TC 11-22-10 Meeting MinutesTO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
M E MO RAN D U M FAX: 540/665-6395
Board of Supervisors
John A. Bishop, AICP, Deputy Director -Transportation
Transportation Committee Report for Meeting of November 22, 2010
November 30, 2010
The Transportation Committee met on November 22, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.
Members Present
Chuck DeIlaven (voting)
James Racey Voting
Gary Lofton (voting)
George Kriz (liaison PC)
Gary Oates (liaison PC)
Lewis Boyer (liaison Stephens City)
3. VDOT Route 37 Work
Members Absent
Mark Davis (liaison Middletown)
Dave Burleson (voting)
***Items Requiring Action***
Staff shared the attached materials from VDOT with the Committee. The current proposal is to
complete a right-of-way analysis with typical section to refine right-of-way needs along the
corridor. Staff noted that VDOT is looking for local concurrence on Phase II of the attached
scope of work. Staff also noted that a decision will need to be made regarding what to do in the
next phase of study.
On a motion by Mr. Lofton and seconded by Mr. Racey the Committee unanimously
recommended that the Board move forward with the attached scope with the addition of
analysis of which roadways will require fly -overs.
107 North Dent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, 'Virginia 22601-5000
***Items Not Requiring Action***
1. Comprehensive Plan Update
Staff presented the most recent draft of the transportation section. The Committee asked for re-
wording in the corridor appearance section and a better description and references of the
complete streets concept.
2. Route 522 Study
Staff informed the Committee that the MPO was requesting comment on the draft 522 study.
Staff noted that an updated draft has not been received since the County's last round of feedback
was submitted. The Committee tasked staff with getting clarification as to whether they are
expected to render comment without an updated draft. Staff has contacted the MPO and the
consultant will be supplying an updated draft.
4. Rural Long Range Transportation Plan
Staff presented the attached table from the Rural Long Range Transportation plan for the region
which is being completed by VDOT consultants. Staff noted that the intersection of Back
Mountain Road and Route 50 would benefit from an acceleration lane, but that the remainder of
the suggested improvements had already been undertaken by VDOT. VDOT noted that a
beacon flasher for the signal is being put in at the intersection of Route 522 and VA 654 (Cedar
Grove Road). Staff noted that this was the County's first opportunity to render feedback on this
plan, which is being completed at the State level for every planning district in the state.
5. Other
Staff updated the Committee on recommendations made regarding the potential expansion of
the Town of Middletown. Staff noted that the current recommendations were developed after
meeting with VDOT. In addition, staff noted that the widening of the ramps and specific lane
number\type recommendations would come from traffic studies completed by development.
Staff notified the Committee that a number of complaints had been received regarding the
intersection of Valley Mill Road at Route 7. Staff and VDOT have met at the site with the
developer of the Walgreens and changes to traffic controls are expected to be in place within a
month.
Mr. Evan Wyatt of Greenway Engineering was present and spoke to the Committee about
giving development the option of paying into a fund as opposed to building sidewalks where
none exist to connect to. Staff noted that this is in line with a program in Spotsylvania County
which is currently being evaluated by the Transportation Committee.
JAB/bad
4
AGENDA
NDA
MEETING TO DISCUSS SCREE OF STUD'
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
STUD'
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
I-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:
I. 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 arid/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.
4
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 1-81. 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 I — 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
1. 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.
0)
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 (CD) 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.
i. 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.
11
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)
3. Phase 3 (Traffic Analysis) — To be determined
5
'
Safety: Lack of stop bars may cause poor awareness of
Short -Term:
C
intersection
Safety: Add stop bars to minor approaches
Safety/Congestion
070432001
47
U5 340 at VA 723 (Main
Congestion: Intersection is congested, lack of tlanes o
urn
Congestion: Widen Main Street at intersection to provide left turn lanes
Priority List, Clarke
ach
(Booyce)
Street)
Long -Term:
N/A
N/A
N/A
County Comprehensive
Main Street.
(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.
Clarke
VA 723 from Western
Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2020)
Mid -Term:
021072302
Safety/Congestion
070432101
48
Corporate Limits of Boyce to
Congestion: Lack of left turn lanes along corridor adds to
Congestion: Upgrade to current designs as a three -lane urban cross-section
0;
Urban - 2
Priority List, SPS
(Boyce)
Eastern Corporate Limits of
s dela
Y
Long -Term:
021072303
Lane
N/A
Database (LOS
Boyce
(Source: 1, 3)
Safety: DSL, CSA, Short: Repaint all pavement markings
0
selection)
DSL, CCO, Mid: Upgrade to current designs as a three -lane urban cross-section
(Source: 1, 3)
Short -Term:
Clark
US 340 from VA 688 north t
Safety: Roadway has poor drainage
Safety: Improve drainage on roadway
021034005
Clarke County
070432803
45
(Boyc.
j
VA 620
Congestion: Segment will operate with LOS E in 2035
Long -Term:
0;
N/A
N/A
Comprehensive Plan,
(Source: 3, 9)
Congestion: Rural - 4 Lane With Median
021034006
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)
Safety/Congestion
from I-66
(Source: 1)
Congestion: Project Is still in EIS stage, no exact improvements defined, but
N/A
N/A
N/A
some form of roadway Improvements are needed to accommodate long term
Priority List
growth
(Source: 1)
070690201
51
Frederick
US 50 (Northwestern Pike) a
Safety: Crashes at this location exceed the planning
Long -Term:
Safet Deficient with low priority. Continue to monitor for
Y' Y p y' potential
Accident—Data—Norther
VA 6S4
threshold (nine crashes over athree-year period)
N/A
N/A
N/A
n_Shenandoah (Crash
(Source: 4)
improvements.
(Source: 1)
Database)
US 522 (North Frederick
Safety: Crashes at this location exceed the planning
Long -Term:
Accident Data Norther
070690202
52
Freder
ck
Pike) at VA 654 (Cedar Grove
threshold (nine crashes over a three-year period)
Y p )
Safety: Deficiency with low priority. Continue to monitor for potential
N/A
N/A
N/A
— —
Shenandoah
Road
(Source: 4)
Improvements,
n (Crash
(Source: 1)
Database)
US 522 (North Frederick
Safety: Crashes at this location exceed the planning
Long -Term:
Accident—Date—Norther
070690203
53
Frederick
Pike) at VA 127 (Bloomery
threshold (nine crashes over a three-year period)
Safety: Deficiency with low priority. Continue to monitor for potential
N/A
N/A
Parkway)
(Source: 4)
Improvements.
N/A
n Shenandoah (Crash
(Source: 1)
Database)
Long -Term:
070690401
54
Frederick
1-81 from Warren CountyCongestion:
Line / 1-66 to Winchester
Congestion: Segment will operate with LOS F in 2035
Rural • 6 Lane With Median, Note that an ongoing EIS has yet to
034008101
Rural • 6
Rural - 6
SMS Database, SPS
(Source: 2, 3)
define exact improvements, but some form of roadway Improvements are
Lane With
Lane With
Database (LOS
MPO
needed to accommodate long term growth.
034008102
Median
Median
selection)
f
(Source: 2, 10)
0
US 11 (Valley Pike) from
Long-Term:
070690501
55
Frederick
Warren County Line to
Congestion: Segment will operate with LOS D in 2035
Congestion: Adjacent segment of 1-81 is to be widened, monitor this segment
034001101
Southern Corporate Limits o
(Source: 3)
for need of capacity Improvements.
0
N/A
N/A
SPS Database
Middletown
(Source: 1)
U511 (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
034001103
Middletown to VA 735
(Source: 3)
for need of capacity Improvements.
0
N/A
N/A
SPS Database
(Source: 1)
US 50 (Northwestern Pike)
070690503
57
Frederick
from West Virginia State
Congestion: Segment will operate with LOS D in 2035
Long-Term:
034005001
Line to .29 mites east of VA
(Source: 3)
Congestion: Rural • 4 Lane With Median
0
N / q
N/A
SPS Database
703
(Source: 1)
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
034012701
Line to US 522
(Source; 3)
improvements.
0
N/A
N/A
SPS Database
(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
034052208
VA 654
(Source: 3)
match cross-sections of adjacent segments
0
N/A
N/A
SPS Database
(Source: 1)
VA 627 (Chapel Road) from
070690601
60
Frederick
VA 635 north to Western
Safety: Geometric Deficient 2025
y y ( )
Long-Term:
034062702
Rural - 2
SPS Database (GEO
Corporate Limits of
(Source; 3)
Safety: Rural - 2 Lane 24 Feet
y
Lane 24
N/A
Middletown
(Source: 3)
0
Feet
selection)
VA 627 (Chapel Road) from
Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2009)
Long-Term:
Rural - 2
070690602
61
Frederick
VA 625 north to VA 635
Safety: Rural - 2 Lane 24 Feet
034062701
Lane 24
N/A
SPS Database (GEO
north
(Source: 3)
(Source: 3)
0
Feet
selection)
VA 735 (Salem Church Road)
Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2035)
Long-Term:
Rural - 2
070690603
62
Frederick
from US 11 to 0,51 miles
Safety: Rural - 2 Lane 24 Feet
034073501
Lane 24
N/A
SPS Database (GEO
east US 11
(source: 3)
(Source: 3)
0
Feet
selection)
070690604
63
Frederick
VA 735 (Salem Church Road)
from 0.51 miles east US 11
Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2009)
Long-Term:
Safety: Rural - 2 Lane 24 Feet
034073502
Rural - 2
Lane 24
N/A
SPS Database (GEO
to VA 636 north
(Source: 3)
(Source: 3)
0
Feet
selection)
070690605
64
Frederick
VA 641 (Double Church
Road)from VA 636 south to
Safety: Geometric Deficient 2009
y y( )
Lon Term:Rural
8
Safety: Rural • 2 Lane 24 Feet
034064101
SPS
VA 640
(Source: 3)
0
Lane 22
Lane 24
N/A
selebaon(GED
selection)
(Source: 3)
Feet
070690606
65
Frederick
VA 631 (Marlboro Road)
Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2009)
Long-Term:
034063101
Rural - 2
SPS Database (GED
from VA 628 to VA 648
(Source: 3)
Safety: Rural - 2 Lane 24 Feet
Lane 24
N / A
(Source: 3)
0
Feet
selection )
070690607
66
Frederick
VA 761 (Old Charlestown
Road from VA 666 east to
)
Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2025)
Long-Term:
Safety: Rural - 2 Lane 24 Feet
034076103
Rural - 2
SPS Database (GEO
Clarke County Line
(Source: 3)
(Source; 3)
0
Lane 24
N/A
selection)
Feet
070690608
67
Frederick
VA 622 (Cedar Creek Grade)
Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2030)
Long -Term:
034062202
Rural - 2
SPS Database (GEO
from VA 618 to VA 732
(Source: 3)
Safety: Rural • 2 Lane 24 Feet
Lane 24
N/A
(Source: 3)
0
Feet
selection)
070690609
68
Frederick
VA 622 (Cedar Creek Grade)
Safety: Geometric Deficiency( ) 2025
Long -Term:
Safety: Rural • 2 Lane 24 Feet
034062203
Rural • 2
SPS Database (GEO
from VA 732 to VA 619
(Source: 3)
0
Lane 24
N/A
selection)
(Source: 3)
Feet
070690610
69
Frederick
VA 622 (Cedar Creek Grade)
Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2009)
Long -Term:
034062203
Rural • 2
SPS Database (GEO
from VA 619 to VA 620
(Source: 3)
Safety: Rural - 2 Lane 24 Feet
Lane 24
N/A
(Source: 3)
5
Feet
selection)
VA 608 (Wardensvllle Grade)
Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2020)
Long -Term:
Rural - 2
070690611
70
Frederick
from VA 616 south to US 50
(Source: 3)
Safety: Rural - 2 Lane 24 Feet
034060802
Lane 24
N/A
SPS Database (GEO
south
(Source: 3)
0
Feet
selection)
070690612
71
Frederick
VA 600 (Back Mountain
Road from VA 608 north to
Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2009)
Long -Term:
Safety: Rural - 2 Lane 24 Feet
034060003
Rural - 2
SPS Database (GEO
VA 612 north
(Source: 3)
0
Lane 24
N/A
selection )
(Source: 3)
Feet
070690613
72
Frederick
VA 600 (Hayfield Road) from
1.06 miles northeast VA 679
Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2025)
Long -Term:
Safety: Rural - 2 Lane 24 Feet
034060006
Rural - 2
SPS Database (GEO
to VA 684 south
(Source: 3)
(Source: 3)
0
Lane 24
N/A
selection )
Feet
070690614
73
Frederick
VA 600 (Slier Lane from VA
)
Safety:2009 )
Geometric Deficiency (e:
Long -Term:
Safety: Rural - 2 L 24 Feet
ane
034060007
Rural - 2
SPS Database (GEO
684 north to US 522
(Source: 3)
0
Lane 20
N /A
(Source: 3)
Feet
selection)
070690615
74
Frederick
VA (Cedar Grove Road)
Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2030)
Long -Term:
034065402
Rural • 2
SPS Database (GEO
V
from VA 677 to VA 730
(Source: 3)
Safety: Rural - 2 Lane 24 Feet
0
Lane 24
N/A
(Source: 3)
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
SPS Database (GEO
(Source: 3)
Safety: Rural - 2 Lane 24 Feet
Lane
N/A
671
(Source: 3)
0
Feett
selection)
070690617
76
Frederick
VA 671 (Green Spring Road)
Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2009)
Long -Term:
034067101
Rural•2EN/A
SPS Database (GEO
from VA 654 east to VA 676
(Source: 3)
Safety: Rural • 2 Lane 24 Feet
0
Lane 24
selection)
(Source: 3)
Feet
070690618
77
Frederick
VA 671 (Green Spring Road)
Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2020)
Long -Term:
034067102
Rural -2
SPS Database (GEO
from VA 676 to VA 661
(Source: 3)
Safety: Rural - 2 Lane 24 Feet
Lane 24
(Source: 3)
0
Feet
selection)
Short -Term:
Accident_Data_Norther
Safety: Intersection has high crash rate. Stop sign is
Safety: Trim vegetation in southwest and southeast quadrants. Relocate min.
n_Shenandoah (Crash
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
Database); High Risk
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 crossover.
N/A
N/A
N/A
Rural Roads, draft
Road)
refreshed.
Long -Term:
presentation, April
(Source: 7, 4)
Safety: Lengthen existing eastbound right turn lane's taper
2009. (manually added
(Source: 6)
to shapefile)
US 11 (Valley Pike) from
Frederick
Southern Corporate Limits ol
Long -Term:
070691501
79
(Middletown
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
034001102
SPS Database (LOS
Corporate Limits of
(Source: 3)
for need of capacity improvements.
0
N/A
N/A
selection)
Middletown
(Source: 1)
Frederick
VAT- 1107 (Chapel Road)
070691601
80
(Middletow
from Western Corporate
Safety: Geometric Deficiency (2025)
Long -Term:
Safety: Urban- 2 Lane
034062703
Urban -2
SPS Database (GEO
Limits of Middletown to US
(Source: 3)
N/A
11 south
(Source: 3)
0
Lane
selection)
Safety: Lack of eastbound right turn bay and lack of
Short -Term:
071390001
81
US 211 at VA 644 (Big Oak
pavement markings cause safety concerns.
Safety: Lengthen eastbound right turn bay and refresh pavement markings
?age
Road)
Congestion: Intersection Is congested.
Long -Term:
N/A
N/A
N/A
Safety/Congestion
(source: 1)
Congestion: Signalize intersection when volumes warranted
Priority List
(Source: 1)
Short -Term:
Safety: Convert intersections to 3 -way stop
Safety: Off -set T -intersections leads to some safety
Long -Term:
071390002
VA 638 (Mill Creek Road) atconcerns.
Proximity of intersection to railroad overpass
Safety: Realign north intersection to the south Intersection, and convert
82
?age
VA 639 (Lakewood Road)
limits sight distance
intersection to 4 -way stop control. Widen all approaches to 12 foot lanes, and
N/A
N/A
N/A
Safety/Congestion
(Source: 1)
add left turn lanes to all approaches. Improve vertical alignment under rallroa
Priority List
overpass,
(Source: 1)
Short -Term:
Safety: Lack of advance warning signs for turning vehicles
Safety: Add "Watch for turning vehicles" signs along corridor in advance of
SMS Database,
071390401
83
Page
US 340 from Rockingham
County Line to Southern City
and roadway does not meet current standards
major intersections and commercial areas.
069034001
Rural - 2
Rural - 2
Safet V/Congestion
Limits of Shenandoah
Congestion: Segment will operate with LOS D in 2035
Long -Term:
0
Lane 24
Lane 24
Priority List, SPS
(Source: 1, 2)
Safety: Upgrade horizontal and vertical alignment to current standards
Feet
Feet
Database (LOS
Congestion: Rural • 2 Lane 24 Feet
selection)
(Source: 1, 2)
069034004
071390402
84
?age
US 340 from Northern Cit Y
Limits of Shenandoah to US
Congestion: Segment will operate with LOS D in 2035
Long - Term:
0%
069034005
Rural - 2
Rural - 2
SMS Database, SPS
(Source: 2)
Congestion; Rural • 2 Lane 24 Feet
g
Lane 24
Lane 24
Database (LOS
211
(Source: 2)
Feet
Feet
selection)
069034006
0
071390403
85
Pae
g
US 340 Business from US
Congestion: Segment will operate with LOS D In 2035
Long -Term:
069034010
0�
Rural -2
340 to VA 636
(Source: 2)
Congestion: Rural - 2 Lane 24 Feet
N/A
Lane 24
SMS Database
(Source: 2)
069034011
Feet
0