of Route 522 / Toray Drive (Intersection 16) is planned to accommodate a secondary driveway to the Blue Ridge Shadows Community and is expected to be signalized. • The intersections of Reliance Road and Rockland Road with Route 522 (Intersections 17 & 18) are expected to be combined into one intersection at Reliance Road. Existing Rockland Road is expected to dead end prior to intersecting with Route 522. The forecast 2035 AM and PM peak hour intersection volumes are shown with the 2035 future analysis results in the next section. 2035 Traffic Deficiencies Capacity analyses were conducted for Horizon Year 2035 conditions at each of the key intersections along Route 522, using Synchro 7.0 software. Analysis was conducted with optimized traffic signal timings, as it was assumed that all signalized intersections would be optimized as needed. Seventeen signalized intersections were investigated along with four stop -controlled intersections. By Year 2035, ten of the seventeen future signalized intersections are expected to operate with a poor LOS E or LOS F during either the AM or PM peak hours. The following seven signalized intersections are expected to operate with an acceptable overall intersection LOS D or better in both the 2035 future AM and PM peak hours. • Route 522 (Millwood Ave) / Pleasant Valley Road • Route 522 (Front Royal Pike) / Macedonia Church Road • Route 522 (Front Royal Pike) / Maranto Manor Drive • Route 522/340 (Stonewall Jackson Hwy) / Lake Frederick Drive • Route 522/340 (Winchester Road) / Fairground Road • Route 522/340 (Winchester Road) / Toray Drive • Route 522/340 (Winchester Road) / Reliance Road (relocated Rockland Road) The remaining signalized intersections are expected to operate at LOS E or LOS F for either the AM or PM peak hour. 37 DRAFT - Route S22 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 By Year 2035, three of the four stop -controlled intersections have turn movements that are operating with an unacceptable LOS E or worse in either the AM or PM peak hour, including: • Route 522 (Front Royal Pike) / Tasker Road • Route 522/340 (Winchester Road) / Ashby Station Road a Route 522/340 (Winchester Road) / Riverton Road Only the intersection of Route 522 (Winchester Road) / Rocky Glen Drive is expected to have all movements operating at LOS D or better in the AM and PM peak hours. Detailed LOS and 95th percentile queue length results from the Synchro software analysis are shown in Table 3.2. Existing traffic conditions, including existing turn movement counts, lane geometry, and movement LOS, are shown in Figure 3-7 through Figure 3-10. For the signal warrant analysis, the future volumes at each stop -controlled 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 Route 522 / Tasker Road is expected to meet AM and PM peak hour signal warrants by Horizon Year 2035. The planned Wal-Mart near this intersection would trigger the peak hour signal warrants when it is constructed. The Route 522 / Riverton Road intersection met the PM peak hour signal warrant in the existing conditions and is expected to meet the same warrant in the future. 38 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Table 3.2: Future Year 2035 Conditions - Level of Service Summary Future Year 2035 Inte raectlen Lane Group AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersectbn p Operetlan Approach L e LeR = R = RipMu R Rig 95th % Cueue Movement Approach Intersection Ouau% Movement Approach Intersection EM/ Roadway N/5 Roadway Lam& (R) L05 LDS LOS Length (R) LOS LOS LO$ L 40 B 42 D baetacund T 495 E D 875 F F R 91 B 229 C L 26 R 107 E Westbound T 283 C CD D 1 $Ipnall4ed VilNrood Ave PI¢asant Val ey RI q 311 C 0 416 D F Na Ahbound L T -R 120 153 C C C 403 749 F F F L 96 D 347 F southbound T 275 F F 670 F F R D A D A L 51 E 67 E EaxbounA T -R 653 D D 10637 F WsdWam! L TR 17i 92 B A =76 4 5 h A 2 $Ipna -d Mltrv/ood Plke Frordags Pd C E Nerthhdund L T-•2 53 102 E E 64 3.80 E F F Set!hMund RT 30 E E 26 ac E E Eastbound T R T8 0 A B 317 0 F A F 3 Slgnallzed Mlllwepd Plks 1.81 613 Ramps D F L 535 F 865 F WsstbouM T 1216 E E 1055 F F Southbound R 628 F F 476 F F L 234 E 771 - Eastdou T 466 D G R)D D F R 0 A D L 62 C 124 F Wsaibound T 417 C C 615 F F 191 NB Ra�rRlerFIn, Ro;.l RV40 A D A F 4 SlO.Mad WWII! "11,e ralke L D C 305 F Nwhbcund Y D D 496 F F R 6 1D6 c L 242 F 51110 pA T E �. '130 FF AEastbound LT R D D D38 13 C C 0 L C C5 Slpmllzed Cpstellc Drove Route 522 Westbound T -R C C124 C71 C F Northbound L T R — 472 A C O 19 718 ❑ F r Southbound L 144 D B 510 F E T -R 232 A 276 B L 92 D 548 F Eesibound T 24 D D W B F R 30 D 85 F WesMowz; T -R 71 1T. U D L 43 B F 6 Slgllal4ed Alryort Rcad Ratite 513 C FNarihba0rd T X62R 0 P11 L S2 0 Sol4hdound T 497R 33 C Eastbound L -R 406 E E 1395 F F Northbound L T 393 240 F B C 680 66c F G F 7 Slgnallxed Pepermlll Rd (Rote 644) DWI 522 D F 5o011ound T -R 555 E E 1780 F F EaatbaaW L -R '113 6 B 116 G NarlhbuunA T 7 240 F. A 'A 32 512 N B B e 6tep- O.ms,11e0 Maeadona Church qtl (Route 642) Raub 5.'2 R n L D A D A 8,0hbpund T 195 A A 259 P A R 23 A 28 Eastbound L R N/A N/A F B F WA WA F F F Stop- Taslrer Rd Northbound L T 44 0 A A A 2Si 0 F A A g Ctrolled on (ROWS 642) Ra We 522 NIA N /A L 0 NIA 0 WA Sathba T 0 A A D A A R 0 A D A Eas160unJ L25 R 2, D C 0 1 W 2B F D F Northbound T 1 4 A A 380 D B 10 6iynelRed Llararrto M."., Dr R.-522 h P SouMbow T 314 B A. q48 B B R I3 A i 8 Table 3.2: Future Year 2035 Conditions - Level of Service Summary (cont.) ���00 X00 �QOA X00 �aoa� oa0 Il�ivooio loon MM000 000 a© ®aM A� W MM aal® i®la �aoo� mo® ®®®®�lall�a©�II®Is0 r■rr�rrii■rlirrr:�r■r■rr�rl� 1111111 �o0a® a0 �rrr�0 �rrr�0 �ooa0�oo0 Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study From Millwood Avenue& S Pleasant ad (Winchester) to Riverton Road (Front Roya I) A- Ot 2 3 M 6 p I AM NA H— PM Peak Hour 41 Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study IM Fro Tv Millwood Avenue & 5 Pleasant Valley Road (Winchester) to Riverton Road (Front Royal) _6b 7 IN t, A"w } 47' •1 4 1.Iy , i 'A' Legend S r k uq • 'q } MajorRoadway LOS C LOS D r # U � h Horizon Year 2035 Roadway LOS was analyzed using Highway Capacity Manual methodologies for the Route 522 Corridor at various locations along the corridor. Table 3.3 shows the existing and future conditions Roadway LOS for the analyzed segments of Route 522. Tahle 3.3- Future Roadwav Level of Service Summary The future conditions results show that the corridor is expected to operate at LOS B — LOS E. The Route 522/50/17 Corridor in proximity to Interstate 81 is expected to operate at a poor LOS E. Volumes are high and are expected to experience breakdown conditions in the future. Certain areas of the corridor are currently operating at LOS D and could potentially be a problem if not addressed. Other Modes and Summary Vehicular traffic increases in areas as development occurs. Due to the developments expected along the Route 522 Corridor, passenger car and freight traffic are expected to increase at a moderate to high rate between now and the Horizon Year 2035. Without improving the study area roadway network, the intersections along Route 522 and the roadway itself are expected to experience capacity deficiencies as development occurs 45 DRAFT - Route S22 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 2009 2009 Projected 2035 Locality Roadway Location # Lanes HCM Methodology ADT Roadway Level of 2035 Roadway Roadway Level of (Count) Service Volume Service Route 522 (Millwood South of Pleasant 4 Urban Street 15,200 B 19,200 C Ave) Valley Rd City of Route 522 (MAve'Jubal Apple Blossom Dr to 2 Urban Street 8,100 B 10,200 C Winchester Early Dr Route 522 (Millwood Jubal Early Dr to 4 Urban Street 27,700 C 37,500 E Ave) 1-81 SB Ramps Route 522 (Millwood 1-81 SB Ramps to I - 4 Urban Street 37,300 D 54,200 E Ave) 81 NB Ramps Route 522 Frederick Co (Front Royal North of Costello Dr 4 Rural Multilane 21,600 B 44,000 D Pike) Route 522 (Front Royal North of Double 4 Rural Multilane 13,800 A 26,400 B Pike) Tollgate Route 522 (Winchester North of County Club 4 Rural Multilane 21,700 B 40,400 D Rd) Rd Warren Co Route 522 (Winchester South of 1-66 4 Rural Multilane 29,700 C 45,100 D Rd) The future conditions results show that the corridor is expected to operate at LOS B — LOS E. The Route 522/50/17 Corridor in proximity to Interstate 81 is expected to operate at a poor LOS E. Volumes are high and are expected to experience breakdown conditions in the future. Certain areas of the corridor are currently operating at LOS D and could potentially be a problem if not addressed. Other Modes and Summary Vehicular traffic increases in areas as development occurs. Due to the developments expected along the Route 522 Corridor, passenger car and freight traffic are expected to increase at a moderate to high rate between now and the Horizon Year 2035. Without improving the study area roadway network, the intersections along Route 522 and the roadway itself are expected to experience capacity deficiencies as development occurs 45 DRAFT - Route S22 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 throughout the corridor and surrounding areas. Capacity improvements, reductions in vehicle demand, and smart growth planning are all ways of protecting the character and flow of the corridor. Corridor improvements are discussed in the next chapter. As vehicle demand increases, so do the other modes. Bicycle and pedestrian travel is also expected to increase as more mixed-use development occurs. Improvements to the bicycle and pedestrian facilities and other multimodal facilities are expected to occur and are also discussed in the next chapter. Freight traffic is also expected to increase. However, as more passenger car trips are generated by developments, the percentage of freight traffic could be expected to decrease. Interviews with VIP officials and data received provided no additional insight to future freight projections. There are plans for an inland port in Martinsburg, West Virginia, roughly 40 miles north of VIP. An inland port at this location would have the potential to divert container traffic from VIP, although is expected to mainly relieve pressure from the Port of Baltimore, Maryland. The Martinsburg inland port is still in the planning phase. 46 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 4.0 ROUTE 522 CORRIDOR RECOMMENDATIONS The expected growth in the Route 522 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 more than half of the intersections expected to operate at poor levels of service (LOS E or LOS F) during one or both peak periods of the day. There are some simple geometric fixes for certain intersections, such as adding turn lanes, while others have no traditional geometric solution. Opportunities for reducing demand by diverting traffic off of Route 522 to help improve the corridor without increasing capacity are limited due to the limited north -south connectivity through the immediate area. Ultimate solutions to the Route 522 Corridor and the intersections will require right-of- way, potentially 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, Clarke County, Warren 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 522 Corridor - Roadway Capacity Recommendations Mainline recommendations cover roadway improvements of Route 522 from S Pleasant Valley Road, in the City of Winchester, to Riverton Road, south of Interstate 66 in Warren County. Traffic volumes along most segments of Route 522 are currently, and are expected to remain, under capacity through Year 2035. Areas with expected poor roadway operations include the segment of Route 522/50/17 from Apple Blossom Drive to Front Royal Pike. Vehicles from Winchester and Frederick County use this segment of roadway to access the Interstate 81 interchange. The expected high traffic volumes and the number of traffic signals will require additional capacity along this segment. A widening from a four -lane to six -lane roadway should be considered from Apple Blossom Drive through Front Royal Pike. In addition to this recommended widening other roadway improvement recommendations should be considered. The Route 522 Corridor should adhere to VDOT design standards including, proper lane widths, shoulder widths, and lane striping/markings. Proper informational and directional signage should be provided where deemed needed. 47 DRAFT - Route S22 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 The roadway segment near the Interstate 66 interchange is also expected to experience high traffic volumes as a result of planned developments in this area. Warren County has anticipated these high volumes and, as part of the 2008 Route 340/522 Corridor Transportation Plan, has recommended that the roadway be ultimately widened from a four -lane roadway to six lanes from Fairground Road (Route 661) to the Interstate 66 interchange ramps. The plan identifies the segment from Reliance Road (Route 627) to Interstate 66 be widened as Phase I, and the segment from Fairground Road to Reliance Road as Phase II. Based on future traffic numbers generated for this study, it is not expected that the roadway will experience a poor level of service in Year 2035. Future conditions intersection analysis revealed the need of additional through lanes in this section of Warren County. The Route 340/522 Corridor Transportation Plan does include this widening and should be considered, as aggressive land use and development occur. The rural sections of the study area are not expected to require additional roadway capacity along Route 522. Route 522 Corridor - Intersection Recommendations In addition to roadway capacity improvements to sections of the Route 522 Corridor, improvements are necessary to improve the analyzed 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. The intersection improvement recommendations are discussed and graphically shown below. 48 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Intersection 2: US 522 and Frontage Road It is recommended that an exclusive northbound right -turn lane be constructed at the intersection of US 522 and Frontage Road. This will reduce the signal time needed for this phase while increasing the green time for other phases. kG Intersection 1: US 522 (Millwood Avenue) and Pleasant Valley Road It is recommended that additional through lanes be added to the Millwood Avenue approaches at this intersection. It is also recommended that an exclusive northbound right turn lane be added to the S Pleasant Valley Road intersection. 49 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Intersection 3: US 522 (Millwood Avenue) and Interstate 81 Southbound Ramps Intersection 4: US 522 (Millwood Avenue) and Interstate 81 Northbound Ramp The intersection of US 522 and the Interstate 81 northbound ramps is expected to operate over capacity in the year 2035. This intersection LOS could potentially be improved by future regional improvements that help reduce demand and increase capacity. 50 DRAFT -- Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 For the intersection of US 522 and the Interstate 81 southbound . .- ramps, it is recommended that a westbound left -turn lane be constructed on US 522 and a through lane y added in both the ! eastbound and westbound directions. X y These recommendations will coincide with the removal of the Interstate 81 southbound loop on- ramp. - Intersection 4: US 522 (Millwood Avenue) and Interstate 81 Northbound Ramp The intersection of US 522 and the Interstate 81 northbound ramps is expected to operate over capacity in the year 2035. This intersection LOS could potentially be improved by future regional improvements that help reduce demand and increase capacity. 50 DRAFT -- Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 -- ---- Intersection 5: US 522 1 (Front Royal Pike) and Costello Drive a It is recommended that an 4`e additional southbound left-turn lane be constructed at the P intersection of US 522 and Costello Drive. This will reduce the green time t needed for this movement and distribute the time to other movements. It is also recommended that the signal timing be I _ * optimized to include a westbound right-turn >'+►,� overlap. Intersection 6: US 522 (Front Royal Pike) and Airport Road The intersection of US 522 and Airport Road is the location of the new access road to the Russell 150 Development. The recommended lane configuration for the new eastbound leg contains dual left -turn lands, a through lane, and a right - turn lane. It is also recommended that a northbound left -turn lane and a southbound right - turn lane be installed to accommodate new development traffic volumes. �C F R 51 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 -F -- --i Intersection 7: US 52.2. (Front Royal Pike) and Route 644 (Papermill Road) For the intersection of US 522 and Papermill Road, it is recommended that P-0 the intersection be widened to include t an additional northbound left -turn lane, an eastbound right -turn lane, and a southbound right - turn lane. The a additional turning f t _ lanes should improve delay at this location. Intersection 8: US 522 Front Royal Pike and • ' , J% Route Macedonia - Church Road In a separate study, VDOT has recommended , the installation of a • a traffic signal at the,, intersection of US 522'`. and Macedonia Church Road. For the signal to operate at an acceptable LOS, it is recommended that an exclusive eastbound right -turn lane, . be installed as well. 52 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 - -- Intersection 9: US ? 522 (Front Royal ^" I ) Pike and Tasker ` I Road In the year 2035, due to the planned Wal-Mart development in the vicinity, a traffic signal _�„ ,*t • - is warranted for the intersection of US 522 with Tasker Road. ad No other improvements +. are recommended at „ this intersection. a Intersection 10: US 522 (Front Royal Pike) and'. " Maranto Manor Drive m* ra - For the intersection of US �; ' Y 522 and Maranto Manor Drive, it is recommended that an additional eastbound left -turn lane be constructed _•. ' '�. to accommodate the expected traffic generated ` from the planned Wal-Mart in the area. This will reduce vehicle queues and wait time for the eastbound approach. r' 53 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Intersection 11: US 522 (Stonewall Jackson Highway) and US 340/VA 277 (Lord Fairfax Parkway) The intersection of US 522 and Lord Fairfax Parkway (US340/VA 277) is expected be over capacity in the year 2035. It is recommended that an additional through -lane be added in the eastbound and westbound directions as well as an eastbound left -turn lane and a westbound right -turn lane. This will reduce the green time needed for these approaches and improve the overall LOS for the intersection. Intersection 12: US 522/340 (Stonewall Jackson Highway) and Lake Frederick Drive This intersection is expected to operate at an acceptable LOS A in the AM and PM peak hours. No improvements are expected to be needed. Intersection 13: US 522/340 (Winchester Rd) and Rocky Glen Drive Due to the low expected traffic at this intersection, no improvements are recommended at this stop -controlled intersection. Intersection 14: US 522/340 (Winchester Rd) and Ashby Station Road Due to the low expected traffic at this intersection, no improvements are recommended at this stop -controlled intersection. Intersection 15: US 522/340 (Stonewall Jackson Highway) and Lake Frederick Drive This intersection is expected to operate at an acceptable LOS B in the AM and PM peak hours. No improvements are expected to be needed. 54 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Intersection 16: US 522 (Winchester Road) and Toray Drive/Blue Ridge Shadow Site Driveway The intersection of US 522 and Toray Drive will be the location of the new Blue Ridge Shadows development site access. It is recommended that the intersection be signalized and northbound and southbound right -turn lanes be added. A new left -through - right shared lane is recommended for the new eastbound access point. The westbound approach should also be reconfigured to include an exclusive left -turn lane and a shared through - right lane. Intersections 17 and 18: US 522 (Winchester Road) and Rockland Road / ' Reliance Road �•_ , '�� For the intersection of US 522 and Reliance Road, it is recommended that Rockland ` •.. Road be re -aligned to intersect with the existing Reliance Road and the 4 - r intersection be signalized. p - # The recommended lane rl " " configuration at the new go IL intersection includes dual left-turns for the southbound approach, exclusive right RA for the northbound and ' . - southbound approach, and r exclusive left and right -turn Y , , lanes for the eastbound approach. The relocated Rockland Road approach should have dual left -turn 4 r lanes, a through lane, and a right -turn lane. 55 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Intersection 19: US 522 (Winchester Road) and Country Club Road The intersection of US 522 and Country Club Road is expected to operate with a poor LOS in the year 2035. Recommendations for this location include constructing an additional eastbound right -turn lane and providing an additional southbound through -lane. The intersection will remain over capacity, but these improvements will reduce delay. M ,s goo\e a DRAFT — Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Intersection 20: US 522 (Winchester Road) and the Interstate 66 Westbound Ramps It is recommended that an additional northbound and southbound through -lane be added at the intersection of US 522 and the Interstate 66 westbound ramps. Although this will reduce delay, the intersection is expected to operate over capacity in the year 2035. This intersection LOS can be improved by future regional improvements. 56 4 Intersection 22: US 522 (Winchester Road) and Riverton Road It is recommended that a signal be installed at the intersection of US 522 and Riverton Road due to future peak hour volumes. It is also recommended that a right -turn lane be added to the westbound approach. f 1 t� 4c�.. Intersection 21: US 522 (Winchester Road) and the Interstate 66 Fastbound Ramps At the intersection of US 522 and the eastbound Interstate 66 ramps, it is recommended that an additional northbound and southbound through - lane be added, and an additional southbound left -turn lane. Although this will reduce delay, the intersection is expected to operate over capacity in the year 2035. This intersection LOS can be improved by future regional improvements. ANAL ! ..✓ _ _ �� � +��� _ rho «. 11 57 DRAFT - Route S22 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Route 522 Corridor — Other Capacity Improvement Recommendations 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. Few of the intersections are still expected to remain over capacity with traditional intersection improvements. This section will discuss planned regional improvements that would increase capacity, potentially reduce demand, and ultimately create better traffic flow along the problem sections of the corridor. Grade Separation — Jubal Early Drive, Millwood Ave One of the City of Winchester's Transportation Planning Area Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan Update to "Improve east -west traffic flow in terms of convenience and safety along E. Jubal Early Dr in the area between 1-81 and Apple Blossom Dr." In order to achieve this the City of Winchester has plans to create grade separated intersections in the vicinity of Juba[ Early Drive, Apple Blossom Drive, Millwood Ave, and Frontage Road (west of the 1-81 interchange). The potential grade separation is a Vision Plan project in the Win -Fred MPO 2030 Transportation Plan that would better handle the increasing east -west traffic volumes. Advantages for the grade separation at this location include: • Provides for safer and more efficient free-flowing right -turn movement off of major E -W arterial to major commercial center on south side of Route 50 • Reduces congestion and pollution caused by current need to accommodate left - turning traffic at Frontage Rd and Apple Blossom Drive • Potential to reduce crashes by reducing the number of conflict points in the area • Provides improved bike and pedestrian movement between Shenandoah University and parking on north side of Jubal Early Drive to shopping, lodging, and restaurants on south side • Minimal condemnation of private property (vacant Woolen Mill & Belltone sites only) • Raises Jubal Early Drive up out of Abrams Creed flood pa i n/floodway • Provides safer corridor for Green Circle Trail • Eliminates conflicts associated with preserving Frontage Road and Bob Evans access in close proximity to 1-81 ramps • Provides a panoramic view of Shenandoah University 58 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 A conceptual sketch of a type of grade separation is shown below in Figure 4-1, Figure 4-1: Conceptual Sketch of Grade Separation T Ct - tat t f• /J . Millwood Avenue Closure Also in the City of Winchester, an upcoming Win -Fred MPO study will be investigating the possibility of closing Millwood Avenue to vehicular traffic between Jubal Early Drive and Apple Blossom Drive. This project would eliminate the one-way access point off of Route 522 and divert that traffic to the intersection of Jubal Early Drive / Apple Blossom Drive. While the closure would not increase capacity or reduce demand, it would be step in the right direction to consolidate close -proximity access points near the Interstate 81 interchange area. 59 DRAFT - Route S22 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Route 522/50 intersection relocation (RIRO at existing intersection) Another project in the win -Fred MPO 2030 Transportation Plan is the relocation of the Route 522 / Route 50/17 intersection to the east of the Interstate 81 interchange. Route 522 (Front Royal Pike) would be realigned, beginning north of Airport Road, and would intersection with Route 50 (Millwood Pike) east of 1-81. While the MPO plan was not specific about the exact location of the relocation, the intersection should be offset from the Interstate 81 ramps by '/2 mile (in the vicinity of Prince Frederick Drive). The existing section of Route 522, north of Airport Road would remain open to local residential and commercial traffic. A right - in / right -out access point would still be provided for the existing Route 522 at its current intersection with the 1-81 ramps. By providing this relocation, it is expected that the demand at the existing intersection of Millwood Pike / Front Royal Pike / 1-81 NB ramps would be reduced, as vehicles accessing southbound US 522 from the east would not be entering the 1-81 interchange area. The project is shown as Vision Plan Project #37 in the Win - Fred MPO 2030 Transportation Plan, and is shown in Figure 4-2. Figure 4-2: MPO Vision Plan Projects East Tevis Street / Route 522 Connection over Interstate 81 A VDOT Revenue Sharing project is planned between the City of Winchester and Frederick County to provide a connection between existing East Tevis Street in the City of Winchester and Route 522 in the vicinity north of Airport Road. This connection is expected to divert significant traffic volume away from Route 522/50/17 and the Interstate 81 interchange area. Papermill Road, also crossing over 1-81, is expected to experience a reduction in vehicles due to this new connection. 60 DRAFT - Route S22 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Warren County Route 340/522 Corridor Transportation Plan The 2008 Route 340/522 Corridor Transportation Plan was created for Warren County and provides a framework for improvements to the corridor. Ultimately, the plan calls for Route 522/340 to be widened to six -lane roadway from Fairground Road (Route 661) to Interstate 66. The plan also recommends a reverse frontage / parallel roadway system along segments of the corridor, south of Fairground Road. This system of parallel roadways has the potential to reduce demand from Route 522/340 by connecting developments with roadways set back from Route 522/340. Access management is considered by recommending closures to certain median cross-over points, which would help the performance and flow of the corridor. Proposed traffic signals should be properly spaced according to VDOT standards. Conclusion In addition to necessary intersection and roadway improvements, these regional projects are designed to increase capacity and reduce demand along the expected problem areas of the Route 522 Corridor. As development occurs and funding becomes available, implementation of these projects and others should follow the locality's land use guidelines standards. The next section provides an overview of potential land use guidelines along the Route 522 Corridor study area. 61 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Land Use Guidelines/ Context Zone Summary The multi -modal design guidelines will enable localities to preserve roadway capacity along the corridor by managing the quality of future growth, so that development supports and expands transportation choices. The design guidelines provide localities with a series of multi -modal design standards to be considered in guiding public and private improvements along the Route 522 corridor. A full copy of the Guidelines can be found in the complementary report. Design Standards The section on Design Standards identifies various design elements based within four specific zones of the overall corridor: Right of Way: The public owned land between the curbs that includes travel lanes for automobiles, transit vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. Recommendations regarding street and lane width, on -street parking, bicycle facilities, medians, curb radii, street crossings and pedestrian facilities are all included in the right of way section of the design guidelines. II. Edge: The space generally between the public right of way and the edge of adjacent buildings and includes a variety of public and private elements that contribute to the pedestrian experience and reinforce the adjacent land use setting. Setbacks, streetscape, on-site parking, bicycle parking, walkways, sidewalk connections and transit stops and amenities considered in the edge zone. III. Adjacent Land Use: Incorporates building adjacent to the roadway, and extends to surrounding land uses that are generally accessible and functionally related to the corridor. The adjacent land use recommendations include those for building site design, mixed-use development, natural features, compact development, building orientation, transparency, block size and massing fagade and design. IV. Road System: The road system refers to the entire functional system of transportation that is directly related to the corridor, including parallel roads and connectivity to the secondary road network. Recommendations within the road system include those for access management and connectivity. 62 DRAFT - Route S22 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Corridor Types The corridor types illustrate idealized cross-sections that support the future land use vision for the Route 522 corridor, and are intended to be implemented over time, as development occurs and if the corridor is reconstructed or expanded. The corridor types describe both the context and function of the Route 522 corridor in the future, ranging from a more urban setting on the northern end of the corridor within the Winchester city limits and portions of Frederick County, and passing through both suburban and rural areas in Frederick, Clarke and Warren Counties. The map in Figure 4-3, below, shows recommended locations for the corridor types and cross sections identified on the following pages. v i<gure 4-s: context /.one 1v1ap r 1 -- i r� i S Corridor Types Legend Mixed Use Low Speed Mixed Use Moderate Speed Mixed Use High Speed Rural High Speed s r � ..I DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 63 Mixed Use Slow Speed Corridor The Mixed Use Low Speed Type is located in the eastern portion of the City of Winchester along 522 from Millwood Avenue and Pleasant Valley Rd. to 1-81. It is intended to support future multimodal transportation and development around Shenandoah University and the Apple Blossom Mall, which is expected to develop with commercial and institutional uses and generate significant amounts of pedestrian activity in the next 25 years. The mixed use slow speed corridor has very narrow setbacks, wide sidewalks and landscape buffers to create a more pedestrian friendly environment. ,'''r �"� i� , a� - i' �.? 777 _ ♦.`: L I:, i Mixed Use Moderate Speed Corridor The Mixed Use Moderate Speed Type is located in the northern portion of Frederick County, from 1-81 to just south of Papermill Road where the current road section has a continuous center turn lane, and in the Double Tollgate Area of Clarke County, approximately 1/2 mile north and south of the intersection with 340. In Frederick County, growth is intended to be urban in character and to support a more intensive, dense form of residential development. The Double Tollgate area in Clarke County is envisioned as the future commercial center for the County. The mixed use moderate speed corridor is highlighted by narrow setbacks, wide sidewalks, a landscaped median and accommodations for multimodal travel. DRAFT - 64 Mixed Use High Speed Corridor The Mixed Use High Speed Type is located in the northern portion of Warren County and generally corresponds to the same area as the 340/522 Corridor Study. The mixed use high speed corridor is occurs in less densely developed or suburban areas and is characterized by a shared multi -use path and a shoulder & drainage swale. Rural Use High Speed Corridor The Rural High Speed Type is designed to support multimodal transportation in designated rural areas. The corridor type is located in the southern portion of Frederick County, as well as the area south of Double Tollgate in Clarke and Warren Counties. The rural use high speed corridor is characterized by wide setbacks and the multi -modal features are optional. 65 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 3 ;fir k T.;, 65 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Route 522 Overlay District The Route 522 Corridor Overlay District is a `framework" for a multi -jurisdictional effort to protect the scenic nature of the Route 522 corridor between the City of Winchester and the Town of Front Royal. General in nature, the conceptual draft ordinance text is meant to provide guidance for the four jurisdictions located within the corridor: the City of Winchester and the counties of Frederick, Clarke and Warren. The Corridor Overlay District Conceptual Text provides an opportunity to apply various standards within the corridor types identified and described within the accompanying Multimodal Design Guidelines. Narrative in format, the Conceptual Text includes administrative provisions such as a statement of intent, establishment of Corridor Types, applicability, and non -conformities. It addresses land use provisions, including conditional or special uses, and reliance on underlying zoning district regulations, as well as a preferred mix of uses. Finally, the Conceptual Text addresses development standards by which recommended Design Guidelines can be regulated, including building height, massing and siting; building materials, colors and styles; parking requirements; signs and billboards; outdoor lighting; landscaping, screening and grading; and tree and woodland conservation. In most cases, appropriate language is recommended based upon ordinances of a similar vein found in Virginia and elsewhere; however, there are some cases where reliance upon existing zoning ordinances or additional study is recommended. A full copy of the route 522 Overlay District can be found in the complementary report. 66 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Other Growth Management Techniques Trigger Mechanisms In addition to the Design Guidelines, another growth management technique to be considered for the US 522 corridor are triggering mechanisms. Triggering mechanisms involve completing reports to monitor the conditions along a corridor and address deficiencies based on the conditions found in the monitoring report. While triggering mechanisms are typically utilized along more urbanized corridors, this technique can be tweaked to fit the needs of the US 522 corridor by decreasing the frequency of monitoring reports. Triggering mechanisms are based on the monitoring reports which track the conditions along a corridor. The monitoring report should track land use and traffic conditions along the corridor, including rezoning, new developments, traffic volumes, level of service and accident rates. Major land development activity would trigger a review of the transportation needs including level of service implications, safety concerns, and any potential multimodal opportunities including transit service, pedestrian, and bicycle needs. Should the level of service deteriorate to LOS D or below, a review of potential improvements would be triggered to identify projects that would reduce demand through TDM measures or increase roadway capacity through lane additions or turning lanes. Once a consensus has been reached as to what improvements would effectively address deficiencies along the corridor, those projects should be moved up in the Transportation Improvement Program via amendments to the TIP. Conversely, if the monitoring reports indicate that there are no deficiencies and need for improvements, projects could also be moved down or removed from the TIP. One of the better examples of triggering mechanisms for a corridor study is in the Route 40 Corridor Improvements Study in Wilmington, Delaware. The Route 40 study is an ongoing effort that annually reviews existing conditions, the status of transportation and development projects along the corridor as well as developments in nearby areas that are likely to impact the study corridor. This study is led by a steering committee consisting of representatives from the MPO, state DOT and local jurisdiction. The improvements along the corridor are based on the annual Corridor Monitoring and Triggering Reports that outline conditions along the corridor and form recommendations for improving deficiencies in various sections of 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 67 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 minimize hazards as development occurs in the study area. 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 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. As development increases in the study area, the localities 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 the Route 522 Corridor. In the areas expecting future developments it is recommended that the locality 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 522. Ensuring these regulations are strictly adhered to will help maintain acceptable levels of traffic congestion on Route 522 longer than if these regulations did not exist, thus extending its capacity and limiting delay. 68 DRAFT - Route S22 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Route 522 Corridor — Multimodal Recommendations A variety of multimodal improvements were developed for the US 522 Corridor and are presented in this section. 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 in the northern portion of the study area. 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 US 522 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. While there is currently a lack of non -motorized amenities, the Win -Fred MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan calls for a series of proposed bicycle improvements in the vicinity of the US 522 study 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. These improvements include a 7.12 mile long on -road facility for US 522 from 1-81 in the City of Winchester, to Double Tollgate in Clarke County. In addition to the proposed on -road facility along US 522, multiple east -west connections to US 522 are also proposed in the form of multi- use trails and on -road facilities of perpendicular roadways. On -road bicycle facilities or multi -use trails are proposed on the following roadways that cross or connect to the US 522 Corridor: • Millwood Pike • Justes Drive • Warrior Drive • Airport Road • Evendale Lane • West Parkins Mill Road • Tasker Road The Federal Highway Administration has traditionally 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. Future bicycle planning initiatives are moving 69 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 away from the traditional group types (A, B, and C) and are addressing riders through more detailed descriptions of trip types and rider experience level and designing appropriate facilities based on the intended use. Pedestrian The proposed pedestrian improvements include the shared and multi -use trails indicated in the MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. In addition to the MPO recommendations, this study also calls for specific pedestrian safety improvements based on the context zone designs for each section of the US 522 Corridor. Specific pedestrian improvements should be made in the vicinity of the Interstate 81 interchange and in the commercial areas of northern Frederick County. These investments are needed to meet demand for walking between shopping destinations and residential development and to ensure that pedestrians can traverse the US 522 Corridor in a safer pedestrian environment. The following recommendations are suggested to enhance pedestrian safety at intersections within Winchester south to Airport Road in Frederick County: • Install Pedestrian Crossing signs along the 1-81 exit ramps • Implement Pedestrian crosswalks and signals at intersections that connect commercial properties to other commercial developments or residential areas • 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 the implementation of a comprehensive trail system, enhanced sidewalk connections, and a new multi -use trail along US 522, 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. 70 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Transit Currently, the US 522 Corridor is only served by one public transportation route, the Apple Blossom Mall Route. Based on the Transit Services Plan for Win -Fred Metropolitan Planning Organization, it is recommended that the Apple Blossom Mall route be extended south along US 522. Extending the route would provide transit service to the Winchester Airport, the Virginia Employment Commission and the Delco Plaza retail center. Extending the current route 4.7 miles to the south would increase the headway of the route to an hour, therefore doubling the amount of time it takes to complete the current route. In addition to extending transit service along the corridor, other transit amenities are also recommended. 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 the recommended park-and- ride lot located on Millwood Pike, just east of the US 522 intersection. By providing transit services to park -and ride lots, alternative means of transportation are provided for transit service locally into Winchester. Park & Ride One new Park & Ride lot is proposed within the study area. This proposed lot is recommended to be situated along Millwood Pike, 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. By locating this lot near major cross -routes, there would be higher potential to capture multiple origins and destinations in the corridor. Travel Demand Management Travel demand management (TDM) programs can further decrease the traffic impacts of development in the US 522 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 US 522 Corridor. 71 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 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 vanpooiing, uut iur success would need to be supported by a vuaranteed 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 Win -Fred MPO and NSVRC 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 and future conditions sections, there are no pressing needs for making freight improvements in the Route 522 Corridor. As downward economic trends begin to rise, freight movement along the corridor should be monitored to identify potential freight facility deficiencies and other roadway impacts. Further freight study, including future projections and origin -destination data / surveys, would present a better understanding of freight uses in the corridor. 72 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Project Prioritization The recommendations provided in this chapter are intended to provide the localities and VDOT with a tool to ensure that as development occurs within the Route 522 Corridor study area, 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 provided should be prioritized by the jurisdictions, based on need, expected cost, and overall feasibility. Recommendations receiving a high priority should be improvements that are expected to correct existing deficiencies and that could be implemented without significant impact to existing structures or development. Other high priority recommendations should include starting the project improvement process on the large scale items, including the grade separation at Jubal Early Drive, the relocation of Route 522, and any lane widening projects. Recommendations receiving a low priority should be projects at locations without immediate need or locations expected to be cost intensive without significant impact on the overall corridor. The project steering committee should provide comments in this section pertaining to specific project prioritization. This section is intended to develop an improvement prioritization that looks at all aspects of this study, including multimodal elements, roadway/intersection capacity, safety, and others. The input received will be used to develop a final improvement prioritization. 73 DRAFT - Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study - June 2010 Appendix. Route 52.9.— RoadWsay Geometric & Safety Review Introduction A field visit was conducted to assess the safety and access of the US 522 Corridor and to build upon the VDOT US 340/522 Geometrics and Safety Survey, dubbed "Phase I" and dated August 2008. The focus of the field visit was the northern section of the corridor from the Clarke County / Frederick County boundary, through the 1-81 interchange, to Pleasant Valley Road in the City of Winchester. The southern area from the Town of Front Royal to the southern terminus of the Phase I study at Country Club Road was also reviewed. This appendix shows an inventory of the crossovers, access points, and other geometric and safety concerns for the Phase II sections of the corridor that were not covered in the VDOT US 340/522 Geometrics and Safety Survey. Figure A-1 shows the limits of the previous Phase I study and the limits of this Phase 11 review. As shown in the following pictures, the access point spacing throughout the corridor does not meet the standards set by VDOT's Access Management Design Standards for Entrances and Intersections: Principal Arterials. The VDOT access management regulations state that unsignalized crossovers on rural principal arterials should be spaced at distances of at least 1,760 feet for roadways with speed limits of 50 miles per hour or greater. The pictures also show that some of the commercial access points along the corridor do not meet the VDOT regulation of 585 feet for a rural arterial or the 325 feet for an urban arterial. This is especially true for the northern portion of US 522 leading into the City of Winchester as many commercial access points are in close proximity to each other. Other deficiencies in the northern portion of the US 522 are shown in the following pictures: • Missing portions of sidewalk and below -standard pedestrian ramps • Deteriorating pavement conditions and pavement markings. • Inoperable pedestrian signals and pedestal poles missing signal heads. • Trailblazing signs in the City of Winchester that are not standard sizes. • Possible drainage issues and/or puddling in the area of the Interstate 81 ramps. Route 522 Multimodal Corridor Study MM From MiIlwood Avenue & 5 Pleasant Valley Read (Winchester) to Riverton Road (Front Royal) iii, i 4 ys -S u . Photo Inventory and Review Facing north on the bridge over the North Fork Shenandoah River has recently been reconstructed, Facing north at the crossover at Route 637, just north of the North Fork Shenandoah River. There is sidewalk just north of the bridge, but it terminates at Rt. 637 Facing east at the crossover at the Shell Station just north of Route 637. Facing southbound at the crossover at the dump, just north of the Shell Station. Facing northbound at the crossover at the McDonalds, just south of Interstate 66 Facing east from McDonalds Lot at the crossover, The northbound approach of the intersection of US 522 and the 1-66 ramps. Notice the Truck is turning left during the green phase for oncoming traffic. U The northbound approach at the traffic signal at the intersection of US 522 and Lord Fairfax Hwy (US 340). Facing northwest at the traffic signal at the intersection of US 522 and Lord Fairfax Hwy (US 340). There may be clearzone issues with these signs. Facing southwest at the traffic signal at the intersection of US 522 and Lord Fairfax Hwy (US 340). There may be clearzone issues with these signs. Another picture facing southwest at the traffic signal at the intersection of US 522 and Lord Fairfax Hwy (US 340). There may be clearzone issues with these signs. Facing east at the crossover at the Shen -Valley Flea Market north of the US 522/US 340 intersection. Facing north at the crossover just north of the Shen -Valley Flea Market. Facing north at the crossover north of the previous crossover. Facing north at the crossover at Rt. 646 This picture shows the proximity of is the crossover at Rt. 646 and the crossoverjust north of that intersection. This is the crossover to the north shown in the previous picture. Facing north at the crossover adjacent to Garbers Ice Cream. Facing north at the crossover at the intersection at Rt. 643 and US 522. Facing west at the crossover at the intersection at Rt. 643 and US 522. Facing north at the intersection of US 522 and Rt. 1600 Facing northeast at the intersection of US 522 and Rt. 1600 Facing east at the crossover of US 522 and Tasker Road. i rl 4 Facing north at the intersection of US 522 and Gemstone Road. There are signs indicating a bus stop ahead. Facing northwest at the intersection of US 522 and Fries Loop Road. Facing south from the northbound lane of US 522 just south of Fries Loop Road. Facing west at the intersection of US 522 and Armel Road (Rt. 642). Facing south from the truck yard at the intersection of US 522 and Armel Road (Rt. 642). The driveway is just a few feet from the intersection. Facing north at the truck yard access points just north of the intersection of US 522 and Armel Road (Rt. 642). Facing north at the intersection of US 522 and Macedonia Church Rd. Facing north at the Intersection of US 522 and Armel Elementary School Facing north at the intersection of US 522 and Clydesdale Drive. Facing north at the intersection of US 522 and Rt. 644. Traveling northbound on US 522 north of the intersection with Rt. 644. The sight distance at this location is poor. This is the crossover approximately 1000 feet north of the intersection of US 522 and Rt. 644. This crossover is approximately 500 feet north of the previously pictured crossover. This location is also 1500 feet north of the intersection of US 522 and Rt. 644. This crossover is approximately 500 feet north of the previously pictured crossover. This location is also 2000 feet north of the intersection of US 522 and Rt. 644. The median terminates approximately 1500 feet south of 3rd Street or approximately 500 feet north of the previously pictured crossover. Facing north at the intersection of US 522 and Justes Drive. Facing north at the intersection of US 522 and Rt. 644 Facing north at the intersection of US 522 and Rt. 850 Facing west at the intersection of US 522 and Rt. 850 (Vine Lane) Facing north at the intersection of US 522 and Westwood Dr/Grindstone Dr. WA- - Traveling northbound on US 522 just north of the intersection with Westwood Dr/Grindstone Dr. Facing north at the intersection of US 522 and Bentley Avenue. Facing north at the intersection of US 522 and Longcroft Road. Facing west at the intersection of US 522 and Longcroft Road. Traveling northbound on US 522 toward the intersection with Route 645 (Airport Road) Facing north at the intersection of US 522 and Route 645 (Airport Road). Traveling north at the intersection of US 522 and Rt 777 (Royal Drive). Traveling north at the intersection of US 522 and Rt 776 (Buff lick Road) Facing west at the intersection of US 522 and Rt 776 (Buff lick Road) Traveling north on US 522 just north of the intersection with Rt 776 (Bufflick Road). Facing west at the intersection adjacent to FedEx. There is new sidewalk adjacent to the Holiday Inn on US 522. There is new sidewalk adjacent to the Holiday Inn on US 522. North of the Holiday Inn there is currently no sidewalk. There are no sidewalks in this area (same as above) but there are pedestrian ramps that are not up to standard. 3 - E^ r "lot There are no sidewalks in this area (same as above) but there are pedestrian ramps that are not up to standard. There is minimal distance between access points just south of Costello Drive. Notice there is sidewalk in the northern portion of the picture. This picture shows additional access points south of Costello Drive. The sidewalk continues on the east side of US 522. Facing north at the intersection of US 522 and Costello Drive. Facing east at the intersection of US 522 and Costello Drive. This picture shows the pavement conditions near Costello Drive. This picture shows the pavement conditions near Costello Drive. This picture shows the Entrance/Exit to the Costco. Notice the Exit is right only. Delineators are used to prevent lefts. The picture shows that some of the Delineators have been damaged or removed. This picture shows the Entrance/Exit to the Costco. Notice the Exit is right only. Delineators are used to prevent lefts. The picture shows that some of the Delineators have been damaged or removed. The exit from the bank has a left and right turn lane. Facing north at the intersection of US 522 and the entrance/exit of the Delco Plaza Shopping Center. Facing west at the intersection of US 522 and the entrance/exit of the Delco Plaza Shopping Center. Facing north approaching the intersection of US 522 and the 1-81 ramps. Facing north at the intersection of US 522 and the 1-81 ramps. This is a photo of a truck making a northbound right at the intersection of US 522 and the 1-81 ramps. Facing west at the intersection of US 522 and the 1-81 ramps. Facing south from the northbound lanes of US 522 (at the 1-81 ramp intersection) r Facing southeast on Millwood Avenue towards the Frontage Road and 1-81 intersections. Facing southeast on Millwood Avenue towards the Frontage Road and 1-81 intersections. Facing southeast on Millwood Avenue towards the Frontage Road and 1-81 intersections. The driveway to the Best Western is very close to the intersection of US 522 and the 1-81 ramps. Facing west from the intersection of Millwood Avenue and Pleasant Valley Road. S ` - Facing south from the intersection of Millwood Avenue and Pleasant Valley Road. lL,C-- . Facing north towards the intersection of Millwood Avenue and Pleasant Valley Road. The pedestrian signals at the intersection of Millwood Avenue and Frontage Road are inoperable. This pedestal pole at the intersection of Millwood Avenue and Frontage Road does not have a signal head. Sidewalks are present on this section of Millwood Avenue with standard pedestrian ramps. The signing on Millwood Avenue is not up to standard around the 1-81 ramps. ". tL a There may be drainage issues adjacent to the Best Western near the intersection of Millwood Avenue and Frontage Road. 4 id There may be drainage issues along the eastbound channelized right turn at the intersection of Millwood Avenue and Front Royal Pike. ROUTE 522 CORRIDOR STUDY MULTINODAL DESIGN GUIDELINES DRAFT June 2010 (This page intentionally left blank) introduction One of the ways that localities will be able to preserve roadway capacity along the corridor is by managing the quality of future growth so that development supports and expands transportation choices. The purpose of this chapter is to provide localities with a series of design standards to be considered in guiding public and private improvements along the Route 522 corridor. Multimodal planning refers to planning for different modes of transportation (e.g.,automobile, bus, bicycles, pedestrian, rail) and the connections among them. To make multimodal travel truly safe, convenient, and desirable, attention must be paid not only to providing the appropriate mix of land uses and supporting multimodal infrastructure, but also to the quality of the built environment. Common elements of multi- modal site design include the presence of mixed-use activity centers, connectivity of streets and land uses, transit -friendly design features, and accessibility to alternative modes of transportation. For destinations to be truly pedestrian and transit friendly, attention also must be paid to design features such as parking arrangement, building setbacks, streetscaping, and the provision of open/civic space. This chapter is composed of illustrative design guidelines to shape growth along the corridor. They are not prescriptive rules, regulations or law, but rather intended to provide guidance for the form, character, and quality of future development. Public and private sector actions will be needed to make these ideas a reality. Organization The Design Guidelines are organized into two sections: Section 1: General Design Standards that support multimodal corridors and a summary of potential implementation measures for localities to consider. Section 2: Corridor Types that apply specific design standards to different segments along the 522 corridor. Design Standards The section on Design Standards identifies various design elements based on specific zones within the overall corridor: I. ROW - Right of way is the publicly owned land between the curbs that includes travel lanes for private vehicles, goods movement, transit vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Medians, curbs, and crosswalks and are included in the right of way zone. Outside of the right of way, the land is privately owned and cannot be assumed to be available for thoroughfare construction without acquiring the land through dedication or purchase. II. Edge - The edge zone is the space generally between the public right of way and the edge of adjacent buildings and includes a variety of public and private elements that contribute to the pedestrian experience and reinforce the adjacent land use setting. III. Adjacent Land Use - The Adjacent Land Use zone incorporates buildings adjacent to the roadway, and extends to surrounding land uses that are generally accessible and functionally related to the corridor. It can extend from a few hundred feet to a mile or more away from the roadway. Buildings, landscaping, land use mix, site access and public and sem i -public open spaces are the primary shaping elements of the built and natural environment within the adjacent land use zone. IV. Road System - The Road System zone is more loosely defined than the previous 3 zones and is meant to include the entire functional system of transportation that is directly related to the corridor, including parallel roads and the overall connected secondary road network. Road system includes aspects of operations and maintenance that apply to the entire corridor, and include discussion of access management, connectivity and travel speed. Corridor Types A Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) approach was considered in the development of the corridor types. As part of the study, both the existing roadway design and surrounding context were analyzed. Meetings were held with staff from the corridor localities to better understand the long term future land use plans, as well as the near term development projects with the study area. Consistent with the future land use plans and the approach of Warren County's Corridor Overlay Guidelines, the following Corridor Types were developed: - Mixed Use Low Speed Corridor - Mixed Use Moderate Speed - Mixed Use High Speed - Rural High Speed These corridor types describe both the context and function of the Route 522 corridor in the future, ranging from a more urban setting on the northern end of the corridor within the Winchester city limits and portions of Frederick County, and passing through both suburban and rural areas in Frederick, Clarke and Warren Counties. The corridor typology is based on a CSS approach, but modified for a corridor that is prioritized for vehicular mobility because of its statewide function and regional importance. Model Corridor Overlay Ordinance In addition, a Model Corridor Overlay ordinance is included after these guidelines that is intended to serve as a potential regulatory tool for implementing the measurable and quantifiable aspects of the guidelines. The draft ordinance language is designed to ultimately be customized and adopted into each jurisdiction's Zoning Ordinance, if desired, to supplement existing regulations that now apply to properties within the study area. The focus of the ordinance language is not on land uses, but rather the form of development and elements such as building heights, building setbacks and locations on a site, landscaping requirements, and sign regulations. The underlying zoning requirements, which typically include such elements as permitted land uses, height and bulk regulations for structures, and lot area requirements, would continue to remain in place. �i�si�n standards right of way GENERAL DISCUSSION: wTdi !alb's 11;ar a!v 12' YVldle (-v;0 P sigri!a'i1,311 fJtrFfyr ,ir£cl ' 14', a rfs? of pavervet;, jo-4 4' "r.� 11i111;r eek, l 1f i� wJt`Ii_ or t J •,art 1"iL} disco dr i'!cr, Y''•::'1'<� '"i'! c wiittl7 aJnr7q regional airca"ials it? Ural.,r 1";Ifffis may leclucc'I !1 Contexts wilh Blower t '1 C!' , ;mialw local stieats, t;,-' :7degUate, 1'70!r0V,'i17Q addk of l on -street ,calking, cycling lari::s, '&!r sidewalks. NOTE, The huge ,relare to the adjacent and Genf^_'t ia e. rJ ; ^ti l ..'9/' � G''w oici iJ of tier Corridor, street and lane width Example of an urban street which balances the needs of cars, bicycles and pedestrians by reducing the width and number of travel lanes. Photos courtesy of Lynn Allsbrook, City of Hampton Public Works V POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION STrUi.1 -tii'F; TO CONSIDER CtziQ,-, c!S ;J7 E t :iCi1 ,3i? „ crJi; C 1 'I Il ;I. ,'I ; ! XV.; C' ":1c "0 woi','wiLh .o FIiGx; n— iC'I i� rStG;'. lIi StriiB`t 0ptIG i Jf (it,'U!IC I _i, :, !',r I tl ` eavi',rii:1 the G FIC'l OT 8il ;I I[Io. '1CuC riY'r Stl'eJ'i Sifi?v ua, _.. t c�"li'g SreeiSC.c�llrig, ftG. Stdt',CifIC iGla,iOYI.C2 to app1v,,'j1e DSII i)e Made 1wf rin Wa,, -cf inl , incl t! r ( ISlCfI rl l'il1 (Cz3 het(. I^tt'ilg Oi i n;ISLr1C1 fBfI�ItIeS Cc(l UiSC be i;'Ct;irad tliioi-ii;il iie iia,,,d prb'.,rS- Gf the uroj i,f app.li aticn. f.,r i 1 right of way GENERAL DISCUSSION: ;-V; important p,4(! 0.1 the urian fabric. It provides along urban roadways, t;1J),)VRni&nt front d"', 1Y:.1butes to the ntp, n,inand creates a proteci,ve between pedestriiin ryFuribul, on -sl-_. 4;s nl:o;,s n, I ;,- v are in a more urbanized, lower- sj On -scree; r-1% 1x ,1n -,,-,;-.;-,-j Mang all roadw3y?,7 iandly local streets within major ..,�an areas and a%,o, i"r . as iitcaj- -rd�i7c oarkliq needs byproviding parking �, r- - on Vrev pxking i", 17ot within the VTf �4 llsuburban con, sf5, recommeni a;oog a, �i _;,!I � .0 !;,vo to rho adjacent and The recommora.. il"Cring secondary rmftr than ;x, fi?7srlr.rifirall}c EXAMPLE OF ON -STREET PARKING fN URBAN CONTEXT I on -street parking EXAF-w!PLE 3.ON-STREET PARKING'ViTHIN NEW DEVELOPMENTS A sidewalk travel travel sidewalk' lane t lane Co C1 I 1 I Cc). a) V POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES TO CONSIDER o 3: C1,; . It J 1 -',3 A 'Y (C, l --i h1n hrQP soil;- Jc\ a� :n -,,i ic, iris. vjit'i �iDLi to c4 0, ;deotifyc-010i tl vliuihi ft? iocil i_:1-;1,, - ,*,.`,,.1 pre.(_,is to fust, r T;Tl; ;i_J L-, OVP MOn Sl �h C';-- i! OT Hmr,"l. right of way. GENERAL DISCUSSION: connections should inchxle ,ale; ,,tr a-' r7urFs b8iwean residential areas and popular desrinations such s± `iols paAli, and ,Easiness districts. AccessVe bicycle facilities and brrycle parking areas are needed to make bicycling an appealing transportation alteroatit ea. Bicycle facilities and crossings should be, clearly mar'r.'eu'' to ansura the safety of bicyclists. -tum of 4' in width or 5' in width ;?rsa g is Present if there is +'ac Opportunity tp inclucre dedicated bike lanes. a wide outside law of a minimum 14' in lr ld.fh, or 15' for road; ays with high speeds, can be used, or paved shoulders in accordance with required standards. Mufti -use trails that ,allow for bicycle access should be a minimum of 12' in v ;. '.itri�iny prt l,Pi.'5 $ r 1.r t " tlif ltt;a .'."leans of .accr •.,. iMOWN 1111P4NIiF A Ems, Example of a shared -use facility along an arterial in a rural (top image) and — °-' suburban (bottom image) context. bicycle facilities V POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES TO CONSIDER II:-,, 'utU+ �A '.fit 'il`u fIa (IIJf;'. '.. f6C°i'3' to 1115i8 i'' € ' %OLi I t€: ti 1 I' ;'i'i' `Il 3:1 file �D oj I -�3tcr right of way GENERAL DISCUSSION: `; the cente" portion of the str€et or roailElw serve as a landing place for pedes!rians wbo truss a street ntid or at an irrtersec-tiot; lorarion, storing orrestricring leftrum vehicles, rlar;aging arms and providing atr attractive landscaping, or straatscaping trr;r nl9rtt. .,ri7,St )'1 t7;r,i),valume, billyspet2I roadq, anj zf4,j 7 '+>' -, rii0 Coes for pedestrians with visual r pp!.Fn,-r ..Irwaan the pedestrian refuge area .and ;,,•, ;70 j r. "Cal,. :'erL;�!rs insralled to serve as pPclestrian be virifi, wvitb 6' being tlae recommended A l;.: rri,lrl s 16' slrculd only be used in rural arvas r,: toprovrtic '; in subur'ban cantaxts. medians Raised medians help to establish the character of the roadway and Source: PBIC Library, Dan Burden POTENTIAL IFr' ' r,` " �" 1 f '; .yS TOL.Q rEn l iISC`;.i d e,. C 10 �., ofa-- f'la:3U-I i c ,lull CI <9• I i,� i;'i iil'P<: Al d. i(' 1 St. tS, I i C u� Illy, St SCa43 f C. fped,l[' 'LO ."�1FIi,.�BI;� 7u'i.;,'. t;.T, "11 a r I`., UCI� b'I+F;iI tilB ,;'C i 1CUli it C" S !F -T11 l 'i 1'6 G'.! , )rGC^3bS. 1 right of way GENERAL DISCUSSION: tafgp turning radii encourage hryh slaeed turning MOVRflh, ., Ir � . 11 atble'land uses and types tpot cra�sing disrancc 1br : 4pvilans. Ne of users should be con5iderod`,+Ppri designing ar; intersection So that 1?in ,, radii are siipdappropnatpi' :'f d r,irb radius is nwde 1-r 10 , ,,.-,J or Arses may ride over 9xi, placilig degrading or undermining 11�, rhe hffasTrarri ,saparking And1lor oic�da Trine, C&7 be evell tighter, �,61jiclps will liave rnaw ,tMj!6,1F the turn. ;,L;1re.-u:; iondirions vx have an impact on rlie each inletsea'r the ir? ;.e ;s,-nca of bike lanes, differences ivo cirb sneedand volume of !,;f!i;A ixfit;s of5-1O' iS I)Gwavar, inw, .j an 8,9j,l (.P Oi, than 10� r`Dnfjitiolls P"'Ir"ll? J11 P a.. ,Pellicle (truck and Otis) rro,.-ti,,m 6'.'.�-_s- -Tpeuled, 01hem" r PadCronix; 'r , 4 h/tal tec lvt-ec --------- I S a I),. -..._._.y i curb radii R1. Aclaol Cvk.) P,,jxT4.?,, R2: Effecrivc CV1* Padws Where there is on -street parking and/or bicycle lane, curb radii can be even tighter, because the vehicles will have more room to negotiate the turn. POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES TO CONSIDER Plan tat I — ..,::Ij _11i it 11 tile S 1 ev A small curb radius slows down turning vehicles and ,Iso "11 VD i t:- !, IM cGtb radii shortens the distance a pedestrian must walk to cross the ."".0 :J-'! C,_- ntdo: L i Kil it'! 1\"Sensi . ti I F,p street :,r a Tbci It � _`�; j � : �,; , 1'. l_:'o v:' .,rs,riCin activity is e,, cnuf �gpl, i r./o; cl i aa. i, =Oxca,!) i ion.s ic ! ,Pec? fic :-o-d i III 1? "O� lcrrens 11) i .3 r.- :i'ra�81 trot governs bk3 landscap[mg, -SLIH . LSO;IP111g, 61LU. S.pe6f1s; I Ln app!icaJ-, i-0qLHiGh10nLS ran (lien :7e rnarle vv'thi'n 0ie zoilling Ew.; orcIn%inccs. Rairofittliing oil' S611 -ISO 170 Ull-, 61v?loc,iierit approval Y I right of way GENERAL DISCUSSION: &nsuring that People, -j,- dl F:S'i','i safely and coovenient,'y to access L,esri`7ations is e'sse'ntial to crating an of active transportation ne£work. People rho are rrav0ng bi, orhar modes will also need to cross streets,, ";tir5� who a,rl'i�re by transit cr car rnay` need to cross r're street to access a i _":Tlarion after getting off at a hus stop or parking, for example, People ^cc+7 to be able to cresr` sr. : r :rl } *+t:l:-secrions and mint -Mock ,bcarions, at,'+ 7troUcd (signals, trop signs, em) and uncontrolled locations. oto Mayor crraets and on minor streets. Getting acrclss rte street can be ono of the primary barriers to achiev'irg true accessih'liry and mability, and cvQF y etiorr .rhC!:1rd ::`� �+-:+,r ;:�r,:•,�,r�,•nod�?te elfrereraP l�dadestrir�n oro. �i;:rz;;. s iiRC¢ pbi r't."SlSt of refreCll+ll although t rrrssrrJ 11 s v�: ,. .. r r-• ;;; r.,,j t.kti'alksJ, orthoset -r a;' ..,..e, ,,; ,r+; ; 1 l"rarrnr,rr'r_�l sr€as ialirf, ;;! anlr C -3Y? "1houk1 be 115P/ So that th SUifacB rhovicla a hazard for rt � t 11ould be provided ar nigh b elhar lull wlu'& L nrdown s s •w 40 wr. s.r 0 ar r r Hi(`NTIAL IMPLE>1Et.TLl7''Csf41 STRA I street crossings Advanced stop bar and ladder striping enhance visibility for pedes- trians. Source: PBIC TEGIES TO GCJtV5113ER .- Ir;:i)CpL 1"zt0 1�,.4J3:"c° rl4t:a? Co dc�1'..I F 3 fliji3l h1'�"Si( 3i1 %ItCUi%tl() � 'i�� as nsI i of �h., ler o a � i„i.sl rP ,r,, r. •JOU ('E' (E'C!ClfdCl,. oL';:;1 -, S ;%aUCi�dl', Vii. .11..;,, ll Ji.., l�CraIl�rr bVll,il � i'if,� i: _A ill UC h; -.i •4'il0(itJt'uhf.D�J,EI'jlDtar. il.k'.flJlc,ll '!..-!`,S liltJ fU'ililC I',-+0 riD171 the 1-�.. )Iuil 0(I-IdGlul :;f3nt pi 7yi;' lstJIQCaiICi?v. 1I;NIICiUGD`LIDi'I.'i , �I f'l'i'_�Idt^y�`.'2i�i [l� � v ii�C Ji ,i 1 ::'�;.” d�h"ti, "11l P �al�c• luil.`�;I.3N131E�, StTfE.,St;C"ipll�Cl, eC,. JI]-MfIC ET Ic!ll,i TO i3 Y,pklaulO IBryUIC f31L.iZ CP:I ih2,f1 Cly ICt,dE wllhin Lha ziJnlllg 3l1Ci subu1Vl; IOtI o"CIIIi;r1CeS. RPGrjfI[ill;g Ol Cc^•ii alSO IJB v Uif-�'C� �.li I 1 :I..' I'.iCi fic`.'�-, Cpii1L'C1L 8j]�,"O4 •w s wr. s.r 0 ar r r Hi(`NTIAL IMPLE>1Et.TLl7''Csf41 STRA I street crossings Advanced stop bar and ladder striping enhance visibility for pedes- trians. Source: PBIC TEGIES TO GCJtV5113ER .- Ir;:i)CpL 1"zt0 1�,.4J3:"c° rl4t:a? Co dc�1'..I F 3 fliji3l h1'�"Si( 3i1 %ItCUi%tl() � 'i�� as nsI i of �h., ler o a � i„i.sl rP ,r,, r. •JOU ('E' (E'C!ClfdCl,. oL';:;1 -, S ;%aUCi�dl', Vii. .11..;,, ll Ji.., l�CraIl�rr bVll,il � i'if,� i: _A ill UC h; -.i •4'il0(itJt'uhf.D�J,EI'jlDtar. il.k'.flJlc,ll '!..-!`,S liltJ fU'ililC I',-+0 riD171 the 1-�.. )Iuil 0(I-IdGlul :;f3nt pi 7yi;' lstJIQCaiICi?v. 1I;NIICiUGD`LIDi'I.'i , �I f'l'i'_�Idt^y�`.'2i�i [l� � v ii�C Ji ,i 1 ::'�;.” d�h"ti, "11l P �al�c• luil.`�;I.3N131E�, StTfE.,St;C"ipll�Cl, eC,. JI]-MfIC ET Ic!ll,i TO i3 Y,pklaulO IBryUIC f31L.iZ CP:I ih2,f1 Cly ICt,dE wllhin Lha ziJnlllg 3l1Ci subu1Vl; IOtI o"CIIIi;r1CeS. RPGrjfI[ill;g Ol Cc^•ii alSO IJB v Uif-�'C� �.li I 1 :I..' I'.iCi fic`.'�-, Cpii1L'C1L 8j]�,"O4 1 right of way GENERAL DISCUSSION: - �! --- id aiong arter;a1s, sideimaXs /0 Commercial, �,,J a. ..-J, 4d be required on both sides of all Streets, vVith a minimum width of ,zhould be, installed whenever,11?e roadvi,a), changes from :.,urb and gutter; IVidersidew3lks of orgreare- to encourage pedestrian an'viiy, pl space fot high pedestrian volumes, (),Iprovide space for m, of other pedestrian -supportive Uses. The presence of buffers, comprised of landscaping in suburban xeas, and i,,,T furniture, street trees and street Uahts iii urban areas, is importaw to 7' the c. 1 3i7 a p ,,roiy C -L! E, !--;l L, r1le, -,vidts " buffers - at 6' (non -+,omrnercial arum,,-) Typic it 10' sidewalk (commercial areas) I pedestrian facilities s.de-walk design rz7 a S 5' 6-8'+' i 6' 4' 6'I 6' 4' a) Ln 0) (D a) a) (0c bb 1: Co c nom N 0 0 0 Cn t C1 E1 2 2 4 -- POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES TO CONSIDER 1 - - er, to the I ur. - Lion of illsti�il&.,Lieil Cj, .6i;va1c.,3aJ IaM I i (.j- V','ir'er :ij -p, r 1,,, F- d i,- 1, -1 11. ra i,. s L W- I I to!"'. I ) 1':,p!(1 C- rii, t, .1; jT:, I ill new rd atc. le:[Ftcllca io ?jlPiiC-jh!o f. int Imy siu-e,,,, s (1(,, -'s, e lao, !1 ordioances. diet fitting of can 2 edge GENERAL DISCUSSION: B06;1 -g- ho'. "!,% ...4 directly atJjacont to pekstriar? to L, 'I ;;,;u JsF 5.oevvolk ard buildinp, Largo setbacks add 1-o.qdostrlan must travoi to3ccess bull 1d.f)0,5 o bz)ildings dn, tvn tc the street edge crRare a defined edg-p o�7ciosuro, 'an t r ;`7' x ,i rf,• 3 kii v 7 little iq rl sett ar:k with oarkingt^ r6ar c -,f L,,,VeCm 3nd 1.jLjflC- setback v POTENTIAL IM F LEMENTAT; 0 N C,! E S TO CONSIDER Gitdmanw Io c;i,-jvv ioora foi fx:o ;,nd' in ojri,;-r. tj 1,111C W:, 01' areei • I.-�; -'JI -'1f'%r a0 J,11-ij' j i L 11 L,' , INAV 11 C L!, 1 10 1-. G 2 edge GENERAL DISCUSSION: The t t.ween lhF edge &i and the (ro,91 of a building is WWI 1 1)9 A,Vlly and promotin,,. safety and .5euur;tV. In addition to providing a spatial buffer bwvv6q,� les and pedestrians, the vreerscape should c" trees; ft, andsofleniry the pedestrian -scaled ii�vh ling for ;rity and aesthetic. ,, 'j'r high -podpsir)n use sidewalks, six feet of sidewalk width sijould be maintainea as an obstacle - 6 ee throughway zone with tho trees, lighting, and other ameoitics locared r i,i the fuo7i.Th!rw n:io between the street and sidewalk of in the the Du,,'0j'iNjr. 4ddiriona) landscape amenifies suchP":.7 jolawe the pfiblic realm might be encoutaged I Encouraged: pedestrian -oriented lighting & signage, Warren County's overlay district successfully regulates signage along the corridor. I streetscape ti mutolnebi s;np Discouraged: auto -oriented lighting & signage 1fit'®[.E IMPLEMENTAtION 5 V -RTE' STO CONSIDER - �" r6'Lu, Ic,-Jor. Ciuir]h-.. I-, 'eL'.J, st, (A, �),_dkil F1-.cTJt.s ili�L sLL.rd,-IrOs for i :I. L�!m an6 n -, ii! J;am(:q1 -,rjjjF,,-,�(!MC)jjtS C r:; C IC! 1 S, t ti;EL i I,:, vy 1) L IimI i, � L;;, S " i ri r j ',�. GENERAL DISCUSSION: Pa6!, F;,. the 'irilf dance of free park;np erwavr,7yes driving, while on - 5""'i as a barrier 'o p6destrian access of destinatims. th encouraged , rL 9ugh elim05fivo c?( Of i.,S. shaped-parkitig agreements, "Wniry parking to parking locate-'! sijnTt,-VA oiO hijildings creates al Parking .1-7oss , ver � ib;o, Any off- rhil L-vate a harrier to -oken uo 21f. do, -.yr, flC? around thr r --71 if TIT- I II I jr it r I II.- III III 117 X1 -7f 7-7 , I I' I W full nllr parking garage I on-site parking v POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES TO CONSIDER in rj I J such dhlFit%, Of [D I.;IIJFe who ■ r f Ta -Ode M IClprova, IL----Lwer t,,e public ar,,' All relprences to 3Iloiw FCG: and qtly 2 edge GENERAL DISCUSSION: !o way :es. bicyclea.meoitin aro tmfical to suppoll i Je pa king -racks or iockers - should be con Y—,i "s".: Such azq commerci,4?1, bmploymer?l, ?.-fd transit t-11i.1i, __ : :'! i5,iqo1hPrmeanstoius!ifva reduajn collfcLdx Pa4;;Lq Ck"'.r.1s 41 CH,,i il I bicycle parking oe -ice bu 1, au?dafffi wFc, i� fing entrances to eiWalWage 11 POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES TO CONSIDER !a, iu;j: c iii rc i c, q e (,t � c 1,; ii c r; (I 'I), i j IV oi.qer leix bicyc, all np,/ e11,11ts ,,Iill Scj GENERAL DISCUSSION; Cross -parcel 6v0.%vi"l c vvichindcve;op•mentspromote pedestrian Movement by connecting users dewalk ncnvork to *hair ultimate -':"o allow citipens to park once and walk safal,� and buildings did u:. , vvirbollr aruojlng to their i•�Vji.d`vraL`s Si1Qllll� hr^, bE e'a : wt %. ,`" ,3 1+aF�,�1� dt: b';11nP? ."i' it t; 'CJ (19x,3"t:t 41 ail�Ic?, r Pathwa/s shouId bo a: ra ,. ^ F' v and should b,, '.(-Z .,i silr;; -. -, • borepedesirrams :ird motorists, 4' External Sidewalk No internal Sidewalks walkways .... a._o+...�.,�._.__V..� tC8f15 T SiCi, i' Volul71F Internal Sidewalk 0 Network 97 p U New internal I Connection \ 1 kFi, ; to adjacent site M i € CTENTi;U. IMPLEMENTATION ST "TTA FtE :U TO + :;'wSIDER °'EsvlS,Lr'-:,klJiDrilih3n,^,i;is0i�;ls-�1.�.�7:1.i;lig.�1T1�11F1.,.c,i�t~di'�,','tl Jiiiirlrll.al�.'�c�y`SI; Il„ �.ti (;?il�r.lii8 FnQ Iecicm ;I'iiJi".ij^ ;'^q areas, tC8f15 T SiCi, i' Volul71F • nie $ jl l di 6,;1 • L'onsICIef" ,7 l "' n aClll'ilbS t"11�;'ilU .ilu' '„ v lfl,<'I i �:C❑ { c.11 field jwlOil UC.iIfiIS'S MCI Udiflg„l„C',i,,, la"las, rcClli�,C3vlii��, sit -,m S-;pnq, 3tc- Sl)- ;iIC;BfeYC'nCc reqCSLmttlems ca". ui,' fn �e In rt; �1= lltl=i lila J'1ftiC� dllC� Slli3CEl�/!S?D ef�ll�l,.1GT3. Retrofitting of a ISling lac ildi, 4 Can 61SD ha ,aqu'If:._! il^^ ;;c,:k, . _,. i;ili.' 10i\!FI hfOCCSS. GENERAL DISCUSSION: i: 317gssVp PeJ-srrians, located at the rote of by a goodmN of land usas. Transit cif) red �v lie:;,!c�de a safe anvirDnaient rhar is ' ipgra i ?i i t Trans;t grops should in,:Jjg,4c at as wPli as bicycle parity g, kghting, and transit s', S1 Bwbays aftow buses to safe 1y "hing 1170 flow 0! may be preterable in sj �r, ii'PS, SIJ,'h as o,�bere M,Ariple buses I transit stops & amenities LA 120TEN'T S-;'tVT-F-GtES TO CONSIDER vith PFivUate 'ovelog):-rs ar, LO ,1 ac -1 l):- c'-Innat )if ill th-:- ipc![sue t: -,jqj�tl.-il pruian • I'tils"o 'u;-foilig oljportu.-i,'[d,i, Safe ',j Si,hid pcjn-ai, y i c rr:i-, c r ii S1 0 T I y; -JF c u. [)--v-3!on z PLtlic Fac[1it;,3,- Crtia�,.-jt T -,m tel all�' A V14\ LA 120TEN'T S-;'tVT-F-GtES TO CONSIDER vith PFivUate 'ovelog):-rs ar, LO ,1 ac -1 l):- c'-Innat )if ill th-:- ipc![sue t: -,jqj�tl.-il pruian • I'tils"o 'u;-foilig oljportu.-i,'[d,i, Safe ',j Si,hid pcjn-ai, y i c rr:i-, c r ii S1 0 T I y; -JF c u. [)--v-3!on z PLtlic Fac[1it;,3,- Crtia�,.-jt T -,m tel all�' GENERAL DISCUSSION: All transit userl porrio,') Of orlgin and destinatiot, P 3';`.- direct conrer?"'ym 7. stops to origins saritS viral 10 SnSUI-e C0P11'e(7ie.0C0 r91 r":) ljcies I sidewalk connections LA P0TFN."V'.A!- 314PLEIZEN[TATION STRATEGIES TO CONSIDER VAAI, vvim VDG-1 on .-s r cel ecru ii g accessible sidew- c 11 0,': fwOinq from the 3!x I P; J iljG MV -1 L( - a[ III -ay ou"in'—, 11,011s,lor devc1n.ping o I T1 l'c't j r.,. -I ij He S. t �t6,�ds 10r aces", do Ii', S I ti 2ClSlf 'toos to M V, :1,3 kva i ::i j E ra a "u t '�1-1 e i r.., 3 adjacent land use GENERAL DISCUSSION: SUcc,Q,,5fij( site anti pau:" - and creates a prs.wl.:; tiar/i oming to all users. A key facror is rhe�, organimtion of buildings and parking ralativp to rlclj ijG. % from the r6acl, in, I tip', buildings k often un0v;ring, expanse f0 tie crilgsedtl), pedez. desirable alternative reverse;; rhdmvving rb- !;J��, tura providing F vedf?s,*rian-fri'Fnd1V lronrage 3 i1r ilio-c,,adway In rhis the pedesrrian ;r74 1 rps a1.qr,._j &!tJevvalk. It is irnporiiw-., k'. X)d open - U&II 4 Iminviling, cnmmn I site design POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES CONSIDER r,ai-Lir-i,JCI' i9,,ie "Lli i ;IC ronsuiei- I :I" io tile 3 adjacent land use GENERAL DISCUSSION: ac,5 typically includes providing a jobi, housing, restaurants andMopp;ng within fir; r+cil�l -nxod Lise dovelopment must utilize' 0011 ontal tadjacon? L6.,fq 1770,6147 "an"'lork that enhances Mohil;4, for gnee arra walk between L,'.5Ers to park 6,t cit -vee 7 acim"ies that occur hetvveen fours, fostering a busier, safer, ard , . can �7,;' , % !, t - for ;-)div;dfja1 Parcd(s !7,;'.,V,)M0t6 Sillgle fanC;i--ld U$0 lvvirhil 3 rfw range of a hUSinossins. thX the r,7iY,L- f uses is mpasw-!:, I mixed use development �X=Fr- Virm LA pwk POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES TO CONSIDER to lo, -;.c.n. i is U! iol i Juril i., C;, 61! US,2Sit cipjcp 1sw — j i -.1L! i -_ 3 adjacent land use GENERAL DISCUSSION: p necessary to maintain the richness of rujV arevis avE" ;P (,. Open ;'S -, !'bw ,-as rxgmg from commoniTy racreatinnM areas to town sqijar8s. lal civic spaces, such as town sqaarps, shovid be located in Urban ei!ox of highest 1mransij,, LvIdle 'd Open Spaces Should be Strategically Placed to it targe. Often, environawital and natural lealwas i; dine vmTerbodies, wetlands, and gtoapslopes, shmldbepreserved as AW Iff Ar Ar —a ov dD AP 7j -d Aw Ar dw 44wr so 40 W.— Aw ,ff dr & AW -W 4W AV --404W -W Ar 40 Ar greenway I natural features neighborhood park If FGTF?JTiA.K- IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES TO CONSIDER I "jLi w:,11 a, lZi`iCi C4'-,�-1'111'fi;ICI a r,!Pj,F-�, ". ;, � ' p:irl,,, -'V J, -TJ 3 adjacent land use GENERAL DISCUSSION: ito r,1:; r :r:, a ldr1±(i1IF, .SPt L?r rhelJerTgr1s, F,1riltt CJjPt aMntg these ch:7110rges is thr. t3rr ,.i- compact develapment,strategiese, Q�„.,,.rr �,e:tter ,;fTT±7e land consurrr,l;7 vo perr aintage of prosewd open .space. Thrmugh com,, r.. ' conn,^tectecd open spares May be protecred as shared w,, 1, ,::,;+;.3T,,, OiVidarf l�atwrean private lets, i��r:i ��.,�ri l�:'r!'lk7GP deverop��enr �ftr7bYS scenic r�4. l�raluaitirrg developmeor alrogPther In SullrrrtTani.7r lg area --s and jobs r•vlthia r;lose proA m ry; rite opporninities ti s of transpnrzation. $y developing rc:,rT,` ±alnd greater employment and iftlis i�r1t. ;S[Toffers grearer Gppd,urlll'4t 1_T ! lr i"more 'vb,':1- 2'-nspar7c1110•: r�prrrans. compact development encouraged discouraged 1 i! AV i • !AP �•• ."-! � dw OP r Al' I AP .I Ar AP AW a 0 001 41F Ar AfflW op IV f i'GTErY11r,`.`- IMPLEMENTATION °s"t PA1�;:7IcS "i 0 CONSIDER - .i-li. SLI.-i.IV:,ii!il ai'J '-(: -Ct' GO.i'l2rd`_iC'1 ; I,i'ai��J�i 'J' kaS2 D`: i ,:, o1jr:1fgi Lo ;r..=i'L., tp turd 3 adjacent land use 'GENERAL DISCUSSION: , ,v essful site on proper building orientations create a prm-Ice flielf to pedesiriqnS. &V simply building piarament can redLx� tvfj; ",iu Xs.rancps for ruvomws and made streets more useful f;-, users, and t'L'o Q r,-. 801dN,p entries should borda' to tester a wbram, walkable 1-4i op entrance should LIE? tovv&-d the oubl', 'lie majorif y of i,.,; 3 expected to be cominrt -Ol', ljlw site. Additional arvances ma), be itted that are ov-sitp, parkirp. -;z I building orientation LA POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES TO CONSIDER nt irai-Ilf- IC cxp-cted to ba mr---mbl 10 dlL tL c -.`,aC!,s Fqd ri I 3 adjacent land use GENERAL DISCUSSION: Buildings should be c.,esvlgo iij voda v,sijal interest IL, Nip- rt,c-:` u through massing and z.i Qem i in fxade design Massir7g describes the physical form of a build r"'a v, "'., vJjp L, Y b0dings. Large buikc,, - i_: tw','irfings along d Work O!Y„ P -t -,Q-07 a scale that is 'Oresting to J. I-- 0)p d'-sirability rV v'Vr34 divisions, windcW windows, recessed erori�V'' 4"-, Or Putlfiff'-a'-1 r'jii be vst_j~i to a pedestrign-triendly and interesting s tr.�&t wall Lv�fhir a site. I massing and facade design rT r1l"I 02 r7l E 4 V!- I 50' max. blank wall s awnings/ overhangs LM tj I - e,7couragpd If POTENTIAL 44PLEMENTATION STRATEGIES TO CONSIDER iri-J,, for ;i ,rjald. (F -ill -I ;'n6 S'-Iitb lk! --l' [i"'L Could [lelp er;,Uce t112 ',Dri1AC1. ill -,: Y ; r: Li Lcl r :1, 1 i 7'1 "I luialc -,-i,;Cty S. 3 adjacent land use GENERAL DISCUSSION: :parant bwiding featuring display windows gen-6,4"m" 41r 1w de16NT-w ,-Id im , ove security throL9h enhanced Visibility dor ,71/ buildings fronting public right-of-ways with nofj-re,�,Jent"al Uses or; the ?tm: high degme of frx:,f. i- I to sti"t1-ide building,-,- iwf to be sepa by Warns W 2' I transparency ''::ImP 7g loc. A il;qr of 4 '�;�"'- ' - " " / 0 /18 total qj.oLjj7d area bBDA1&. and 6054f, Dr mrre t [ POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES TO CONSIDER :;voipni;'Iing rrola FnEciflc 66sigt: 7ui-'Ianc2 in the f1ip ml,-" :160310 _-Mlhr fn d 'St a L'OL 'I"., Gi �-Le d'�-,Jgn gu:dp��i.rms J,3L i.o;j'd 'i,:`1ju�: u di,,,:tmage usa 3 adjacent land use GENERAL DISCUSSION: ... 3_9; C arcmith� ;?o,l ronvenient klan). ',om I-. :tilt C", I0rkf�rb 7r;,Iadards Or srFoot IJI to o'gCourag", a qfhj Or connections and T!'1 in hiock foogtfl stanflaerls, (if 3 fp;!in -,ir-v m.r1111 Wzk I block size I I I 1 325' block 325' block The example above shows how a typical auto -oriented site (illustration below) could redevelop with a pedestrian POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION TRATEi0-vq TO CONSIDER oriented block sizes. I 650' block 4 road system GENERAL DISCUSSION: Access .�h-rulj il? VSW M j!,jj(0j:j?ss,3rY &jVejVjY, and to Encourge bprwPen adjarent tjx-zPl& Eel ien appliRd, access manqqP,,nPnf can -educe the number of full access points and indade median separators, thtis help; °:g to ctave a rL. tu_ae for Poch's rr bn r i.q " at mid I access management discouraged. - separate driveways & parking in front encouraged: shared access & parking/access in rear LA POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES TO CONSIDER iTh ".'JT -L0 T, 3V1161 4 road system GENERAL DISCUSSION: 4'ad-connected areas P0610strian and bicycle a:,- connoctions betwee.!) accessible and ro,-, ?,,onnected street natworkalso praXdos the famem.,.. Vier block sizes and a lroarpl space fb(pedestdans, advantages such as ormoncej -ve!vr,,oi ?r traffic con . z -- ?'I; _,, gestion, xl- Y". �, -, -. 19 manner, 3,pas promote activir.;r0 11 = EM LM no= a I connectivity rft iqpl IMP IN OMNI 0'@LmmJ no == Lommoil MEN No LoommA 0 9 on SPOON Imm mEM Lain A OWN on rm IN Loon A Memo mA POORLY NETWORKED USES/STREETS WELL NETWORKED USES/STREETS v POTENTIAL T 0) CONMEJER thE pedest-iRn- U I j t; -, , j , i I - S L'I, -6�tjV i M 2F's,,r es in -im,ir-:n(-i +s. com d,or types introduction i,.,i .-I, includes Lir'; i,:i,: ,,J Icti-6 tve!, 5t-4 against the scenic backdrop of Sllenand ocill VrI I lrq. 7fia r -.j ri o variety of trovO including regional, Commuter, k _ ! .,!'It i i I e L kh:-.Tz wpporl the future lo-Ddl use vision for the corridor, and are intended to be Ided. The sections are ideal Ir`: -'If, Prji--M a.- ui -1, cm, if the cm',!; .1 - I and may or may b,- oc' in all locations, depend ., -. I ' : . I � � : � 1 , ! � -, 1- . The map below shows rec- ornmended locoi,rrv, fot rh-� orriclor types anJ t.d ,ieoiL-ns identifled on the following P,.jgCs. mixed use low speed type Description! The Speed Type it t=.'t C.- ri, Y "I ' from - ?!, Avenue and Pleas., t,-, 1-81, It Is Int,--n,-JeH to .,ii, develcument around We 4.opl�e Bius5oni P-Aall, is C.. Witi usc'4 o - nd generattificant �:'fl nei'W" 'l---4 p4-oo -�,trioactivity in th,nt- . xf 25 yeors. �� 'i.::f r;4,1 rid n I I 0�- ji .Ll f A J V 4 L Y -j 1 —4-:1 Lj Adjacent Land Use Context; Futui z: 1! -e 5 C: ".roc� with App3� Mixed edge, an Infe -,u -.-7;J regi 0 cl. e be and i-'11,rc -S, pedestrians, rr filture 'rc- :-!� - Edge Context: narrow SetboCif Cr,__i S', -,'TleM along Public ROW Context, L Public ROW Context, Iiillllmmli mixed use moderate speed type Description: speed Typ» is locciied in the nortbp.-rO J)iA h0r, : -�' 'pit t I - iiiki . e Area of Clo r6, ere the current road section has a continuous )cluble 77 o ny!Ie north and south of the intersection with 3AO, 7— 0 ;icjnnted f c) r �7 ]-)t,-ie growth. In F.,cd�,lic -,,inty, growth is intended to be urban in ch(.Af C?,-. i,-ns've, dense forin 'i -i le , , -, -i; - - --- r. i� *,-,� +1 -i residential Tilt. Double Tollgate area in Clarke County ��,; env e. -i future s-cieiniei e il � f" - e STrE V '"j; -rm j rpt."A I it Median Adjacent Adjacent Land Use Cont•?xf, e Sm�ed with ,-,r— le -y-, -'C -oi lec' Edge Context-, amto �e-backs and formal irig within to tree lawn cr-tc`;c -i ci-nliy environment aloog ilrr, !-.,0dwc:ly. Public ROW ConJ,.-:-.?d-. all Ci !Ines, pco!..tin: ho - mixed use high speed type Description: rY Use Hi(:6 Speed' vois located in the nwilhern of V : "eller0ky oft espc.nCis to the or Study. fmu Grid Narrow SezbauAs wiM F017;3 street [r 11 T;3i/ Adjacent i.- Adiacent Land Use U S a F! Edge Context-. formal land-,!—,p- ;ro;j the but :t--; ui doe� not !y cjut!,r Ole Poblic ROW Contexf- r,ecjtur,::: -.,iHiin the ripr11- $I - contribute to this corrid-, ,;:n a,L-CflOn With c,!r� t)-jffer;, and a 6oic-d u -c trc,A Jnr the roadwcy. CCA ',:ate improved .-",;ifflc flow along the corrH- Edge Context-. formal land-,!—,p- ;ro;j the but :t--; ui doe� not !y cjut!,r Ole Poblic ROW Contexf- r,ecjtur,::: -.,iHiin the ripr11- $I - contribute to this corrid-, ,;:n a,L-CflOn With c,!r� t)-jffer;, and a 6oic-d u -c trc,A Jnr the roadwcy. rural high speed type Description: 7he Rural mipfi Spt+ed in if. J I cirec..;. The corridor type !ocoted i.- the o''; lj f ?tvd�rick Counvyj -1)e area U,E, T,�;Ilgate ir! Clorke and Warren ntie or informal trod Adjacent Land Use Context: uses Lova; rid to facilitate regional traffic flnw along the corridni cm-,' proelee la - cal access to - _ i'-, i s, Edge Context: or prt:servg-cl Iri:,r ral and nutural exi�% Nblic ROW Context: 'Aithi" LI Cl- he rural and nc:fuicl fer-$ ay. multimodal ;,I provided by a po-.-!. i*' use trail. A lan;+.r. is % z) Adjacent Land Use Context: uses Lova; rid to facilitate regional traffic flnw along the corridni cm-,' proelee la - cal access to - _ i'-, i s, Edge Context: or prt:servg-cl Iri:,r ral and nutural exi�% Nblic ROW Context: 'Aithi" LI Cl- he rural and nc:fuicl fer-$ ay. multimodal ;,I provided by a po-.-!. i*' use trail. A lan;+.r. is Route 522 Corridor Overlay District Draft Conceptual Text June 2010 Notes: • The Rt. 522 Corridor Overlay District is a "framework" for a multi -jurisdictional effort to protect the scenic nature of the Rt. 522 corridor between Winchester and Front Royal. General in nature, the conceptual draft ordinance text is meant to provide guidance for the four jurisdictions located within the corridor: the City of Winchester and the counties of Frederick, Clarke and Warren. • The Corridor Overlay District Conceptual Text provides an opportunity to apply various standards within the corridor types identified and described within the accompanying Design Guidelines. • Narrative in format, the Conceptual Text includes administrative provisions such as a statement of intent, establishment of Corridor Types, applicability and non - conformities. It addresses land use provisions, including conditional or special uses, and reliance on underlying zoning district regulations, as well as a preferred mix of uses. Finally, the Conceptual Text addresses development standards by which recommended Design Guidelines can be regulated, including building height, massing and siting; building materials, colors and styles; parking requirements; signs and billboards; outdoor lighting; landscaping, screening and grading; and tree and woodland conservation. • General notes and comments on the Conceptual Text, as well as text to be customized by locality, are indicated in - , • In most cases, appropriate language is recommended based upon ordinances of a similar vein found in Virginia and elsewhere; however, there are some cases where reliance upon existing zoning ordinances or additional study is recommended. • Final revisions to the Conceptual Text will be prepared after the draft has been reviewed by appropriate locality staff. 11i'ag F Draft June 2010 Route 522 Corridor Overlay District I. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS........................................................................................3 A. Purpose and Intent B. Application C. Administration D. Exceptions and Modifications E. Non -Conformities II. LAND USE PROVISIONS..................................................................................................5 A. Permitted Uses B. Conditional or Special Uses C. Prohibited Uses D. Accessory Uses E. Mix of Uses III. BUILDING STANDARDS...................................................................................................6 A. Setbacks B. Encroachments C. Pedestrian Area Clearances D. Orientation E. Entrances F. Size G. Height H. Facades I. Materials J. Type of Construction K. Color IV. SIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS....................................................................................8 A. Site Appearance B. Integrated Development C. Preservation of Natural Features D. Adjoining Historic Properties E. Underground Utilities F. Lot Size and Configuration G. Lot Coverage H. Paving Materials I. Access and Internal Circulation J. Parking and Service Areas K. Landscaping and Screening L. Lighting and Signage V. SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS....................................................................................15 2 1 P a g e Draft June 2010 Route 522 Corridor Overlay District I. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS A. Purpose and Intent. , _ ! ;! _ 1rit�crl r; ,i71l7)e?'`$ � _ � : •�,,. ,C tn7U8i 1. To implement the Code of Virginia §15.2-2200, 15.2-2283 and 15.2-2284 to promote the general health, safety and welfare of the community through the prevention or reduction of traffic congestion and distracting visual clutter which can result in danger on public and private streets, and to provide for a convenient, attractive, and harmonious community, 2. To further implement the Code of Virginia §15,2-2306 to establish a corridor overlay to protect the natural, scenic and historic, architectural and cultural resources found along the Rt. 522 corridor (the "Corridor"), including preservation of natural and scenic resources, open space and natural view sheds. 3. To establish consistent and harmonious standards for public improvements and private property development along the Corridor so as to unify its distinctive visual quality. 4. To ensure development within the Corridor is compatible with these resources and between different adjacent land uses. 5. To encourage innovative development projects that set standards for landscaping, open space, community design, and public amenities. 6. To protect and enhance the attractiveness of the Corridor to tourists and visitors to sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing to from tourism. 7. To promote a sense of place and local character, and to promote community unity along the Corridor. 8. To maintain and improve transportation safety and capacity, and to improve the efficient operation of automotive movements within the Corridor. 9. To promote safe and efficient movement within the Corridor for persons using all modes of travel — motorized vehicles, transit, bicycles, and walking. 10. To stabilize and improve property values and attract investment to the Corridor. B. Application. 1. tapc 1. The extent of the Rt. 522 Corridor Overlay District (the "COD") applies to areas shown on the (Locality] zoning map. by - _ ff a.•'0 r)..J, ti's ,f f{Cf 2. For purposes of regulatory standards, the COD is divided into L . distinct Corridor Types, as shown on the - i;ti' zoning map. In 3 1 P a g e ,o Draft June 2010 Route 522 Corridor Overlay District addition to the administrative and use provisions that apply to the entire COD, each Corridor Type ,,may he has its own development standards. The Corridor Types are defined as follows: a. Mixed Use Low Speed Corridor Type ("MULS") b. Mixed Use Moderate Speed Corridor Type ("MUMS") c. Mixed Use High Speed Corridor Type ("MUHS") d. Rural High Speed Corridor Type ("RHS") 3. The standards of the COD are superimposed onto those of the underlying zoning district that pertains to any given parcel. The regulations and requirements of both the underlying zoning district(s) and the COD shall apply-, however, in any case where there is a conflict between the COD and the underlying zoning district, the provisions of the COD take precedence. C. Administration. , ._� _ > , • _. ;"ii .r,^�titE_.I.;G1 r �V,•;.,/ r_ _,� ..., _ .. '� �� .., .. ... .._ .. Iv-..'r��l� )f;!'Cna V? 50 Lrt�, of �t'Inc1' 1. The COD shall be administered through the Site Plan review process in accordance with 2. All uses located within the COD shall be subject to the use limitations and development standards set forth in the underlying land use district(s) : "f-; - and, in addition, shall be subject to the limitations found within the COD. 3. ?=,_: The Architectural Review Board (the "ARB") _, _ c' shall review all applications for development within the COD, as appropriate. or 4. ' .: ' . All plans submitted pursuant to an application for a building permit must clearly indicate all of the proposed building materials and colors for each fagade as described in Sections III.G-J of the COD. In addition, the building plans must clearly show the location and calculate the amount/percentages of all building materials per facade. 5. .- Groups of buildings on the same parcel of land may be reviewed and permitted as a single project rather than as individual buildings, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. D. Exemptions and Modifications. The following improvements are exempt from the requirements of the COD. 1. Exemptions. a. Interior alterations and handicap accommodations made to structures permitted prior to the enactment of the COD. b. Completion of work subject to preliminary plats, site development plans, construction plans, building permits, or interior finish permits approved prior to the effective date of the COD. c. Buildings for which no site plan is required. i 4 1 P a g e .. RENALSANCL P, Draft June 2010 Route 522 Corridor Overlay District d. General maintenance, rehabilitation, restoration, repair, additions or modifications to structures or sites where no substantial change in design or material is proposed, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. 2. Modifications. The Zoning Administrator may grant modifications to setbacks or other standards of the COD in accord with §15.2-2286(4) of the Virginia Code s i,r_1PhGab(e qrar;ci this E. Non -Conformities. In accordance with existing Zoning Ordinance requirements ;'_ . .- : % . nPc,°c orr; "3 tat;o,7,7, II. LAND USE PROVISIONS A. Permitted Uses. All uses permitted by right in the underlying zoning district(s) shall be permitted by right in the COD, unless otherwise specifically made a _ or prohibited use by enactment of the COD. B. rGonc:J";_oa1 o: Uses. In accord with the underlying zoning districts found throughout the COD. Jr.c ifr' es , It!�17t 1rr .•tr;E;" t!_ _, .,.'3 Gtl"llty i;e 8 1. Bowling Alleys. 2. Buildings in excess of 50,000 square feet. 3. Car washes. 4. Dance Halls. 5. Exceptions to building height standards as set forth elsewhere in the COD (Section III.F). 6. Feed and grain mill. 7. Firearms sales and service. 8. Outdoor storage or display (enclosed or otherwise). 9. Pool rooms, billiard parlors, game arcades. 10. Recreational structures and uses (commercial). 11. Restaurants with entertainment, nightclubs, taverns or bars. 12. Shops for welding, blacksmith, tinsmith, woodworking. 13. Stone cutting, monument works. 14. Telecommunication antenna, monopoles or facilities in excess of 50 feet in height. 15. Theaters, outdoor. 51Page Draft June 2010 Route 522 Corridor Overlay District 16. Truck stop (no motor freight terminal). 17. Warehousina. C. Prohibited Uses. In accord with the underlying zoning districts found throughout the COD. f. :/ilsS /77ay wamt 1. Adult bookstores. 2. Automotive repair and maintenance, except car washes. 3. Pawnshops or loan brokers, other than mortgage loan brokers. 4. Rooming and/or boarding houses. 5. Salvage, junk, wrecking and scrap yards. 6. Self service storage or mini -warehouses, and, as an accessory use, outdoor vehicle storage 7. Sexually oriented businesses or establishments. D. Accessory Uses. Includes those uses and structures which are customarily accessory and clearly incidental and subordinate to permitted principal uses and structures, in accordance with the underlying zoning districts, found throughout the COD. E. Mix of Uses. III. BUILDING STANDARDS A. Setbacks.: r,. 'v 1 a. ':l TT_ 6Page • ■ d ,t I r r _ P L a f; l Draft June 2010 ;�!"-"y/ ^ C J% �' u:.: ;fir . _ r - : v ...- i r?, � ... _ .. - • - frc,l; a J, ,4jr:a F TkiG iGJ�r71Ci%i�i•'"lr�:'".J i'✓F.- - �1.-•� .-�, `f..,.r .J�, .' ... ,,. y. _ Uraun cy At a i. r .,.fi .,.7.J L'/ .. P.r. t .,. -til •; w:`_' _. i � /':.r. .. ]• _ .... . .. III. BUILDING STANDARDS A. Setbacks.: r,. 'v 1 a. ':l TT_ 6Page • ■ d ,t I r r _ P L a f; l Draft June 2010 Route 522 Corridor Overlay District ,' ed range c•t buil.. i C.:,7007- :1 best pr,acr:cas. Building setbacks are the minimum distance measured from the edge of the street right-of-way and/or the nearest property line, in accordance with the underlying zoning district(s) 1:' o,3a1ity N cti r c -u,: c or as modified by the COD for each Corridor Type: 1. Mixed Use Low Speed Corridor Type a. Front 8-15 ft b. Side 5-10 ft c. Rear 5-10 ft 2. Mixed Use Moderate Speed Corridor Type a. Front 15-25 ft b. Side 10-15 ft c. Rear 15-25 ft 3. Mixed Use High Speed Corridor Type a. Front 25-35 ft b. Side 10-20 ft c. Rear 20-30 ft 4. Rural High Speed Corridor Type a. Front 40-80 ft b. Side 10-20 ft c. Rear 20-50 ft B. Encroachments. Canopies and awnings may encroach into the front setback up to 8 feet. In addition required berms, hedges, vegetative plantings, stormwater management facilities and permitted signs and fences may be located within the front setback. C E. F Pedestrian Area Clearances. When a sign or awning extends over a sidewalk, walkway or other space used by pedestrians, the bottom of the structure must be at least 8 feet above the ground. Free -hanging valances made of fabric or other non -rigid material hung on signs, awnings, and marquees must be at least 7 feet above of a sidewalk, walkway or other space used by pedestrians. Orientation. Building facades and entrances should be oriented in a manner toward the primary means of vehicular access. Buildings are encouraged to be oriented so as to maximize the convenience of pedestrian walkability. Entrances. A primary entrance should be designed for the pedestrian and for entrance either from public or private streets, or the interior of the development, if applicable. Such entrances should add variety to the streetscape and can be oriented towards on -street parking, if available. Additional entrances may be oriented toward side or rear parking lots. Service entrances for shipping and receiving should be designed to be aesthetically pleasing as practical and shall be oriented away from the public right-of-way to the extent possible. Size. Individual buildings shall not exceed 65,000 square feet. perll sa ,e. For u':' , r, /)otentially as a s, e:;iu' c sa 7 1 P a g e #;..r:t Iti<l?u�' Draft June 2010 Route 522 Corridor Overlay District G. Height. All buildings are subject to the height limitations set forth in the underlying land use district(s) i der the fo;'C- c; r "y / by 1. Maximum building height is three stories or 40 -feet. Buildings may be up to four stories if approved by the at the time of site plan review. Pitched roofs may exceed height limits with ; _ i ,- approval provided they are gable or non -shed roof types. New construction should have a minimum building height of 20 -feet to maintain a well-defined street Space. P + : t "r .i .'' i:7 i ' l-) nr r %,.--o oce 2. Roof Pitch. Roofline offsets should be provided to lend architectural interest and variety to the massing of a building and to relieve the effect of a single, long roof. Roof pitches less than 3/12 and flat roofs should incorporate a parapet wall. A pitched roof should be profiled by eaves a minimum of 6 inches from the building face or with a gutter. Service station canopies should mimic the roof form of the principal structure. H. Facades. Architectural elements such as windows and doors, bulkheads, masonry piers, transoms, cornice lines, window hoods, awnings, canopies, and other similar details should be used on all facades facing public or private street rights-of-way. Building wall offsets, including projections, recesses, and changes in floor level are encouraged in order to: add architectural interest and variety; relieve the visual effect of a single, long wall; and subdivide the wall into human size proportions. In order to offer pedestrian interest along sidewalks and paths, the ground level of any building should include windows, entrances, architectural details and awnings. Architectural details should continue on all facades visible from the public right-of-way. I. Materials. Building materials should be typical of those prevalent along the Corridor, including stucco, brick, architectural block, wood siding, and standing seam metal roofs. Inappropriate materials include reflective glass and metal wall panels. No facade visible from adjoining property or the public right-of-way may be constructed of unadorned cinder block, corrugated metal or sheet metal. J. Type of Construction. Manufactured, mobile, and metal units are prohibited except as may be allowed for temporary office management or storage uses during the construction phase. The use of smooth vinyl, unpainted cinder -block walls, or metal paneling is also prohibited, but the use of decorative, split -faced masonry products is permissible. K. Color. The permanent color of building materials (to be left unpainted) should resemble the predominant tones, primarily earthen tones, along the corridor. Garish and striking colors should be avoided. IV. SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ,.. .t ... '0.. _.c,:. A. Site Appearance. The site design and overall appearance should achieve proportionality and connectivity with adjacent sites to the extent possible while recognizing that individual businesses and uses developed within the Corridor are separate and have unique characteristics. B. Integrated Development. All buildings within a property should be developed as a cohesive entity, ensuring that building placement, architectural treatment, vehicular and pedestrian circulation and other development elements work together functionally and aesthetically. Architectural treatment should be designed so that all building facades of the same building (whether front, side or rear) that are visible from the public right-of-way consist of similar architectural treatment in terms of materials, quality, appearance and detail. C. Preservation of Natural Features. The preservation of natural features such as trees, vegetation, geological, and other characteristics and the preservation of features of historic and archaeological 8 1 P a g e H' „ PLANra�W,; GPCiwc, Draft June 2010 Route 522 Corridor Overlay District significance are in the public interest, which may justify the relaxation of setbacks or other requirements, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. D. Adjoining Historic Properties. New construction on properties that adjoin designated historic properties should seek to incorporate the scale, massing and treatment of the historic property into the new construction. Efforts should be made to relate to the building height, when in proximity to the principal historic structure. New construction should not overshadow the adjoining historic property. E. Underground Utilities. All on-site utilities (electrical, telephone, etc.) are encouraged to be located underground unless technical restrictions exist that limit doing so. Provisions should be made to significantly reduce the visual blight of any aboveground utilities. F. Lot Size and Configuration. In accordance with the underlying zoning district cinec%fc be { ;.., 'rat,_.. � .- _;;, : , , ," � _ . '. .. _ �, i•., �.,.� :. . Minimum lot size shall be as follows: 1. For outparcels or stand-alone commercial projects: 1 acre. 2. For commercial lots within a common development with shared parking and interconnectivity: '/2 acre. 3. Minimum commercial lot frontage: 100 feet. 4. Non-residential lots shall be generally rectangular with a ratio of depth the frontage not greater than 4:1. 5. Residential subdivisions shall comply with the requirements of the underlying zoning district Residential subdivisions shall comply with one of the following two requirements: a. Reverse -fronting lots are required for residential subdivisions along streets classified as arterials or collectors, subject to subparagraph (b) below. Reverse -fronting residential lots shall be platted with a landscaped access easement restricting vehicular access placed adjacent to the public right-of-way. Such easement shall be a minimum of 20 feet in depth and include one of the following: i. A continuous 4 -foot high solid wall constructed entirely of brick or stone masonry. ii. A 4 -foot high fence constructed of a combination of brick or stone masonry pillars with iron pickets. iii. A vegetated strip of canopy trees, shrubs, and groundcover that provide a full landscape buffer. b. If a residential lot is separated from the arterial or collector street by a minimum 20 -foot wide landscaped strip and a residential street, a residential lot may face an arterial or a collector street. G. Lot Coverage. In accordance with the underlying zoning district cz"C'�: x1] H. Paving Materials. Permitted paving materials for crosswalks, sidewalks, and similar pedestrian pathways include brick, concrete (aggregate exposed finish), cement pavers, brick pavers or materials that are similar in appearance and durability. Breaking pavement patterns is to establish pedestrian spaces, which can be more easily recognized by the motoring public thus increasing a high level of safety for both parties. 91Fa �- � , � -' � r • . �, � Draft June 20101 0 Route 522 Corridor Overlay District Access and Internal Circulation. r _ r•;s' sir I r� ;:;, . 1. Access and internal circulation shall be designed so as not to impede traffic on a public street. Access by the following means may be approved: a. Provision of shared entrances, inter -parcel connection and travelways, or on-site service drives connecting adjacent properties. b. Access from a secondary public street as opposed to the corridor highway. c. Access points, for lots located at an intersection, should be located the maximum distance possible from existing or proposed intersections. d. The internal streets of a commercial, office, or industrial complex. e. Alleys. Alleys are permitted to provide rear access to lots. Alleys are private roadways, to be maintained by the landowner, and may be provided as part of, or in conjunction with parking lots. "S";—,„ 2. Access and Internal Circulation Plan. a. Developers of all parcels or lots within the COD shall submit, as part of the site plan, an access and internal circulation plan to the County for approval which addresses access for the project and the surrounding area. b. The access plan shall demonstrate the ability to provide adequate access to surrounding properties via cross -easement agreement(s), shared entrances, inter -parcel connections and travelways, on-site service drives connecting adjacent properties, and/or access by secondary public streets. c. Where it is required as part of the site plan review, the developer shall dedicate the required property for inter -parcel connections and service roads. d. Access and internal circulation plans shall conform to any access plan(s) subsequently adopted by the County. 3. Pedestrian Circulation. Parking areas shall be designed to facilitate safe and convenient use by pedestrians as follows: a. Commercial, office and multi -family developments shall provide designated pedestrian pathways or sidewalks connecting the front entrance of the principal building to the sidewalk along the abutting street, including marked crosswalks across interior driveways. b. A minimum 16 -foot wide marked crosswalk shall be provided for commercial uses anticipating sidewalk activities such as outdoor dining or shopping; a five-foot wide marked crosswalk may be provided for all other circumstances. c. Barriers such as fences, walls, or vegetation should provide openings to allow safe pedestrian access to abutting sidewalks and neighboring developments. 4. Bicycle Parking. All new development within the Corridor is encouraged to provide bicycle parking facilities. J. Parking and Service Areas r i 1. Minimum and maximum spaces: in accord with the underlying zoning district The maximum number of parking spaces that may be constructed on impervious surfaces shall be no more than 125 percent of the minimum number of required parking spaces. 101 Page nH-WStANCE PL; rNt,�iNG Draft June 2010 Route 522 Corridor Overlay District 2. Location of parking. Parking must be located not closer to the front lot line than the front fagade of the largest principal structure on the lot. Parking areas shall be located to the rear or side of the structure(s) or building(s) they are intended to serve whenever possible. Where parking is designed to be located in the front yard setback of the corridor highway, a three-foot berm or wall shall be utilized with a designated street buffer. Where a wall is used, it shall be placed adjacent to the parking areas and be constructed so as not to impede pedestrian access. 3. All parking areas shall be paved with asphalt, concrete, or pervious materials approved by the Zoning Administrator, 4. Shared parking. For uses located on contiguous but separate sites, the number of required parking spaces may be reduced in accord with the following provisions: a. The uses are located on the same lot or parcel or on contiguous lots or parcels. b. Parking areas of the respective uses are connected by safe and convenient pedestrian access, as well as by automobile access. c. A shared parking agreement is submitted and approved by the zoning administrator. The agreement shall be binding on the current and future property owners as long as the permitted uses remain substantially the same. Any modifications or termination of the agreement is subject to approval of the zoning administrator. d. Reductions in required parking may be approved by the zoning administrator, at the request of the applicant, in accordance with the following calculation provided by the applicant: i. The total number of parking spaces required for each land use is determined in accordance with i' - _ .. - ii. Using the table below, determine the number of spaces needed by each use for each of the four time periods by multiplying the parking required for each use by the corresponding percentage of use for that time period. iii. Calculate the total number of spaces needed for all uses for each time period. iv. The time period with the highest number of parking spaces required for the sum of all uses shall be the number of parking spaces required. Shared Parking Calculations for Contiguous Uses Use Weekday Weekend Daytime (8 AM- 6PM) Evening (6PM — 11 PM) Daytime (8 AM- 6PM) Evening (6PM — 11 PM) Office/Industrial 100% 10% 10% 5% Retail/Personal Services 60% 90% 100% 70% Hotel 75% 100% 75% 100% Multi -family Residential 50% 75% 100% 80% Restaurant 75% 100% 100% 100% Entertainment/Recreational 40% 100% 80% 100% All other uses 100% 100% 100% 100% 111Page ,.E14tI :_Ara:fF14IN�IINC :.,,_ Draft June 2010 Route 522 Corridor Overlay District 5. Service Areas. a. Loading and Service Bays. Loading areas, service entrances and service bays shall be oriented and/or screened so as not to be visible from the public right-of-way. b. Waste Disposal Areas. Dumpster and other waste disposal areas shall be completely screened from the public right-of-way by means of a board -on -board fence and landscaping, or similar opaque material. c. Utilities. Utility lines, such as electric, telephone, cable television or similar lines shall be installed underground, to the extent practicable. This requirement shall apply to lines serving individual sites as well as to utility lines necessary within the project. All junction and access boxes shall be screened. All utility pad fixtures and meters shall be shown on the site plan. The necessity for utility connections, meter boxes, etc., should be recognized and integrated with the architectural elements of the site plan. All underground utilities shall be installed within easements parallel to street rights-of-way or lot lines when possible. d. Outside Storage/Display of Goods. Outside storage or display of goods shall be completely screened from the public right-of-way. Outdoor storage shall include the parking of all company owned and operated vehicles, with the exception of passenger vehicles. e. Fences. Fences exceeding four feet in height shall be located in side and rear yards only. Chain-link fences, including those with slats, are discouraged, particularly where visible from a public right-of-way. No chain-link fences shall be permitted in the front yard in the COD. f. Mechanical Equipment. Mechanical equipment shall be shielded and screened from the public right-of-way and designed to be perceived as an integral part of the building. L. Landscaping and Screening. Street tree and parking lot landscaping as recommended in this section are required in accordance with site plan and zoning permit approval procedures. Existing vegetation may be used to achieve some or all of the requirements of this section, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. All required landscaping must be installed and maintained by the owner of the property as long as the principal structure is in use. 1. Street Trees. At least one street tree per lot, and an average of one street tree for each 75 lineal feet of public right-of-way frontage, located along those frontages, generally evenly spaced, and planted no further than 15 feet from the sidewalk or edge of pavement. 2. Tree Canopy Requirements. Tree planting or preservation must be provided such that a minimum of 10 percent of the site is covered with tree canopy at maturity of 20 years. Trees that are used for meeting the parking lot landscaping requirements may count toward meeting the tree canopy requirements. 3. Native Species. All landscaping and screening shall consist primarily of native species tolerant of local conditions. Where deemed necessary in order to preserve and maintain required landscaping, the 1i• •. i ; , may require that landscaped areas be provided with an irrigation system with a readily available water supply located within 100 feet. 4. Parking Lot Landscaping. At least 5% of the gross area of any parking lot with 10 or more spaces must be comprised of landscaped area containing turf, shrubs and/or trees. Parking areas shall include at least one shade tree per 10 spaces within any one parking area. The shade tree shall be at least four feet tall at planting and eight feet within three years. Tree planting areas within parking lots shall be at least eight feet wide, a minimum of 200 square feet in area, edged with a curb at least six inches in height, and designed to minimize damage to trees by parking or moving vehicles. The remaining area shall be landscaped with plantings (bushes, shrubs, flower beds). 121Page Draft June 2010 Route 522 Corridor Overlay District 5. Perimeter Parking Area Landscaping. Large maturing canopy trees shall line the parking lot; they shall be planted at a maximum of 40 ft. on center. Tree planting strips at perimeter of lots shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width. The remaining area shall be landscaped with plantings (bushes, shrubs, flower beds). Only where preexisting overhead utility lines prevent use of large maturing trees may small maturing trees maximum 30 ft. on center be substituted. 6. Screening of Parking Areas. Parking abutting the public right-of-way should be minimized. Parking and service areas that are visually screened from the public right-of-way by a principal or accessory structure must be screened using evergreen shrubs, hedges and/or berms, which must be at least three feet in height and continuous along the public right-of-way except for site entrances/exits and site distance/visibility purposes. 7. Visibility. In order to preserve drive visibility in all locations where an access way to a parking area, commercial structure, or any other vehicular use area intersects a street or an intersection of two or more streets, landscaping shall not obstruct cross -visibility within ten feet of the intersection at a level between 30 inches and six feet. M. Lighting and Signage by c: 1. Outdoor lighting installations shall be designed to illuminate at the minimum level necessary for safety and security, and to avoid harsh contrasts in lighting levels between the project site and adjacent properties. Outdoor lighting shall be installed in accordance with underlying zoning district as well as the following additional requirements: a. Streetlights i. Streetlights shall be provided on all public streets. ii. Streetlight spacing shall be subject to review and approval by the iii. All streetlighting shall be subject to review and approval by the b. Fixtures. All roadway lighting, streetlights and parking lights shall be the full cutoff type. Pedestrian lights shall be the semi -cutoff, cutoff, or full -cutoff type. c. Lighting shall be designed to prevent light spillover on to adjacent properties. All lighting shall be fully shielded, have recessed luminaries, or be cutoff luminary fixtures mounted in such a manner that the cone of light is directed downward and does not cross any property line of the site. d. Architectural features may be illuminated by up lighting provided that the light is effectively contained by the structure, the lamps are low intensity to produce a subtle lighting effect, and no glare or light trespass is produced. For national flags, statues, public art, or other objects of interest that cannot be illuminated with down -lighting, upward lighting may only be used in the form of two narrow -cone spotlights that confine the illumination to the object of interest. 2. Signs. �_ or.;cal In accordance with underlying zoning district as well as the following additional requirements: a. Prohibited Signs i. Animated ii. Billboard (off premises) iii. Flashing 131Page ,ANNE pt.ANNTNG ;�.� , Draft June 2010 Route 522 Corridor Overlay District iv. Pole/Pylon/Groundmounted/Freedstanding v. Portable vi. Roof vii. Inflatable viii. Vehicle b. Permitted Signs. i. Awning (canopy) ii. Banner (must be securely anchored to building(s), pole(s) or other structural support, but may not be attached to electric, telephone or other utility poles, guys or devices, or within the public right-of-way) iii. Temporary (15 to 30 day maximum; permit renewal allowed) iv. Directional v. Directory vi. Wall (fagade; includes surface mounted letters which may be flush mounted or raised up to six inches) vii. Marquee or Canopy viii. Monument ix. Window (maximum letter height six inches, preferred colors black, white, silver and gold) c. Sign Area. i. Awning (canopy): one square foot per linear foot of awning; maximum 10 square feet per awning. ii. Banner: maximum 24 square feet. iii. Temporary: one sign per frontage abutting a street with a maximum of 12 square feet OR one square foot per five square feet of frontage with a maximum 50 square feet. iv. Directory: One square foot per five linear feet of street frontage, up to a maximum size of 40 square feet; directory signs may be in addition to the area permitted for awning or wall signs on the site. v. Wall (fagade; includes surface mounted letters): One square foot per linear foot of frontage, up to a maximum aggregate of 60 square feet. vi. Monument: maximum size of 18 to 24 square feet. vii. Window: Not to exceed 25 percent of the total window area of all ground floor windows, or 20 square feet total, whichever is less. d. Sign Height. i. Awning (canopy): One line of text, letter height 8 -inches, located on the vertical face of the awning is permitted. ii. Temporary: maximum six feet. iii. Directory: maximum 12 feet. iv. Wall (fagade; includes surface mounted letters): maximum height three feet per linear foot of frontage. 141Page :. r = Draft June 2010 Route 522 Corridor Overlay District v. Monument: maximum 42 to 72 inches in height; maximum letter height 18 inches. vi. Window: maximum letter height six inches. e. Sign Materials. i. Illumination. a. Signs may be illuminated with external lighting fixtures provided that fixtures are directed downward and away from streets and adjacent property. all lighting shall be bully shielded, have recessed luminaries, or be full cut-off luminary fixtures. b. Internally illuminated signs, automatic changeable copy signs, and neon signs are prohibited. V. SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS a n yr, ii,j;, ,.r,3, big. be,, - . jG A. Drive-through windows or kiosks must be provided with sufficient length of stacking lanes so as not to conflict with pedestrian routes or overall vehicular circulation, and must be located at the rear of the principal building served. B. Lighting of Drive -under Canopies and Pump Islands at Fueling Stations. The luminare shall be recessed into the canopy ceiling so that the bottom of the luminaire does not extend below the ceiling. C. Large format retail ("big box"). 10. The following requirements pertain in addition to all other requirements of the COD and the zoning ordinance. 1. Access. a. Entrances to the site must be minimized and placed so as to maximize pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle safety, maximize efficient traffic circulation, and minimize the impact on any adjacent neighborhood. b. Parking aisles leading to customer entrances must be separated by "promenade -style" pedestrian walkways with paved sidewalks, low intensity lighting and landscape strips between the parking and pedestrian sidewalk. c. Paved sidewalks of a minimum of eight (8) feet in width must be provided along facades of buildings with customer entrances or building facades abutting customer parking spaces. V"v" d. When provided outside of the primary building envelope, vending machines, newspaper/magazine stands and similar vending facilities should be within vestibules or in kiosks designed consistent with the primary architecture and constructed using the same finish materials. e. Pedestrian walkways or sidewalks must be distinguished from drive aisles or travelways by distinctive paving and/or landscaped edging. 2. Parking and Loading (in addition to the requirements of and elsewhere in this COD). 151 Page rr b;-,,J�5; ,ROUP Draft June 2010 Route 522 Corridor Overlay District a. Parking must be located behind the front line of the principal building-, no parking is permitted within building setbacks. „1 rirement in Gas-,;.. ;e site. Tha r:. c ` c i . , tx of the struc: b. Loading areas shall be sited so as to minimize the impact on any surrounding neighborhood. c. Loading areas must be screened from view from existing or proposed public rights-of-way by solid fencing and/or dense evergreen planting of at least eight feet in height. d. Deliveries, loading, trash removal or compaction, and other outdoor activities (not including outdoor sales, where permitted) are restricted to the hours of 7:OOAM to 10:OOPM. 3. Impervious surfaces. a. Alternative pavements, such as brick pavers or porous pavement, pervious temporary overflow parking areas, and/or other low impact development techniques for stormwater management are permitted. b. All parking areas must include low impact development techniques such as rain gardens to mitigate stormwater quantity and quality impacts. 4. Fences. a. Fences and walls, except between abutting commercial use or lots, should be at least three (3) feet from lot lines, and be of durable materials that incorporate architectural features from the principal structure on the site. b. Fences should not be considered division fences as reference in §55-317 the Code of Virginia, and shall be constructed and maintained at the sole expense of the owner of the site. c. Fences should be constructed so as not to impede pedestrian progress or access. 5. Design Standards. a. The front elevation of any large format retail structure should have at least one major street - oriented primary entrance and contain the principal windows of the store. b. The structure and site should be oriented to the front street and provide one or more pedestrian entrances from the front street. Additional entrances may also be provided on other sides of the principal structure. The standard architectural designs of regional or national businesses must be modified as needed in order to be compatible with the scale, massing, and design of surrounding buildings. c. Architectural detailing, including fenestration, should be incorporated into all facades visible from a public right of way so as to avoid blank or monotonous fagade surfaces. At least Phis r"-cy iOr Fil;:.' r: of the total surface area of any front facade must consist of transparent window or door openings which allow the interior space to be seen from the ground level in front of the building. 6. All rooftop equipment should be screened from visibility from the public right of way through the use of parapets or other opaque walls constructed of materials complimentary to the exterior walls. 161Pa9e rt r.,>.e;;r,ry c arrJ Ia Draft June 2010 Item 2: Comprehensive Plan Update Staff will be providing an update on the progress of the transportation component of the Comprehensive Plan. We are currently in the process of holding stakeholder meetings with many groups as follows: Inland Port Law Enforcement (state and local) Economic Development Authority Regional Chamber of Commerce Top of Virginia Builders Association Industrial Parks Association Regional Airport Frederick County Schools Frederick County Fire and Rescue Virginia Department of Transportation In addition, GIS staff is in the process of updating the Eastern Road Plan map and a draft is expected to be ready by the date of the Committee meeting. 3 r 7 Item 3: Fox Drive State Route Number Prior to the construction of Route 37, Fox Drive and Apple Pie Ridge Road were connected and shared the State Route number of 739. Even after the construction of Route 37 and associated relocation of Apple Pie Ridge Road, both roadways have continued to share Route number 739. At the request of citizens who have been inconvenienced by this, particularly for their out of town guests, a request was brought to VDOT to look into the renumbering of Fox Drive. This is an administrative change and VDOT has reserved Route number 766 for Fox Drive. rd • C • Item 4: Other