TC 01-23-17 Meeting MinutesCOUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Assistant Director - Transportation
RE: Transportation Committee Report for Meeting of January 23, 2017
DATE: February 1, 2017
The Transportation Committee met on January 23, 2017 at 8:30 a.m.
Members Present Members Absent
Gary Lofton – Chairman (voting) Mark Davis (liaison Middletown)
Judith McCann-Slaughter (voting) Gary Oates (liaison PC)
Gene Fisher (voting)
Lewis Boyer (liaison Stephens City)
Greg Unger (liaison PC) filling in for Gary Oates
James Racey (voting)
Barry Schnoor (voting)
***Items Requiring Action***
2. Support for Reliance Road Truck Restriction
At the November meeting of the Transportation Committee, the Committee
considered a request from Warren County to seek a joint truck restriction for Reliance
Road. At that time, the Committee had a number of questions regarding the request
which were posed to the Warren County Administrator and are in the attached
documentation. Also attached find communications from VDOT regarding the
potential truck restriction, as well as emails from a number of citizens. VDOT has
clarified that if Frederick County does choose to proceed with support of the truck
restriction, we will need to adopt a resolution of support and hold a public hearing.
The most recent count we have for the roadway is 1800 vehicle trips with 2% being 3
axle or greater. This equates to approximately 36 trucks per day.
MEMORANDUM
Attending the meeting for Warren County were County Administrator Douglas
Stanley, Deputy County Administrator Robert Childress, and Supervisor Daniel
Murray.
Mr. Stanley noted that trucks cannot navigate the roadway without regularly crossing
the centerline which creates safety issues for residents and other local trips. He
explained that, due to the termini of the roadway, a tractor trailer restriction is not
possible without coordinating with Frederick County.
Mr. Murray noted that he lives along Reliance Road and also represents a number of
his neighbors and he made a number of points.
1. Safety concerns due to trucks crossing the centerline routinely.
2. Removal of truck trips could result in maintenance savings.
3. At times it is difficult for people to get out of their driveways due to truck
traffic.
4. While quarry trucks can’t be stopped, we could at least remove tractor trailers.
Mr. Childress noted that his is a problem that goes back decades and that over the
years VDOT has added paving to the shoulders to get the road to a minimum width to
allow for centerline striping but that the width remains inadequate for this type of
traffic. He also reiterated the maintenance issues.
Mr. Unger noted that the restriction does no harm to Frederick County and that he
totally agrees with restricting the roadway.
Mr. Lofton asked for clarification of the Ed Carter email in the attachments regarding
trips that would not be restricted. Staff noted that agricultural trips and vehicles could
not be restricted and that trips originating or having a destination within the restricted
area could not be restricted.
Mr. Lofton asked for clarification of what the signage would be since quarry dump
trucks were not the target. The answer was not readily available at the meeting but
Staff will follow up with VDOT. VDOT indicated that the restriction would be for
vehicles in excess of 30 feet to properly target tractor trailers.
MOTION: Supervisor McCann-Slaughter made a motion to recommend the
Board of Supervisors schedule a public hearing and ad opt a resolution of
support. The motion was seconded by Mr. Schnoor and passed unanimously.
***Items Not Requiring Action***
1. Mount Olive Road Paving
Staff received communication from Mr. Kevin Trice, representing himself and his
neighbors with concerns over the timeline to pave Mount Olive Road. Staff updated
him on the status of funding and policies involved and invited him and any interested
neighbors to meet with the Committee. Attached, please find the current secondary
plan as well as the Board policy on ranking of projects.
Mr. Trice of Hammock Lane spoke to the Committee and noted that he has lived in
his subdivision for 11 years and during that time Mount Olive Road has gotten much
busier. He noted that he puts in work orders monthly with VDOT and that with all of
the maintenance on the roadway that it could have been paved by now. He also noted
that the distance from Route 50 to Hammock Lane is only about 1000 feet and that
this is the most heavily traveled portion of the roadway.
Mr. Meister noted that due to the hill on the roadway, any rain very quickly washes
away gravel that VDOT has put down and creates a washboard effect as well as
following dust issues.
Staff and VDOT explained the ranking system and where Mount Olive Road
currently ranks. It was also noted that the primary restriction is in the amount of
paving funds that are currently allocated by the State. While improved, the funds still
only allow one or two small projects a year.
The Committee discussed that they are satisfied with the ranking system as it stands
but noted that it may be worth testing to see if a smaller segment of Mount Olive
Road would score more highly if broken out at the next plan update.
2016/17-2021/22
SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN
for
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Frederick County Transportation Committee: 06/20/2016
Frederick County Planning Commission: 07/06/2016
Frederick County Board of Supervisors: 07/27/2016
MAJOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
2016/2017 through 2021/2022
Major road improvement projects command the reconstruction of hardsurfaced roads to
enhance public safety. Improvements required for road width, road alignment, road strength,
and road gradient are considered major road improvements projects.
RA
N
K
R O U T E
R O AD
NA
M E
FR
O M
TO
A V E RA
G E
DA
I
L Y TR
A
F F I C
C O UN
T
DI
S TA
N
C E
MA
G I S T E RI
A
L
DI
S TR
I
C
T
ES
T I MA
T
E D C O S T
AD
V E R T I S E M E NT
DA
T E
C O M M E N T S
1)
655
Sulphur Springs
Road
Route 50
.30 Mi East
Rt. 656
6000
1.1 miles
SH
$7,505,445
After
2022
$5,798,052
Allocated
2)
661
Red Bud Road
.47 Mi
South
Route 11
Int.
Snowden
Bridge
Blvd.
1300
0.5 miles
ST
$2,000,000
After
2022
Partial
Funded
Relocation
3)
672
Brucetown Road
Route 11
.35 Mi East
3200
0.35 miles
ST
$1,500,000
Significantly
Variable
UN/SH
Partial
Funded
$100,000
Thru Plan
4)
788
East Tevis Street
Route 522
W inchester
City Limit
N/A
0.44 miles
SH
$10,414,000
Revenue
Sharing
UN/SH
Appited for
R/S Funds
5)
788
East Tevis Street
Route 522
I-81
N/A
0.40 miles
SH
$1,400,000
Revenue
Sharing
UN/SH
Cover Overall
Project Needs
6)
11
Martinsburg Pike
Under 81
Overpass
Exit 317
16000
0.20 miles
ST
$3,346,924
Revenue
Sharing
UN/SH
LF Turn Lns
SBound @
I-81 Overpass
$1.9 Mil Short
on Funding
HB-2
7)
723
Carpers Valley Road
At Clarke
County line
1100
N/A
SH
$1,262,327
2017
Federal
Bridge
Replacement
Funding
8)
788
Renaissance
.24 Mi
W est
Route 11
Int. Shady
Elm Road
N/A
.18 miles
BC
$1,635,658
UN/SH
R/S
Funds
9)
659
Valley Mill Road
.5 Mi East
Of
Channing
Dr.
Rt. 7
N/A
.65 miles
RB
$7,200,000
UN/SH
R/S Funds
Under Funded
$5.2M
10)
645
Airport Road
Extension
Int
Route 522
Int East
Tevis
Road
N/A
.4 Miles
SH
$5,600,000
UN/SH
R/S
Funds
11)
883
Snowden Bridge
Blvd.
Int.
Route 11
Directly
before Int.
Milburn
N/A
.8 Miles
ST
$8,136,700
Under
Const.
R/S Funds
12)
1012
Town Run Lane
280 Ft. S.
Stickley Drive
Int.
210 Ft. N.
Stickley
Drive
Int.
N/A
.1 Miles
OP
$150,000
£¤50
£¤11
£¤7
£¤522
£¤37 £¤522
£¤11
£¤11
£¤50
£¤37
£¤522
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
Winchester
Stephens City
Frederick CountyMajor RoadImprovement Projects2016/2017 thru 2021/2022
0 1 20.5 Milesµ
1
2
3
4 5
6
78
9
10
11
12
1. Sulphur Springs Rd
2. Redbud Rd
3. Brucetown Rd
4. East Tevis Street
6. Martinsburg Pike
7. Carpers Valley Rd8. Renaissance Dr9. Valley Mill Rd
5. East Tevis Street
11. Snowden Bridge Blvd
10. Airport Rd Extension
12. Town Run Ln
NON-HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
2016/2017 through 2021/2022
Non-Hardsurface road improvement projects provide impervious resurfacing and reconstruction
of non-hardsurfaced secondary roads. Non-Hardsurface improvement projects are prioritized by
an objective rating system, which considers average daily traffic volumes; occupied structures;
physical road conditions including geometrics, drainage, and accident reports; school bus
routing; and the time that project requests have been on the Secondary Road Improvement
Plan.
RA
N
K
R O U T E
R O AD
NA
M E
FR
O M
TO
A V E RA
G E
DA
I
L Y TR
A
F F I C
C O U N T
DI
S TA
N
C E
MA
G I S T E RI
A
L
DI
S TR
I
C
T
ES
T I MA
T
E D
C O S T
AD
V E R T I S E M E NT
DA
T E
C O M M E N T S
671
Woodside Road
Route 11
0.4 East of
Route 11
50
0.4 miles
ST
$144,000
UN/SH
$20,000
Allocated
Potential Rural
Rustic/Funding
by Others
671
Woodside Road
Route 669
WV Line
270
0.30 miles
ST
$91,500
2017
CTB Unpaved
Roads Funding
661
W right Road
Route 669
WV Line
240
1.84 miles
ST
$561,200
2018
CTB Unpaved
Roads Funding
629
Carter Lane
Route 631
Route 625
220
1.8 miles
BC
$549,000
2019 CTB Unpaved
Roads Funding
692
Pack Horse Road
1.2 Mi NE
of Rt. 600
Route 671
210
1.4 miles
GA
$427,000
2020
CTB Unpaved
Roads Funding
629
Laurel Grove Road
Route 622
1.25 Mi W
of
Rt. 622
200
1.25 miles
BC
$376,000
2021 CTB Unpaved
Roads Funding
629
Laurel Grove Road
1.25 Mi W
of
Rt. 622
2.5 Mi W of
Rt. 622
200
1.25 miles
BC
$376,000
2022 CTB Unpaved
Roads Funding
707
Hollow Road
WV state
line
Rt. 610
Muse Road
190
1.8 miles
GA
$495,000
CTB Unpaved
Roads Funding
*NOTE: Projects are placed on the scheduled list based upon VDOT revenue projections. Changes to those projections can lead to
projects being delayed or removed from the scheduled list.
£¤522
£¤37
£¤259
£¤277
£¤55
£¤50
£¤11
£¤127
£¤522
£¤7
£¤11
£¤37
£¤50
£¤522
§¨¦66
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
Winchester
Stephens City
Middletown
Frederick CountyNon-Hardsurfaced RoadImprovement Projects2016/2017 thru 2021/2022
µ
0 4 82 Miles
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1. Woodside Rd
2. Woodside Rd
3. Wright Rd
4. Carter Ln
5. Pack Horse Rd
6. Laurel Grove Rd
7. Laurel Grove Rd
8. Hollow Rd
8
UNSCHEDULED
NON-HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
RATINGS NOT UPDATED
2016/2017 through 2021/2022
RA
N
K
R O U T E
R O AD
NA
M E
FR
O M
TO
A V E RA
G E
DA
I
L Y TR
A
F F I C
C O UN
T
DI
S TA
N
C E
MA
G I S T E RI
A
L
DI
S TR
I
C
T
RA
T IN
G
C O M M E N T S
1) 677 Old Baltimore
Road
Route 676 Route 672 220 1.2 Miles GA 77
2) 730 Babbs Mountain
Road
Route 654 Route 677 90 .90 Miles GA 73
3) 695 Middle Fork Road 2.3 Mi N of Route 522 WV Line 50 .90 Miles GA 68
4) 811 Timberlakes Ln 671 671 280 0.25
Miles
ST 68
5) 644 East Parkins Mill
Road
Route 50 Clark Co. Ln 200 .81 Miles SH 67
6) 733 Fletcher Road Route 50 Route 707 170 1.3
Miles
GA 66
7) 612 Fishel Road Route 600 Route 600 60 1.6
Miles
BC 66
8) 636 Canterburg Road Route 640 Route 641 140 1.5
Miles
OP 63
9) 638 Clark Road Route 625 Route 759 90 0.8
Miles
BC 63
10) 607 Heishman Lane Route 600 End of State
Maintenance
70 0.78
Miles
BC 62
11) 682 Glaize Orchard
Road
Route 608 Route 671 240 1.54
Miles
GA 61
12) 667 Sir John’s Road Route 672 Last Residence 290 2.37
Miles
ST 60
13) 696 South Timber
Ridge Road
Route 522 Route 694 220 1.3
Miles
GA 59
14) 634 Cougill Road Route 635 Route 11 120 0.25
Miles
BC 58
15) 636 Huttle Road Route 709 Route 735 110 1.1
Miles
OP 53
16) 685 Light Road Route 600 Route 681 80 1.3
Miles
GA 51
17) 616 McDonald Road Route 608 .44 Mi N of Route
608
60 .45
Miles
BC 51
18) 731 Cattail Road Route 608 Route 654 60 1.7
Miles
GA 51
19) 608 Hunting Ridge
Road
Route 682 2.41 Miles West of
Route 682
90 2.41
Miles
GA 51
20) 671 Shockeysville Road Route 690 .90 Miles West of
690
120 .90
Miles
GA 47
21) 671 Mount Olive Road Route 50 Route 600 110 .77
Miles
BC 40
Note: Project ratings are updated only when funding is available to promote projects to the scheduled
list.
£¤522
£¤50
QR3
!(5
!(6
!(14
!(10
!(12
!(4
!(18
!(2
!(16
!(15
!(9
!(17
!(8
!(1
!(7
!(11!(19
!(13
!(21
!(20
£¤259
£¤277
£¤55
£¤50
£¤11
£¤127
£¤522
£¤7
£¤11
£¤37
£¤37
£¤50
£¤522
£¤522
§¨¦81
§¨¦66
§¨¦81
BACK CREEK
GAINESBORO
STONEWALL
OPEQUON
SHAWNEE
REDBUDWinchester
Stephens City
Middletown
Frederick CountyUnscheduledNon-Hardsurfaced RoadImprovement ProjectsRatings Not Updated2016/2017 thru 2021/2022
µ
0 4 82 Miles
1. Old Baltimore Rd
2. Babbs Mountain Rd
3. Middle Fork Rd
4. Timberlakes Ln
5. East Parkins Mill Rd
6. Fletcher Rd
7. Fishel Rd
8. Canterburg Rd
9. Clark Rd
10. Heishman Ln
11. Glaize Orchard Rd
12. Sir John's Rd
13. South Timber Ridge Rd
14. Cougill Rd
15. Huttle Rd
16. Light Rd
17. McDonald Rd
18. Cattail Rd
19. Hunting Ridge Rd
20. Shockeysville Rd
21. Mount Olive Rd
HARD SURFACE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
RATING SYSTEM POLICY
Adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on April 25, 2007.
The following procedures are intended to delineate the steps necessary for the application
of this rating system policy. Adherence to these procedures will ensure consistency in
the application of this rating system policy for existing and future hard surface road
improvement project requests. This policy shall be effective following the adoption of
these procedures through a public hearing process held by the Board of Supervisors and
shall only be altered through the same process. Information pertaining to the rating
system application for each hard surface road improvement project shall be maintained in
the Frederick County Planning Department.
The Board of Supervisors shall have the authority to revise the Hard Surface Road
Improvement Projects section of the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement
Plan subsequent to the application of the rating system to ensure the health, safety, and
general welfare of the citizens of Frederick County
2
RATING SYSTEM REVIEW AGENCIES
Candidate projects shall be evaluated by the Frederick County Planning
Department, the Frederick County Transportation Committee, and the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT).
One rating sheet shall be prepared for each candidate project.
Staff from the Frederick County Planning Department and VDOT shall coordinate
to complete a rating sheet for each candidate project and submit the result s to the
Transportation Committee for review.
RATING SYSTEM APPLICATION METHODOLOGY
Candidate projects shall be rated utilizing the following information and
methodology detailed on the scoring sheet for each category:
1. Average Daily Traffic Count – utilize the most recent traffic counts for each
candidate project provided by the VDOT residency.
2. Occupied Structures – utilize the Frederick County Planning Department
addressing database and digital mapping system to determine the total number
of occupied structures that have direct access to, or whose only means of
ingress and egress from a private road is achieved by each candidate project.
3. Physical Road Conditions/Safety
a. Surface Width – obtain surface width data for each candidate project
through the VDOT Residency.
b. Shoulder Width – obtain shoulder width data for each candidate project
through the VDOT Residency.
c. Horizontal Curvature – horizontal curvature is determined to be deficient
if sight distance around the curve is limited by cut sections or vegetation
traveling at normal driving speeds.
d. Vertical Curvature – vertical curvature is determined to be deficient if
sight distance is significantly reduced or eliminated due to the rise and fall
of the road segment traveling at normal driving speeds.
e. Drainage – candidate projects shall be determined to have good, fair, or
poor drainage utilizing the following guidelines.
3
Good: Pipes are of adequate size and number. Water drains away from the
roadway and creates no problem with surface maintenance.
Ditches are of adequate size which produce no flooding within the
roadway.
Fair: Pipes are of adequate size; however, additional pipes may be
needed. Water drains away from the roadway with minimal
maintenance problems. Drainage ditches are in good condition,
require little maintenance, and produce no flooding within the
roadway.
Poor: Pipes are not adequate in size or number. Ditch lines are
inadequate and require extra maintenance water does not drain
from the roadway effectively, creating maintenance problems and
flooding.
f. Accident Data – obtain crash data detailing the number of accidents in the
most recent data year available from the VDOT Residency.
4. School Bus Travel – utilize information reflecting current or proposed school
bus travel routes for each candidate project provided by the Frederick County
Public Schools Transportation Supervisor.
5. Time on Road Plan – utilize information from current and previously
approved Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plans maintained
within the Frederick County Planning Department to determine when
candidate projects were incorporated.
4
RATING SYSTEM POINTS APPLICATION
Total points are determined for each category element. A cumulative total is
obtained for each candidate project utilizing the total points derived from each
category element.
If two or more candidate projects have the same cumulative point average, a tie-
breaking system will be utilized. First priority will be given to the project that has
been on the road plan longer. Following that each affected candidate project will
be compared to the others starting with the category of greatest weight and
working through the categories of lesser weights respectively until the tie is
broken.
The cumulative point average for each candidate project shall be final. Any
citizen request to alter the termini of a current candidate project and subsequent
Board action will require a new rating sheet to be completed for the resulting
segment(s). The resulting segment(s) will retain the ‘time on road plan’ date of
the previous segment.
HARD SURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN FORMAT
The Hard Surface Road Improvement Projects section of the Frederick County
Secondary Road Improvement Plan will reflect the candidate projects with the
highest cumulative point total that can be incorporated into the VDOT Six-Year
Improvement Program based on available funding. This information will be
provided to the Frederick County Planning Department by the VDOT Residency.
All remaining candidate projects will be placed on an Unscheduled Hard Surface
Improvement Projects list which will be incorporated within the Frederick County
Secondary Road Improvement Plan. Candidate projects incorporated into this
section of the plan will be ranked from the highest cumulative point total to the
lowest cumulative point total.
VDOT will advise the Frederick County Transportation Committee when funding
is available for the inclusion of new candidate projects within the Hard Surface
Road Improvement Projects section of the Frederick County Secondary Road
Improvement Plan. All candidate projects placed on the Unscheduled Hard
Surface Improvement Projects list, as well as newly requested candidate projects,
will be reviewed by the procedure detailed above to determine current conditions.
Appropriate ranking for all candidate projects will be determined at that time and
placed accordingly.
5
NEW PROJECT REQUESTS
New project requests and supporting materials must be received by the Frederick
County Planning Department by April 1st to be included in the next plan update.
A written request must be provided to the Frederick County Planning Department
which describes the location of the candidate project, the origin and terminus of
the segment, and a petition signed by at least 51% of all property owners fronting
on the proposed segment.
The Transportation Committee shall recommend new project requests which meet
these criteria after determining that the candidate project includes a segment of a
state route that has a rational origin and terminus. The Transportation Committee
shall have the authority to adjust the project origin and terminus to create a more
rational segment at their discretion.
PROJECT REMOVAL
Road Improvements projects shall be removed from the plan once VDOT has
notified Frederick County that the project has been funded and advertised for bid.
The Board of Supervisors may remove projects from the plan if VDOT has
provided notification that right-of-way efforts have been ceased.
3. County Projects Update
Snowden Bridge Boulevard:
Final items are being addressed as this project wraps up. Staff is working with
VDOT and the Graystone Development regarding final items needed to get the
road into the state system.
Tevis Street Extension/Airport Road/I-81 Bridge:
Bridge design in ongoing and environmental documents for VDOT are being
completed. Bridge design has reached 75%, but comments are pending from
VDOT on earlier submissions. Staff is also working with VDOT to clarify the
status of the stubs to the north and south of the roundabout.
Renaissance Drive:
Currently working with CSX on MOU for the future crossing. CSX has just
returned the draft agreement with suggested edits which the County Attorney is
reviewing. The County’s Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund
application has been recommended for approval by the Governor’s Advisory
Committee and agreements are expected shortly.
Valley Mill Road Realignment:
Thirty percent design has been completed and the County’s on call consultant is
providing an updated cost estimate to complete design through 100%. Upon
approval by the private party partner, the next phase of design will begin.
Coverstone Drive:
No activity at this time.
Jubal Early Drive Extension and Interchange with Route 37:
Initial meetings regarding a draft agreement and follow up application for
additional revenue sharing funds has been held with the private partner team.
4. Other
There was a discussion regarding new subdivisions accessing dirt roads and
whether they should be paving to the next paved connection. Mr. Fisher noted
that VDOT should not have to maintain the roads in these new subdivisions and
noted that while private roads should be built to state standards, the County
should investigate greater use of private streets.
JAB/pd