Loading...
TC 11-22-10 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY 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 1�e RE: November 22, 2010 Transportation Committee Meeting DATE: November 15, 2010 The Frederick County Transportation Committee will be meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, November 22, 2010 in the first floor conference room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. AGENDA 1. Comprehensive Plan Update 2. Route 522 Study 3. VDOT Route 37 Work 4. Rural Long Range Transportation Plan 5. Other Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting. Attachments = 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • • C: Item 1: Comprehensive Plan Update This is a carryover item from the last meeting. Attached please find the updated draft, including maps for your review and comment. Staff is seeking an action on this draft before forwarding as final to the Comp. Plan Committee. TRANSPORTATION CURRENT CONDITIONS Frederick County has grown significantly in the past two decades in both population and economic development, placing a significant demand upon the Frederick County transportation system. Current County policy follows State Code guidance to ensure that new development shall offset its impacts to the transportation system. While the Board of Supervisors worked to make sure that proffers offset impacts at the time of rezoning, a significant portion of congested roadways in the County can be linked to by -right development that does not offset its transportation impacts since it is not required by Virginia State Code. This has had the greatest impact upon Interstate 81 and the primary highways in the County. Primary Highways include Routes 37, 522, 50, 7, 277 and 11. Based upon the most recent Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) data available (2007), Frederick County has 1663 lane miles of roadway that are part of the state system. As of 2008, VDOT estimates that vehicles traveled 2,966,846 per day on Frederick County roadways. This is a 213% increase since 1990. The vast majority of this travel is focused upon the Interstate and Primary system. The County makes use of an Urban Development Area (UDA), the purpose of which is to centralize most urban growth within its boundary. In addition, the County has recently taken additional steps to incentivize growth within the UDA by adopting transfer of development rights (TDR) which allows by right residential development to be sold by landowners outside the UDA to landowners inside the UDA. Ultimately, these policies increase traffic in the UDA area, but this is still a net financial benefit to the County. The reason for this is that this allows the County and State to focus roadway improvements within the UDA as opposed to having to expand roadways throughout the entire county. The Eastern Road Plan is the guide to roadway development/improvements in and around the UDA area. Improvements in the more rural western portion of the County are limited to safety and maintenance as opposed to creating additional capacity. The possible exception to this would be areas where the Comprehensive Plan proposes the development of rural community centers. As of the year 2000 census, the Frederick County, Winchester, and Stephens City area reached the population trigger that led to the federally required creation of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). In Frederick County, the MPO boundary is concentrated around the development in the eastern section, and along Route 11 to West Virginia in the North and to Stephens City in the South. The MPO is staffed by the Northern Shenandoah Valley Planning District Commission and is responsible for creating a long range transportation plan that meets air quality standards. The most recent adopted long range plan is the 2030 plan, which is FREDERICK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 9/13/2010 Draft 1 TRANSPORTATION available through the regional commission. The 2035 plan is in development concurrently with this document. Recent funding of transportation improvements in Frederick County has largely been accomplished through development proffers and the VDOT revenue sharing program. Whenever possible, the County uses public private partnerships to make improvements. The County is also active in the areas of rail access funding and for economic development road access funding. The State's role in transportation funding has been declining and has now reached the point where some federal funds are being used for maintenance and very little new construction is taking place. The State has been actively encouraging localities to take on maintenance of their road systems. It is Frederick County's policy that public roadway construction is the responsibility of the State and Federal government. How the County, State, and Federal governments work together to create a long term funding policy for transportation will have far reaching impacts on transportation in Frederick County. AGENCIES/COMMITTEES INVOLVED The Frederick County Transportation Committee (TC) is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to review issues in the County including transportation planning, safety, and regional coordination. When the TC reviews an item, they take action on whether to recommend or not recommend approval to the Board. As staff and the TC work on these items, there are a number of agencies with whom they regularly engage as follows: • Virginia Department of Transportation • Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transit • Federal Highway Administration • WinFred MPO • Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission In addition to the agencies, the TC often works with the following groups on different special projects. • Frederick County Sheriff's Department • Virginia State Police (Kernstown barracks) • Frederick County Fire and Rescue • Frederick County Public Schools • Winchester Frederick Economic Development Commission FREDERICK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 9/13/2010 Draft 2 TRANSPORTATION FREDERICK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 9/13/2010 Draft 3 IJ 4 � Proposedlnterchanges Y � EasternRdPlanUpdate '1- UnCataUoraea .•:-i: cotogory /t `— np_m_ii rdtafial h Interstate 81 'ewe it x.1`-t_I✓'i, 4'CU DRAFT Eastern Road Plan Update - DRAFT J . -.- J -"m es FREDERICK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 9/13/2010 Draft 3 TRANSPORTATION FOCUS/DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE In the next twenty to thirty years, it is expected that a number of key transportation milestones will be reached. The question of how road construction will be funded long term will need to be resolved. This will allow significant transportation system improvements to move forward. Most critical is the completion of Route 37 East. This roadway is needed for both residential and economic development traffic and was noted in virtually every stakeholder meeting that was held in the development of this plan. The County will encourage the integration of complete streets principles into transportation practices. These principles aim to balance the diverse needs of all users of the public right-of- way and promote an integrated, multi -modal transportation system for automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, and transit. Complete street policies will benefit Frederick County as they address important safety, health, and environmental considerations, target special populations, and promote growth and revitalization within the community. It is expected that transit could begin to play a larger role in Frederick County transportation. This would begin with on demand services for the elderly and disabled and potentially develop into a more traditional fixed route system. As densities increase in the UDA and citizen preferences continue to shift, it is expected that bicycle and pedestrian accommodations will continue to increase in importance. The Frederick County School system has recently opened its first elementary school (Greenwood Mill Elementary) with a walk zone, and they plan to continue to try and promote this type of school. The complete streets policy will also help to move these goals forward. Finally, with the growth potential of the Virginia Inland Port in Warren County, Frederick County can expect a continuing increase in freight movement via rail and roadways. The development of the County's transportation infrastructure should continue to address transportation improvements that will further the economic growth of the community. This would also include fulfilling the potential of the Winchester Regional Airport. FREDERICK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 9/13/2010 Draft 4 TRANSPORTATION Community Benefits The benefits to the community of a healthy transportation system are immeasurable. An efficient transportation system leads to communities that are less stressed, healthier, less polluted, safer, and more attractive to economic development opportunities and new residents. A policy that creates an interconnected system of bicycle and pedestrian facilities will lead to a healthier and fitter community, as well as increased home values. Removal of cars from the roadway would lead to reduced congestion and reduced air pollution. The transportation system is always a key consideration for business locations. An efficient transportation system will make the County more attractive to new businesses and will also keep existing businesses from looking to locate elsewhere. In addition, continued focus in intermodal opportunities (the transfer of goods between different transportation modes such as truck to rail or air) in the area will make the County more attractive to businesses looking to take advantage of rail sidings or locations near the airport. The County's willingness to support both road and rail access funding has already led to increased economic development interest. The result is more jobs for County citizens, as well as a more valuable tax base. POLICIES/IMPLEMENTATION As residential and commercial development continues, increasing demands will be placed upon the County's transportation infrastructure. Challenges will continue to be placed on the County by users of 1-81 and commuters through the area. Transportation demands need to be addressed while protecting and promoting the goals of the Comprehensive Plan as a whole. This will include the uses of tools such as context sensitive design and planning/locating roadways with consideration of future planned land uses and types. The role of Frederick County is to first plan the transportation system and then work with new and existing development to preserve corridor rights of way and implement construction. It is the role of the State and Federal government along, with development, to fund transportation improvements FREDERICK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 9/13/2010 Draft 5 TRANSPORTATION POLICY: The County will work to craft and adopt a complete streets policy to guide the development of new roadways and the redevelopment of existing roadways in a manner that makes them open, available, and safe to all modes of transportation. IMPLEMENTATION: • Match desired form of development to roadway classification to simplify the determination of which roadways receive which treatment; that is, different types of streets for different land uses. • Support State efforts to implement complete streets policies and advance local implementation of complete streets policies. • Work with new development and redevelopment to implement the complete streets policy and transportation plan. This may require analysis and modification of the existing subdivision ordinance. • Work cooperatively with the schools division to identify school locations that meet both school and County goals of public access and safe walkability. o Support schools in the search for funding to enhance walkability around existing schools, particularly Greenwood Mill and Bass Hoover. o Include local stakeholder groups in order to determine how best to meet their needs and find compromises where differences of opinion exist. • Seek outside funding sources to fill in gaps in order to attach separate segments and create a fully interconnected system. POLICY: Implement the roadway priorities of the County, principally the Eastern Road Plan, and particularly Route 37 east. IMPLEMENTATION: • Work with new development and redevelopment to implement the Eastern Road Plan through construction and preservation of right-of-ways. • Continue to work closely with VDOT, State and Federal Representatives, and any other available funding source to increase funding to transportation. FREDERICK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 9/13/2010 Draft 6 TRANSPORTATION • In the absence of outside funding, continue to protect right-of-ways and move planning forward on transportation priorities. • Coordinate with the Virginia Department of Transportation to make sure the required percentage of maintenance funds to be spent on other accommodations is used on County priorities. • Maintain the character of the rural roadways in the County while addressing safety issues as they may arise. POLICY: Improve upon existing transportation safety and service levels in the County. IMPLEMENTATION: • Coordinate with VDOT in the scoping and reviews of Traffic Impact Analyses. • Analyze VDOT Access Management standards and adopt County standards that are stronger when needed. o Determine where the County may need to adopt standards in order to have a say in VDOT waivers. o Seek outside funds to install retrofits to existing corridors where they can be equitably applied. • Investigate the creation of a facility standards manual. • Work with new development and redevelopment to ensure that the trip generation and new movements do not degrade the transportation system, increase delays, or reduce service levels. • Coordinate with VDOT, Local and State law enforcement, and the schools division, to identify and address areas of safety concern. The planning staff and Transportation Committee would be appropriate bodies for this coordination. o Work with VDOT to analyze the potential signalization of the entrance to Gainesboro Elementary. o Seek outside funding sources to provide safe crossings of Route 7 and Route 277 i:. the vicinities of Millwood High "School ant -14 Sher ando High School. • Work with State officials to bring another General District Court Judge to the area as previously approved. This would significantly reduce the amount of overtime currently paid, as well as make for more efficient use of officer's time. FREDERICK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 9/13/2010 Draft 7 TRANSPORTATION • Work with State officials to increase support of the Sheriff's office. • Work with State officials to increase support of the State Police Kernstown Barracks. In spite of significant local growth, this barracks has not had an increase in troopers in more than a decade. POLICY: Find ways to implement transportation needs while keeping the cost of industrial property competitive. Work to enhance use of intermodal freight movement wherever possible. IMPLEMENTATION: • Create a working group comprised of members from interest groups, staff, and the Transportation Committee to review the forms of proffers and develop a preferred approach for developing transportation proffers that will best aid the competitiveness of local industrial sites, while ensuring the needed transportation improvements are put in place. • Coordinate with local business to maximize the use of Economic Development Road Access funding as well as Rail Access funding. • Actively work with rail carriers through the Economic Development Commission and Industrial Parks Association to maximize the amount of material that is shipped in to and out of Frederick County via rail. • Perform a study to discern where opportunities to bring air freight into the regional airport may be available. • Work to incentivize and maximize on opportunities presented by expandability of the Virginia Inland Port. • Make use of revenue sharing funds for development of industrial property when the Board of Supervisors determines that it is in the best interest of Frederick County. • Incorporate the Airport Master Plan into County planning efforts. FREDERICK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 9/13/2010 Draft 8 TRANSPORTATION POLICY: Improve the beauty of transportation corridors at the County gateways and along commercial roadways. IMPLEMENTATION: • Work with VDOT to create roadway design plans that meet standards while beautifying local gateways and commercial corridors. • Through the Transportation Committee, create a plan for, and actively promote, corridor beautification. • Work with Shenandoah University to create a more attractive County entrance to the university. POLICY: Ensure safe operation of fire and rescue vehicles and school buses. IMPLEMENTATION: • Investigate the existence and potential removal of barriers between neighborhoods that lead to delays in response, particularly for the Greenwood and Millwood Companies. • Promote the adoption of a uniform locking technology acceptable to the Fire and Rescue Department for use on gated and locked emergency access points. • Analyze driving, road, and parking standards and continue to actively seek Fire and Rescue Department input for driveways and roads to ensure that all approved developments are accessible by fire equipment. • Review parking standards, particularly in townhome developments, to ensure that they realistically allow access for fire equipment. POLICY: Provide cost effective alternatives to automobile travel as needed, for the elderly, disabled, and work force. IMPLEMENTATION: • Coordinate with existing agencies, such as Shenandoah Area Agency on Aging and Access Independence, to secure outside funds to enhance service to the elderly and disabled in the community. FREDERICK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 9/13/2010 Draft 9 TRANSPORTATION • Make use of MPO resources to identify areas of most critical need. • Monitor existing data source updates to determine areas of growing need. SUPPORTING MATERIALS/RESOURCES Airport Master Plan Complete Streets Guidebook MPO 2030 Transportation Plan Frederick County Annual Road Plans (Primary, Secondary, and Interstate) FREDERICK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 9/13/2010 Draft 10 I ! 1 1 I � 1 ir .�rr _� ....... • r i 1 Planning & Development yi 1 1 Y Winchester, VA 22601 i 540 - 665 - 5651 �i �J r I ! 1 1 I � 1 ir .�rr _� ....... • { f; ♦ •+�` its • ' ": </. � �..pY.. z. ♦1 00 �• • r ww, •�.R��' l4,T ••,r...r DRAFT - Eastern Road Plan Update - DRAFT 0 i 2 4 Miles Eastern Road Plan Update New Major Arterial Improved Major Arterial New Minor Arterial Improved Minor Arterial . New Major Collector ON.o Improved Major Collector ' %,- New Minor Collector O- .► Improved Minor Collector ONi Ramp Trails OProposed Interchanges Urban Development Area C Sewer and Water Service Area " Future Rt 37 Bypass `->p Interstate 81 Note: r Frederick County Dept of L. Planning & Development yi 1 i Winchester, VA 22601 i 540 - 665 - 5651 �i .Y/ { f; ♦ •+�` its • ' ": </. � �..pY.. z. ♦1 00 �• • r ww, •�.R��' l4,T ••,r...r DRAFT - Eastern Road Plan Update - DRAFT 0 i 2 4 Miles Eastern Road Plan Update New Major Arterial Improved Major Arterial New Minor Arterial Improved Minor Arterial . New Major Collector ON.o Improved Major Collector ' %,- New Minor Collector O- .► Improved Minor Collector ONi Ramp Trails OProposed Interchanges Urban Development Area C Sewer and Water Service Area " Future Rt 37 Bypass `->p Interstate 81 Note: Map Created: Nov 15, 2010 Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development 107 N Kent St Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601 540 - 665 - 5651 I r� N- Y { \ A I' J t ,t =. I +I �I 1�a _ Pyo/ �,-t.. so -- IT t - 50 f so i 52237 (� t Eastern Road Plan Cross Sections' 1 ,'r ^�� R4D IM U2 U6D �� �.• O Proposed Interchanges Urban Development Area Sewer and Water Service Area .� 277 \�'"`�. Future Rt 37 Bypass ' Interstate 81 Note: Map Created: Nov 15, 2010 DRAFT - Eastern Road Plan Update - DRAFT Frederick & Developmty ent nt p Planning &Development 107 N Kent St 0 1 2 4 Miles site 202 Winchester, VA 22601 540 - 665 - 5651 %1 • • C: Item 2: Route 522 Study As noted last month, staff forwarded a number of comments on the Route 522 South draft study. Those comments and communications between the regional commission and the consultant have been included. To date, staff has not received an updated draft that addresses these County comments. 3 John Bishop From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments EMEMMIMM Karen Taylor [kitaylor@shentel.net] Monday, November 01, 2010 10:58 AM John Bishop FW: 522 Draft Report Logo.dat Frorn. Ka.L-- --+n Taylor r, r - -i Sent, Vied-7.--rl To: 'John Subject: P,0,7: braft pepni Hey John - can you give me an update on your end regarding the 522 Study? I would like to schedule a public input meeting at the beginning of December but wanted to get blessing from Fred. Co. Transp. Committee. Below is the link to the Study with a note from Jon. Just let me know. Thanks, Karen From: jr, 13.corn k' --p-C—n'; Sent: 'T`. ,.,Vber. ;_5.. 2() V) 4:59 PM To: kki� v i i Le I . ner. Cc: jrna-,;inick ®ryrnbdkcrc--,)rp.rom Subject: :522 L)raft ==W = imasinick@mbakercorp.com has sent you attachments using Baker eFTP Hi Karen, I just got back to the office and saw your messages. I am uploading the draft report. It has not addressed the comments from John Bishop (on 9/14/2010) or the MPO Policy Board Message meeting (on 9/15/2010). Please forward any comments from the NSVRC commissioners to us as Text: well so they can also be incorporated. Thanks. Jon To retrieve these attachments, click on the secure link below. https://eftp.mbakercorp.com?wtcQID=Vk5aQU9KTOIPUiol SiNKS2JNMQ== Access to this information will expire on 11/2/2010 12:00:00 AM Legal Disclaimer: This website is intended solely for use by the Michael Baker Corporation, its affiliates, clients, subcontractors, and other designated parties. All information utilized on this website is for designated recipients only. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of this material by any individual other than the said designated recipients is strictly prohibited. The Michael Baker Corporation, its affiliates and employees, makes no representation or warranty (express or implied) as to the merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose of any documents or information available from this website and therefore assumes neither legal liability nor responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, technical/ scientific quality or usefulness of said documents or information John Bishop From: John Bishop Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 11:47 AM To: 'Karen Taylor' Cc: John Bishop Subject: RE: Draft - Route 522 Corridor Study 09-13-2010 Comments Attachments: image001.gif Thanks Karen; I know it's not your fault that we didn't get this till yesterday afternoon, but it made me have to rush a bit to make sure my comments got out before tomorrow's Policy Committee meeting, so I reserve the right to make additions. 1. Page 2-3 and associated graphic on page 4. The future intersection of Tevis and 522 was supposed to be added. 2. Page 5 technically the portion of 522 that is minor arterial is where it heads south from the intersection with 50. Millwood Pike is a principle arterial per VDOT classification. 3. Page 7, paragraph 1 says Frederick road when I think it means to say Frederick County 4. Figures 2.3,2.4,2.5,2.6, would be improved by road/intersection labels. Same for 3.6,3.7,3.8,3.9,3.10 5. The roadway levels of service shown on page 20 may be confusing to some. They will wonder why the intersections have marginal or poor levels of service when the corridor is good. Perhaps some discussion of the differences between measurement of corridor and intersection levels of service would be useful. 6. Page 23 notes that pedestrian facilities are 'lacking in the more rural sections of the study area'. This wording indicates a deficiency when, in truth, you don't really need dedicated pedestrian facilities in the rural areas. Multiuse paths or something of the sort would be desirable. 7. Page 24 notes the lack of bicycle facilities along 522. Frederick County's comprehensive plan and the MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Study call for bicycle facilities in this area so while it's clear that there aren't any there now, it's important to know that we are planning for it and as properties develop (such as the walmart coming to the intersection of Tasker and 522) the plan is being implemented. 8. Freight section does a good job of pointing out that 522 has significant truck percentages due to commercial/industrial and the inland port, not to mention the potential for cut through and scale avoiding traffic. Combine this with the potential for even further increase via expandability of the inland port and new development as allowed in local comprehensive plans and a case can be made that removal of the signage on Route 7 and Route 340 in Clarke County that directs inland port traffic to take Route 7 to 1-81 would create a positive impact on Route 7, 1-81, and Route 277 in Frederick County. This would allow vehicles that are currently being directed away from Route 340 to use 340 and thus remove them from the above noted congested roadways. I know the report states that inland port is not a huge overall percentage of the trucks on 522 is does account for as much as 'several hundred truck trips per day'. When you consider that a decent percentage of these may be using 7,1-81, and 277 and improvement could be made to those roadways by allowing those trucks to use 340. 9. On page 29, 1 know the access management regulations state 1,760 feet, but just say 1/3 mile. Makes more sense to people. 10. Also on page 29, before noting a safety issue such as puddling or poor drainage, please verify with VDOT. I expect Jerry would be able to confirm or refute this. 11. Page 32, Frederick County has one Urban Development Area and one Sewer and Water Service Area. Reword from the plural language. 12. Page 36, bullet 4 discusses the Tevis street connection and bridge into Winchester as a revenue sharing project. A portion of this improvement is revenue sharing, but the bridge, connection to airport road, and connection to the south are funded via a community development authority (CDA) which is known as the Russell 150 CDA. Only the connection heading northeast from Russell 150 to the intersection with 522 is revenue sharing. 13. Future conditions section which starts on page 37 still does not include the Tevis intersection with 522. This was among our primary issues with the first draft and its exclusion throws the results for the Airport Rd/522 intersection into question. 14. Page 47, the potential inland port in martinsburg would not relieve pressure on the Virginia inland port. They are separate operations under separate ownerships. 15. Page 48, the county comprehensive plan already calls for the 6 laning that is being recommended. Worth noting. 16. Regarding the design principles I would just reiterate what has been previously communicated. a. Members of our Transportation Committee and Board of Supervisors feel that a number of the design recommendations are not realistic. They have particular concern over the median plantings. Members of the Board of Supervisors feel that some of the language is vague and it is difficult to determine if a suggestion is being made for 522 itself or a connecting street. Depending upon which is being referred to, their opinions may vary. Thanks ,John John A. Bishop, AICP Deputy Director - Transportation Frederick County Planning & Development 107 North Kent St, Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601 Ph: 540-665-5651 F: 540-665-6395 Jbishop@co.frederick.va.us From: Karen Taylor [mailto:kltaylor@shentel.net] Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 4:51 PM To: John Bishop; Eric Lawrence; Kris Tierney; Patrick Barker; 'Tom Hoy'; 'Perry Eisenach'; 'Tim Youmans'; 'Jim Deskins'; 'Renee Wells'; 'Jerry Copp'; 'Short, Terry'; okvmanuel@comcast.net; 'Pollock, Kenneth (DRPT)'; 'Brian Henshaw' Cc: 'Karen Taylor' Subject: Draft - Route 522 Corridor Study 09-13-2010 Below is the link for the Draft Route 522 Corridor Study. Please review and let me know as soon as possible any comments you may have. Baker will be presenting the draft to the Policy Board this Wednesday. Thanks, Karen From: 21TIi��1[tl .I :S)rrytJak 'f frr�l,r;'i. i 1 jrai ,ittu 'I'tici ,In,r'i.'` fra��'r i�r' €',•rp.Cblrtl] Sent: 1-1'indaty `, l �rriber 13, 2101LJ : ,3 PM • • C: Item 3: VDOT Route 37 Work On October 21, 2010, staff and members of the Committee met with VDOT staff from the Staunton office. VDOT outlined for the Committee what had been accomplished thus far in their work on Route 37. This included completion of the aerial survey, inclusion of County alignment work, and planning for the next phase of work. VDOT is now proposing to move forward with the conceptual alignment work. Attached please find the summary of what this work should accomplish, but also making clear what it does not. Staff would note that, for the most part, items noted in the list of what the plans are not are typically not completed until much nearer to the actual construction of a facility. VDOT is also seeking guidance from the County regarding the next phase of work on Route 37. Please note attached scope of work. M AGENDA MEETING TO DISCUSS SCOPE OF STUDY FREDERICK COUNTY - ROUTE 37 EASTERN BYPASS Date: October 21, 2010 A. Scope of Study 1. Background 2. Purpose and Structure of Study 3. Study Phases a. Phase 1 —Survey b. Phase 2 — Conceptual Roadway Alignment c. Phase 3 — Traffic Forecasts and Analysis 4. Funding 5. Schedule and Status a. Phase 1 - Complete b. Phase 2 - Complete Summer 2011 c. Phase 3 — Future (depending on funding) B. Discussion of Phase 2 1. Route 2. Roadway Design 3. Interchange Design C. Example Conceptual Alignment Plans 1. Typical Roadway Section 2. Plans 3. Drainage and Stormwater Management 4. Right of Way 5. Profile D. Schedule 1. Begin - October 2010 2. Complete — Summer 2011 3. Sequence ROUTE 37 EASTERN BYPASS CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT STUDY WHAT THE CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT PLANS ARE: 1. The roadway alignment plans will tie down the horizontal alignment of the proposed Route 37 Bypass in conformance with the County adopted "Corridor C" (with modifications) as defined in the approved EIS completed in 1999. 2. The most current County transportation plan will be used to develop proposed roadway at existing road crossings and interchanges. 3. Sufficient ground survey and monument work has been done to tie the alignment to appropriate local and VDOT datum. 4. The alignment will take into account the right of way already proffered or otherwise reserved for the roadway by developers or other entities. 5. The roadway will be designed to meet current VDOT and Federal Standards for a Rural Principal Arterial Freeway. 6. The alignment plans will show horizontal and vertical alignment, limits of construction, and right of way to accommodate the alignment. 7. Major drainage structures will be shown only in locations which might affect vertical alignment. Potential sites for stormwater management facilities will be identified but not sized. 8. Interchange layout will be based on a spread diamond configuration except at interchanges where such a configuration is impractical or inadequate. The Route 37/I-81 interchange will be a full cloverleaf with CD lanes in accordance with the approved 1998 1-81 improvement study. 9. The alignment plans will be suitable for use by Frederick County to use for its planning purposes and for discussions and negotiations with other public and private entities regarding the location and width of the proposed facility. WHAT THE CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT PLANS ARE NOT: 1. No funds for design, right of way, or construction have been allocated by VDOT for the proposed Route 37 Eastern Bypass. Accordingly, the conceptual alignment study is not part of a VDOT authorized construction project and the concept plans prepared by VDOT and its consultants do not meet any VDOT policies or procedures required of such funded projects. The plans are not to be considered preliminary design plans, are not suitable for the procurements of right of way, and must not be used for construction. 2. No federal or state environmental approvals or clearances are part of this study. In the future, such approvals (to possibly include a Location Study and/or re-evaluation of the EIS/ROD) would be necessary should State or Federal monies be used for Right of Way or for Construction. 3. Topographic features shown on the plans are taken from aerial photographic methods and have not been field verified. 4. Existing overhead and underground utilities are not shown on the plans and no attempt has been made to address utility relocation work that may be required. 5. Property information including property lines and owners were taken from Frederick County tax map GIS layouts and information, have not been field verified, not suitable for right of way purchase or transfer, and are provided for information only. 6. The conceptual alignment study will not include any traffic forecasts or analysis or modeling of interchanges. Such analyses will be part of the Phase 3 portion of the overall Study. 2 John Bishop From: Warren, Pete, P.E. [Pete.Warren@VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 9:56 AM To: John Bishop Cc: Dana, Matthew, PE; Alexander, Scott; Gallagher, Robert Subject: Route 37 Eastern Bypass Study, UPC 85972 Attachments: SCOPE OF STUDY-11-10.doc John - It was a pleasure meeting with you and the other Board members to discuss this project and we appreciate your time. Based on our discussion, I have modified the "Scope of Study" to more clearly define critical study elements we discussed at our meeting. The main point of clarification is the issue of the right of way that will be defined in the plans prepared and presented to the County in July. As we discussed, the plans will be suitable for use by Frederick County to use for its planning purposes and for discussion and negotiations with other public and private entities regarding the location and width of the proposed roadway. Based on these conceptual plans, developers and their engineers can locate with certainty the centerline of the roadway, vertical and horizontal alignment of the centerline, and the boundaries of the RAN needed to construct and maintain the roadway. While the plans by themselves are not suitable for actual property transfer requiring a plat prepared by a Licensed Surveyor, they will serve as the basis on which to prepare such plats. From the plans, a surveyor can located the needed RW and show such boundaries on the needed property plats and development plats which can then be used for purposes of proffers and actual transference of property. Please find attached the revised "Scope of Study" with revision date of 11/10/10. We would like to receive from the County your concurrence to the revised scope since this will serve as the direction the Phase II portion of the study will take. This is not to say that we can't change the scope at any time, based on the County's needs and desires, but merely that we are all in agreement at this point. Thanks again for all your help and we all look forward to working with the County on this study. Pete Warren, P. E. Asst. Staunton L&D Engineer -Design 540-332-9575 From: Warren, Pete, P.E.[mailto:Pete.Warren@VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 4:24 PM To: John Bishop Cc: Dana, Matthew, PE; Carter, Edwin; Alexander, Scott; Gallagher, Robert; Kiser, Randy, PE Subject: Route 37 Eastern Bypass Study, UPC 85972 John - I want to update you on the status of the Route 37 Study and to request a meeting to gain the County's approval of the scope of work and the direction and schedule for completion of the Study. Please find attached a Scope of Study document outlining the overall scope of the project breaking down the work into three phases. The first phase involving the survey, aerial photography and mapping work has been completed. We are now at the beginning stages of the Phase II work involving the roadway alignment and design. The third phase involving traffic forecasting and analysis will follow. The extent of the Phase III work will be dependant on available funding. We have our on-call consultant, Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson (JMT), on board and developing final details to a plan to complete the Phase II roadway alignment and design. Before finalizing our plan, we would like to meet with the County to discuss the Scope of Study, the proposed schedule, and to make sure the elements of the work being proposed meet the County's expectations. We would like to come to Winchester on the 21 St or 28th to discuss the study and your needs. One of our own needs is to get as much information as possible on existing and proposed developments that have already proffered or otherwise dedicated to the County right of way for the proposed roadway. This would include whatever mapping and plats exist that we could use to route the roadway. Thank you and I look forward to seeing you again later this month. Pete Warren, P.E. Asst. Staunton L&D Engineer -Design 540-332-9575 <<SCOPE OF STUDY-08-10-JMT.doc>> <<Scanned Map.JPG>> SCOPE OF STUDY FREDERICK COUNTY - ROUTE 37 EASTERN BYPASS PROJECT NO: 0037-034-707, UPC 85972 February 13, 2008 Latest Revision: 11/10/10 A. BACKGROUND 1. In 1991, VDOT and Frederick County entered into an agreement under which the County agreed to develop a corridor evaluation, environmental documentation, functional design, and public participation of a project to plan for a 4 -lane, limited access rural freeway bypass east of the City of Winchester. The project extends from the southern connection of Route 37 western by-pass with Interstate 81 and proceeds northward and then westward for approximately 15 miles to a terminus tie-in to existing Route 37 at a point west of I-81. The Environmental Impact Statement was completed in 1999. The routing of the proposed roadway selected through the EIS process was "Corridor C" as described in the approved EIS. 2. As part of the EIS, preliminary plans showing the routing and impact of the roadway were prepared by Maguire Associates titled "Route 37 Interstate Access Study" dated October 1992. The plans show the horizontal and vertical alignment of the roadway, the layout of various interchanges, and the approximate location of right-of-way needed to construct the roadway and appurtenances. The roadway centerline was not tied to ground references or the State grid since the design was based on aerial mapping only. 3. The County and local developers have been using the Maguire plans as a tool to plan developments and transportation improvements since the nineties. Since the alignment of the Maguire plans is not tied to current ground control datum, it is not possible to incorporate the design into detailed site plans for commercial, industrial and residential development site plans. B. PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF STUDY 1. The purpose of this Study is to provide Frederick County with the preliminary layout and mapping information necessary to allow the County to provide developers the information they need to plan and design industrial, commercial and residential developments in Frederick County in the area of the proposed Route 37 Eastern Bypass corridor. 2. The Study has been divided into three parts. Phase 1 is the ground survey and mapping. Phase 2 is the development of plans showing the horizontal and vertical conceptual alignment along with needed right of way. Phase 3 is the projection of traffic forecasts within the study limits and at proposed interchanges. C. PHASE 1— SURVEY AND MAPPING 1. The survey was coordinated with the methods that the County of Frederick used to map the Corridor for GIS applications; matched how Maguire Associates prepared their October, 1992 corridor study; and what mapping was completed by VDOT for the Environmental Impact Statement and Public hearing for the corridor study. 2. The survey was based on NAD 83, North American Datum 1983, and NAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988 and localized to VDOT coordinates. 3. Concrete monument pairs were set near the locations where the planned corridor crosses I-81, Route 11 Martinsburg Pike, Route 657, US Route 522, Route 645, Route 655, US Route 50, State Route 7, Route 660, State Route 37,and Route 622 using GPS methods. 4. DTM and topographic mapping dated August 27, 2009 meets Commonwealth of Virginia Standard for Class I mapping accuracy. 5. Features on the topographic mapping are not field verified or identified. 6. No utility location work is included in the mapping. 7. Digital data follows the standards outlined in the VDOT Survey and CADD Manuals to support preliminary engineering. 8. Property data shown on the conceptual plans is based on Frederick County tax map GIS layout of property lines and the database of tax record ownerships. There was no ground verification or survey work done regarding properties or property boundaries. This information is shown on the plans only for design purposes when locating the centerline of the roadway and for informational purposes. The property information gathered and shown on the plans is not suitable for procurement of right of way or easements. To proceed to the next step of preparing property plats or development plats would require the services of a Licensed Surveyor. D. PHASE 2 — CONCEPTUAL ROADWAY ALIGNMENT In general, the location of Corridor "C" will be used to establish the roadway centerline. The exception is an approximately 1.4 mile deviation beginning approximately 0.5 miles north of the Route 7 Interchange and rejoining `'Corridor C" approximately 1.0 mile east of the proposed I-81 interchange. In those locations where a developer has already proffered right of way to the County for Route 37 or has reserved it, (which may include Crosspointe, Senseny Village, Haggerty Track, Carroll Industrial Park, Rutherford Farms, Glendobbin Stonewall Industrial Park, etc.) the proffered or reserved R/W shall be used. If a site plan has already been approved, the R/W contained in the approved site plan will also be given primacy. In any event, if there is R/W that is already proffered/reserved/approved, that location/route will have primacy. N 2. Conceptual Roadway Alignment a. The purpose of this Phase is to establish the centerline alignment of the roadway. The plans will tie down the horizontal and vertical alignment of the proposed roadway for purposes of establishing and defining the right of way needed to construct the facility. b. The centerline will be based on the 1992 "Functional Design" corridor study plans, but improved: 1) where development has encroached on the original alignment; 2) as needed to meet current standards; or 3) to accommodate existing R/W that has been proffered as described in paragraph 1 above. c. The conceptual roadway alignment will meet current geometric design standards for a Rural Principal Arterial Freeway (GS -1) for rolling terrain, 70 MPH design speed. d. A typical roadway section will be established based on current GS -1 design standards. The centerline will be established based on current geometric design standards for horizontal and vertical alignment. A conceptual horizontal and vertical alignment will be established from which limits of construction can be established. e. Plans will be prepared showing the horizontal and vertical alignment, the limits of construction, and the location of the R/W needed to construct and maintain the roadway and appurtenances. f. The plans will show preliminary -sized drainage structures where a proposed structure would affect vertical grade. g. The plans will show possible locations for stormwater management facilities but the facilities shown will not be based on final size, shape, or location. h. Interchanges (1) At each proposed interchange, an evaluation/analysis will be made to size the bridge to the extent that the elevations of the bridge(s) can be established. The roadway classification shown on the current Win -Fred MPO plan will be used to determine the typical cross section of the crossing road. Standard VDOT clearances shall be used. Conservative assumptions will be made regarding the space needed to accommodate traffic on the roadway crossed while maintaining appropriate levels of service to the interchange. (2) A spread diamond interchange configuration will be used where possible. This configuration offers the advantages of safety, cost-effectiveness, and simplicity of operations. (3) The proposed I-81/37 interchange will be laid out using the design shown in the November 1998 "I-81 Interstate Improvement Study" located at Mile Post 319. This design incorporates collector distributor (Cl)) lanes on both 1-81 and Route 37 along with a full clover leaf interchange. (4) At the connection with existing Route 37 west of I-81, a fully direction interchange will be used. While the conceptual alignment plans are suitable to define the right of way needed to build and maintain the proposed roadway, additional ground survey work, including the preparation of property plats prepared by a Licensed Surveyor, is needed to actually define and convey the needed real estate. 3 j. No funds for design, right of way, or construction have been allocated by VDOT for the proposed Route 37 Eastern Bypass. Accordingly, the conceptual alignment study is not part of a VDOT authorized construction project and the concept plans prepared by VDOT and its consultants do not meet any VDOT policies or procedures required of such funded projects. The plans are not to be considered preliminary design plans, are not suitable for the procurement of right of way, and must not be used for construction. k. No Federal or State environmental approvals or clearances are part of this study. In the future, such approvals (to possibly include a Location Study and/or re- evaluation of the EIS/ROD) would be necessary should State or Federal monies be used for Right of Way or for Construction. 1. Property information including property lines and owners were taken from Frederick County tax map GIS layouts and information, have not been field verified, are not suitable for right of way purchase or transfer, and are provided for information only. in. The conceptual alignment study will not include any traffic forecasts or analysis or modeling of interchanges. Such analyses will be part of the Phase 3 portion of the overall Study. n. The conceptual alignment plans will be suitable for Frederick County to use in its planning processes and for discussions and negotiations with others public and private entities regarding the location and width of the proposed facility. o. The alignment plans will be suitable for use by Frederick County to use for its planning purposes and for discussions and negotiations with other public and private entities regarding the location and width of the proposed roadway facility. Based on these conceptual plans, developers and their engineers can locate with certainty the centerline of the proposed roadway, the vertical and horizontal alignment of the centerline, and the boundaries of the right of way needed to construct and maintain the roadway. While not suitable for actual property transfers requiring a plat prepared by a Licensed Surveyor, the plans will serve as the basis for such. From the conceptual roadway plans, a surveyor can locate the needed right of way and show such boundaries on property plats and development plats which can then be used for purposes of proffers and actual transference of property. E. PHASE 3 - TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND ANALYSIS 1. The study will include an update of traffic forecasts on mainline existing and proposed Route 37 within the study limits and at all proposed interchanges along the entire corridor. 2. The current WinFred MPO model is primarily based on land use data/forecasts developed in 2004. Land use data and forecasts will need to be reviewed and updated by WinFred MPO localities. Roadway network data will also need to be reviewed and updated. it is recommended that 2035 forecasts be estimated in this study, which will match the MPO's upcoming 2035 Long Range Plan effort. 3. Updated model runs will be performed as needed. There may be a need to post -process model results to develop final model forecasts. EI 4. Final forecasts will be based on final model results, forecasts available from other traffic studies, and application of growth rates on existing count data. F. STUDY FUNDING 1. The current Six -Year Improvement Plan includes total funds of $2,800,000 for the Study. Of this, $1,500,000 has been previously allocated and the remaining $1,300,000 has been allocated for future years. 2. Currently, the Phase 1 survey work has been completed at a cost of approximately $470,000. This leaves approximately $1,030,000 from the already allocated funds ($1,500,000 minus $470,000). The current plan is to complete the Phase 2 conceptual roadway alignment work using the residual allocated funds before beginning the Phase 3 traffic analysis effort. Current estimates are that the Phase 2 work will cost approximately $700,000. Depending on final Phase 2 actual costs, there may be residual previously allocated funds to at least begin, but not totally complete, the Phase 3 work. At completion of the Phase 2 work, a decision can by made by the County regarding exactly what work will be done using the already allocated residual funds. G. SCHEDULE 1. Phase 1 (Survey) Completed May, 2010 2. Phase 2 (Plan Development) a. August 2010 — Select test section of roadway containing one interchange (complete) b. September 2010 — Establish centerline of test section and prepare "Illustration Plans" showing what the final preliminary plans will look like for the entire 15 mile length of the study (complete) c. October 2010 — Assign on-call consultant to project (complete-JMT Engineers assigned) d. October 2010 — Meet with County and JMT to confirm direction of Study and confirm scope of work (complete) e. January 2010 — Meet with JMT and County to review survey base mapping and proffer information compilation. f. February 2011 — Meet with JMT and County to discuss progress: (1) Review logical study segments and priority areas of study. (2) Review of work product, discuss progress and findings. g. Interim Meetings if required. h. July 2011 — Complete preliminary plans showing roadway and interchanges i. July 2011 — Public/Closed presentation of plans (County Preference) S. Phase 3 (Traffic Analysis) — To be determined • • C: . Item 4: Rural Long Range Transportation Plan VDOT, with the aid of consultants, has been working to update state wide rural long range transportation plans. Please note that this is a separate exercise from the MPO long range plan which focuses on urbanized areas. Attached please find the recommendations for a number of locations in Frederick County for which feedback is being sought. Staff would note that this is a state level exercise and this is our first opportunity to render input. It would also be important to note that this plan does not place any requirements or obligations on Frederick County. Safety: Lack of stop bars may cause poor awareness of Short -Term: intersection Safety: Add stop bars to minor approaches Safety/Congestion 070432001 47 Clarke (Boyce) US 340 at VA 723 (Main Street) Congestion: Intersection is congested, lack of turn lanes o Congestion: Widen Main Street at intersection to provide left turn lanes Priority List, Clarke Main Street. Long -Term: N/A N/A N/A County Comprehensive (Source: 1, 9) Congestion: Signalize intersection when volumes warranted Plan, 2007 (manually (Source: 1, 8) added to shapefile) Short -Term: Safety: Repaint all pavement markings. VA 723 from Western Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2020) Mid -Term: 070432101 48 Clarke Corporate Limits of Boyce to Congestion: Lack of left turn lanes along corridor adds to Congestion: Upgrade to current designs three 021072302 Safety/Congestion (Boyce) Eastern Corporate Limits of delays as a -lane urban cross-section Long -Term: 0; Urban - 2 N/A Priority List, SPS Boyce (Source: 1, 3) Safety: DSL, CSA, Short: Repaint all pavement markings 021072303 Lane Database {LOS DSL, CCO, Mid: Upgrade to current designs as a three -lane urban cross-section 0 selection) (Source: 1, 3) Short -Term: Clarke US 340 from VA 688 north t Safety:Roadwa has poor drainage y p g Safety: Improve drainage on roadway 021034005 Clarke Count Y 070432803 49 (Boyce) VA 620 Congestion: Segment will operate with LOS E in 2035 Long -Term: 0; Comprehensive Plan, (Source: 3, 9) Congestion: Rural - 4 Lane With Median 021034006 N/A N/A 2007 (manually added. (Source: 1, 8) 0 to shapefile) Long -Term: Safety: Long term improvements will be developed by the 1-81 Corridor Study 070690001 50 Frederick I-81 at southbound merge Safety: Roadway does not meet current design standards (Tier 2) from I-66 (source: 1) Congestion; Project is still in EIS stage, no exact improvements defined, but N/A N/A N/A Safety/Congestion some form of roadway improvements are needed toaccommodate long term Priority List growth (Source: 11 US 50 (Northwestern Pike) a Safety: Crashes at this location exceed the planning Long -Term: 070690201 51 Frederick threshold (nine crashes overathree-year period) Safety: Deficiency with low priority. to f Continue monitor potential Accident—Data—Norther VA 654 (Source: 4) improvements. N/A N/A N/A n _Shenandoah(Crash (Source: 1) Database) US 522 (North Frederick Safety: Crashes at this location exceed the planning Long -Term: 070690202 52 Frederick Pike) at VA 654 (Cedar Grove threshold (nine crashes over athree-year period) Safety: Deficiency with low priority. Continue to monitor for potential Accident—Data—Norther Road) (Source: 4) improvements. N/A N/A N/A n Shenandoah (Crash _ (Source: 2) Database) US 522 (North Frederick Safety: Crashes at this location exceed the planning Long -Term: 070690203 53 Frederick Pike) at VA 127 (Bloomery threshold (nine crashes over athree-year Safety: Deficiency ri it C with low priority. Continue to monitor for potential Accident_Data_Northerti Parkway) period) (Source: 4) improvements. N/A N/A N/A Shenandoah n Shenandoah (Crash n. 1) Database) Long -Term: Rural -6 Rural - 6 SMS Database, SPS 070690401 54 Frederick 1-81 from Warren County Line / I-66 to Winchester Congestion: Segment will operate with LOS F in 2035 Congestion: Rural - 6 Lane With Median. Note that an ongoing EIS has yet to 034008101 MPO (Source: 2, 3) define exact improvements, but some form of roadway improvements are 0 Lane With Lane With Database (LOS needed to accommodate long term growth. 034008102 Median Median selection) (Source: 2, 10) 0 0 I N/A I N/A I SPS Database 0 I N/A I N/A I SPS Database )340050011 N/A I N/A I SPS Database )34012701 0 N/A N/A SPS Database )34052208 0 N/A N/A SPS Database Rural- 2 US 11 (Valley Pike) from )34062702 Long -Term: 070690501 55 prederick Warren County Line to Congestion: Segment will operate with LOS Din 2035 Congestion: Adjacent segment of 1-81 is to be widened, monitor this segment Feet Southern Corporate Limits o (Source: 3) for need of capacity improvements. 0 Lane 24 Feet Middletown selection) (Source: 1) )34073501 US 11 (Valley Pike) from Long -Term: 070690502 56 Frederick Northern Corporate Limits ol Congestion: Segment will operate with LOS D in 2035 Congestion: Adjacent segment of 1-81 is to be widened, monitor this segment Middletown to VA 735 (Source: 3) for need of capacity improvements. 334073502 SPS Database (GEO 0 (Source: 1) N/A selection) US 50 (Northwestern Pike) 070690503 57 Frederick from West Virginia State Congestion: Segment will operate with LOS D in 2035 P Long -Term: SPS Database (GEO 0 Feet Line to .29 miles east of VA (Source: 3) Congestion: Rural -4 Lane With Median Rural. -2 )34063101 703 (Source: 1) 0 Lane 24 N/A VA 127 (Bloomery Parkway) Long -Term: 070690504 58 Frederick from West Virginia State Congestion: Segment will operate with LOS D in 2035 Congestion: Deficiency with low priority. Continue to monitor for potential 0 Lane 24 Feet N/A Line to US 522 (Source: 3) improvements. (Source: 1) US 522 (North Frederick Long -Term: 070690505 59 Frederick Pike) from VA 608 north to Congestion: Segment will operate with LOS D in 2035 Congestion: Widen roadway to current 4 -lanes rural standards (48 feet) to VA 654 (Source: 3) match cross-sections of adjacent segments (Source: 1) VA 627 (Chapel Road) from 070690601 60 Frederick VA 635 north to Western Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2025) Long -Term: Corporate Limits of (Source: 3) Safety: Rural - 2 Lane 24 Feet Middletown (Source: 3) 070690602 61 Frederick VA 627 (Chapel Road) from VA 625 north to VA 635 Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2009) Long -Term: (Source: 3) Safety: Rural- 2 Lane 24 Feet north (Source: 3) 070690603 62 Frederick VA 735 (Salem Church Road) from US 11 to 0.51 miles Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2035) Long -Term: (Source: 3) Safety; Rural - 2 Lane 24 Feet east US 11 (Source: 3) 070690604 63 Frederick VA 735 (Salem Church Road) from 0.51 miles east US 11 Safety; Geometric Deficiency (2009) Long -Term: (Source: 3) Safety: Rural - 2 Lane 24 Feet to VA 636 north (Source: 3) 070690605 64 Frederick VA 641 (Double Church Road) from VA 636 south to Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2009) Long -Term: VA 640 (Source: 3) Safety: Rural - 2 Lane 24 Feet (Source: 3) 0'70690606 65 Frederick VA 631 (Marlboro Road) Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2009) Long -Term; from VA 628 to VA 648 (Source: 3) Safety: Rural - 2 Lane 24 Feet (Source: 3) 070690607 66 Frederick VA 761 {Old Charlestown Road) from VA 666 east to Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2025) Long -Term: (Source: 3) Safety: Rural- 2 Lane 24 Feet Clarke County Line (Source: 3) 0 I N/A I N/A I SPS Database 0 I N/A I N/A I SPS Database )340050011 N/A I N/A I SPS Database )34012701 0 N/A N/A SPS Database )34052208 0 N/A N/A SPS Database Rural- 2 )34062702 SPS Database (GEO 0 Lane 24 N/A selection) Feet SPS Database (GEO )34062701 Rural -2 0 Lane 24 Feet N/A selection) )34073501 Bane SPS Database(GEO 0 24 Feet N/A selection) Rural - 2 334073502 SPS Database (GEO 0 Lane 24 N/A selection) Feet Rural - 2 )34064101 Lane 24 N/A SPS Database (GEO 0 Feet selection) Rural. -2 )34063101 SPS Database (GEO 0 Lane 24 N/A selection) Feet )34076103 Rural -2 SPS Database (GEO 0 Lane 24 Feet N/A selection) 070690608 67 Frederick VA 622 (Cedar Creek Grade) Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2030) Long -Term: Rural - 2 from VA 618 to VA 732 (Source; 3) Safety: Rural-2Lane 24 Feet 034062202 SPS Database(GEO Lane 24 N/A (Source: 3) 0 Feet selection) 070690609 68 Frederick VA 622 (Cedar Creek Grade) Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2025) Long -Term: Rural - 2 from VA 732 to VA 619 (Source: 3) Safety: Rural -2 Lane 24 Feet 034062203 Lane 24 N/A SPS Database (GEO (Source: 3) 0 Feet selection) 070690610 69 Frederick VA 622 (Cedar Creek Grade) Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2009) Long -Term: Rural - 2 from VA 619 to VA 620 )Source: 3) Safety: Rural - 2 Lane 24 Feet 034062203 Lane 24 N/A SPS Database (GEO (Source: 3) 5 Feet selection ) VA 608 (Wardensville Grade) Long -Term: 070690611 70 Frederick from VA 616 south to US 50 Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2020) Safety: Rural - 2Lane 24 Feet 034060802 Rural - 2 SpS Database (GEO south (Source: 3) (Source: 3) 0 Lane 24 Feet N/A selection) VA 600 (Back Mountain Long -Term: 070690612 71 Frederick Road) from VA 608 north to Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2009) Safety: Rural - 2 Lane 24 Feet 034060003 Rural - 2 SPS Database (GEO VA 612 north (Source: 3) (Source: 3) 0 Lane 24 N/A selection) Feet 070690613 72 Frederick VA 600 (Hayfield Road) from 1.06 Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2025) Long -Term: Rural - 2 miles northeast VA 679 .(Source: 3) Safety: Rural - 2 Lane 24 Feet 034060006 Lane 24 N/A SPS Database (GEO to VA 684 south (Source: 3) 0 selection) Feet 070690614 73 Frec,erick VA 600 (Siler Lane) from VA Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2009) Long -Term: Rural -2 684 north to US 522 (Source: 3)0 Safety;Rural- 2 Lane 24 Feet 034060007 Lane 20 N/A SPS Database (GEO (Sourcc e: 3) Feet selection) 070690615 74 Frederick VA 654 (Cedar Grove Road) Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2030) Long -Term: Rural - 2 from VA 677 to VA 730 (Source: 3) Safet Rural - 2 Lane 24 Feet 034065402 Lane 24 N/A 5P5 Database (GEO (Source: 3) 0 Feet selection) 070690616 75 Frederick VA 739 (Apple Pie Ridge Road) from VA 677 to VA Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2009) Long -Term: 034073904 Rural - 2 (Source: 3) Safety: Rural 24 Feet y' Lane 24 N/A SPS Database (GEO 671 (Source: 3j 0 Feet selection) 070690617 76 Frederick VA 671 (Green Spring Road) Safety: Geometric De Deficiency (2009) Long -Term: ural - 2 Rural from VA 654 east to VA 676 (Source: 3) Safety: Rural - 2 Lane 24 Feet 034067101 Lane 24 N/A SPS Database (GEO (Source: 3) 0 Feet selection) 070690618 77 Frederick VA.671(Green Spring Road) Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2020) Long -Term: Rural - 2 from VA 676 to VA 661 (Source: 3) Safet : Rural - 2 Lane 24 Feet y 034067102 Lane 24 N/A SPS Database (GEO (Source: 3) 0 Feet selection) Safety: Intersection has high crash rate. Stop sign is Short -Term: Safety: Trim vegetation in southwest and southeast quadrants. Relocate mino Accident—Data—Norther US 50 (Northwestern Pike) a blocked by vegetation and stop ahead sign is too close to approach stop bar forward. Relocate stop ahead sign. Add watch for turn n_Shenandoah (Crash 070690701 78 Frederick VA 614 (Back Mountain stop sign. Stop bars poorly placed and need to be vehicles sign for westbound approach. Add centerline in Database); High Risk Road) refreshed. crossover. N/A N/A N/A Rural Roads, draft (Source: 7, 4) Long -Term: Safety: Lengthen existing eastbound right turn lane's taper presentation, April (Source: 6) 2009. (manually added to shapefile) 034001102 US 11 (Valley Pike) from N/A N/A Frederick Southern Corporate Limits ol Long -Term: 070691501 79 (Middletowr Middletown to Northern Congestion: Segment will operate with LOS D in 2035 Congestion: Adjacent segment of 1-81 is to be widened, monitor this segment N/A selection) Corporate Limits of (Source: 3) for need of capacity improvements. Middletown (Source: 1) Frederick VAT- 1107 (Chapel Road) 070691601 80 (Middletow from Western Corporate Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2025) Long -Term: Limits of Middletown to US (Source: 3) Safety: Urban -2 Lane 11 south (Source: 3) Safety: Lack of eastbound right turn bay and lack of Short -Term: 071390001 81 Page US 211 at VA 644 Bi Oak (Big pavement markings cause safety concerns. Safety: Lengthen eastbound right turn bay and refresh pavement markings Road) Congestion: Intersection is congested. Long -Term: (Source: 1) Congestion: Signalize intersection when volumes warranted (Source: 1) Short -Term: Safety: Convert intersections to 3 -way stop Safety: Off -set T -intersections leads to some safety Long -Term: 071390002 82 Page VA 638 (Mill Creek Road) at concerns. Proximity of intersection to railroad overpass Safety: Realign north intersection to the south intersection, and convert VA 639 (Lakewood Road) limits sight distance intersection to 4 -way stop control. Widen all approaches to 12 foot lanes, and .(Source: 1) add left turn lanes to all approaches. Improve vertical alignment under railroa overpass. (Source: 1) Short -Term: US 340 from Rockingham Safety: Lack of advance warning signs for turning vehicles Safety: Add "Watch for turning vehicles" signs along corridor in advance of 071390401 83 Page County Line to Southern City and roadway does not meet current standards major intersections and commercial areas. of Shenandoah Congestion: Segment will operate with LOS D in 2035 Long-Term: Lon Term: (Source: 1, 2) Safety: Upgrade horizontal and vertical alignment to current standards Congestion: Rural - 2 Lane 24 Feet (Source: 1, 2) 071390402 84 Page US 340 from Northern City Limits of Shenandoah to US Congestion: Segment will operate with LOS D in 2035 Long -Term: (Source: 2). Congestion: Rural - 2 Lane 24 Feet 211 (Source: 2) 071390403 85 Page US 340 Business from US Congestion: Segment will operate with LOS D in 2035 Long -Term: 340 to VA 636 (source: 2) Congestion: Rural - 2 Lane 24 Feet (Source: 2) 034001102 SPS Database (LOS N/A N/A 0 selection) )34062703 Urban -2 SPS Database(GEO 0 Lane N/A selection) N/AI N/A I N/A I Safety/Congestion Priority List N/AI N/A I N/A Safety/Congestion Priority List SMS Database, )69034001 Rural -2 Rural -2 Safety/Congestion 0 Lane 24 Lane 24 Priority List, SPS Feet Feet Database (LOS selection) )69034004 0; )69034005 Rural -2 Rural -2 SMS Database, SPS 0; Lane 24 Lane 24 Database (LOS )69034006 Feet Feet selection) 0 )69034010 Rural -2 )69034011 N/A Lane 24 SMS Database 0 Feet • • C: Item 5: Other Note: Staff is still working on gathering information regarding the Spotsylvania County sidewalk ordinance.