Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TCAgenda2026February2
1.Adoption of Agenda 2.Welcome and Introductions 3.Update on Project Pipeline for the County 3.A.Update on Project Pipeline for the County 4.Potential Transit Service Areas 4.A.Potential Transit Service Areas 5.Photo Red Traffic Signal Enforcement 5.A.Photo Red Traffic Signal Enforcement 6.County Projects Update 6.A.County Projects Update 7.Other 7.A.Other AGENDA TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2026 8:30 AM FIRST-FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM FREDERICK COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA TC02-02-26UpdateonProjectPipeline.pdf TC02-02-26PotentialTransitServiceAreas.pdf TC02-02-26PhotoRedTrafficSignalEnforcement.pdf TC02-02-26CountyProjectsUpdate.pdf TC02-02-26Other.pdf 1 Transportation Committee Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: February 2, 2026 Agenda Section: Update on Project Pipeline for the County Title: Update on Project Pipeline for the County Attachments: TC02-02-26UpdateonProjectPipeline.pdf 2 3 Transportation Committee Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: February 2, 2026 Agenda Section: Potential Transit Service Areas Title: Potential Transit Service Areas Attachments: TC02-02-26PotentialTransitServiceAreas.pdf 4 5 AlbinRural CommunityCenter Round HillRural CommunityCenter Clear B rook & B rucetow nRural CommunityCenter StephensonRural CommunityCenter ArmelRural CommunityCenter GainesboroRural CommunityCenter Town ofStephensCity §¨¦81 §¨¦81 §¨¦66 £¤11 £¤50 £¤522 £¤522 £¤50 £¤11 ¬«7 ¬«277 ¬«7 ¬«37 PAYNERDVALLEYPIKEWARMSPRINGSRDSINGHASS RDCOSTELLO DR P A P E R M IL L R DMERRIMANSLNMILLERRDSPLEASANTVALLEYRDNEWLINSHILLRDHUNTINGRIDGERDAPPLE PIE RIDGE RDWELLTOWNRDFAIRFAX PIKE TA S K E R RDBURNT CHURCH RDSILERRDGOLDS HILL RD DICKSHOLLOWRDPOORHOUSE RDE PARKINS MILL RDVICTORYRDWARDENSVILLEGRINDIANHOLLOWRD SULPHUR SPRING RDGREENWOODRDBACKMOUNTAINRDNHAYFIELDRDCEDARGROVERDBROOKERD SHAWN E EDRMCDONALD RDM ID D L E R D KINGSPAN WAY NORTHWESTERNPIKE B R O O K N EIL DR AMHERSTST J ORDANSPRI NGSRDMORGAN MILL RDCHAPEL RD RELIAN C E R D REST C H U R C H RDVALLEYMILL RD APPLE VALLEY RD CARPERSVALLEYRD H U D S O N H O L L O W R D FRONTROYALPIKEDOU BL E C H U R C H R D F A IR L N S H A D Y C R E E K R D H U T T L E R DVALLEY PIKEFO R T C OL LI ERRDLENOIR DRCEDARCREEKGRB E T H E L G R A N G E R D SHADY ELM RDHOPEWELLRD WARRIORDRWOODSMILLRDWEEMS LN WHITEOAKRDOLD BALTIMORE RDFRONT ROYAL PIKETOWNRUNLNW PARKINS MILL RD SIRJOHNSRD KLINESMILLRD COU GILL R D G LENDOBBINRDWHISSENSRIDGERDSAINT CLAIR RD S HAYFIELD RDSENSENYRD ARME L R D HITESRDOLD MIDDLE RDAYLORRDNFREDERICKPIKE WHITEHALLRD CEDAR HILL RD WOODBINE RD BUFFALOMARSHRDVETERANS RDSNOWDEN BRIDGE BLVD M ACEDONIA CHURCH RDC A N TERBURGRD RIDING CHAPEL RD M A R L B O R O R D MARTINSBURGPIKEGRACECHURCHRD JONESRDP E R RYRDBERRYVILLEPIKE WOODCHUCK LNMARPLE RDMILBURNRDCARTERS L N MILLWOOD PIKESADDLEBACK LNGERMANYRDMCGHEERD BOUNDARY AVEO L D C H A R L E S TOWN RD LAUREL GROVE RD EDDYS LNMICHAEL DRVAUCLUSERD CALDWELL LNPASSAGE LNW IS E M ILL LN BURNTFACTORYRDS T O N Y H IL L R D AIRPO R T R DADMIRAL BYRD DRHILLANDALE LNSBUCKTONRDWBROOKERDP I N E R DWAVERLYRD CLARK RD CATALPARD ROCKY FORD RDSPRINGDALE RDHIATTRD GRIM RDREDBUD RD BARLEY LN Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5City ofWinchester Town ofMiddletown Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubedFMap Produced by Fre de rick Cou nty Planning an d De ve lopment Dept.January 15, 2026 Eastern Frederick County Potential Service Ar eas Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 ^_Laurel Ridge CC 0 1.5 30.75 Miles 6 WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study June 2024 KFH Group, Inc. Bethesda, MD | Austin, TX Photo by Google Maps Final Report: 7 Table of Contents WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | i | KFH Group Inc. Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction Background ............................................................................................................................................ 1-1 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 2-1 Study Area .............................................................................................................................................. 2-1 Population Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 2-3 Population .................................................................................................................................. 2-3 Population Projections ............................................................................................................ 2-3 Population Density .................................................................................................................. 2-4 Transit Dependent Populations ........................................................................................... 2-6 Title VI Demographic Analysis ........................................................................................... 2-11 Land Use Profile .................................................................................................................................. 2-15 Major Trip Generators ........................................................................................................... 2-15 Employment Density ......................................................................................................................... 2-20 Employment Travel Patterns .......................................................................................................... 2-23 Means of Transportation to Work ..................................................................................... 2-28 Review of Recent Plans and Studies ........................................................................................... 2-28 Frederick County Comprehensive Plan 2035 – Updated in 2021 .......................... 2-28 City of Winchester Comprehensive Plan ........................................................................ 2-29 Winchester- Frederick County MPO Long Range Transportation Plan ............... 2-31 Stephens City Comprehensive Plan ................................................................................. 2-31 Winchester Transit – Transit Development Plan ......................................................... 2-32 Virginia’s Coordinated Human Services Mobility Plan .............................................. 2-33 Winchester-Frederick County Transit Services plan, 2009 ....................................... 2-33 Chapter 3: Community Outreach Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 3-1 Community Survey .............................................................................................................................. 3-1 Transportation Modes ............................................................................................................. 3-1 Unmet Transportation Needs ............................................................................................... 3-2 Reasons for Not Driving ......................................................................................................... 3-3 Is there a Need to Start a Public Transportation Service? .......................................... 3-3 Potential Service Areas ........................................................................................................... 3-3 Types of Services ....................................................................................................................... 3-4 Potential Use and Fares ......................................................................................................... 3-5 Participant Information .......................................................................................................... 3-5 Comments ................................................................................................................................... 3-6 8 Table of Contents WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | ii | KFH Group Inc. Stakeholder Interviews ....................................................................................................................... 3-9 On-Demand Service and Rural Service ............................................................................. 3-9 Medical Transportation ........................................................................................................ 3-10 Employment Transportation ............................................................................................... 3-10 Access to Education and Training ..................................................................................... 3-10 Other Transportation ............................................................................................................ 3-10 Winchester Transit Feedback.............................................................................................. 3-11 Service in the U.S. Route 11 Corridor............................................................................... 3-11 Regional Service ...................................................................................................................... 3-11 Senseny Road ........................................................................................................................... 3-12 Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 3-12 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 4-1 Existing Services .................................................................................................................................... 4-1 WinTran ....................................................................................................................................... 4-1 Other Transportation Providers – Subsidized ................................................................. 4-5 Other Transportation Providers – Non-Subsidized ....................................................... 4-7 Potential Service Alternatives for the MPO Area ..................................................................... 4-7 Alternative #1 – Deviated Fixed Route Service: Stephens City – Winchester ....... 4-8 Alternative #2 - Deviated Fixed Route from Stephens City to Laurel Ridge Community College ............................................................................................................... 4-12 Alternative #3 – Blended Option of #1 and #2 ............................................................ 4-15 Alternative #4 – Deviated Fixed Route from Boscawen Street Transfer Stop to Berryville Road via Senseny Road and Valley Mill Road ..................................... 4-18 Alternative #5 - Microtransit Service for other Areas ................................................ 4-21 Organizational Options .................................................................................................................... 4-23 City of Winchester .................................................................................................................. 4-23 Frederick County or Stephens City ................................................................................... 4-25 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission ................................................. 4-26 Development of a Regional Transit Entity ..................................................................... 4-27 Federal and State Funding Discussion ....................................................................................... 4-28 Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 4-29 Chapter 5: Implementation Plan Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 5-1 Phase 1 – Microtransit ........................................................................................................................ 5-1 Estimated Ridership ................................................................................................................. 5-2 Expenses and Funding ............................................................................................................ 5-2 Future Services ...................................................................................................................................... 5-3 Appendix A: Trip Generators Appendix B: Community Survey 9 Chapter 1: Introduction WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 1-1 | KFH Group Inc. Chapter 1 Introduction Background The Winchester-Frederick County Metropolitan Planning Organization (WinFred MPO) planning area includes the City of Winchester, the Town of Stephens City, the Urbanized Area of Frederick County, and the area of Frederick County expected to be urbanized by the year 2045. A map of the area from the MPO’s FY2023 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) is provided as Exhibit 1-1. The Town of Stephens City, as a member of the MPO, requested a Transit Feasibility Study to explore the options for providing transit services within the Town of Stephens City in coordination with the existing City of Winchester transit program (WinTran), including potential service to Laurel Ridge Community College (formerly Lord Fairfax Community College) in Middletown. The WinFred MPO Policy Board subsequently decided to expand the study area to include the entire MPO planning area. As the administrative entity for the MPO, the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission (NSVRC) applied to the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) for grant assistance to conduct a transit feasibility study for the MPO area. As one of the MPO’s on-call consultants with familiarity of the issues, KFH Group was chosen to complete the technical work. The study period was initiated in March 2023 and completed in April 2024. This is the second feasibility study that developed options for transit services in the MPO area. The prior study was completed in 2009 and is referenced in Chapter 2. An advisory committee comprised of representatives from the following organizations provided guidance during the study process: • Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission • Town of Stephens City • Frederick County • City of Winchester • Valley Health • A representative from the Hispanic community • Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation 10 Chapter 1: Introduction WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 1-2 | KFH Group Inc. Exhibit 1-1: Winfred MPO Planning Area SOURCE: WINFRED MPO UPWP, FY2023 11 Chapter 1: Introduction WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 1-3 | KFH Group Inc. The scope of work included the following primary tasks: • Task 1 – Project Administration and Overview • Task 2 - Transit Needs Assessment • Task 3 – Public and Stakeholder Involvement • Task 4 – Evaluation of Current Transportation Services • Task 5 – Development of Potential Transit Strategies • Task 6 – Recommended Plan • Task 7 – Final Plan The remainder of this report documents the study process. 12 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-1 | KFH Group Inc. Chapter 2 Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to provide an assessment of transit needs in the study area based on an analysis of demographic and land use data, as well as a review of previous plans and studies. Data ranging from major trip generators to underserved and unserved population subgroups are documented and analyzed. The analysis includes a general population profile, identification, and evaluation of potentially transit-dependent population subgroups, and a review of the demographic characteristics pertinent to a Title VI analysis. Data sources include the 2010 and 2020 Census and the American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-year estimates. The information included within this chapter was combined with survey and stakeholder opinion to help develop service alternatives for the region. Study Area The study area for the Winchester-Frederick County Metropolitan Planning Organization (WinFred MPO) Transit Feasibility Study is defined as the City of Winchester, the Town of Stephens City, the Urbanized Area of Frederick County, and the area of Frederick County expected to be urbanized by the year 2045. The study area is in the Northern Shenandoah area of Virginia. A map of the study area is shown in Figure 2-1. As is depicted on the map, the urbanized area that is outside of the City of Winchester encompasses significantly more area than the City of Winchester, though public transportation is only available within the city. 13 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-2 | KFH Group Inc. Figure 2-1: WinFred MPO Study Area 14 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-3 | KFH Group Inc. Population Analysis This section provides a general population profile for the study area, identifies, and evaluates potentially transit-dependent population subgroups, and reviews the demographic characteristics pertinent to a Title VI analysis. Population Table 2-1 shows the U.S. Census population counts (2010 and 2020) for the City of Winchester, Frederick County, the MPO area, and the Commonwealth of Virginia. These data show that the MPO area is growing at a rate that is faster than any of the singular jurisdictions. The 2020 population of the MPO area was over 20% greater than the 2010 population. The population of the MPO area comprises almost 70% of the combined population of Frederick County and the City of Winchester. The population estimate for the Town of Stephens City is 2,308, based on the ACS 2017-2021 5-year estimate. This population is included within the MPO area population. Table 2-1: Population Change within the Study Area and the Commonwealth of Virginia Jurisdiction 2010 Census Population 2020 Census Population Percent Change City of Winchester 26,203 28,120 7.3% Frederick County 78,305 91,419 16.7% Total 104,508 119,539 14.4% WinFred MPO 69,449 83,377 20.1% MPO as a Percentage 66.5% 69.7% Virginia 8,001,024 8,631,393 7.9% SOURCE: U.S. CENSUS Population Projections Projections made by the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at the University of Virginia show that Frederick County will continue to grow at a rate that is faster than that of the City of Winchester and the Commonwealth of Virginia. These projections are shown in Table 2-2. There is not a specific projection for the MPO area, but it is likely that a significant level of the county’s growth will occur within the MPO area. The County’s’ Comprehensive Plan identifies an Urban Development Area (UDA), which is within the Census-designated Urbanized Area. 15 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-4 | KFH Group Inc. Table 2-2: Population Projections Jurisdiction 2020 2030 Percent Change 2040 Percent Change 2050 Percent Change Frederick County 91,419 103,035 12.7% 117,383 13.9% 133,488 13.7% Winchester city 28,120 29,606 5.3% 31,404 6.1% 33,671 7.2% Virginia, Statewide 8,631,393 9,129,002 5.8% 9,759,371 6.9% 10,535,810 8.0% SOURCE: WELDON COOPER CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEREST, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA. Population Density Population density is often a determinate for the type of public transportation service that is feasible in an area. Generally, an area with a population density greater than 2,000 persons per square mile will be able to sustain frequent daily fixed route bus services. Areas with a population density below 2,000 persons per square mile may be better suited for deviated fixed route, flex schedule, or dial-a-ride service. Much of the City of Winchester exhibits population densities of over 2,000 people per square mile, except for two block groups on the western edge of the city (adjacent to the U.S. Route 50 west corridor) and one block group on the southwest border that includes major retail destinations. Additional high-density areas are located to the east and southeast of Stephens City, east of I-81. These areas are included within the Urbanized Area and are not currently served by public transportation. Figure 2-2 shows the population density of the study area displayed by Census block groups. 16 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-5 | KFH Group Inc. Figure 2-2: Population Density Displayed by Census Block Groups in the Study Area SOURCE: AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY, 2017-2021 FIVE YEAR ESTIMATES 17 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-6 | KFH Group Inc. Transit Dependent Populations Identifying the relative size and location of segments of the population that are more likely to depend on transit service is important when defining public transportation needs. Transit dependent populations include individuals that may not have access to a personal vehicle or may be unable to drive due to age or income status. Determining the location of transit dependent populations helps focus planning efforts for public transportation services. To provide an objective analysis, the transit needs analysis consists of a relative measure when mapping population groups. This measure is based on the study area’s average for each demographic characteristic. To rank the socioeconomic need, block groups are classified relative to the study area using a five-tiered scale of “low” to “very high.” It is important to note that a block group classified as “low” can still have a substantial number of potential transit dependent persons as “low” means below the study area’s average. At the other end of the spectrum, “very high” means greater than twice the study area’s average. Table 2-3 summarizes the exact specifications for each score. Table 2-3: Relative Ranking Definitions for Transit Dependent Populations Number of Vulnerable Persons or Households Score Less than and equal to the study area’s average Low Above the average and up to 1.33 times the average Elevated Above 1.33 times the average and up to 1.67 times the average Moderate Above 1.67 times the average and up to two times the average High Above two times the average Very High Figure 2-3 displays TDI rankings for the study area. According to the TDI, the only very high transit need areas are found in block groups located in downtown Winchester. High transit need areas are found east of downtown, the northwest portion of the city, an area east of the city and south of Route 7, and an area southeast of Stephens City. 18 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-7 | KFH Group Inc. Figure 2-3: Transit Dependence Index SOURCE: AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY, 2017-2021 FIVE YEAR ESTIMATES 19 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-8 | KFH Group Inc. The Transit Dependence Index Percentage (TDIP) provides a complementary analysis to the TDI measure. It is nearly identical to the TDI measure except for the population density factor. By removing the population per square mile factor, the TDIP measures the degree rather than the amount of vulnerability. The TDIP represents the percentage of the population within the block group with above average transit dependent socioeconomic characteristics, and it follows the TDI’s five-tiered categorization of “low” to “very high.” It differs in that it does not highlight block groups that are likely to have higher concentrations of vulnerable populations only because of their population density. Figure 2-4 shows transit need based on percentage. This map shows that there are very high percentages of transit dependent individuals in several downtown Winchester block groups; the U.S. Route 50 west corridor; an area northwest of Winchester, to the east of U.S. Route 522; an area north of the Route 7 corridor, along the Frederick County/Clarke County border; and an area both east and west of U.S. Route 522, east of Stephens City and north of State Route 277. Autoless Households Households without access to at least one personal vehicle are more likely to depend on the mobility offered by public transit. Autoless households are reflected in both the TDI and TDIP measures, however, displaying this segment of the population separately is seen as important from a transit planning perspective. As shown in Figure 2-5, areas with very high relative numbers of autoless households are located in the northernmost block groups of the study area, west of U.S. 11; an area northeast of the City of Winchester; an area in northeastern Winchester that includes Westminster Canterbury; several areas of central Winchester, extending east into Frederick County and along the eastern county border; a block group east of Stephens City, and one at the southern end of the study area. 20 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-9 | KFH Group Inc. Figure 2-4: Transit Dependence Index by Percentage SOURCE: AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY, 2017-2021 FIVE YEAR ESTIMATES 21 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-10 | KFH Group Inc. Figure 2-5: Autoless Households in the Study Area SOURCE: AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY, 2017-2021 FIVE YEAR ESTIMATES 22 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-11 | KFH Group Inc. Title VI Demographic Analysis The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal subsidies. This includes agencies providing federally funded public transportation. The following section examines the minority and below poverty level populations in the study area. Minority Population In accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is important to ensure that areas with a higher than average concentration of racial and/or ethnic minorities are not negatively impacted by proposed alterations to existing public transportation services. To determine whether an alteration would have an adverse impact it is necessary to first understand where concentrations of minority individuals reside. Figure 2-6 provides a map of the study area showing the Census block groups shaded according to whether they have minority populations of above or below the service area average (mean) of 26.3%. Above average concentrations of minorities are located in the City of Winchester, generally east of Route 11 and extending into Frederick County, both to the northeast, and to the southeast of the city. There are also above average concentrations of minorities east and northeast of Stephens City. Below Poverty Populations This socioeconomic group represents individuals who earn less than the federal poverty level. These individuals face financial hardships that make owning and providing the necessary maintenance of a personal vehicle difficult. For this segment of the population, public transportation may be the more economical choice. Figure 2-7 is a map that shows the Census block groups according to whether the poverty rate is above or below the study area average (mean) of 7.9%. Note that the federal poverty rate is 11.6% and Virginia’s is 10.2%, so the study area’s average poverty rate is lower than the national and state rates. According to the map, areas with above average concentrations of below poverty populations are located to the west and northwest of the City of Winchester; a relatively large area in the northeastern quadrant of the study area; an area between U.S. Route 11 and I-81, south of Winchester; the Town of Stephens City; and an area east of Stephens City to the county border, north of State Route 277. 23 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-12 | KFH Group Inc. Figure 2-6: Distribution of the Minority Population in the Study Area SOURCE: AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY, 2017-2021 FIVE YEAR ESTIMATES 24 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-13 | KFH Group Inc. Figure 2-7: Distribution of the Below Poverty Population in the Study Area SOURCE: AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY, 2017-2021 FIVE YEAR ESTIMATES 25 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-14 | KFH Group Inc. Limited-English Proficiency It is important to recognize the variety of languages spoken in the study area to ensure that public information is disseminated to individuals who speak languages other than English. According to ACS five-year estimates, 5.2% of the region’s population speak English less than “very well” and are considered to have limited English proficiency (LEP). Spanish is the top language spoken by LEP populations and the only one that is above the “safe harbor” threshold of requiring that vital documents be translated. Safe harbor obligations require written translations of vital documents for each LEP language group that constitutes 5% or 1,000 people, whichever is less. There are an estimated 5,155 Spanish speaking residents in the city and county (combined) who speak English “less than well.” Table 2-4 provides the LEP data for Frederick County and the City of Winchester including the top languages spoken by LEP individuals. Table 2-4: Limited English Proficiency in the Study Area Frederick County, Virginia Winchester City, Virginia County and City Combined Estimate Percent of Total Estimate Percent of Total Estimate Percent of Total Total Population Over 5 years old or older 85,079 26,473 111,552 Speak only English 75,964 89.29% 21,535 81.35% 97,499 87.40% Spanish 7,360 8.65% 4,143 15.65% 11,503 10.31% Speak English "very well" 4,249 4.99% 2,099 7.93% 6,348 5.69% Speak English less than "very well" 3,111 3.66% 2,044 7.72% 5,155 4.62% French, Haitian, or Cajun 90 0.11% 140 0.53% 230 0.21% Speak English "very well" 89 0.10% 64 0.24% 153 0.14% Speak English less than "very well" 1 0.00% 76 0.29% 77 0.07% German or other West Germanic languages 248 0.29% 48 0.18% 296 0.27% Speak English "very well" 219 0.26% 44 0.17% 263 0.24% Speak English less than "very well" 29 0.03% 4 0.02% 33 0.03% Russian, Polish, or other Slavic languages 117 0.14% 123 0.46% 240 0.22% Speak English "very well" 82 0.10% 30 0.11% 112 0.10% Speak English less than "very well" 35 0.04% 93 0.35% 128 0.11% Other Indo-European languages 517 0.61% 200 0.76% 717 0.64% Speak English "very well" 386 0.45% 163 0.62% 549 0.49% Speak English less than "very well" 131 0.15% 37 0.14% 168 0.15% Korean 63 0.07% 2 0.01% 65 0.06% Speak English "very well" 29 0.03% 0 0.00% 29 0.03% Speak English less than "very well" 34 0.04% 2 0.01% 36 0.03% 26 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-15 | KFH Group Inc. Frederick County, Virginia Winchester City, Virginia County and City Combined Chinese (incl. Mandarin, Cantonese) 148 0.17% 25 0.09% 173 0.16% Speak English "very well" 138 0.16% 25 0.09% 163 0.15% Speak English less than "very well" 10 0.01% 0 0.00% 10 0.01% Vietnamese 29 0.03% 80 0.30% 109 0.10% Speak English "very well" 29 0.03% 34 0.13% 63 0.06% Speak English less than "very well" 0 0.00% 46 0.17% 46 0.04% Tagalog (incl. Filipino): 208 0.24% 42 0.16% 250 0.22% Speak English "very well" 169 0.20% 42 0.16% 211 0.19% Speak English less than "very well" 39 0.05% 0 0.00% 39 0.03% Other Asian and Pacific Island languages: 194 0.23% 45 0.17% 239 0.21% Speak English "very well" 174 0.20% 21 0.08% 195 0.17% Speak English less than "very well" 20 0.02% 24 0.09% 44 0.04% Arabic 55 0.06% 6 0.02% 61 0.05% Speak English "very well" 55 0.06% 0 0.00% 55 0.05% Speak English less than "very well" 0 0.00% 6 0.02% 6 0.01% Other and unspecified languages 86 0.10% 84 0.32% 170 0.15% Speak English "very well" 85 0.10% 33 0.12% 118 0.11% Speak English less than "very well" 1 0.00% 51 0.19% 52 0.05% Less than "very well" all languages 3,411 4.01% 2,383 9.00% 5,794 5.19% SOURCE: AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY, 2017-2021 FIVE YEAR ESTIMATES Land Use Profile Major Trip Generators Identifying major trip generators and land uses within the study area complements the demographic analysis. Trip generators such as multi-unit housing, major employers, medical facilities, educational facilities, and shopping centers attract transit demand. Figures 2-8 and 2-9 provide maps of the major trip generators identified in this section. The list of trip generators used to develop these maps is provided in Appendix A. 27 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-16 | KFH Group Inc. Figure 2-8: Major Trip Generators in the Study Area 28 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-17 | KFH Group Inc. Figure 2-9: Major Trip Generators in the City of Winchester Area 29 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-18 | KFH Group Inc. Educational Facilities Major educational facilities such as universities, community colleges, and vocational schools, attract transit demand due to the student population that may be unable to afford or operate a personal vehicle, and by faculty and staff members that are associated with these institutions as major places of employment. An important educational facility for residents of the study area is Laurel Ridge Community College, located in Middletown. The need to provide public transportation to Laurel Ridge (formerly called Lord Fairfax) has been identified for many years. The City of Winchester has launched a relatively new service that provides service between the city and Laurel Ridge, but it uses use I-81 and does not serve the Frederick County corridor that is in between Winchester and Laurel Ridge. Service between Frederick County neighborhoods and Laurel Ridge remains an unmet need. Shenandoah University is located within the City of Winchester and is served by WinTran’s Apple Blossom Route. High schools can also be important trip generators, especially for students who have after school jobs and internships. Only one of the area’s four area high schools, Handley, in the City of Winchester, is served by transit. James Wood is located just northwest of the City and Millbrook High School is located east of Winchester in the Berryville Avenue corridor. Sherando High School is in Stephens City, which is also not currently served by public transportation. The area’s vocational high school, the Dowell J. Howard Center, is not in the WinTran service area. It is located just east of I-81 and south of Berryville Avenue. Human and Community Services Public transit is often vital in ensuring transit dependent populations have access to human service agencies and organizations. Human service agencies provide assistance and resources to residents seeking support in a spectrum of issues including, but not limited to, poverty assistance, senior health care, childhood development, recreation, and nutrition. The Departments of Social Services for Frederick County and the City of Winchester are located in downtown Winchester and served by WinTran. The Frederick/Winchester Health Department is also located in downtown Winchester. The Shenandoah Area Agency on Aging (SAAA) is based in Front Royal and operates several senior centers in the region, including one in the City of Winchester and one in Stephens City. The SAAA offers transportation to these centers on a space available basis. While not necessarily classified as a human service agency, the Department of Motor Vehicles is located at 4050 Valley Pike, which is south of the City of Winchester and not served by public transportation. 30 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-19 | KFH Group Inc. Major Employers Public transportation is a vital link for transit dependent populations to reach employment opportunities. Choice riders may also find public transportation a viable travel alternative to commute to work if the transit service provided is convenient. While there are several major employers based in the City of Winchester with good access to WinTran, there are also some major employers that are located outside of the city and/or in areas not served by WinTran. There are several major employers located in an industrial park southeast of the City of Winchester. This area is in the U.S. Route 17 south corridor, east of the Winchester Regional Airport. Some of the major employers located in this area include: • Navy Federal Credit Union • FBI Central Records Complex • Annandale Millwork The FEMA complex, located at 430 Market Street, is north of Winchester in the Rutherford Crossing area and is not served by WinTran. The Kernstown area, home to HP Hood and some other smaller employers, is also not served. There is another industrial park in northeast Winchester, home to Kraft Heinz, Riviana Foods, a Home Depot Distribution Center, and some smaller companies. This area is partially served by the Northside Route, which travels as far north as the Northwestern Regional Adult Detention Center. Amazon and McKesson, two of the area’s larger employers are located in Clear Brook, which is north of Winchester close to the West Virginia line in the U.S. 11 Corridor. This area does not have any public transportation options. Major Shopping Destinations Shopping centers are attractive trip destinations for many residents. Shopping centers allow residents to purchase essential items such as groceries and other necessities and often serve as a place of employment for residents who would rely on transit. For the purposes of this study, shopping destinations are defined as a concentration of stores such as a mall or retail outlet, large retail establishments and major supermarkets. It is important that the selected shopping destinations do not simply represent recreational shopping locations, but general merchandise and food outlets, as transit dependent persons are more likely to rely on transit services for essential needs. 31 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-20 | KFH Group Inc. As with the other major destinations, those that are located within the City of Winchester are generally served by WinTran. Some significant shopping destinations that are not served are listed below: • Walmart Supercenter, 201 Maranto Manor Drive – Stephens City area • Walmart Supercenter, 501 Walmart Drive, just west of the Winchester Medical Center in the Amherst Street corridor • Martins in the Stephens City area • Dollar General in the Stephens City area • Fredericktowne Crossing Shopping Center in the Stephens City area Medical Facilities Public transportation provides an important mobility option for medical trips, especially for senior adults and persons with disabilities. The major medical facility in the study area is Valley Health’s Winchester Medical Center. There are also several doctors’ offices and medical services clustered near the hospital, which is located on Amherst Street, west of downtown Winchester. This area is served by WinTran’s Amherst Street Route. Multi-Unit/High-Density Housing Residents of multi-unit housing tend to drive fewer miles and use public transportation more frequently than residents of single-family housing. Higher density housing is also easier to serve with public transportation, as more riders can use the same shared stop. Most of the multi-family housing developments in the study area are located within the City of Winchester and are within walking distance of WinTran service. It should be noted that there are multi-family developments in and near Stephens City and these are not served by public transportation. Employment Density The Longitudinal Employer Household Dynamics (LEHD) program was used to provide an estimate for the employment density of the study area. The LEHD program is part of the U.S. Census Bureau’s Center for Economic Studies. The data used to develop the LEHD estimates are drawn from the state’s Unemployment Insurance earnings data and the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), together with additional data from censuses and surveys.1 Figures 2-10 and 2-11 display the employment density for the City of Winchester and for Frederick County using the LEHD On The Map program. The limitation of this dataset is that it shows all of the jobs for a particular employer at the same location, when they may be spread out (such as for the Board of Education). 1 https://lehd.ces.census.gov/ 32 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-21 | KFH Group Inc. Figure 2-10: Employment Density in the City of Winchester 33 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-22 | KFH Group Inc. Figure 2-11: Employment Density in Frederick County 34 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-23 | KFH Group Inc. These maps show that the greatest density of jobs in the study area is within the downtown core of the City of Winchester, extending west along the Amherst Street corridor to Valley Health. There is a secondary dense cluster of jobs in the retail area around the Apple Blossom Mall. The job density data for Frederick County shows several job clusters surrounding the City of Winchester, particularly on the north, the east, and the southern borders of the city. There are smaller clusters in the Stephens City area and south of the MPO area in Middletown. Employment Travel Patterns In addition to identifying the locations of major employers, it is also important to account for the commuting patterns of residents working inside and outside of the study area. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Employer Household Dynamics (LEHD) program was used to learn where people who live in Frederick County and the City of Winchester work, as well as where people who work in Frederick County and the City of Winchester live. The dataset used was based on cities, towns, and census designated places, rather than counties. This data shows that the largest single workplace location for both Frederick County and Winchester city residents who are in the workforce is Winchester. About 24.7% of the Frederick County workforce works in the City of Winchester. Just over 31% of Winchester residents who are in the workforce also work in the city. For those workers who commute to other jurisdictions, their work locations are varied, as is shown in Tables 2-5 and 2-6. The top 25 locations are shown in each of these tables. Leesburg is the most popular work destination outside of Winchester for both Frederick County and Winchester residents. Winchester is the most popular home location for people who work in Frederick County, followed by Front Royal, Strasburg, and Martinsburg, WV. Winchester is also the most popular home location for people who work there, followed by Front Royal, Strasburg, and Shawneeland. These data are shown in Tables 2-7 and 2-8. 35 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-24 | KFH Group Inc. Table 2-5: Journey to Work Locations for Frederick County Residents Workplace Destination Number Percent All Places (Cities, CDPs, etc.) 40,953 100.00% Winchester city, VA 10,113 24.70% Leesburg town, VA 827 2.00% Front Royal town, VA 686 1.70% Chantilly CDP, VA 664 1.60% Berryville town, VA 634 1.50% Harrisonburg city, VA 583 1.40% Ashburn CDP, VA 566 1.40% Arlington CDP, VA 416 1.00% Reston CDP, VA 399 1.00% Purcellville town, VA 345 0.80% Broadlands CDP, VA 289 0.70% Richmond city, VA 289 0.70% Tysons CDP, VA 287 0.70% Woodstock town, VA 282 0.70% Fair Oaks CDP, VA 280 0.70% Martinsburg city, WV 264 0.60% Washington city, DC 256 0.60% Strasburg town, VA 220 0.50% Alexandria city, VA 214 0.50% Middletown town, VA 207 0.50% Vienna town, VA 200 0.50% Warrenton town, VA 193 0.50% Sterling CDP, VA 174 0.40% Dulles Town Center CDP, VA 173 0.40% Lansdowne CDP, VA 166 0.40% All Other Locations 22,226 54.30% 36 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-25 | KFH Group Inc. Table 2-6: Journey to Work Locations for Winchester City Residents Workplace Destination Number Percent All Places (Cities, CDPs, etc.) 12,104 100% Winchester city 3,780 31.2% Leesburg town 179 1.5% Harrisonburg city 164 1.4% Front Royal town 157 1.3% Berryville town 154 1.3% Chantilly CDP 146 1.2% Arlington CDP 125 1.0% Reston CDP 110 0.9% Washington city, DC 95 0.8% Fair Oaks CDP 92 0.8% Tysons CDP 89 0.7% Ashburn CDP 85 0.7% Purcellville town 82 0.7% Martinsburg city, WV 79 0.7% Richmond city 72 0.6% Alexandria city 60 0.5% Vienna town 59 0.5% Sterling CDP 57 0.5% Middletown town 53 0.4% Dulles Town Center CDP 51 0.4% Roanoke city 51 0.4% Manassas city 50 0.4% McNair CDP 48 0.4% Springfield CDP 47 0.4% Warrenton town 46 0.4% All other locations 6,173 51% 37 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-26 | KFH Group Inc. Table 2-7: Home Locations for People Working in Frederick County Home Location Number Percent All Places (Cities, CDPs, etc.) 28,282 100% Winchester city 2,463 8.7% Front Royal town 493 1.7% Strasburg town 438 1.5% Martinsburg city, WV 334 1.2% Shawneeland CDP 281 1.0% Lake Holiday CDP 253 0.9% Stephens City town 227 0.8% Middletown town 172 0.6% Harrisonburg city 170 0.6% Leesburg town 160 0.6% Inwood CDP, WV 148 0.5% Virginia Beach city 142 0.5% Berryville town 140 0.5% Woodstock town 130 0.5% Shenandoah Farms CDP 127 0.4% Richmond city, VA 115 0.4% Ashburn CDP, VA 96 0.3% Sterling CDP, VA 87 0.3% Arlington CDP 85 0.3% Washington city 70 0.2% South Riding CDP 69 0.2% Dale City CDP 68 0.2% Centreville CDP 67 0.2% Manassas city 65 0.2% Linton Hall CDP 61 0.5% All Other Locations 21,821 77% 38 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-27 | KFH Group Inc. Table 2-8: Home Locations for People Working in the City of Winchester Home Location Number Percent All Places (Cities, CDPs, etc) 27,059 1 Winchester city 3,780 14% Front Royal town 476 2% Strasburg town 420 2% Shawneeland CDP 294 1% Lake Holiday CDP 279 1% Stephens City town 244 1% Martinsburg city 227 1% Woodstock town 176 1% Inwood CDP, WV 166 1% Berryville town 142 1% Middletown town 135 1% Leesburg town 125 1% Harrisonburg city 123 1% Shenandoah Farms CDP 122 1% Virginia Beach city 97 0% Luray town 76 0% Ashburn CDP 69 0% Richmond city 67 0% Purcellville town 65 0% Alexandria city 54 0% Arlington CDP, VA 54 0% Linton Hall CDP 53 0% Gore CDP 50 0% Maurertown CDP 48 0% Ranson, WV 48 0% All Other Locations 19,669 73% 39 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-28 | KFH Group Inc. Means of Transportation to Work The primary way that residents of both Frederick County and the City of Winchester get to work is via a private car, truck, or van, driving alone, as shown in Table 2-9. Carpooling is a distant second mode choice, with 8.8% of the county’s work force and 12.5% of the city’s work force choosing this mode. Winchester workers show a higher usage (as a percentage) for all the non-single occupant commute modes as compared to Frederick County workers. Very low public transportation usage is shown in the data. Table 2-9: Means of Transportation to Work Frederick County, Virginia Winchester city, Virginia Commuting to Work Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Workers ages16 years and older 43,380 14,766 Car, truck, or van -- drove alone 35,199 81.10% 10,421 70.60% Car, truck, or van -- carpooled 3,800 8.80% 1,839 12.50% Public transportation (excluding taxicab) 142 0.30% 142 1.00% Walked 469 1.10% 706 4.80% Other means 371 0.90% 122 0.80% Worked from home 3,399 7.80% 1,536 10.40% Mean travel time to work (minutes) 33.2 23 SOURCE: AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY, FIVE-YEAR ESTIMATES (2017-2021) Review of Recent Plans and Studies The needs analysis includes a review of recent plans and studies that have addressed transportation needs and land use in the City of Winchester, Frederick County, or the MPO area specifically. This section provides a summary of the relevant plans and studies including the issues and recommendations related to transportation and transit. Frederick County Comprehensive Plan 2035 – Updated in 2021 Frederick County’s Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) provides a framework for how the county will manage growth and development as it relates to land use, transportation, public facilities, infrastructure, historic resources, and natural resources over a roughly 20-year period. The most recent update to the Plan occurred in 2021. 40 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-29 | KFH Group Inc. The transportation section of the Plan is heavily focused on roadways, but does include one goal in the area of alternative transportation: “Goal 7: Provide cost effective alternatives to automobile travel as needed, for the elderly, disabled, students, and workforce.” Strategies associated with this goal include coordinating with the Shenandoah Area Agency on Aging (SAAA) and Access Independence to help secure outside funding; working with the MPO to identify transportation need, and monitoring data to keep informed regarding growing need.2 The need to incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into new roads and upgrades to existing roadways is also discussed. In terms of land uses, the Plan discusses that growth should be directed to areas within the Urban Development Area (UDA). The UDA area, as shown in Exhibit 2-1, is a smaller footprint than the Urbanized Area. City of Winchester Comprehensive Plan The City of Winchester completed their most recent Comprehensive Plan in May 2022. The city’s plan includes a chapter on mobility that highlights walkability as a community vision. The city’s mobility goal is to “Create and maintain a safe, efficient, and environmentally sustainable mobility and transportation network that is interconnected, multi-modal, and that facilitates walkable urban land use patterns less dependent upon personal vehicle use.”3 Thirteen objectives were developed to support this goal. Several of the objectives address transit services including the following: Objective 3 – “Encourage the use of alternate modes of mobility including walking, bicycling, and public transportation by all sectors of the population to reduce the dependency upon private automobile use.” Part of this objective specifically advocates for the implementation of the recommendations included within the MPO’s 2009 Transit Services Plan. These included increased WinTran frequency of service, the extension of WinTran routes into Frederick County’s most urbanized areas, and the addition of bike racks to WinTran buses. Objective 7 – “Investigate the needs for multimodal transfer facilities.” This objective calls for the construction of covered bus shelters, particularly at multimodal intersections near parking garages and the Green Circle Trail. Objective 8 calls for the city to work with Frederick County and Stephens City to extend public transportation between the city and important destinations that are outside the city, including Laurel Ridge Community College, the DMC, the Virginia Employment Commission, the regional detention facilities. Regional transit services are advocated for this objective. Other objectives within the mobility section advocate for improved pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and the implementation of New Urbanistic layouts of interconnected street grids. 2 The Comprehensive Plan for Frederick County, Life at the Top, Adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, November 10, 2021. 3 City of Winchester, 2022 Comprehensive Plan, Adopted by Winchester Common Council, March 8, 2022. 41 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-30 | KFH Group Inc. Exhibit 2-1: Frederick County’s Urban and Rural Areas from County Comprehensive Plan 42 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-31 | KFH Group Inc. Winchester – Frederick County MPO Long Range Transportation Plan The WinFred MPO completed its 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) in November 2022. The plan is a federal requirement and is updated every five years. The purpose of the plan is to “set forth the goals, objectives, strategies, and actions required to develop and maintain and efficient, equitable, multi-modal system for the transportation of people and goods throughout greater Winchester in a manner that will enhance the economic, social, and environmental qualities of the community.”4 Modes addressed in the plan include roadways, public transportation facilities, non-motorized transportation facilities, and intermodal connectors. Aviation is also discussed within the plan. The vision for the plan is as follows: “It is the policy of the WinFred MPO and its member jurisdictions to strive for a multi-modal transportation system that is planned, designed, operated, and maintained to provide: safe, efficient, fiscally sustainable access to economic and community life for all, regardless of one’s ability, desire, or opportunity to drive, while preserving and enhancing environmental quality and community character.” The MTP incorporated recommendations from a series of local plans to develop a set of five MPO strategies. The two that address public transportation include: • Goal 2: Accessible and Connected Places. One of the objectives under this goal is to increase accessibility to jobs via transit, walking and driving, which includes implementing the recommendations within the WinTran Transit Development Plan, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and a recommendation to design streets for all users. • Goal 5: Healthy Communities and Sustainable Transportation Communities. One of the objectives under this goal is to increase the number of bicycling and walking trips through the implementation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, as well as the above recommendation to design streets for all users. The MTP documents the MPO area’s resources within each mode, develops performance measures, and provides a financial plan. Stephens City Comprehensive Plan The Town of Stephens City’s Comprehensive Plan addresses the years 2011-2031 and was adopted in 2011. Stephen City’s vision for the town’s future provides the framework for the plan. The vision statement is, “Stephens City – A strong and caring community, with historic small-town charm and its own unique identity, within a healthy and prosperous environment.”5 4 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, WinFred MPO, November 2022. 5 Town of Stephens City Comprehensive Plan, 2011-2031, Adopted May 3, 2011. 43 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-32 | KFH Group Inc. Important themes among the goals include maintaining the character of the town while managing growth and promoting high quality development. Building a better working relationship with Frederick County to influence more control over growth adjacent to Stephens City is also listed as a goal. Goal 6 addresses transportation and states: “Provide a safe and effective transportation system for pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles in the town and surrounding area.” Public transportation is not specifically addressed. The need to ensure adequate parking is also discussed, along with two major VDOT roadway projects that will affect the town significantly – the relocation of the Route 277/I-81 interchange and the development of a Stephens City Western bypass to Route 11. Winchester Transit – Transit Development Plan The recommendations from WinTran’s most recent Transit Development Plan Update (FY2017-2028), as referenced in the MPO’s LRTP, are listed below. Short Term • Improve on-time arrival by eliminating underperforming stops, serving facilities only during their business hours, and reconfiguring the downtown circulation pattern. • Provide more frequent service by eliminating the Trolley and streamlining the Amherst-Apple Blossom routes. • Improve information access by making the route map available via print and updating the website. • Designate specific bays for each bus route at the transfer location. • Add a staff member to assist with operations. Mid-Term • Provide more frequent service by introducing a Northside Circulator and a Southside Circulator to replace some of the current routes. Long-Term • Expand the span of service by extending service until 8:00 p.m. on Saturday and introducing Sunday service. • Provide more frequent service to achieve 30-minute headways. • Expand service area by extending the Apple Blossom Route; introducing a Frederick County route; and extending service to LFCC (now LRCC).6 6 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, WinFred MPO, November 2022, page 34. 44 Chapter 2: Demographics, Land Use, and Summary of Previous Plans WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 2-33 | KFH Group Inc. Virginia’s Coordinated Human Services Mobility Plan Virginia's Coordinated Human Services Mobility Plan was most recently updated in 2019. The plan was developed by region, with the WinFred MPO assigned to the Northern Region, which included the following counties and cities: Arlington, Clarke, Culpeper, Fairfax, Fauquier, Frederick, Loudoun, Page, Prince William, Rappahannock, Shenandoah, Warren, Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, Manassas Park, and Winchester. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requires the development of coordinated public transit – human services plans to support funding requests for projects funded through FTA’s Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities program. Service alternatives for the region included the following: • Provide transportation to seniors and individuals with disabilities who cannot use public transportation or who live in areas where public transportation is not available. • Where possible, partner with public transportation providers to determine opportunities for efficiencies with route modification, deviated fixed route, or other service alterations. • Develop a “one call/one click” approach for human service transportation.7 Winchester-Frederick County Transit Services plan, 2009 In 2009 the WinFred MPO worked with KFH Group to prepare an MPO Transit Services Plan, similar to the current planning effort.8 The service plan recommended the following improvements: • Fixed route transit service extensions in the Winchester-Frederick County urbanized area, including extensions of all five fixed routes into the county along each primary service corridor (Berryville Avenue; Valley Avenue; Amherst Street; Millwood Avenue; Route 11 North). • Fixed route service adjustments to better serve riders with the City of Winchester. • Expansion of the days and hours for WinTran services. • Increased frequency of service for WinTran’s fixed routes. • Improved passenger amenities. • Countywide demand response public transportation. • Corridor service along Route 11 to serve Stephens City and LFCC (now LRCC). • Regional corridor service. • Commuter infrastructure and services. 7 Virginia Coordinated Human Services Mobility Plan, 2019, developed for the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, by Michael Baker, Renaissance Planning, and Foursquare ITP. 8 Winchester-Frederick County Transit Services Plan, August 2009, prepared for the Winchester-Frederick County Metropolitan Planning Organization, prepared by KFH Group, Inc. 45 Chapter 3: Community Outreach WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 3-1 | KFH Group Inc. Chapter 3 Community Outreach Introduction Chapter 3 summarizes the community outreach process and the input that was received for the Transit Feasibility study. Through this process, feedback was obtained concerning the services currently available in the Winchester-Frederick County Metropolitan Planning Organization (WinFred MPO) area, as well as unmet public transportation needs. These findings were combined with the results of the previous tasks to identify issues and opportunities that were considered for the development of alternatives for the plan. This chapter is divided into the following sections: • Community Survey – Summary of a survey that provided the opportunity to gather opinions from the general public. • Stakeholder Interviews – A review of the feedback received from local stakeholders regarding existing transit services, unmet public transportation needs, and priorities for the future. Community Survey To get a better understanding of the need for public transportation in the WinFred MPO area, a community survey was conducted. The survey was available electronically, with paper backup copies available at key locations. The survey was also administered by the NSVRC’s outreach consultant team during the Apple Blossom Festival. The survey period began in early May and ended in late June 2023. A total of 224 responses were received, with the results summarized below. Transportation Modes The first survey question asked respondents to indicate what transportation mode they usually use to access work, school, shopping, medical appointments, and other life activities. The majority of the respondents indicated that they drive themselves (74%). The second highest response was “a friend or family member drives me,” with 8.9% indicating this choice. Public transportation was listed third, with 5.8% of respondents choosing that mode. 46 Chapter 3: Community Outreach WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 3-2 | KFH Group Inc. The second question asked respondents to indicate whether they used a number of forms of public transportation that were listed within the survey. The results to this question are summarized in Table 3-1. These data show that about 35% of respondents use Winchester Transit on a regular basis, followed by WMATA Metro Rail or Bus, carpools, and MARC Rail. Responses in the “other” category with more than two entries included “none,” Uber, and United Healthcare. Table 3-1: Public Transportation Modes Used Answer Choices Responses % # Winchester Transit 34.6% 28 Other (please specify) 34.6% 28 WMATA Metro Rail or Bus 13.6% 11 Carpools 12.4% 10 MARC Rail 11.1% 9 Vanpools 4.9% 4 ShenGo 3.7% 3 Royal Trolley 2.5% 2 Corridor Connector 1.2% 1 WellTran 1.2% 1 Clarke County on Demand 0.0% 0 Answered 81 Skipped 143 Unmet Transportation Needs Question three asked if respondents, or others in their home, have problems getting their transportation needs met. The results indicated that 42.6% said “yes” they do have problems getting their transportation needs met, and 57.4% said “no.” The follow up question for those respondents that indicated “yes” asked what the lack of transportation keeps them or others in their home from doing. These results are shown in Table 3-2 and show the most need for transportation access for medical and dental appointments, social/recreational activities, and working/seeking employment. Respondents could check more than one answer. 47 Chapter 3: Community Outreach WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 3-3 | KFH Group Inc. Table 3-2: Unmet Transportation Responses Answer Choices Responses Percent Number Medical or dental appointments 64.0% 55 Social or recreational activities 54.7% 47 Working or seeking employment 48.8% 42 Shopping 44.2% 38 Attending school or training 33.7% 29 Other 9.3% 8 Answered 86 Skipped 138 Reasons for Not Driving For those who indicated transportation issues, the survey asked if there are reasons why people do not drive or limit the amount they drive. Of the 93 respondents who answered this question, 76 respondents indicated that there are specific reasons for either not driving or limiting driving. “Not licensed to drive” was checked the most frequently, with 34 responses, followed by “do not drive at night”, 29 responses, and “do not have a vehicle,” 28 responses. Is there a Need to Start a Public Transportation Service? The survey specifically asked respondents to indicate if they thought there is a need to start a public transportation service for areas of Frederick County and Stephens City that are not served by Winchester Transit. Over 90% of the respondents (197) indicated “yes.” Potential Service Areas When asked about the importance of potential service areas, the following areas were most highly ranked: • U.S. Route 11 corridor between the City of Winchester, Stephens City, and LRCC; • Areas of Frederick County that are outside of the City of Winchester, but adjacent to the current WinTran routes; and • Local service in the Stephens City area. 48 Chapter 3: Community Outreach WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 3-4 | KFH Group Inc. If respondents indicated that commuter service was important, they were asked to list particular commuter destinations. These results are shown in Table 3-3. Table 3-3: Commuter Destinations Location Number of Requests Metrorail 14 Leesburg/Loudoun County 13 Northern VA 11 Airports 9 Berryville/Clarke County 7 Front Royal 6 Washington, DC 5 Strasburg 5 522 North 3 Martinsburg 2 Types of Services Respondents were provided a list of service types and asked to indicate which would be the most useful. More than one answer was permitted for this question. The results show that fixed route service was chosen most frequently, followed by microtransit, deviated fixed route, and demand response. These answers are displayed in Table 3-4. Table 3-4: Service Type Preferences Answer Choices Responses Percent Number Fixed route service that follows a set route and schedule and does not require you to call ahead. 61.6% 101 Demand response service similar to Uber or Lyft that allows you to use a phone or computer application to schedule a ride when you need it. This type of service is called microtransit. 41.5% 68 Deviated fixed route service that follows a base route but will deviate up to ¾ mile to pick you up, if you have called ahead. 36.0% 59 Demand response service that requires you to call a day ahead and picks you up near your home and brings you to your destination. 34.8% 57 Answered 164 Skipped 60 49 Chapter 3: Community Outreach WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 3-5 | KFH Group Inc. Potential Use and Fares When asked if they or members of their household would use public transportation services if it met their needs, 86% said that they would. The survey also asked how much people would be willing to pay for a one-way trip. The most indicated fare was between $1.00 and $2.00. These results are shown in Table 3-5. Table 3-5: Fares Answer Choices Responses Percent Number Less than $1.00 12.4% 22 Between $1.00 and $2.00 54.5% 97 More than $2.00 33.2% 59 Answered 178 Skipped 46 Participant Information The greatest number of survey participants indicated that they were from a Winchester zip code, followed by Stephens City, and Middletown. These results are shown in Table 3-6. Table 3-6: Participant Zip Codes Zip Code Place Number of Responses 22601 Winchester 59 22655 Stephens City 51 22602 Winchester 34 22603 Winchester 9 22645 Middletown 7 22625 Cross Junction 6 22657 Strasburg 5 17401 York 4 22630 Front Royal 4 22309 Alexandria 2 25413 Bunker Hill WV 2 22824 Edinburg 1 25402 Martinsburg 1 25420 Gerrardstown, WV 1 26711 Capon Bridge, WV 1 22620 Boyce 1 50 Chapter 3: Community Outreach WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 3-6 | KFH Group Inc. The most indicated age group was 25-44, followed by ages 45-59 and ages 60 to 69. These results are shown in Table 3-7. Table 3-7: Ages of Survey Participants Answer Choices Responses Age Percent Number 0-17 0.0% 0 18-24 2.5% 5 25-44 33.3% 66 45-59 28.3% 56 60-69 21.7% 43 70+ 14.1% 28 Answered 198 Skipped 26 Comments Survey participants were offered an opportunity to provide open-ended comments. Most comments were in support of improving service, while a few were not. Some comments also referenced the need to improve cycling infrastructure. There were several very specific transit requests also. The open-ended comments are provided in Table 3-8. Table 3-8: Open-Ended Comments Comments I don't understand why the NWCSB moved to Kernstown, where there is no public transportation! There wasn't a direct stop before, but people could get off the bus by the mall and walk the rest of the way. NWCSB is a vital service and it is infuriating that someone high up (governor?) hasn't done anything about this! This problem includes that there is no public transportation for the 4 substance abuse treatment centers put on 522 toward Front Royal/Stephens City. Two of them are the only methadone clinics in Winchester/Frederick County. Before any of these facilities were open, public transportation should have been created so people can get help without worrying every day how to get there. This applies to any medical/social/important service locations in our area. People should never be unable to access help due to transportation issues! Need to get to Front Royal to be able to catch the bus to DC Glad to see this survey. I believe there is a need in this area. Access for people who use canes or walkers, who have difficult time using steps to get on bus. 51 Chapter 3: Community Outreach WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 3-7 | KFH Group Inc. Comments Service from Senseny Road area to downtown and Pleasant Valley Rd shopping area The thought of having more freedom to get on a bus do some shopping or be able to go to a doctor appt without depending on someone to pick me up I want everyone to have access to transportation, this is important for mental health. We need to be a more welcoming city for everyone ���� Hoping for improved and expanded bicycle routes. It's easier to bike in DC and NYC than in Winchester. My son has autism and would like to attend community college in Middletown but doesn't drive or have transportation. We need something for people like him and other low-income people to be able to attend college. Traffic congestion would improve Elevate traffic on 11 between 3 and 4 Do not waste taxpayer money on this ridiculous nonsense. More, better and more visible public transportation, more bike lanes too! I think cycling infrastructure over transit should be improved within Frederick Co. towns. Should have regular stops, if not already, to major employers in the area. Public transportation options for lower income households, especially those not living near grocery stores We really need service to Laurel Ridge! I'd also really like to see commuter service to Ashburn's Silver Line station. A lot of people in the West Virginia panhandle and Winchester metro area work in northern Virginia and DC. If you provide public transportation, we will use it connect us to the mattress area and we will use it. Please provide commuter service to Martinsburg Anything convenient and cost efficient that helps eliminate some of the back-ups that occur frequently in Stephens City at the light. Going to become much worse with the two new huge developments east and north of town limits. More sidewalks for walking. More bike paths. It doesn't make sense that a bus doesn't go at least to DMV. It wouldn't need to extend that route very much. Expanding public transportation is a great idea. I see posts on Facebook all the time for individuals that need rides to work and perhaps expanding the routes could help them. We need more bus routes throughout the area. Disabled people and senior citizens should ride free, they are on a low fixed income. I see many WinTran trolleys every day and they are almost always empty or have 1 person on them. I think a more cost efficient way to serve people who don’t drive or can’t afford to pay for Uber, etc. would be to offer vouchers for Uber, taxis, etc., rather than running a fleet of empty buses. 52 Chapter 3: Community Outreach WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 3-8 | KFH Group Inc. Comments Better drivers. Ones that don't drive over the speed limit Currently, at age 77 I can drive wherever I need to go but don't know how long that will last. When the time comes, I assume my walking distance will be limited so a pick-up at the door will be important. I am 1 mile from 277 but probably could not walk that far, especially in very cold or hot weather. My closest family are in Front Royal and work full time. Frederick County has become a commuter city to D.C. and it would be great to have an environmentally friendly way to bridge the gap between the county and WMATA as well as serving more localized needs I would seriously love to have better public transportation and if we had good transportation it would also enable and encourage greater density in the county/city, which would make it more walkable as well :) thank you! We need public transportation in Frederick County desperately. Traffic is now horrible due to all the new folks moving here. It would be helpful to have reduced rates for students and senior citizens. Improve it, there's a need. Taxi is currently only option that will pick someone up from their home and return them to their home. Consider transportation from senior leaving areas to shopping centers or medical areas from Stephens City Hairdresser and shopping in the Stephen City area I'm a retired transit planner, have worked at 2 MPO's and two state DOTs. Keep up the good work. Please tie into other nearby public transportation systems such as ShenGO in Strasburg and Woodstock or Amtrak in Martinsburg. Also please consider that some folks need to use the bus later than 6 because they get off late or have errands in the evening or work night shift, also our tourists would benefit more from longer service hours and more service on the weekends. I drive but there have been times when I have been in need of public transportation that would go into the county. There are many developed areas of the county That could use public transportation. I think a Winfred transportation system would really solve a lot of the transportation needs in the area. Especially in areas of the county adjacent to the city. Public transportation in Stephens City would be a game changer. In the future it would be great see Winfred work with metro rail for an extension rail arrive Need Front Royal to be able to catch the bus Please bring public transportation to Stephens City. Stickley Drive area! Improve bus stops along routes Because of a disability, I may lose my ability to drive. Stephens City, along the rt 277 corridor, is not walkable. 53 Chapter 3: Community Outreach WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 3-9 | KFH Group Inc. Stakeholder Interviews An important task within the study process is soliciting perspectives from local stakeholders. In consultation with the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission (NSVRC) a variety of stakeholders were identified, and then were contacted via email to schedule a brief interview. This outreach was aimed at getting a sense of public transportation challenges and opportunities in the WinFred MPO area. Representatives from the following organizations and agencies provided their input through this process: • Access Independence • Church World Service • Frederick County Department of Social Services • Laurel Ridge Community College • Northwestern Community Services • Northwestern Regional Adult Detention Center • Seniors First • Shenandoah Alliance for Shelter • Wheels for Wellness (Faith in Action) The following section provides a summary of the input provided by these stakeholders. The needs discussed are not necessarily in priority order. On-Demand Service and Rural Service A representative from Seniors First, the Shenandoah Area Agency on Aging, indicated that there is a need for additional on-demand services in the region. Seniors First provides transportation for seniors to attend senior centers throughout the region and also operates WellTran, which focuses on providing primarily medical trips for seniors and people with disabilities. The WellTran program generally operates at capacity and has had to turn away about 450 trips so far this year. Seniors First staff indicated that people are living longer and staying in their homes longer, which typically means they need transportation assistance to access a variety of services needed for daily life. The population served through Seniors First and WellTran generally needs assistance accessing the vehicle from their homes and would have trouble navigating a fixed route service. Representatives from other stakeholder groups echoed the need for rural services to improve access to employment, grocery shopping, and other necessary activities from areas of the county that do not have sufficient population density to support fixed route options. Staff from the Frederick County Department of Social Services (DSS) indicated that clients who live in the rural areas of Frederick County experience a lack of access to a variety of services, including child care, grocery stores, and employment. Some of these clients end up moving to Winchester to have improved access to these services. 54 Chapter 3: Community Outreach WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 3-10 | KFH Group Inc. Medical Transportation Staff from Seniors First indicated that additional options for medical transportation are needed, particularly for populations that are not eligible for Medicaid transportation. Staff from Wheels for Wellness echoed this need, indicating that dialysis trips comprise a significant number of the trips that are provided by their volunteer drivers. It was noted that Seniors First is the only provider of medical trips for people with disabilities, as Wheels for Wellness volunteers are not equipped to handle clients with disabilities. Wheels for Wellness staff also reported a great need for medical transportation from the more rural communities in Shenandoah and Warren counties. The DSS also indicated a need for additional medical transportation options. It was noted that many providers are using telehealth, and this is not a good fit for seniors who are not able to navigate the technology associated with telehealth. Employment Transportation Staff from the Northwestern Regional Adult Detention Center (NRADC) indicated that there is a need for transit connections from the NRADC facility on Fort Collier Road to major employment centers within five to seven miles of the facility. Many of the inmates participate in a work release program, where they are employed outside of the facility. They are provided bicycles to use, but some jobs are too far and some of the roads are not well suited for bicycle commuting. Staff reported that the closest bus stop is no longer in service, as the Salvation Army on Fort Collier Road is closed. There are also job opportunities farther north of Winchester in the Clear Brook area, most notably Amazon. These jobs are typically shift jobs that may have odd hours and need flexible transportation options. Access to Education and Training A representative from Laurel Ridge Community College (LRCC) indicated that a route that originated east of Winchester in the Route 7 corridor and served LRCC would be helpful for students from the Millbrook High School area. Service oriented to the needs of students from the James Wood High School area (northwest of Winchester) to LRCC would also be helpful. A representative from Church World Service (CWS) indicated that LRCC offers free English as a Second Language (ESL) classes. These classes are vital to the refugee clients served by CWS. Other Transportation While Seniors First does not serve younger, non-disabled people, staff do see a need for expanded public transportation in areas that are close to Winchester in Frederick County. It was noted that these areas are fast growing and do not currently have any public transportation services. 55 Chapter 3: Community Outreach WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 3-11 | KFH Group Inc. NRADC staff also indicated a need for early morning options, reporting that inmates get released at 5:00 a.m. and often do not have transportation options. It was also reported that the probation office on Route 522 is not served by transit. Winchester Transit Feedback Stakeholders gave high marks to the service provided by Winchester Transit. A representative from Access Independence indicated that Sunday service is needed, as well as service to places that are close to Winchester but outside of the city limits. The LRCC representative noted that they worked with WinTran to develop a schedule that works for their class blocks for the recently implemented route between the City of Winchester and LRCC. It was reported that students and employees are using the route. It was also noted that the current fare-free status of WinTran services is helpful for the riders they serve. Service in the U.S. Route 11 Corridor Several stakeholders mentioned the need for service in the U.S. Route 11 corridor, between the City of Winchester, Stephens City, and LRCC. Service in this corridor would be particularly helpful for clients that attend programs at Northwestern Community Services, which is located along the corridor just south of Winchester. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is located along this corridor, along with a number of major employers. Service in the corridor would also help residents of Frederick County and Stephens City attend LRCC. DSS staff also advocated for service in this corridor, particularly for employment transportation. CWS staff also cited a need for public transportation access to the DMV. All the CWS clients need to get to the DMV to get either a Virginia I.D. or driver’s license if qualified. Regional Service A representative from the Shenandoah Alliance for Shelter indicated that an important need in the Shenandoah Valley is for regional transit services that would connect existing small transit programs with the major cities in the Shenandoah Valley, as well as with LRCC. Access to Winchester, Front Royal, and Harrisonburg is needed from the smaller communities and rural areas throughout the region. Additional rural transit availability is also needed, as well as more options close to the city of Winchester. A representative from LRCC echoed the need for regional service, as LRCC draws from the City of Winchester, Frederick County, Warren County, Clarke County, Shenandoah County, and Page County. 56 Chapter 3: Community Outreach WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 3-12 | KFH Group Inc. Senseny Road During the discussion of needs with the study committee, it was noted that there have been requests for transit services to and from Senseny Place, which is located on Senseny Road, just outside the City of Winchester. Senseny Place is an age and income restricted apartment complex, home to people 55 years of age and older. The need for service to this location was incorporated into the potential service options (Chapter 4). Summary The information gathered from the public surveys and the stakeholders indicates that there is interest in providing some level of public transportation services in Frederick County and Stephens City, as well as more regional services. The following areas were discussed the most frequently: • The U.S. Route 11 Corridor between Winchester, Stephens City, and LRCC • The urbanized areas close to the City of Winchester The need for rural services was also mentioned, along with regional services that connect the centers of commerce of the Shenandoah Valley to each other and to the Washington, DC metro area. 57 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-1 | KFH Group Inc. Chapter 4 Existing Services and Potential Alternatives Introduction This chapter provides an overview of the public transportation services currently available in the Winchester-Frederick County Metropolitan Planning Organization (WinFred MPO) area, followed by the presentation of a range of alternatives to consider for initiating public transportation services where none currently exist. The chapter also includes a discussion of organizational options and federal funding issues. Existing Services The only public transportation provider in the MPO area is Winchester Transit (WinTran), which is operated by the City of Winchester and primarily serves areas within the City. There are several other transportation services operating in the region and these typically serve particular client groups. Each of the existing services is described below. WinTran WinTran operates six fixed routes that primarily serve locations within the City of Winchester; a trolley route; ADA complementary paratransit in support of the fixed routes; and a new express route that operates between the City and Laurel Ridge Community College (LRCC). The fixed routes operate Monday through Saturday on 70-minute headways. On weekdays the service span is from 6:00 a.m. to 7:58 p.m. On Saturdays the span of service is from 8:50 a.m. to 4:58 p.m. Three vehicles are interlined to provide the core routes, each servicing two routes and meeting at the Boscawen Street transfer station every 30 to 35 minutes. WinTran is about to launch a route re-design along with the implementation of microtransit. The start date for the new route network and microtransit services is March 26th, 2024. The final version of this report will document the new route network. 58 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-2 | KFH Group Inc. The six core city fixed routes are: 1. Amherst Street – Provides service from the Boscawen Street transfer station to the Winchester Medical Center via Amherst Street. 2. Apple Blossom – Provides a loop route that serves central Winchester, the Apple Blossom Mall area, Walmart, and Winchester Station. 3. Berryville Avenue – Provides a loop route to the eastern portion of the City, including Jim Barnett Park. 4. Northside – Provides service to the northside of the City, with two branches – one serving Westminster Canterbury and a second service the Salvation Army and the Northwestern Regional Adult Correctional Facility. 5. South Loudoun – Provides service through the South Loudoun Street corridor from downtown Winchester south to Papermill Road and Shawnee Drive, terminating at NW Works. 6. Valley Avenue – Provides service from downtown Winchester south to Creekside Station via the Valley Avenue corridor. The trolley route operates Monday-Wednesday-Friday-Saturday between the hours of 10:10 a.m. and 4:34 p.m. on 65-minute headways. The Trolley route is a loop route, serving downtown Winchester, Harvest Drive, Jubal Early Drive, the Apple Blossom Mall, Walmart, and Winchester Station. A map of the fixed routes is provided as Figure 4-1. WinTran’s LRCC route was initiated in the Spring of 2023. The route operates Monday through Friday from 7:10 a.m. to 9:10 p.m. Twelve roundtrips are made daily, with 70-minute headways. The LRCC route makes six stops within the City of Winchester before traveling to LRCC via I-81. ADA paratransit is providing during the same days and hours as the city’s core fixed routes, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fares The fare to ride WinTran is currently free, courtesy of grant funding from the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT). This initiative was implemented during the pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, the base fare was $1.00 per trip. Students, seniors, individuals with disabilities and Medicare card holders were eligible for a half-fare. 59 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-3 | KFH Group Inc. Figure 4-1: WinTran’s Fixed Routes 60 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-4 | KFH Group Inc. Fleet and Facilities WinTran operates out of the City’s Cork Street public works facility. WinTran has its own administrative and maintenance buildings within the complex. The FY2024 capital budget with DRPT includes a line item for the construction of a new maintenance facility. WinTran’s fleet includes ten revenue service vehicles. Peak vehicle requirements are: four fixed route buses, one trolley, and three demand response vehicles. Operating Statistics The operating statistics for WinTran were collected from the National Transit Database and DRPT. This data shows that WinTran has rebounded from the pandemic, with FY2023 ridership higher than it was in FY2019. This trend is due in part to the elimination of the fares. Operating data for the last five years is provided in Table 4-1. Table 4-1: WinTran’s Operating Trend Data FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 Passenger Trips 134,832 120,844 85,334 134,223 180,625 Revenue Hours 17,721 15,681 16,508 17,310 20,219 Revenue Miles 190,391 165,973 175,322 185,257 226,791 Operating Expenses $1,073,175 $1,140,737 $1,206,278 $1,241,800 $1,340,000 Trips/Hour 7.6 7.7 5.2 7.8 8.9 Cost/Hour $60.56 $72.75 $73.07 $71.74 $66.27 Cost/Trip $7.96 $9.44 $14.14 $9.25 $7.42 MPH 10.7 10.6 10.6 10.7 11.2 SOURCE: NATIONAL TRANSIT DATABASE (FY2019-FY2021); DRPT (FY2022-FY2023) WinTran’s Current Initiatives Laurel Ridge Community College Route In the spring of 2023, WinTran initiated a new express route from several stops within the City to Laurel Ridge Community College. This connection has been identified as a need for several years. The route operates Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:10 a.m. and 9:10 p.m. and offers 70-minute headways. 61 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-5 | KFH Group Inc. Microtransit WinTran has recently completed the “Winchester Microtransit Feasibility Study.” The study examined how microtransit could be used to improve transit coverage, wait times, and ride times within the city. The results of the study were presented to the Winchester City Council in June 2023, at which time the Council authorized staff to proceed with the implementation of microtransit.1 The recommended plan includes the following: • Provide microtransit throughout the City. • Replace the current eight fixed routes with three fixed routes. • Continue to use the Boscawen Street Transfer Station. • Integrate microtransit and ADA paratransit. • Implement the service using the existing fleet. Transition to smaller electric vehicles as the vehicles age. • Begin charging a fare in FY2025. Facility As referenced in WinTran’s FY2024 budget, the City is planning a maintenance facility project. Other Transportation Providers – Subsidized Medicaid Transportation Transportation to medically necessary appointments is a covered service for people who are enrolled in the Medicaid Program. In Virginia, transportation is available for Medicaid members who participate in managed health care plans and those who participate in the fee-for-service plan. Transportation is provided using a brokerage model. The current transportation assistance program is managed and operated by ModivCare. Member identification cards include phone numbers to call for transportation services. Medicaid regulations stipulate that the least expensive mode that is appropriate for the trip is to be used. Modes include public transportation, volunteer drivers, mileage reimbursement, taxis, non- emergency ambulance, stretcher vans, and accessible vans. Seniors First Seniors First, previously known at the Shenandoah Area Agency on Aging, provides myriad support services to enable older adults to continue to live in their own homes. The agency serves the counties of Clarke, Frederick, Page, Shenandoah, and Warren, and the city of Winchester. Seniors First operates two primary transportation programs: 1. WellTran 2. Senior Center Transportation 1 City of Winchester, Council Action Memo, June 27, 2023. 62 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-6 | KFH Group Inc. WellTran The WellTran program provides rides primarily to non-emergency medical appointments for adults aged 60+ and persons with disabilities who are not Medicaid-eligible. Other trip purposes are also accommodated if possible. Fares are $4.00 per 20-mile round trip, and $0.50 per mile after that. Riders call in advance to reserve rides. WellTran uses the “Simply” scheduling software to assist with scheduling. There are currently ten vehicles available for the WellTran program, many of which were funded through the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Section 5310 program. The director of transportation indicated that the program is very busy and has been operating at capacity. For the first nine months of FY2023 (October 1, 2022, through June 2023) the service provided about 4,600 trips and had to deny 444 trips. Staff reported that there are significant unmet transportation needs in the region, especially for those who are not Medicaid-eligible. Many of the riders use mobility devices and need assistance when using the service. Senior Center Transportation Seniors First provides rides to and from the six senior centers in the region, depending upon the senior’s distance from the center. Sixteen vehicles are available to provide senior center transportation. The senior center locations are listed below: • Clarke County – Clarke County Parks and Recreation Center, 225 Al Smith Circle, Berryville • Frederick County – United Methodist Church, 5291 Main Street, Stephens City • Page County – 10 Second Street, Luray • Shenandoah County – First Baptist Church, 116 Lakeview Drive, Woodstock • Warren County – 1217 Commonwealth Ave, Front Royal • Winchester – Winchester Parks and Recreation, 1001 E. Cork Street For the first nine months of the agency’s fiscal year, about 9,800 trips were provided to and from the region’s senior centers. Wheels For Wellness Faith-in-Action, dba Wheels for Wellness (WFW), is a private non-profit agency that provides free transportation to medical appointments and treatment. The service area includes the City of Winchester and the counties of Frederick, Clarke, Warren, and northern Shenandoah. Transportation is provided by volunteer drivers using their own vehicles. The focus of the agency is to serve people who do not qualify for other social service programs, cannot afford to own a vehicle, or can no longer drive themselves, and/or do not have family or friends available to give them a ride. WFW service is available Monday through Friday, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. WFW clients are required to be ambulatory, as many of the volunteers are senior citizens who are not able to provide physical assistance. 63 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-7 | KFH Group Inc. WFW employs a part-time Executive Director and a contracted scheduler. The program is funded through grants, fundraising, and donations. There are currently between 23 and 25 active volunteer drivers. The drivers are not reimbursed for mileage but are provided gas cards when funding is available to do so. The agency director indicated that the focus of the program will always be on medical transportation, as there is a significant need for the service. WFW currently provides about 3,000 rides per year. Other Transportation Providers – Non-Subsidized There are several other transportation providers in the region that are available for riders who can afford non-subsidized trips. These are listed below. Taxicabs The following taxis are listed under the Yellow Pages for Winchester: • Ask 4 JR Taxi and Limo • Old Towne Taxi • Pat’s Cab • Polly’s Cab • Taxi Hidalgo • Taxi Latino • Uncle Sam Transportation • Yellow Cab of Winchester Other Services • Uber and Lyft • Patient Care Transportation Potential Service Alternatives for the MPO Area Using the information gathered from the community (Chapter 3), coupled with the details regarding existing transportation services in the region, the study team has developed some potential alternatives to consider for improving public transportation in the MPO region. These alternatives were updated in January 2024 to reflect committee input. While most stakeholders indicated that there are extensive unmet transportation needs in the region, the initial focus of the alternatives was to start with a program that would serve the needs of residents of the Stephens City area. This area was chosen for two reasons: • The Town is interested in pursuing the development of public transportation services to provide improved mobility for residents, and • There are pockets of population density in the Stephens City area, particularly those areas east of I-81 that could likely support deviated fixed route transit service. 64 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-8 | KFH Group Inc. Representatives from the Town indicated that the most important connections would be those that connect residents to important destinations needed for daily life (groceries, medical offices, jobs), as well as providing a connection to the City of Winchester. The first three alternatives address the need to provide transportation in the Route 11 corridor and for residents of the Stephens City area. Feedback from the study committee indicated that additional corridors should be studied more closely to see what type of alternatives may be appropriate. The study team added a fourth route alternative that addresses the Senseny Road – Valley Mill Road area. Alternative #1 – Deviated Fixed Route Service: Stephens City – Winchester The first alternative focuses on meeting the needs articulated by the Town of Stephens City. This alternative features a route deviation service that connects the City of Winchester’s Boscawen Street Transfer site to Stephens City, and then travels east along Fairfax Pike to serve more local destinations. Deviations would be permitted up to ½ mile for two reasons: 1) to expand the reach of the service; and 2) so that the route can be classified as demand response and not include the requirement to provide a parallel ADA complementary paratransit service. The route as drawn is about 22 miles round-trip, which would likely mean that one bus could provide 90-minute headways and two buses could provide 45-minute headways. The route could be operated by WinTran, or it could be operated under contract by a private operator. Note that once the demonstration period has ended (assuming that a demonstration grant would be the initial primary funding source) there may be some regulatory challenges to work through for accessing federal funds for the route. Most of the route is within the Winchester-Frederick County Urbanized Area, which receives federal funding for transit under the FTA’s Section 5307 Urbanized Area Funding program. The City of Winchester is the designated recipient of these funds. It is possible for the funds to be split within an urbanized area, and this would have to be negotiated. It should be noted that the route would serve the Valley Avenue and Valley Pike corridor, a portion of which is within the City of Winchester. A map of the proposed route is provided in Figure 4-2 and the potential impacts of the route are presented in Table 4-2. 65 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-9 | KFH Group Inc. Figure 4-2: Winchester-Stephens City Proposed Route 66 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-10 | KFH Group Inc. Table 4-2: Potential Impacts of Stephens City – Winchester Route Advantages Disadvantages • Provides mobility for Stephens City residents, Winchester residents, and Frederick County residents who live in the corridor served. • Provides needed connections to Northwestern Community Services and the DMV. • Complements WinTran’s proposed service changes that would eliminate fixed route service on a portion of Valley Avenue that currently has service. • Addresses needs that have been articulated by stakeholders and the public. • Provides a pilot opportunity to address regional transportation in the WinFred MPO area. • The only disadvantage is cost. Cost Estimate • Ridership Impacts • For a Monday – Friday service that operated from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. the total annual operating cost is estimated to be $265,200 for one vehicle in operation and $530,400 for two vehicles in operation. • These costs could be subsidized as follows: Demonstration Grant • $265,200 total - $212,160 state; $53,040 local • $530,400 total - $424,320 state; $106,080 local • For a one-vehicle operation - Local split two ways: $26,520 each; Local split three ways: $17,680 each • For a two-vehicle operation - Local split two ways: $53,040 each; Local split three ways: $35,360 each • This route is likely to be able to achieve between four and five passenger trips per revenue hour. • This equates to between about 15,000 annual passenger trips for a one vehicle system and about 30,000 annual passenger trips for a two-vehicle system. 67 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-11 | KFH Group Inc. Traditional Grant • $265,200 total - $132,600 federal; $66,300 state; $66,300 local • For a one-vehicle operation - Local split two ways: $33,150 each; Local split three ways: $22,100 each • For a two-vehicle operation - o $530,400 total - $265,200 federal; $132,600 state; o $132,600 local • Local split two ways: $66,300 each. • Local split three ways: $44,200 each. • These funding scenarios do not include potential fare revenue or advertising revenue, which could serve to reduce the total deficit. • Local funding participants could include the City of Winchester, Frederick County, the Town of Stephens City, and potential business partners. Vehicles and Capital • Vehicles could be included within an operating contract, or vehicles could be purchased/leased. • Vehicles are about $175,000 each, with up to 96% federal and state subsidy typically available. • Bus stop signs and infrastructure would also be needed in the corridor. 68 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-12 | KFH Group Inc. Alternative #2 – Deviated Fixed Route from Stephens City to Laurel Ridge Community College A possible second route or route segment could be provided from the Stephens City Town Offices to Laurel Ridge Community College. This segment could be offered in addition to the Stephens City – Winchester route or as an alternating leg with either the eastern section of the route that serves areas east of I-81 or the northern section that serves Winchester. This route is relatively short, with a round trip mileage of nine miles. A map of the route is provided in Figure 4-3. This route extension includes only a small portion of the Winchester-Frederick County Urbanized area (the Stephens City area), so most of this route segment is within a rural area and could be eligible for FTA Section 5311 rural area funds through DRPT after any potential demonstration funding is depleted. The potential impacts of this route are outlined in Table 4-3. 69 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-13 | KFH Group Inc. Figure 4-3: Deviated Fixed Route between Stephens City and LRCC 70 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-14 | KFH Group Inc. Table 4-3: Potential Impacts of a Stephens City – LRCC Route Advantages Disadvantages • Provides access to LRCC for people who live in the Stephens City area. • Addresses needs that have been articulated by stakeholders and the public. • Serves a portion of the Route 11 Corridor in Frederick County. • May not be sustainable as a stand-alone route but could work in conjunction with segments to Winchester and to the east along Fairfax Pike. Cost Estimate • Ridership Impacts • If the schedule for this route were to be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., M-F, the total annual vehicle hours would be about 2,805. This would equate to an annual operating cost of about $224,400. Demonstration Grant • $224,400 total - $179,520 state; $44,880 local • Local split two ways: $22,440 Traditional Grant • $224,400 total - $112,200 federal; $56,100 state; $56,100 local • Local split two ways: $28,050 These funding scenarios do not include potential fare revenue or advertising revenue, which could serve to reduce the total deficit. Local funding participants could include Frederick County, Town of Stephens City, LRCC, and local business partners. Vehicles and Capital • A vehicle could be included within an operating contract, or a vehicle could be purchased/leased. • Vehicles are about $175,000 each, with up to 96% federal and state subsidy typically available. • Bus stop signs and infrastructure would also be required. • As a stand-alone route, the ridership is expected to be relatively low, as there is not a major population base on the western side of I-81. 71 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-15 | KFH Group Inc. Alternative #3 – Blended Option of #1 and #2 A third option that could be considered to improve service in the MPO region would be to develop a blend of the first two alternatives. This option would include one route that operated like Alternative #1, providing service between Winchester and the Sherando area. The second route would provide service between LRCC and the Sherando area. This scenario would include one vehicle on each route. The corridor between the Stephens City Town Offices and the Sherando area would have the highest level of service, with lower frequencies between Stephens City and Winchester and between Stephens City and LRCC. The impacts of this option are outlined in Table 4-4 and the map is provided as Figure 4-4. Table 4-4: Blended Service Option – Potential Impacts Advantages Disadvantages • Provides mobility for Stephens City residents, Winchester residents, and Frederick County residents who live in the corridors served. • Provides needed connections to Northwestern Community Services and the DMV. • Provides linkages to LRCC from the Stephens City Area – both from the Town and from the Sherando area. • Provides a relatively high level of service between the Stephens City Town Offices and the Sherando area. • Complements WinTran’s proposed service changes that would eliminate fixed route service on a portion of Valley Avenue that currently has service. • Addresses needs that have been articulated by stakeholders and the public. • Provides a pilot opportunity to address regional transportation in the WinFred MPO area. • Provides a relatively low frequency of service in between Winchester and Stephens City. • Provides a relatively low frequency of service to LRCC. 72 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-16 | KFH Group Inc. Cost Estimate • Ridership Impacts • For a Monday – Friday service that operated from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. the total annual operating cost is estimated to be $530,400 for two vehicles in operation. • These costs could be subsidized as follows: Demonstration Grant • $530,400 total - $424,320 state; $106,080 local • Local split two ways: $53,040 each • Local split three ways: $35,360 each Traditional Grant • $530,400 total - $265,200 federal; $132,600 state. o $132,600 local • Local split two ways: $66,300 each. • Local split three ways: $44,200 each. These funding scenarios do not include potential fare revenue or advertising revenue, which could serve to reduce the total deficit. Local funding participants could include the City of Winchester, Frederick County, the Town of Stephens City, LRCC, and local business partners. Vehicles and Capital • Vehicles could be included within an operating contract, or vehicles could be purchased/leased. • Vehicles are about $175,000 each, with up to 96% federal and state subsidy typically available. • Bus stop signs and infrastructure would also be required in the corridors. • The combined service is estimated to achieve about 22,000 annual passenger trips. The leg between Sherando and Winchester is likely to have higher productivity than the leg between Sherando and LRCC. 73 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-17 | KFH Group Inc. Figure 4-4: Blended Service Option [Grab your Area 74 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-18 | KFH Group Inc. Alternative #4 – Deviated Fixed Route from Boscawen Street Transfer Stop to Berryville Road via Senseny Road and Valley Mill Road Upon presentation of the alternatives to the study committee, a committee member indicated that the County had received a request for service from Senseny Place, which is a 55+ apartment community located at 1527 Senseny Road. The concept for this route is to develop a fixed route or deviated fixed route that travels east along Cork Street through the City of Winchester, and then into the County along Senseny Road. The route would then travel north along Greenwood Road, west along Valley Mill Road, and then turn right onto Berryville Pike and left into Regency Lakes, then serve the Winchester Gateway shopping center. The route would make a return trip following the same route. With a round-trip route length of about 12 miles, one vehicle could provide hourly headways. The proposed route is shown in Figure 3-5. It does not include the deviation buffer, pending discussion. In addition to Senseny Place, this route would serve several multi-family communities near Senseny Road and along Valley Mill Road as well as Daniel Morgan Middle School and the Senseny Road School, and the Regency Lakes community. The route would provide connections to grocery stores, pharmacies, downtown Winchester, and the WinTran route network. The potential impacts of this route are outlined in Table 4-5. Table 4-5: Senseny Road – Valley Mill Road Potential Impacts Advantages Disadvantages • Provides mobility for city and county residents living in the corridor, offering access to shopping as well as the full WinTran route network. • There is likely sufficient population density through the corridor served to offer either a fixed route or a deviated fixed route. • Provides hourly, bi-directional service through the corridor. • Addresses a need that has been articulated by stakeholders and the public. • Provides a pilot opportunity to address regional transportation in the WinFred MPO area. • The only disadvantage is cost. 75 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-19 | KFH Group Inc. Cost Estimate • Ridership Impacts • If the schedule for this route were to be 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., M-F, the total annual vehicle hours would be about 3,315. This would equate to an annual operating cost of about $265,200. Demonstration Grant • $265,200 total - $212,160 state; $53,040 local • Local split two ways: $26,520 Traditional Grant • $265,200 total - $132,600 federal; $66,300 state; $66,300 local • Local split two ways: $33,150 • These funding scenarios do not include potential fare revenue or advertising revenue, which could serve to reduce the total deficit. Local funding participants could include Frederick County, the City of Winchester, and local business partners. Vehicles and Capital • A vehicle could be included within an operating contract, or a vehicle could be purchased/leased. • Vehicles are about $175,000 each, with up to 96% federal and state subsidy typically available. • Bus stop signs and infrastructure would also be required. • This route is likely to be able to achieve between four and five passenger trips per revenue hour. • This equates to between about 15,000 annual passenger trips for a one vehicle system. 76 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-20 | KFH Group Inc. Figure 4-5: Winchester- Senseny Road – Valley Mill Road – Regency Lakes – Winchester Gateway 77 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-21 | KFH Group Inc. Alternative #5 – Microtransit Service for other Areas Microtransit is a demand response service that typically uses smaller vehicles and mobile technology to provide dynamic routing and curb-to-curb or corner-to-corner service. Customers can use a smartphone application (app) to schedule and pay for a ride within a specific geofenced zone. Public transportation agencies that have implemented microtransit also typically have telephone scheduling options for those riders who do not have smart phones. The most logical application for microtransit service in the WinFred MPO area would be to use it to extend the reach of the current WinTran service into areas of Frederick County adjacent to the City, as well as for well-defined, compact service areas. Some specific areas include the industrial areas north of the City of Winchester, the areas southeast of Winchester in the U.S. Route 50/17 corridor and the U.S. 522 corridor. The goal would be to target particular areas where demand is likely (such as: NWRDC to local industries; locations within Winchester to the Department of Parole and Probation). The key to success for microtransit is to design zones that are large enough to include both origins and destinations, yet small enough so that the service is timely. Note that federal Section 5307 Urbanized Area funding for any new service within the Winchester- Frederick County Urbanized Area would have to be negotiated with the City of Winchester. As previously discussed, WinTran is in the process of implementing microtransit as an integral part of their transit program. WinTran’s pilot program will provide a good test case of how microtransit could potentially work in the WinFred MPO area and the zones could potentially include some areas of Frederick County. The cost structure for microtransit is like demand-response service, with the additional start-up expense of the phone-based application that is used by customers to schedule trips. Productivity for microtransit services is also like that of demand-response service (typically a low of 1-2 passengers per hour to a high of 5-6 passengers per hour). For example, WinTran’s FY2023 demand response productivity was 1.97 passenger trips per revenue hour and the fixed route productivity was 12.13 passenger trips per revenue hour.2 The potential impacts of implementing a microtransit program in the MPO area are outlined in Table 4-6. 2 DRPT Website, Data Portal, Transit Performance Data, viewed 10/18/2023. 78 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-22 | KFH Group Inc. Table 4-6: Potential Impacts of Microtransit Service Advantages Disadvantages • Offers a flexible option to serve areas that may not have sufficient demand for fixed route service. • Responds to the opinions offered on the public survey, which indicated that fixed route and microtransit were the top two desired modes. • Complements the planned WinTran microtransit program. • Limited in the number of passengers that can be served. • Relatively high cost per trip due to productivity constraints. • Requires that passengers either use an app or phone ahead for service. Cost Estimates • Ridership Impacts • If microtransit were to be offered Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., the range of service hours would be as follows: 1 vehicle – 3,315 annual hours; 2 vehicles – 6,630 annual hours; and 3 vehicles – 9,945 annual hours. • The annual operating costs would range from about $232,050 to $696,150. • The start-up expense for the application is estimated to be about $200,000. The operating costs could be subsidized as follows: Demonstration Grant • Low - $232,050 total - $185,640 state; $46,410 local • Local split two ways: $23,205 • High - $696,150 total - $556,920 state; $139,230 local • Local split two ways: $69,615 Traditional Grant • Low - $232,050 total - $116,025 federal; $58,013 state; $58,013 local • Local split two ways: $29,006 each. • High - $696,150 total - $348,075 federal; $174,038 state; $174,038 local These funding scenarios do not include potential fare revenue or advertising revenue, which could serve to reduce the total deficit. Local funding participants could include the City of Winchester, Frederick County, and local business partners. • Depending upon where the service is provided, microtransit could provide between two and four passenger trips per revenue hour. This would equate to between about 9,945 trips for a one-vehicle operation to 29,835 trips for a three-vehicle operation. 79 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-23 | KFH Group Inc. Vehicles and Capital • Note that vehicles could be included within an operating contract, or vehicles could be purchased/leased. • Vehicles for microtransit are about $90,000 each, with up to 96% federal and state subsidy typically available. • As a demand-response service, bus stop infrastructure is not required, but could be implemented to signify pick-up locations. Organizational Options If public transportation options are to be implemented in the MPO area, it is vital that a local entity serve as the lead agency to build consensus for the services, establish local funding commitments, and perform grant administration and oversight functions. The following potential options are described in this section: • City of Winchester as the lead agency • Frederick County or the Town of Stephens City as the lead agency • Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission as lead agency • Development of a multi-jurisdictional transit organization City of Winchester If there is interest from the City and staff availability, the most obvious short-term choice to oversee any new services in the MPO region would be the City of Winchester. As outlined within the service alternatives, the proposed Route 11 corridor service provides service within the city, as well as to areas outside the city that may be of interest to city residents. The City of Winchester is the current designated recipient for the FTA’s Section 5307 Urbanized Area funding program. These funds help support public transportation services in the Winchester-Frederick County urbanized area, with a local match ratio of up to 50% for operating expenses and up to 80% for capital expenses (which includes ADA paratransit and preventive maintenance). While service is only currently available primarily within the City, any public transit services operated within the urbanized area would be eligible for assistance through the program, up to the designated award amount for the urbanized area. 80 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-24 | KFH Group Inc. If the City were to take on the responsibility of serving as the lead agency, there would need to be some agreements among the local partners with regard to funding the local match portion of the annual operating expenses. The advantages and disadvantages of the City serving as the lead agency are outlined in Table 4-7. Table 4-7: Advantages and Disadvantages for City of Winchester Serving as Lead Agency Advantages Disadvantages • The City is the established transit provider in the area and is familiar with DRPT and FTA grant and oversight requirements. • Any new services provided outside of the City could be seamlessly coordinated with current WinTran services if the City operated the MPO services also. • City participation may be the only way that FTA S.5307 funds could be accessed unless a split arrangement could be negotiated with another agency. • There is precedent for WinTran to serve outside of the City with its route to LRCC. • Easy to implement, requiring only an inter-governmental agreement to expand the base of service into Frederick County. • It may be beyond the City’s mission to serve as lead agency for MPO area transit services. • May not be an effective structure to address rural public transportation needs. • Does not create ownership of the program for the County or for Stephens City. 81 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-25 | KFH Group Inc. Frederick County or Stephens City Either Frederick County or the Town of Stephens City could serve as the lead agency for transit services in the MPO region. Both entities are eligible to be subrecipients of federal and state funding for public transportation services, though neither currently has experience administering federal or state transit grants. Under this scenario, it would be likely that a contractor would be hired to run the service. There could also be an intergovernmental agreement whereby the County or Stephens City administers the program, but the City of Winchester operates the service. The advantages and disadvantages of either the County or Stephens City serving as the lead agency are outlined in Table 4-8. Table 4-8: Advantages and Disadvantages for either Frederick County or the Town of Stephens City Serving as Lead Agency Advantages Disadvantages • The primary areas of unmet need are in Frederick County so it may make sense for the County to serve as the lead agency. • The Town of Stephens City has shown the most interest in developing a new public transportation service to serve its residents. • Having the County or the Town as the lead agency would create ownership of the program. • A split letter would be needed to access S. 5307 funding. • For Stephens City as lead – would constrain future growth of program to areas outside of Stephens City. • For Frederick County as lead – the County has not shown interest in serving as a lead agency for public transportation. • Neither entity has experience managing FTA or DRPT grants. 82 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-26 | KFH Group Inc. Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission The Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission (NSVRC) is also eligible to receive federal and state funding for public transportation services. NSVRC recently served in this capacity to assist in the development of ShenGO, the relatively new public transportation service in Shenandoah County. Under this arrangement, a contractor would be hired to run the service. There could also be an intergovernmental agreement whereby the NSVRC administers the program, but the City of Winchester operates the service. The advantages and disadvantages of NSVRC serving as the lead agency are outlined in Table 4-9. Table 4-9: Advantages and Disadvantages for the NSVRC serving as Lead Agency Advantages Disadvantages • The NSVRC has experience managing FTA and DRPT grants. • The NSVRC has been successful in administering a DRPT demonstration grant for Shenandoah County. • The NSVRC is a regional entity with impartiality to its members. • Oversight by a regional entity may lay the foundation for a future regional system. • A split letter would be needed to access S. 5307 funding. • The individual jurisdictions may not feel ownership of the program. 83 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-27 | KFH Group Inc. Development of a Regional Transit Entity Ultimately a regional transit entity is likely to be the most effective structure for providing regional transportation services in the MPO area and potentially to a broader area. The regional transit authority model has worked well in the Williamsburg area, which formed a transit authority in 2008 that is currently comprised of James City County, York County, and the City of Williamsburg. The creation of a regional transportation authority (RTA) would require a strong regional consensus and subsequent enabling legislation. Many aspects related to the formation of an RTA would need to be considered and determined, including the role and structure of a governing board. RTA members could include the City of Winchester, Frederick County, and the Town of Stephens City to start. Table 4-10 provides an overview of the advantages and disadvantages of forming an RTA in the region. Table 4-10: Advantages and Disadvantages of Creating an RTA Advantages Disadvantages • Provides the ability to develop a dedicated funding source. • Seamless transit services could be provided. • Would create an entity completely focused on public transportation, with ownership from member jurisdictions. • Would be able to effectively address both urban and non-urban public transportation needs. • Would allow for S.5307 funding to be used in the MPO area if the regional authority became the designated recipient. • Requires legislation to be enacted by the Virginia General Assembly. • Creates a new entity that will have a variety of administrative and financial needs that are currently provided by the City (i.e., accounting, legal, cash flow management, human resources, risk management, insurance, etc.). • Jurisdictions may feel loss of local autonomy. 84 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-28 | KFH Group Inc. Federal and State Funding Discussion In order for any public transportation option to be financially viable, it will be necessary to access formula-based grant assistance from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation. FTA formula grant assistance for urban areas is funded through the Section 5307 program and formula grant assistance for rural areas is funded through the Section 5311 program. Funds from the Section 5307 program are typically administered directly through the FTA, while the rural funds are administered through DRPT. Services in the WinFred MPO area that primarily serve the urbanized area are only eligible to receive federal public transportation formula funding through the Section 5307 program. The City of Winchester is the designated recipient for these funds. Any expansion outside of the city but within the urbanized area would need to negotiate with the city for a portion of these funds. It should be noted that the population of the urbanized area, including areas within Frederick County, is a major factor in the formula used to determine the level of financial assistance provided for the urbanized area. Services that primarily serve rural areas are eligible for funding assistance under the Section 5311 formula program. These funds flow from the FTA to DRPT based on a legislative formula that includes land area, population, revenue vehicle miles, and low-income population in rural areas.3 DRPT can allocate these funds at their discretion, as long as the funds are used to provide rural public transportation services. There is also a set-aside for intercity bus services, which DPRT uses to help fund the Virginia Breeze service. Federal matching ratios for both Section 5307 and Section 5311 are: 80% federal match for capital and 50% federal match for operating (for small-urban areas). There are some nuances to the capital match, including provisions for preventive maintenance and ADA paratransit to be funded at the 80% level. DRPT also has a demonstration program so that communities who are looking to test a public transportation pilot program can do so. The demonstration program uses state funds, with a matching ratio of 80% state funding and 20% local funding. Communities can apply for these funds during the annual DRPT grant cycle. A feasibility study is usually required and there needs to be a plan in place to fund service once the demonstration period has ended (typically about two years). 3 Federal Transit Administration Website. Viewed 3/30/2024. 85 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-29 | KFH Group Inc. Summary The review of existing public transportation services in the MPO area revealed that public transportation is available within the City of Winchester and that particular client groups in other parts of the MPO area have access to limited services targeted to medical transportation. There are limited public transportation options outside of the City of Winchester currently. The alternatives developed focus on providing public transportation options so that Stephens City area residents have access to activities of daily life, as well as access to the City of Winchester and potentially LRCC. A second fixed or deviated fixed route was developed to serve the Senseny Road – Valley Mill Road area east of Winchester. A microtransit service alternative was also developed and is considered as a future endeavor pending the results of how the service works within the City of Winchester. It is acknowledged that there are additional unmet needs in the MPO area and that these alternatives serve as a starting point for addressing them. Table 4-11 provides a summary of the service options developed for review. Organizational options and funding issues have also been discussed. 86 Chapter 4: Existing Services and Potential Alternatives WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 4-30 | KFH Group Inc. Table 4-11: Summary of Service Alternatives Service and Capital Improvement Proposals Total Annual Operating Costs - FY23 Dollars Total Annual Local Funding Required- Demo Total Annual Local Funding Required- Traditional Vehicles and Other Capital Start-Up App Capital Cost Estimated Local Share Alternative #1 - Stephens City-Winchester - 1 vehicle $265,200 $53,040 $66,300 $195,000 $7,800 Alternative #1 - Stephens City- Winchester 2 vehicles $530,400 $106,080 $132,600 $370,000 $14,800 Alternative #2 - Stephens City - LRCC 1 vehicle $224,400 $44,880 $56,100 $185,000 $7,400 Alternative #3- Blended- Winchester-SC-LRCC - 2 vehicles $530,400 $106,080 $132,600 $380,000 $15,200 Alternative #4 - Senseny Road - Valley Mill - 1 vehicle $265,200 $53,040 $66,300 $195,000 $7,800 Alternative #5 - Microtransit - 1 vehicle $232,050 $46,410 $58,013 $90,000 $200,000 $11,600 Alternative #5 - Microtransit - 2 vehicles $464,100 $92,820 $116,025 $180,000 $200,000 $15,200 Alternative #5 - Microtransit - 3 vehicles $696,150 $139,230 $174,038 $270,000 $200,000 $18,800 87 Chapter 5: Implementation Plan WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 5-1 | KFH Group Inc. Chapter 5 Implementation Plan Introduction After several months of discussion regarding the options proposed in Chapter 4, it became apparent that buy-in for the implementation of transit services from local political leaders will be needed in order to move forward. A basic implementation plan is presented within this chapter, and it focuses on starting with a small pilot program in collaboration with the City of Winchester, and building from there as political support and consensus grows. Working with the City will be essential, as the City is the designated recipient of the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula funding. This federal funding is intended to support public transportation services within the Winchester Urban area. Phase 1 – Microtransit A microtransit pilot project is recommended for the first phase of transit service provision in selected areas of the urbanized area of Frederick County. This program would build on the microtransit program that Winchester Transit is currently implementing - WInReady. The concept is to expand the City’s microtransit zones to key origins and destinations that are close to the City of Winchester. These areas could include the following: • An area south of the City of Winchester along Route 11, to serve the Department of Motor Vehicles, Northwestern Community Services, and the Kernstown Commons area and potentially south to Stephens City. • Senseny Road to Senseny Place. • The Fort Collier Road area, serving the Northwestern Regional Adult Detention Center to major employers north of the City. • The Parole and Probation office, which is located in the 522 South Corridor, less than one mile from the city border. Under this concept the County would pay the local share for the operation of one to two additional microtransit vehicles to be added to the city’s service. It is envisioned that the services would be integrated with the WinReady service. 88 Chapter 5: Implementation Plan WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 5-2 | KFH Group Inc. Estimated Ridership Ridership levels on microtransit are limited by the ability of the vehicles to get from point A to point B and back in a timely manner. The productivity of the service is that of demand-response, which is heavily dependent upon how close the origins and destinations are to one another and how many riders can be grouped together. A highly productive demand response service could achieve a high of five to six trips per revenue hour, while a typical service sees closer to two to three trips per revenue hour. Given the likeliness of larger zones outside of the city, productivity would likely be on the lower end. A ballpark estimate of two passenger trips per revenue hour would result in about 6,030 passenger trips per year per vehicle. Expenses and Funding Operating The fully- allocated cost to operate one vehicle, Monday through Friday, from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. is approximately $265,000 annually. This is based on 3,315 annual revenue hours at $80 per revenue hour. Two vehicles would be twice that amount, or about $530,000 annually. Assuming that the service would be funded through the Federal Section 5307 program and state operating assistance, the federal, state, and local amounts are estimated in Table 5-1. These estimates use the typical funding ratios for federal and state funding. Note that it is not a given that these funds will be available. Note that the local match could come from the County, as well as from local funding partners such as major employers. Table 5-1: Estimated Operating Expenses for Microtransit Operating Expenses Estimated Fares Net Deficit Federal State Local One Vehicle $265,200 $13,260 $251,940 $125,970 $62,985 $31,493 Two Vehicles $530,400 $26,520 $503,880 $251,940 $125,970 $62,985 Capital It is anticipated that small accessible transit vehicles would be used for this service. These vehicles are currently about $130,000 each, depending upon the options chosen. Capital funding through the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) is typically available at the following match ratio: 80% federal; 16% state; 4% local. Using this traditional formula, the local match for two vehicles would be $10,400, assuming federal and state funds were to be available. 89 Chapter 5: Implementation Plan WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | 5-3 | KFH Group Inc. Future Services As documented in this study, as well as in the 2009 Transit Feasibility Study, there is likely to be demand for transit services in several corridors that extend out from the City of Winchester and into Frederick County. Once a base level of demand is established through the microtransit program, high demand corridors could be shifted to fixed route or deviated fixed route services to accommodate more riders. The number one corridor, as indicated through this study process, was for service from Winchester through Stephens City, and on to Laurel Ridge Community College. The alternatives discussed in Chapter 4 also brought the route east of Stephens City to serve the shopping and housing areas in Frederick County, east of Stephens City. Another important transit corridor exists east of Winchester, along Senseny Road, Valley Mill Road, and Berryville Road. A route to address these areas is also described in Chapter 4. During the study process, the team also heard that there is a need for additional rural transit services, which are more suited for a demand-response or microtransit service model. 90 Appendix A: Trip Generators WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | A-1 | KFH Group Inc. Appendix A Trip Generators Human Service Agency Destinations Address City Zip Rouss City Hall 15 N Cameron St Winchester 22601 Top of Virginia Chamber of Commerce 509 Airport Road Ste 200 Winchester 22602 Frederick County Economic Development Commission 45 E Boscawen St Winchester 22601 Access Independence 324 Hope Dr Winchester 22601 Adult Care Center of the Northern Shenandoah Valley 411 N. Cameron St, Suite 100 Winchester 22601 AIDS Response Effort, Inc. 124 W Piccadilly St Winchester 22601 The Arc of Northern Shenandoah Valley 324 Hope Dr Winchester 22601 Blue Ridge Hospice 333 W Cork St Winchester 22601 Blue Ridge Legal Services 303 S Loudoun St Winchester 22601 C-CAP 112 S Kent St Winchester 22601 Child Support District Office 629 Cedar Creek Grade, Suite A Winchester 22601 Concern Hotline, Inc. 301 N Cameron St Winchester 22601 Council on Alcoholism Lord Fairfax Community Inc. 512 S Braddock St Winchester 22601 Department of Rehabilitative Services 20 Ricketts Dr Winchester 22601 Faith in Action-Winchester/Frederick/Clarke 301 N Cameron St Winchester 22601 Frederick County Department of Social Services 107 N. Kent St. Winchester 22601 Frederick County Senior Center 5291 Main St Stephens City 22655 Goodwill Winchester 2592 Valley Ave Winchester 22601 Blue Ridge Habitat for Humanity 400 Battaile Dr Winchester 22601 Healthy Families Northern Shenandoah Valley 301 N Cameron St Winchester 22601 Hispanic Ministries 102 Montague Ave Winchester 22601 The Laurel Center--The Shelter for Abused Women PO Box 14 Winchester 22604 Literacy Volunteers-Winchester Area 301 N Cameron St Winchester 22601 Northwestern Community Services 170 Prosperity Dr Winchester 22602 NW Works, Inc. 3085 Shawnee Dr Winchester 22601 Our Health, Inc. 329 N Cameron St Winchester 22601 Outreach to Asian Nationals 261 Bethany Hill Dr Winchester 22603 The Salvation Army (Emergency Shelter) 300 Fort Collier Rd Winchester 22601 Union Rescue Mission of Winchester 435 N Cameron St Winchester 22601 United Way of Northern Shenandoah Valley 329 N Cameron St Winchester 22601 Valley Health 1840 Amherst St Winchester 22601 Winchester Senior Center 1001 E Cork St Winchester 22601 Winchester/Frederick County Red Cross 561 Fortress Dr Winchester 22601 Winchester VEC Field Office 419 N Cameron St Winchester 22602 Winchester Social Services Department 24 Baker St Winchester 22601 91 Appendix A: Trip Generators WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | A-2 | KFH Group Inc. Major Medical Destinations Address City Zip Acare Medical Center 3046 Valley Ave #100 Winchester 22601 Behavioral Resources, PLC 134 W Picadilly St Winchester 22601 First Choice Medical Clinic 1804 Plaza Dr Winchester 22601 Free Medical Clinic of Northern Shenandoah Valley 301 N Cameron St Winchester 22601 Omega Medical 840 N Kent St # 7 Winchester 22601 Privia Medical Group 1104 Amherst St STE 200 Winchester 22601 Selma Medical Associates 104 Selma Dr Winchester 22601 Sinclair Health Clinic 301 N Cameron St #100 Winchester 22601 Stephens City Family Medicine 160 Warrior Dr Stephens City 22655 VA Clinic 20 South Stewart Street Winchester 22601 Valley Health Urgent Care 607 E Jubal Early Dr Winchester 22601 Valley Health Urgent Care Rutherford Crossing 160 Merchant St. Winchester 22603 Valley Health Winchester Medical Center 1840 Amherst St. Winchester 22601 Winchester Family Health Center 1440 Amherst St Winchester 22601 Winchester Family Health Center 611 E. Jubal Early Dr Winchester 22601 Employment Destinations Address City Zip Amazon 281 Woodbine Rd Clear Brook 22624 American Woodmark Corporation 561 Shady Elm Rd Winchester 22602 Annandale Millwork Corporation 220 Arbor Ct #4534 Winchester 22602 Army Corps of Engineers 201 Prince Frederick Dr Winchester 22602 City of Winchester 15 North Cameron Street Winchester 22601 Continental 1944 Valley Ave Winchester 22601 Costco 251 Front Royal Pike Winchester 22602 County of Frederick 107 N Kent St Winchester 22601 FBI 57 Cedar Creek Grade B Winchester 22601 FBI Central Records Complex 200 Constitution Dr Winchester 22602 FEMA 430 Market St Winchester 22603 Frederick Co Public Schools 1415 Amherst Street Winchester 22601 Grafton School, Inc. P.O. Box 2500 Winchester 22604 HP Hood 160 Hood Wy Winchester 22602 Kohl's Department Stores 2194 S Pleasant Valley Rd Winchester 22601 Kraft Heinz Company 220 Park Center Dr Winchester 22603 Laurel Ridge Community College 173 Skirmisher Ln Middletown 22645 Lowes' Home Centers, Inc. 2200 S Pleasant Valley Rd Winchester 22601 Martin's Food Market 400 Gateway Dr Winchester 22603 McKesson 4027 Martinsburg Pike Clear Brook 22624 Metromont Corporation 219 Stine Ln Winchester 22603 Monoflo 882 Baker Ln Winchester 22603 Navy Federal Credit Union 141 Security Drive Winchester 22601 Newell Brands Industries 3124 Valley Ave Winchester 22601 92 Appendix A: Trip Generators WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | A-3 | KFH Group Inc. Employment Destinations Address City Zip Shenandoah University 1460 University Dr Winchester 22601 Target Corp 191 Market St Winchester 22603 The Home Depot 2350 Legge Blvd Winchester 22601 Thermo Fisher Scientific 8365 Valley Pike Middletown 22645 Trex 3229 Shawnee Dr Winchester 22602 Valley Health System 1840 Amherst St Winchester 22601 Walmart 2350 S Pleasant Valley Rd Winchester 22601 Westminster Canterbury 300 Westminster Canterbury Dr Winchester 22603 Winchester City Public Schools 598 N. Kent Street Winchester 22601 Education Destinations Address City Zip Admiral Richard E. Byrd Middle 134 Rosa Lane Winchester 22602 Daniel Morgan Middle School 48 S Purcell Ave Winchester 22601 Dowell J. Howard Center 156 Dowell J Circle Winchester 22602 Frederick County Middle School 4661 N Frederick Pike Winchester 22601 Grafton School 120 Bellview Avenue Winchester 22601 James Wood High 161 Apple Pie Ridge Road Winchester 22603 James Wood Middle School 1313 Amherst St Winchester 22601 John Handley High School 425 Handley Blvd Winchester 22604 Laurel Ridge Community College 173 Skirmisher Ln Middletown 22645 Millbrook High 251 First Woods Drive Winchester 22603 Northwestern Regional Educational Programs 1481 Senseny Road Winchester 22602 Robert E. Aylor Middle 471 White Oak Road White Post 22663 Shenandoah University 1460 University Dr Winchester 22601 Sherando High 185 South Warrior Drive Stephens City 22655 Shopping Destinations Address City Zip Aldi 221 Kernstown Commons Blvd Winchester 22602 Apple Blossom Mall 1850 Apple Blossom Dr Winchester 22601 Centre at Winchester Patsy Cline Blvd and Legge Blvd Winchester 22601 Costco Wholesale 251 Front Royal Pike Winchester 22602 Creekside Station 3103 Valley Ave Winchester 22602 Crossroads Grocery & Fruit 119 Cedar Grove Rd Winchester 22603 CVS 1725 Amherst St Winchester 22601 CVS 840 Berryville Ave Winchester 22601 CVS 2207 Valley Ave Winchester 22601 93 Appendix A: Trip Generators WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | A-4 | KFH Group Inc. Shopping Destinations Address City Zip CVS 2340 Legge Blvd Winchester 22601 CVS 191 Market St Winchester 22601 CVS 1379 N Frederick Pke Winchester 22603 Dale's Grocery 702 N Cameron St Winchester 22601 Delco Plaza 182 Delco Plaza Winchester 22602 Dollar General 2824 Valley Ave Winchester 22601 Dollar General 321 Fairfax Pike Stephens City 22655 El Chaparro II 2160 S Loudoun St Winchester 22601 Family Dollar 2222 Valley Ave Winchester 22601 Food Maxx 1107 Berryville Ave Winchester 22601 Fredericktowne Crossing Shopping Center 226 Elizabeth Dr Stephens City 22655 Gainesboro Market 4780 N Frederick Pike Winchester 22603 La Buena Fe Supermarket 116 Featherbed Ln Winchester 22601 La centro Americana Latín Market 805 N Loudoun St Suite 101 Winchester 22601 Lantz Pharmacy & Gifts 5015 Main St Stephens City 22655 Martin's Food Market 1950 S Pleasant Valley Rd Winchester 22601 Martin's Food Market 1950 S Pleasant Valley Rd Winchester 22603 Martins Food Markets 200 Rivendell Ct Stephens City 22655 Martins Food Markets 400 Gateway Dr Stephens City 22655 Martin's Food Store Pharmacy 200 Rivendell Ct Winchester 22603 Martin's Food Store Pharmacy 1950 S Pleasant Valley Rd Winchester 22601 Martin's Pharmacy 400 Gateway Dr Stephens City 22655 Medical Circle Pharmacy Inc. 125 Medical Cir Winchester 22601 Mercado Latino Santa Fe 2828 Valley Ave Winchester 22601 Mundo fresco 742 Baker Ln Winchester 22603 Namaste Winchester Market 107 Millwood Ave Winchester 22601 Oakhill Groceries 2708 Berryville Pike Winchester 22603 Orellana Grocery 1855 Senseny Rd Winchester 22602 Paraiso Deli & Grocery 744 Berryville Ave Winchester 22601 ROTZ Pharmacy Inc 1338 Amherst St Winchester 22601 Round Hill Shopping Center 2578 Northwestern Pike Winchester 22603 Sharp Shopper Grocery Outlet 802 Berryville Ave #1 Winchester 22601 Shen-Valley Flea Market 2163 Fairfax Pike White Post 22663 Smith's Corner Grocery 3430 Northwestern Pike Winchester 22603 Sunnyside Plaza Shopping Center 235 Sunnyside Plaza Cir Winchester 22603 Target 191 Market St. Winchester 22603 Target-Pharmacy 2340 Legge Blvd Winchester 22601 Tienda Hispana Marquez 215 Weems Ln Winchester 22601 Tienda Latina La Tembuleña 805 N Loudoun St Suite 101 Winchester 22601 Tom's Market 1998 Back Mountain Rd Winchester 22602 94 Appendix A: Trip Generators WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | A-5 | KFH Group Inc. Shopping Destinations Address City Zip Valley Pharmacy 190 Campus Blvd 110 Winchester 22601 Walgreens 701 Fairfax Pike Stephens City 22655 Walmart Pharmacy 2300 S Pleasant Valley Rd Winchester 22601 Walmart Supercenter 201 Maranto Manor Drive Stephens City 22602 Walmart Supercenter 501 Wal-Mart Drive Winchester 22603 Wards Plaza 2218 Valley Ave Winchester 22601 Wellness Pharmacy 2228 Papermill Rd E Winchester 22601 Winchester Gateway Shopping Center 380 Gateway Dr Winchester 22603 Winchester Station 2540 S Pleasant Valley Rd Winchester 22601 Multi-Family Housing Locations Address City Zip 114 N. Loudoun St 114 N. Loudoun St Winchester 22601 America House Assisted Living 110 Spanish Oak Rd Stephens City 22655 Autumn Wind Apartments 140 Scarlet Maple Dr Winchester 22603 Bellview Apartments 8 Bellview Ave Winchester 22601 Blue Ridge Apartments 2260 Wilson Blvd Winchester 22601 Bon Air Home for Elderly 5933 Valley Pike Stephens City 22655 Brookfield Apartments 548 Brookfield Dr Winchester 22601 Cavalier Apartments 100 Richards Ave Winchester 22601 Cedar Hill Apartments 2250 Sofia Way Winchester 22601 Cedarwood Terrace 390 Stickley Dr Stephens City 22655 Contrail Park Apartments 749 Front Royal Pike Winchester 22602 Dove Landing Apartments 149 Lee Ave Winchester 22601 Evergreen Health & Rehabilitation of Winchester 380 Millwood Ave Winchester 22601 Fay Street Apartments 121 Fay Street Winchester 22602 Fort Collier Terrace 996 N Braddock St Winchester 22601 Frederick House 107 Lakeridge Dr Stephens City 22655 Harrison Plaza 2310 Valor Drive Winchester 22601 Hillcrest Manor Nursing Home 110 Lauck Dr Winchester 22601 Hilltop House Assisted Living 111 Denny Ln Winchester 22603 Limestone Place 475 W. Tevis St. Winchester 22601 Madison Village Apartments 110 Bulmer Loop Winchester 22602 Meadow Branch Apartments 424 Ridgewood Ln Winchester 22601 North City Apartments 800 Thomas Ct Winchester 22601 North Winchester Apartments 800 Thomas Ct # 1 Winchester 22601 Orchardcrest Apartments 2524 Wilson Blvd Winchester 22601 95 Appendix A: Trip Generators WinFred MPO Transit Feasibility Study | A-6 | KFH Group Inc. Multi-Family Housing Locations Address City Zip Pemberton Village 680 Pemberton Dr Winchester 22601 Peppertree Apartments 221 Peppertree Ln Winchester 22601 Preston Place Apartments 124 Castlebridge Ct Winchester 22602 Royal Haven - Winchester 1725 Henry Ave Winchester 22601 Shenandoah Apartments 2527 Wilson Blvd Winchester 22601 Shenandoah Valley Community Residences 301 N Cameron St Suite 103 Winchester 22601 Shenandoah Valley Westminster-Canterbury 300 Westminster-Canterbury Dr Winchester 22603 Stephens Village Apartments 390 Stickley Dr Stephens City 22655 Stuart Hill Apartments 1981 Randolph Pl Winchester 22601 Tasker Village Apartments 120 Caledon Ct. Stephens City 22655 The Lofts at Jubal Square 1864 Old Jube Sq Winchester 22601 The Willows at Meadow Branch 1881 Harvest Dr Winchester 22601 West Wind 113 Holt Ct. Stephens City 22655 Winchester House 27 S Cameron St Winchester 22601 Winchester Manor 1011 Pennsylvania Ave Winchester 22601 Winchester Towers 200 N Cameron St Winchester 22601 WinLee Apartments 320 Fairmont Ave Winchester 22601 Woodstock Terrace 1016 Woodstock Lane Winchester 22601 96 Appendix B: Community Survey Appendix B Community Survey 97 Stephens City - Winchester - Frederick County Public Transportation Survey The Winchester-Frederick County Metropolitan Planning Organization (Winfred MPO) is studying the feasibility of offering and improving public transportation within the MPO area, which includes the City of Winchester, the Town of Stephens City, and nearby areas of Frederick County. Please complete the following survey to give your opinion. 1. What is your primary mode of transportation to access work, school, shopping, medical appointments, and other life activities? Drive myself Motorcycle/Moped Carpool with others - I am usually the driver Bicycle Carpool with others - I am usually a passenger Walk A friend or family member drives me Public Transportation Taxi Uber/Lyft Other (please specify): ____________________________________________________________ 2. Do you currently use any of the following forms of public transportation on a regular basis? (i.e., at least once per week). Please check all that apply. Winchester Transit Corridor Connector MARC Rail WMATA Metro Rail or Bus ShenGo Clarke County on Demand Vanpools Carpools Royal Trolley WellTran Other:_____________________________________ 3. Do you, or others in your home, have problems getting your transportation needs met? Yes No 4. If yes, what does this lack of transportation keep you or others in your home from doing? Check all that apply. Working or seeking employment Medical or dental appointments Attending school or training Shopping Social or recreational activities Other 5. Are there any reasons why you, or other adults in your home, do not drive or limit the amount they drive? Yes No If yes, please check all that apply: Do not have a vehicle Do not drive at night Vehicle mechanical difficulties Not licensed to drive Do not drive in poor weather Have a disability and cannot drive 6. Do you think there is a need to start a public transportation service for areas of Frederick County and Stephens City that are not served by the City of Winchester’s transit system (WinTran), either to help you and your family members or for others in the community? Yes No over, please 98 7. If yes, please indicate the importance of each potential service using the following scale: most important (1); important (2); neutral (3); not important (4); least important (5). _____ The U.S. Route 11 corridor, providing service between the City of Winchester, Stephens City, and Laurel Ridge Community College _____ Areas of Frederick County that are outside the City of Winchester, but adjacent to the current WinTran routes, such as Route 50 West (Walmart); Route 7 East; Route 50 East – Millwood Pike; U.S. Route 11 North; and U.S. Route 11 South (Kernstown) ______ The area east of Stephens City in the VA Route 277 corridor ______ Improvements within the City of Winchester ______ Local service in the Stephens City area ______ Local service in the Middletown area ______ Commuter service to areas outside of Winchester and Frederick County – please specify: _______________________________________________________________________________________ 8. If yes, which of the following types of services would be the most useful? Please check all that apply. _____ Demand-response service that requires you to call a day ahead and picks you up near your home and brings you to your destination. _____ Demand-response service similar to Uber or Lyft that allows you to use a phone or computer application to schedule a ride when you need it. This type of service is called microtransit. _____ Deviated fixed route service that follows a base route, but will deviate up to ¾ mile to pick you up, if you have called ahead. _____ Fixed route service that follows a set route and schedule and does not require you to call ahead. 9. Would you or members of your household use public transportation services if they met your needs? Yes No 10. What fare would you be willing to pay for a one-way public transit trip? Less than $1.00 Between $1.00 and $2.00 More than $2.00 11. Please indicate your age category: 0 to 17 18 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 59 60 to 69 70 + 12. Please indicate your ZIP code: _____________ 13. Please provide any additional comments you may have concerning the need for public transportation in the Stephens City- Winchester - Frederick County area. Thank you for taking the time to fill out this survey! 99 Transportation Committee Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: February 2, 2026 Agenda Section: Photo Red Traffic Signal Enforcement Title: Photo Red Traffic Signal Enforcement Attachments: TC02-02-26PhotoRedTrafficSignalEnforcement.pdf 100 101 How do red light photo enforcement cameras work? A camera is connected to the traffic signal and to sensors at the intersection stop line that monitor traffic flow. The camera is triggered by any vehicle entering the intersection above a preset minimum speed and following a “grace period” of time after the signal has turned red. Virginia legislation states this specified grace period of time must be at least 0.5 seconds. Depending on the particular technology in use at the intersection, a series of photographs and/or video images show the red light violator before entering the intersection on a red signal, as well as the vehicle’s progression through the intersection. Cameras record information such as the date, time, time elapsed since the beginning of the red signal, and vehicle speed. The photographic evidence is reviewed by trained law enforcement. Generally, tickets are sent by mail to owners of violating vehicles. How will I know which intersections have red light cameras? Legislation enacted by the 2007 and 2012 General Assembly requires localities to place conspicuous signs within 500 feet of the intersection where a red light running camera is installed. Localities also are required to conduct a public awareness program advising the public of the photo enforcement system that is being implemented. Doesn’t placing signs at the approach to intersections with red light cameras defeat the purpose of installing the cameras? No. The purpose of the red light camera program is to improve intersection safety by reducing the number of red light violations. If the warning signs stop motorists from running red lights rather than the cameras themselves, then the purpose of the program is being met. Do cameras photograph every vehicle passing through an intersection? No. Cameras are set so that only those vehicles that enter the intersection after the light has turned red are photographed. Vehicles entering the intersection on yellow and still in the intersection when the light turns red are not photographed. Isn’t the main purpose of red light cameras to make money? No. The objective of the photo enforcement program is to improve intersection safety. Signs and publicity campaigns required by the 2007 and 2012 General Assembly warn motorists that photo enforcement is in use. Revenue is generated by fines paid by drivers who continue to run red lights. Independent audits of red light camera enforcement across the country have found that these programs generally do not generate excess revenue. Camera equipment costs vary based on the type of camera, the complexity of the intersection, and technical requirements. A red light camera system with installation costs more than $100,000. Fines for red light violations in Virginia are limited to $50 per violation by the legislation. Wouldn’t increasing the length of the yellow signal at an intersection decrease the occurrence of red light running? Allowing adequate yellow timing can reduce red light running, but longer yellow time alone does not eliminate the need or potential benefits of red light cameras. Yellow times at signals are determined based on variables such as the posted speed limit, typical deceleration rates of vehicles, the grade of the road (uphill or downhill), and the amount of time it takes a driver to see the yellow signal and react (perception-reaction time). Yellow times are generally in the range of three to six seconds. Increasing the perception-reaction time from 1.0 to 1.5 seconds has shown to reduce the number of red light violations. Who chooses the intersections for photo enforcement? According to revised 2012 legislation enacted 102 by the Virginia General Assembly, localities interested in photo enforcement, within their right of way, must conduct an engineering safety analysis for each candidate intersection. Localities desiring photo enforcement at intersections within VDOT’s right of way must conduct an engineering safety analysis conforming to the department’s safety analysis template and submit it to VDOT for approval. Final approval for intersections located within VDOT’s right of way will come from the appropriate district administrator or their designee. 103 February 19, 2008 Revised August 26, 2009 Revised Jan. 30, 2013 Revised June 18,2020 Red Light Running Camera (Photo Enforcement) Engineering Safety Analysis Guidelines Highway Operations Section Traffic Engineering Division Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 February 19, 2008 Revised August 26, 2009 Revised Jan. 30, 2013 Revised June 18,2020 PHOTO ENFORCED PHOTO ENFORCED PHOTO ENFORCED 104 February 19, 2008 Revised August 26, 2009 Revised Jan. 30, 2013 Revised June 18, 2020 Table of Contents Page INTRODUCTION 1 LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS 1 Intersection Selection Factors and Implementation Criteria 1 Public Awareness Program 2 Evaluation and Certification Efforts 2 Engineering Study Guidelines 2 ENGINEERING STUDY GUIDELINES 2 Intersection and Signal Data 3 Signal Timing and Traffic Data 3 Crash and Enforcement Data 4 APPROVAL PROCESS FOR STATE MAINTAINED INTERSECTIONS 5 INTERFACING WITH VDOT SIGNAL EQUIPMENT 6 APPENDIX A. Legislation B. Number of Allowable Photo Enforced Intersections Per Locality C. Approval Process Flow Chart D. Reference Documents E. Engineering Safety Analysis Template 105 February 19, 2008 Revised August 26, 2009 Revised Jan. 30, 2013 Revised June 18, 2020 Summary of Changes: • Removed all references to TE306.1 including the memorandum • Replaced old reference to ITE requirements with current reference - Guidelines for Determining Traffic Signal Change and Clearance Intervals, A Recommended Practice of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Prepared by ITE Technical Advisory Committee, April 2020. • Changed all references from RTE to DTE and from ROMM to DOMM in flowchart on page C-1 • Added revised date of June 18, 2020 to cover page and headers 106 February 19, 2008 Revised August 26, 2009 Revised Jan. 30, 2013 Revised June 18,2020 1 INTRODUCTION The 2007 Virginia General Assembly enacted legislation (Chapter 903 of the 2007 Virginia Acts of Assembly in Appendix A) allowing the use of cameras in Virginia counties, cities, and towns to enforce compliance with traffic signals. The legislation allows localities by ordinance to install and operate red light running camera systems at no more than one intersection for every 10,000 residents within the locality. In Planning District 8, localities may install and operate red light running cameras at no more than 10 intersections or one intersection for every 10,000 residents within the locality, whichever is greater. Planning District 8 is the geographic area served by the Northern Virginia Regional Commission consisting of 14 member localities including: the counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudon and Prince William; the cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park; the towns of Dumfries, Herndon, Leesburg, Purcellville and Vienna. Based on the legislation provisions, Appendix B provides a tabulation of the maximum number of intersections at which photo enforcement at any one time could be operated for each locality, based on 2010 population data. It also contains requirements for analysis, approval, and annual monitoring. This document provides guidance to Virginia localities on what should be submitted to VDOT for those proposed photo enforced intersections maintained and/or operated by VDOT. The Institute of Transportation Engineers and Federal Highway Administration have also published guidance documents regarding red light running countermeasures and photo enforcement, Making Intersections Safer: A Toolbox of Engineering Countermeasures to reduce Red-Light Running published in 2003 and Red Light Camera System Operational Guidelines published in 2005. References and links to these documents and other related literature and research can be found in Appendix C. During the 2012 Legislative Session, the General assembly passed HB 1295 and SB 679 which were subsequently signed into law as Chapters 805 and 836 (See Appendix A), respectively, of the 2012 Acts of Assembly. As a result VDOT was removed from the process for approving traffic light signal violation monitoring system (also known as Red Light Camera (RLC) or Photo-red Enforcement) at intersections effective July 1, 2012. As this action was part of a group of changes to remove mandates on localities, it is assumed that the goal was to remove VDOT from the process where localities maintained their own signals; however, the legislation also removed VDOT from the process where signals are owned, operated and maintained by VDOT, as well. In order to fulfill our responsibility regarding these types of signals, VDOT will use authority granted under the Land Use Permit process to manage those requests for installations of RLC systems on VDOT’s right of way. All other requirements of the original legislation, Chapter 903 Section 15.2-968.1, remain in effect. LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS Intersection Selection Factors and Implementation Criteria When selecting potential intersections for installation of red light running cameras, the Code of Virginia states localities shall consider the following factors: i. The accident rate for the intersection, ii. The rate of red light violations occurring at the intersection, 107 February 19, 2008 Revised August 26, 2009 Revised Jan. 30, 2013 Revised June 18,2020 2 iii. The difficulty experienced by law-enforcement officers to apprehend violators, iv. The ability of law-enforcement officers to apprehend violators safely within a reasonable distance from the violation. The legislation also requires a minimum 0.5 second grace period between the time the signal turns red and the time the first violation is recorded by the camera. Public Awareness Program Prior to implementation of red light running cameras or expansion of the monitoring system, a locality shall conduct a public awareness program advising the public that a photo enforcement system is being implemented. Further guidance on public awareness campaigns can be found in national publications such as Red Light Camera Systems: Operational Guidelines, published by the Federal Highway Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in January 2005. In addition, localities must place conspicuous signs within 500 feet of the intersection approach at which a red light running camera is installed informing motorists of the enforcement effort. A standard warning sign for use across the Commonwealth will be the MUTCD’s standard sign. Evaluation and Certification Efforts Localities are required to evaluate the photo enforcement system on a monthly basis to ensure all cameras and traffic signals are operating properly. The results of the evaluation are to be made available to the public. Localities shall annually certify compliance with the legislation and make all records available for inspection and audit by the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner or the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles. Engineering Study Guidelines Before red light running camera(s) can be installed at an intersection, the locality is required to complete an engineering safety analysis for the specific intersection. The engineering study should document the current clearance intervals (yellow and all-red), whether the signal is coordinated with other signals along the corridor, and the current condition of other safety features (i.e., lane markings, median control, speed limits, signing, etc.). ENGINEERING STUDY GUIDELINES When considering the use of a red light camera system it is important to perform an engineering study to identify potential issues with the intersection configuration that may be contributing to red light violations or potential improvements/countermeasures that may need to be implemented instead of a photo enforcement system. VDOT has established engineering study guidelines to assist localities in reviewing photo enforcement request submittals. The engineering safety analysis should include a statement explaining why photo enforcement is proposed for a specific intersection. The engineering safety analysis shall be stamped and signed by a professional engineer. An engineering analysis template is provided in Appendix D and includes sections for: Intersection and Signal Data, Signal Timings and Traffic Data, and Crash and Enforcement Data. 108 February 19, 2008 Revised August 26, 2009 Revised Jan. 30, 2013 Revised June 18,2020 3 Intersection and Signal Data Signal Visibility As motorists approach an intersection their line of sight to the intersection and the traffic signal should be unobstructed. The engineering analysis of the intersection should address intersection and traffic signal visibility. Engineering counter measures such as ‘signal ahead’ signs (with or without flashers) may be installed to warn drivers approaching a signalized intersection and to prepare them to stop if necessary for proposed intersections. Adding additional signal heads so that there is one signal head over each lane may be an appropriate countermeasure for intersections with high percentages of heavy vehicles. LED lighting, 12 inch signal lamps and backplates shall be considered to make traffic signals more visible to drivers, especially under adverse weather and lighting conditions and to combat sun glare issues. Pavement Markings, Conditions and Treatments Information requested in the study report includes: a diagram of the intersection, sight distance on the approach, grade of the approach, data on signal heads, pavement markings, and warning signs. The engineering analysis of the intersection should document pavement and marking conditions in the vicinity of the intersection. Signal Timings and Traffic Data Clearance Intervals The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (Guidelines for Determining Traffic Signal Change and Clearance Interval dated April 2020) provide guidance on calculating clearance intervals – yellow and all red intervals. The yellow interval is designed to warn motorists of the change in assignment of right-of-way. Yellow intervals should provide motorists with adequate time to make the appropriate decision to either proceed through the intersection before the signal turns red or make a comfortable deceleration and stop before entering the intersection. The likelihood of a motorist entering an intersection on red increases as the amount of yellow time is decreased. An appropriate yellow clearance interval is critical to preventing inadvertent violation of the red signal. Signal Timing and Phasing The engineering analysis of the intersection should include an evaluation of the intersection timings, phasing, and coordination with other intersections. The amount of traffic entering the intersection, the time of day, the number of turns, and sequence of the signals are all important factors and vary from intersection to intersection. Traffic engineering judgment and local knowledge of the intersection in conjunction with signal optimization and simulation should result in the most efficient traffic signal timing at the intersection. 109 February 19, 2008 Revised August 26, 2009 Revised Jan. 30, 2013 Revised June 18,2020 4 Vehicle Detection Data The engineering analysis of the intersection should include an evaluation of loop detector locations and the existence of a dilemma zone. Location of loop detectors at relatively higher speed intersections (speeds greater than 30 mph) is an important factor in signalized intersection design. At a certain distance from the intersection, depending on speed, drivers seeing the onset of the yellow phase may be indecisive about stopping or proceeding through the intersection. This zone of driver indecision is often referred to as a “dilemma zone”. One measure to reduce the likelihood of vehicles being in the “dilemma zone” is to install a vehicle detector in the zone that will extend green time if a vehicle is present and not allow the yellow interval to begin while a vehicle is present in the zone. Dilemma zone detection is not generally used with coordinated signal systems. Traffic Volume Data The engineering analysis should include an intersection volume count containing both the number of passenger cars and heavy vehicles. At a minimum, volume counts should include a 48-hour automatic traffic recorder directional and classification count from which to calculate an ADT, and turn movement counts concurrent with the same time period as the red-light violation counts. Crash and Enforcement Data Three-year Crash Analysis The engineering analysis of the intersection should include a crash analysis that focuses on identifying crashes related to red light running violations. The crash analysis should include at least 3-years of the latest historical crash data. Indicators of red light running related crashes can be found in crash reports in sections such as contributing cause, collision type, traffic control, offense charged, and the narrative and/or diagram. This data should be evaluated in detail to determine if a red light running problem is resulting in crashes at an intersection. Crash rates should be reported in crashes per million entering vehicles and by types of crashes, specifically for angle and rear end crash types. The most prominent crash types of red light running violators are angle and turning crashes. Crashes involving single vehicles or pedestrians and bicyclists can also occur as a result of red light running when violators or other drivers take evasive action to avoid crashes or when coming in conflict with pedestrians and bicyclists legally in the intersection. Violation Rates The engineering analysis should document the frequency or violation rate of red light running at an intersection. Violations shall be analyzed for a minimum of a 12 hour period, preferably from 7 AM to 7 PM, and be summarized by approach and movement for all legs of the intersection even if a particular leg is not under consideration for photo enforcement. Violation rates shall be collected concurrently with the traffic count and classification study.This documentation will help to determine if a problem exists and will also provide a measure for comparison once photo enforcement is implemented. Counts of red light violations at an intersection should be done either manually through field observations or by the preferred approach, video camera. This data may also provide important 110 February 19, 2008 Revised August 26, 2009 Revised Jan. 30, 2013 Revised June 18,2020 5 information on driver behavior and operational conditions at an intersection. The legislation states that violation rates be expressed as number of violations per 1,000 vehicles. Enforcement Endorsement The engineering analysis should document law enforcement opinions regarding red light running violations at specific intersections. In addition, as part of the engineering analysis, there should be documentation of law enforcement difficulties and safety issues related to apprehending red light violators by conventional means other than photo enforcement. APPROVAL PROCESS FOR STATE MAINTAINED INTERSECTIONS Requests for land use permits to install RLC within VDOT right of way falls under the provisions for Special Request and Installation Permits, Section 660 of the Land Use Permit Regulations (24VAC30-151). This section was recently revised to delegate the authority for approval of land use permits for RLC installations from the Commissioner to the appropriate District Administrator. The process for RLC installation requests occurring within VDOT’s right of way is as follows: • Localities request a scoping meeting with the District Traffic Engineer (DTE) and stakeholders to discuss the objectives of the program, the state requirements and the installation process. This initial meeting will answer many questions on both sides and provide an opportunity to exchange lessons learned. • Localities submit formal request including the mandated P.E.signed and sealed safety analysis to the appropriate Area Land Use Engineer (ALUE) or appropriate district permit authority in order to apply for the necessary land use permit. The safety analysis shall be conducted in conformance with VDOT’s study template • ALUE will transmit request and documentation to the DTE. • DTE will coordinate review with Central Office Traffic Engineering Division and the residency administrator and is responsible for all additional communications with the requesting locality as changes and clarifications are made. • DTE will submit the request, safety analysis and his recommendation to the District Administrator (DA) for action with copies to the ALUE. • DA will send his decision to the permit authority for appropriate processing and copy the DTE. • Central Office TED is notified of the decision and posts approved locations to the department’s red light running camera website. A flow chart of this process can be found in Appendix B. Appeals or Exceptions to the District Administrator’s decision are at the discretion of the Commissioner or his designee. 111 February 19, 2008 Revised August 26, 2009 Revised Jan. 30, 2013 Revised June 18,2020 6 INTERFACING WITH VDOT SIGNAL EQUIPMENT Safe and efficient signalized intersections are a high priority for the Department. Considerable technical equipment is located throughout a modern signalized intersection. Highly trained technicians maintain and operate these systems. Allowing improperly trained personnel to work on this equipment could jeopardize the safety of the traveling public as well as expose the Department and/or the locality to liability. VDOT will not allow access to, or any work around, any Department maintained traffic signal component unless a VDOT traffic signal technician is present. Qualifications of those performing work for a locality must be submitted and approved by VDOT. An insurance certificate may be required. Additional requirements related to securing a land use permit for installation of RLC are detailed in the referenced Special Request and Installation Permit section 660 of the Land Use Permit Regulations. 112 APPENDIX A LEGISLATION 113 A-1 VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2007 RECONVENED SESSION CHAPTER 903 An Act to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 15.2-968.1, relating to local ordinances establishing certain traffic signal enforcement programs; penalties. [S 829] Approved April 4, 2007 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia: 1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 15.2-968.1 as follows: § 15.2-968.1. Use of photo-monitoring systems to enforce traffic light signals. A. The governing body of any county, city, or town may provide by ordinance for the establishment of a traffic signal enforcement program imposing monetary liability on the operator of a motor vehicle for failure to comply with traffic light signals in such locality in accordance with the provisions of this section. Each such locality may install and operate traffic light signal photo-monitoring systems at no more than one intersection for every 10,000 residents within each county, city, or town at any one time, provided, however, that within planning District 8, each study locality may install and operate traffic light signal photo-monitoring systems at no more than 10 intersections, or at no more than one intersection for every 10,000 residents within each county, city, or town, whichever is greater, at any one time. B. The operator of a vehicle shall be liable for a monetary penalty imposed pursuant to this section if such vehicle is found, as evidenced by information obtained from a traffic light signal violation monitoring system, to have failed to comply with a traffic light signal within such locality. C. Proof of a violation of this section shall be evidenced by information obtained from a traffic light signal violation monitoring system authorized pursuant to this section. A certificate, sworn to or affirmed by a law-enforcement officer employed by a locality authorized to impose penalties pursuant to this section, or a facsimile thereof, based upon inspection of photographs, microphotographs, videotape, or other recorded images produced by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system, shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein. Any photographs, microphotographs, videotape, or other recorded images evidencing such a violation shall be available for inspection in any proceeding to adjudicate the liability for such violation pursuant to an ordinance adopted pursuant to this section. D. In the prosecution for a violation of any local ordinance adopted as provided in this section, prima facie evidence that the vehicle described in the summons issued pursuant to this section was operated in violation of such ordinance, together with proof that the defendant was at the time of such violation the owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle, shall constitute in evidence a rebuttable presumption that such owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle was the person who committed the violation. Such presumption shall be rebutted if the owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle (i) files an affidavit by regular mail with the clerk of the general district court that he was not the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation or (ii) testifies in open court under oath that he was not the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation. Such presumption shall also be rebutted if a certified copy of a police report, showing that the vehicle had been reported to the police as stolen prior to the time of the alleged violation of this section, is presented, prior to the return date established on the summons issued pursuant to this section, to the court adjudicating the alleged violation. E. For purposes of this section, "owner" means the registered owner of such vehicle on record with the Department of Motor Vehicles. For purposes of this section, "traffic light signal violation monitoring system" means a vehicle sensor installed to work in conjunction with a traffic light that automatically produces two or more photographs, two or more microphotographs, video, or other recorded images of each vehicle at the time it is used or operated in violation of § 46.2- 833, 46.2-835, or 46.2-836. For each such vehicle, at least one recorded image shall be of the vehicle before it has illegally entered the intersection, and at least one recorded image shall be of the same vehicle after it has illegally entered that intersection. F. Imposition of a penalty pursuant to this section shall not be deemed a conviction as an operator and shall not be made part of the operating record of the person upon whom such liability is imposed, nor shall it be used for insurance purposes in the provision of motor vehicle insurance coverage. No monetary penalty imposed under this section shall exceed $50, nor shall it include court costs. G. A summons for a violation of this section may be executed pursuant to § 19.2-76.2. Notwithstanding the provisions of § 19.2-76, a summons for a violation of this section may be executed by mailing by first class mail a copy thereof to the 114 A-2 owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle. In the case of a vehicle owner, the copy shall be mailed to the address contained in the records of the Department of Motor Vehicles; in the case of a vehicle lessee or rentor, the copy shall be mailed to the address contained in the records of the lessor or rentor. Every such mailing shall include, in addition to the summons, a notice of (i) the summoned person's ability to rebut the presumption that he was the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation through the filing of an affidavit as provided in subsection D and (ii) instructions for filing such affidavit, including the address to which the affidavit is to be sent. If the summoned person fails to appear on the date of return set out in the summons mailed pursuant to this section, the summons shall be executed in the manner set out in § 19.2-76.3. No proceedings for contempt or arrest of a person summoned by mailing shall be instituted for failure to appear on the return date of the summons. Any summons executed for a violation of this section shall provide to the person summoned at least 60 business days from the mailing of the summons to inspect information collected by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system in connection with the violation. H. Information collected by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system installed and operated pursuant to subsection A shall be limited exclusively to that information that is necessary for the enforcement of traffic light violations. On behalf of a locality, a private entity may not obtain records regarding the registered owners of vehicles that fail to comply with traffic light signals. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all photographs, microphotographs, electronic images, or other personal information collected by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system shall be used exclusively for enforcing traffic light violations and shall not (i) be open to the public; (ii) be sold or used for sales, solicitation, or marketing purposes; (iii) be disclosed to any other entity except as may be necessary for the enforcement of a traffic light violation or to a vehicle owner or operator as part of a challenge to the violation; or (iv) be used in a court in a pending action or proceeding unless the action or proceeding relates to a violation of § 46.2-833, 46.2-835, or 46.2- 836 or requested upon order from a court of competent jurisdiction. Information collected under this section pertaining to a specific violation shall be purged and not retained later than 60 days after the collection of any civil penalties. If a locality does not execute a summons for a violation of this section within 10 business days, all information collected pertaining to that suspected violation shall be purged within two business days. Any locality operating a traffic light signal violation monitoring system shall annually certify compliance with this section and make all records pertaining to such system available for inspection and audit by the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner or the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles or his designee. Any person who discloses personal information in violation of the provisions of this subsection shall be subject to a civil penalty of $1,000. I. A private entity may enter into an agreement with a locality to be compensated for providing the traffic light signal violation monitoring system or equipment, and all related support services, to include consulting, operations and administration. However, only a law-enforcement officer employed by a locality may swear to or affirm the certificate required by subsection C. No locality shall enter into an agreement for compensation based on the number of violations or monetary penalties imposed. J. When selecting potential intersections for a traffic light signal violation monitoring system, a locality shall consider factors such as (i) the accident rate for the intersection, (ii) the rate of red light violations occurring at the intersection (number of violations per number of vehicles), (iii) the difficulty experienced by law-enforcement officers in patrol cars or on foot in apprehending violators, and (iv) the ability of law-enforcement officers to apprehend violators safely within a reasonable distance from the violation. Localities may consider the risk to pedestrians as a factor, if applicable. A locality shall submit a list of intersections to the Virginia Department of Transportation for final approval. K. Before the implementation of a traffic light signal violation monitoring system at an intersection, the locality shall complete an engineering safety analysis that addresses signal timing and other location-specific safety features. The length of the yellow phase shall be established based on the recommended methodology of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. All traffic light signal violation monitoring systems shall provide a minimum 0.5-second grace period between the time the signal turns red and the time the first violation is recorded. If recommended by the engineering safety analysis, the locality shall make reasonable location-specific safety improvements, including signs and pavement markings. L. Any locality that uses a traffic light signal violation monitoring system shall evaluate the system on a monthly basis to ensure all cameras and traffic signals are functioning properly. Evaluation results shall be made available to the public. M. Any locality that uses a traffic light signal violation monitoring system to enforce traffic light signals shall place conspicuous signs within 500 feet of the intersection approach at which a traffic light signal violation monitoring system is used. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that such signs were in place at the time of the commission of the traffic light signal violation. N. Prior to or coincident with the implementation or expansion of a traffic light signal violation monitoring system, a locality shall conduct a public awareness program, advising the public that the locality is implementing or expanding a traffic light signal violation monitoring system. 115 A-3 VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2012 SESSION CHAPTER 805 An Act to amend and reenact §§ 2.2-1124, 2.2-4303, 2.2-4343, 5.1-40, 15.2-968.1, 15.2-1643, 15.2-2223.1, 22.1-18.1, 22.1-92, 22.1-129, 22.1-275.1, 37.2-504, 37.2-508, 42.1-36.1, and 51.5-89 of the Code of Virginia and to repeal § 2 of the first enactment of Chapter 814 of the Acts of Assembly of 2010, relating to the elimination of various mandates on local and regional entities relating to procurement procedures, education, and land use. [H 1295] Approved April 18, 2012 § 15.2-968.1. Use of photo-monitoring systems to enforce traffic light signals. A. The governing body of any county, city, or town may provide by ordinance for the establishment of a traffic signal enforcement program imposing monetary liability on the operator of a motor vehicle for failure to comply with traffic light signals in such locality in accordance with the provisions of this section. Each such locality may install and operate traffic light signal photo-monitoring systems at no more than one intersection for every 10,000 residents within each county, city, or town at any one time, provided, however, that within planning District 8, each such locality may install and operate traffic light signal photo-monitoring systems at no more than 10 intersections, or at no more than one intersection for every 10,000 residents within each county, city, or town, whichever is greater, at any one time. B. The operator of a vehicle shall be liable for a monetary penalty imposed pursuant to this section if such vehicle is found, as evidenced by information obtained from a traffic light signal violation monitoring system, to have failed to comply with a traffic light signal within such locality. C. Proof of a violation of this section shall be evidenced by information obtained from a traffic light signal violation monitoring system authorized pursuant to this section. A certificate, sworn to or affirmed by a law-enforcement officer employed by a locality authorized to impose penalties pursuant to this section, or a facsimile thereof, based upon inspection of photographs, microphotographs, videotape, or other recorded images produced by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system, shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein. Any photographs, microphotographs, videotape, or other recorded images evidencing such a violation shall be available for inspection in any proceeding to adjudicate the liability for such violation pursuant to an ordinance adopted pursuant to this section. D. In the prosecution for a violation of any local ordinance adopted as provided in this section, prima facie evidence that the vehicle described in the summons issued pursuant to this section was operated in violation of such ordinance, together with proof that the defendant was at the time of such violation the owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle, shall constitute in evidence a rebuttable presumption that such owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle was the person who committed the violation. Such presumption shall be rebutted if the owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle (i) files an affidavit by regular mail with the clerk of the general district court that he was not the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation or (ii) testifies in open court under oath that he was not the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation. Such presumption shall also be rebutted if a certified copy of a police report, showing that the vehicle had been reported to the police as stolen prior to the time of the alleged violation of this section, is presented, prior to the return date established on the summons issued pursuant to this section, to the court adjudicating the alleged violation. E. For purposes of this section, "owner" means the registered owner of such vehicle on record with the Department of Motor Vehicles. For purposes of this section, "traffic light signal violation monitoring system" means a vehicle sensor installed to work in conjunction with a traffic light that automatically produces two or more photographs, two or more microphotographs, video, or other recorded images of each vehicle at the time it is used or operated in violation of § 46.2- 833, 46.2-835, or 46.2-836. For each such vehicle, at least one recorded image shall be of the vehicle before it has illegally entered the intersection, and at least one recorded image shall be of the same vehicle after it has illegally entered that intersection. F. Imposition of a penalty pursuant to this section shall not be deemed a conviction as an operator and shall not be made part of the operating record of the person upon whom such liability is imposed, nor shall it be used for insurance purposes in the provision of motor vehicle insurance coverage. No monetary penalty imposed under this section shall exceed $50, nor shall it include court costs. 116 A-4 G. A summons for a violation of this section may be executed pursuant to § 19.2-76.2. Notwithstanding the provisions of § 19.2-76, a summons for a violation of this section may be executed by mailing by first class mail a copy thereof to the owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle. In the case of a vehicle owner, the copy shall be mailed to the address contained in the records of the Department of Motor Vehicles; in the case of a vehicle lessee or renter, the copy shall be mailed to the address contained in the records of the lessor or renter. Every such mailing shall include, in addition to the summons, a notice of (i) the summoned person's ability to rebut the presumption that he was the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation through the filing of an affidavit as provided in subsection D and (ii) instructions for filing such affidavit, including the address to which the affidavit is to be sent. If the summoned person fails to appear on the date of return set out in the summons mailed pursuant to this section, the summons shall be executed in the manner set out in § 19.2-76.3. No proceedings for contempt or arrest of a person summoned by mailing shall be instituted for failure to appear on the return date of the summons. Any summons executed for a violation of this section shall provide to the person summoned at least 30 business days from the mailing of the summons to inspect information collected by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system in connection with the violation. H. Information collected by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system installed and operated pursuant to subsection A shall be limited exclusively to that information that is necessary for the enforcement of traffic light violations. On behalf of a locality, a private entity that operates a traffic light signal violation monitoring system may enter into an agreement with the Department of Motor Vehicles, in accordance with the provisions of subdivision B 21 of § 46.2-208, to obtain vehicle owner information regarding the registered owners of vehicles that fail to comply with a traffic light signal. Information provided to the operator of a traffic light signal violation monitoring system shall be protected in a database with security comparable to that of the Department of Motor Vehicles' system, and used only for enforcement against individuals who violate the provisions of this section. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all photographs, microphotographs, electronic images, or other personal information collected by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system shall be used exclusively for enforcing traffic light violations and shall not (i) be open to the public; (ii) be sold or used for sales, solicitation, or marketing purposes; (iii) be disclosed to any other entity except as may be necessary for the enforcement of a traffic light violation or to a vehicle owner or operator as part of a challenge to the violation; or (iv) be used in a court in a pending action or proceeding unless the action or proceeding relates to a violation of § 46.2-833, 46.2- 835, or 46.2-836 or requested upon order from a court of competent jurisdiction. Information collected under this section pertaining to a specific violation shall be purged and not retained later than 60 days after the collection of any civil penalties. If a locality does not execute a summons for a violation of this section within 10 business days, all information collected pertaining to that suspected violation shall be purged within two business days. Any locality operating a traffic light signal violation monitoring system shall annually certify compliance with this section and make all records pertaining to such system available for inspection and audit by the Commissioner of Highways or the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles or his designee. Any person who discloses personal information in violation of the provisions of this subsection shall be subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 per disclosure. Any unauthorized use or disclosure of such personal information shall be grounds for termination of the agreement between the Department of Motor Vehicles and the private entity. I. A private entity may enter into an agreement with a locality to be compensated for providing the traffic light signal violation monitoring system or equipment, and all related support services, to include consulting, operations and administration. However, only a law-enforcement officer employed by a locality may swear to or affirm the certificate required by subsection C. No locality shall enter into an agreement for compensation based on the number of violations or monetary penalties imposed. J. When selecting potential intersections for a traffic light signal violation monitoring system, a locality shall consider factors such as (i) the accident rate for the intersection, (ii) the rate of red light violations occurring at the intersection (number of violations per number of vehicles), (iii) the difficulty experienced by law-enforcement officers in patrol cars or on foot in apprehending violators, and (iv) the ability of law-enforcement officers to apprehend violators safely within a reasonable distance from the violation. Localities may consider the risk to pedestrians as a factor, if applicable. K. Before the implementation of a traffic light signal violation monitoring system at an intersection, the locality shall complete an engineering safety analysis that addresses signal timing and other location-specific safety features. The length of the yellow phase shall be established based on the recommended methodology of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. All traffic light signal violation monitoring systems shall provide a minimum 0.5-second grace period between the time the signal turns red and the time the first violation is recorded. If recommended by the engineering safety analysis, the locality shall make reasonable location-specific safety improvements, including signs and pavement markings. L. Any locality that uses a traffic light signal violation monitoring system shall evaluate the system on a monthly basis to ensure all cameras and traffic signals are functioning properly. Evaluation results shall be made available to the public. 117 A-5 M. Any locality that uses a traffic light signal violation monitoring system to enforce traffic light signals shall place conspicuous signs within 500 feet of the intersection approach at which a traffic light signal violation monitoring system is used. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that such signs were in place at the time of the commission of the traffic light signal violation. N. Prior to or coincident with the implementation or expansion of a traffic light signal violation monitoring system, a locality shall conduct a public awareness program, advising the public that the locality is implementing or expanding a traffic light signal violation monitoring system. O. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, if a vehicle depicted in images recorded by a traffic light signal photo-monitoring system is owned, leased, or rented by a county, city, or town, then the county, city, or town may access and use the recorded images and associated information for employee disciplinary purposes. 118 APPENDIX B NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE PHOTO ENFORCED INTERSECTIONS PER LOCALITY 119 February 19, 2008 Revised August 26, 2009 Revised Jan. 30, 2013 B-1 NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE PHOTO ENFORCED INTERSECTIONS BY COUNTY JURISDICTION POPULATION 2010 POTENTIAL # OF INTERSECTIONS REGION DISTRICT Accomack 33,164 3 Eastern Hampton Roads Albemarle 98,970 10 Northwestern Culpeper Alleghany 16,250 2 Northwestern Staunton Amelia 12,690 1 Central Richmond Amherst 32,353 3 Southwestern Lynchburg Appomattox 14,973 1 Southwestern Lynchburg Arlington 207,627 21 Northern Nova Augusta 73,750 7 Northwestern Staunton Bath 4,731 0 Northwestern Staunton Bedford 68,676 7 Southwestern Salem Bland 6,824 0 Southwestern Bristol Botetourt 33,148 3 Southwestern Salem Brunswick 17,434 2 Central Richmond Buchanan 24,098 2 Southwestern Bristol Buckingham 17,146 2 Central Lynchburg Campbell 54,842 5 Southwestern Lynchburg Caroline 28,545 3 Central Fredericksburg Carroll 30,042 3 Southwestern Salem Charles City 7,256 0 Central Richmond Charlotte 12,586 1 Central Lynchburg Chesterfield 316,236 32 Central Richmond Clarke 14,034 1 Northwestern Staunton Craig 5,190 0 Southwestern Salem Culpeper 46,689 5 Northern Culpeper Cumberland 10,052 1 Central Lynchburg Dickenson 15,903 2 Southwestern Bristol Dinwiddie 28,001 3 Central Richmond Essex 11,151 1 Central Fredericksburg Fairfax 1,081,726 108 Northern Nova Fauquier 65,203 7 Northern Culpeper Floyd 15,279 2 Southwestern Salem Fluvanna 25,691 3 Northwestern Culpeper Franklin 56,159 6 Southwestern Salem Frederick 78,305 8 Northwestern Staunton Giles 17,286 2 Southwestern Salem Gloucester 36,858 4 Eastern Fredericksburg Goochland 21,717 2 Central Richmond Grayson 15,533 2 Southwestern Bristol Greene 18,403 2 Northwestern Culpeper Greensville 12,243 1 Eastern Hampton Roads 120 February 19, 2008 Revised August 26, 2009 Revised Jan. 30, 2013 B-2 NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE PHOTO ENFORCED INTERSECTIONS BY COUNTY JURISDICTION POPULATION 2010 POTENTIAL # OF INTERSECTIONS REGION DISTRICT Halifax 36,241 4 Central Lynchburg Hanover 99,863 10 Central Richmond Henrico 306,935 31 Central Richmond Henry 54,151 5 Southwestern Salem Highland 2,321 0 Northwestern Staunton Isle of Wight 35,270 4 Eastern Hampton Roads James City 67,009 7 Eastern Hampton Roads King and Queen 6,945 0 Central Fredericksburg King George 23,584 2 Northern Fredericksburg King William 15,935 2 Central Fredericksburg Lancaster 11,391 1 Central Fredericksburg Lee 25,587 3 Southwestern Bristol Loudoun 312,311 31 Northern Nova Louisa 33,153 3 Northwestern Culpeper Lunenburg 12,914 1 Central Richmond Madison 13,308 1 Northern Culpeper Mathews 8,978 0 Eastern Fredericksburg Mecklenburg 32,727 3 Central Richmond Middlesex 10,959 1 Eastern Fredericksburg Montgomery 94,392 9 Southwestern Salem Nelson 15,020 2 Southwestern Lynchburg New Kent 18,429 2 Central Richmond Northampton 12,389 1 Eastern Hampton Roads Northumberland 12,330 1 Central Fredericksburg Nottoway 15,853 2 Central Richmond Orange 33,481 3 Northern Culpeper Page 24,042 2 Northwestern Staunton Patrick 18,490 2 Southwestern Salem Pittsylvania 63,506 6 Southwestern Lynchburg Powhatan 28,046 3 Central Richmond Prince Edward 23,368 2 Central Lynchburg Prince George 35,725 4 Central Richmond Prince William 402,002 40 Northern Nova Pulaski 34,872 3 Southwestern Salem Rappahannock 7,373 0 Northern Culpeper Richmond 9,254 0 Central Fredericksburg Roanoke 92,376 9 Southwestern Salem Rockbridge 22,307 2 Northwestern Staunton Rockingham 76,314 8 Northwestern Staunton Russell 28,897 3 Southwestern Bristol Scott 23,177 2 Southwestern Bristol 121 February 19, 2008 Revised August 26, 2009 Revised Jan. 30, 2013 B-3 NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE PHOTO ENFORCED INTERSECTIONS BY COUNTY JURISDICTION POPULATION 2010 POTENTIAL # OF INTERSECTIONS REGION DISTRICT Shenandoah 41,993 4 Northwestern Staunton Smyth 32,208 3 Southwestern Bristol Southampton 18,570 2 Eastern Hampton Roads Spotsylvania 122,397 12 Northern Fredericksburg Stafford 128,961 13 Northern Fredericksburg Surry 7,058 0 Eastern Hampton Roads Sussex 12,087 1 Eastern Hampton Roads Tazewell 45,078 5 Southwestern Bristol Warren 37,575 4 Northwestern Staunton Washington 54,876 5 Southwestern Bristol Westmoreland 17,454 2 Central Fredericksburg Wise 41,452 4 Southwestern Bristol Wythe 29,235 3 Southwestern Bristol York 65,464 7 Eastern Hampton Roads 122 February 19, 2008 Revised August 26, 2009 Revised Jan. 30, 2013 B-4 NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE PHOTO ENFORCED INTERSECTIONS BY CITY JURISDICTION POPULATION 2010 POTENTIAL # OF INTERSECTIONS REGION DISTRICT Alexandria 139,966 14 Northern Nova Bedford 6,222 0 Southwestern Salem Bristol 17,835 2 Southwestern Bristol Buena Vista 6,650 0 Northwestern Staunton Charlottesville 43,475 4 Northwestern Culpeper Chesapeake 222,209 22 Eastern Hampton Roads Colonial Heights 17,411 2 Central Richmond Covington 5,961 0 Northwestern Staunton Danville 43,055 4 Southwestern Lynchburg Emporia 5,927 0 Eastern Hampton Roads Fairfax 22,565 2 Northern Nova Falls Church 12,332 1 Northern Nova Franklin 8,582 0 Eastern Hampton Roads Fredericksburg 24,286 2 Northern Fredericksburg Galax 7,042 0 Southwestern Salem Hampton 137,436 14 Eastern Hampton Roads Harrisonburg 48,914 5 Northwestern Staunton Hopewell 22,591 2 Central Richmond Lexington 7,042 0 Northwestern Staunton Lynchburg 75,568 8 Southwestern Lynchburg Manassas 37,821 4 Northern Nova Manassas Park 14,273 1 Northern Nova Martinsville 13,821 1 Southwestern Salem Newport News 180,719 18 Eastern Hampton Roads Norfolk 242,803 24 Eastern Hampton Roads Norton 3,958 0 Southwestern Bristol Petersburg 32,420 3 Central Richmond Poquoson 12,150 1 Eastern Hampton Roads Portsmouth 95,535 10 Eastern Hampton Roads Radford 16,408 2 Southwestern Salem Richmond 204,214 20 Central Richmond Roanoke 97,032 10 Southwestern Salem Salem 24,802 2 Southwestern Salem Staunton 23,746 2 Northwestern Staunton Suffolk 84,585 8 Eastern Hampton Roads Virginia Beach 437,994 44 Eastern Hampton Roads Waynesboro 21,006 2 Northwestern Staunton Williamsburg 14,068 1 Eastern Hampton Roads Winchester 26,203 3 Northwestern Staunton 123 February 19, 2008 Revised August 26, 2009 Revised Jan. 30, 2013 B-5 NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE PHOTO ENFORCED INTERSECTIONS BY TOWN JURISDICTION JURISDICTION TYPE POPULATION 2010 POTENTIAL # OF INTERSECTIONS REGION DISTRICT Abingdon Town 8,191 0 Southwestern Bristol Accomac Town 519 0 Eastern Hampton Roads Alberta Town 298 0 Central Richmond Amherst Town 2,232 0 Southwestern Lynchburg Appalachia Town 1,754 0 Southwestern Bristol Appomattox Town 1,733 0 Southwestern Lynchburg Ashland Town 7,225 0 Central Richmond Belle Haven Town 532 0 Eastern Hampton Roads Berryville Town 4,185 0 Northwestern Staunton Big Stone Gap Town 5,614 0 Southwestern Bristol Blacksburg Town 42,620 4 Southwestern Salem Christiansburg Town 21,041 2 Southwestern Salem Clifton Town 282 0 Northern Nova Hamilton Town 506 0 Northern Nova Haymarket Town 1,782 0 Northern Nova Hillsboro Town 80 0 Northern Nova Leesburg Town 42,616 4 Northern Nova Lovettsville Town 1,613 0 Northern Nova Middleburg Town 673 0 Northern Nova Occoquan Town 934 0 Northern Nova Quantico Town 480 0 Northern Nova Round Hill Town 539 0 Northern Nova Culpeper Town 16,379 2 Northern Culpeper Dumfries Town 4,961 0 Northern Nova Front Royal Town 14,440 1 Northwestern Staunton Herndon Town 23,292 2 Northern Nova Purcellville Town 7,727 0 Northern Nova Vienna Town 15,687 1 Northern Nova 124 APPENDIX C APPROVAL PROCESS FLOW CHART 125 February 19, 2008 Revised August 26, 2009 Revised Jan. 30, 2013 Revised June 18, 2020 C-1 126 APPENDIX D REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 127 D-1 REFERENCES Red Light Camera Systems: Operational Guidelines, Federal Highway Administration and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, January 2005. Making Intersections Safer: A Toolbox of Engineering Countermeasures to Reduce Red-Light Running, Federal Highway Administration and Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC, 2003. Field Guide for Inspecting Signalized Intersection to Reduce Red-Light Running, Federal Highway Administration and Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC, 2003. Intersection Safety Briefs, Federal Highway Administration and Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC, 2004. http://www.ite.org/library/IntersectionSafety/BriefingSheets.pdf Guidelines for Determining Traffic Signal Change and Clearance Intervals, A Recommended Practice of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Prepared by ITE Technical Advisory Committee, April 2020 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2003 Edition, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 2003. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2001. Garber, N.J., et. al., An Evaluation of Red Light Camera (Photo-Red) Enforcement Programs in Virginia: A Report in Response to a Request By Virginia’s Secretary of Transportation, Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, VA, January 2005. National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running, http://www.stopredlightrunning.com PB Farradyne Inc., City of San Diego Photo Enforcement System Review Final Report, Prepared for the City of San Diego Police Department, January 2002. Retting, R.A., A.F. Williams, C.M. Farmer, and A.F. Feldman, “Evaluation of Red Light Camera Enforcement in Fairfax, Virginia,” ITE Journal, October 1998, pp. 30-34 A. Kamyab et. al., Red Light Running in Iowa: The Scope Impact and Possible Implications, Final Report, Center for Transportation Research and Education, Ames, Iowa, 2000. J.S. Milazzo, J.E. Hummer and L.M. Prothe, A Recommended Policy of Automated Electronic Traffic Enforcement of Red-Light Running Violations in North Carolina, North Carolina Governor’s Highway Safety Program, North Carolina State University, 2001. 128 D-2 Lockwood, M., and Kastenhofer, I., Evaluation of Traffic Engineering Aspects of Photo Monitoring Programs in Virginia, Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, VA, May 2002 Council, F.M., B. Persaud, K. Eccles, C. Lyon, and M.S. Griffith. Safety Evaluation of Red-Light Cameras. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-HRT-05-048, April 2005. 129 APPENDIX E ENGINEERING SAFETY ANALYSIS TEMPLATE 130 VDOT Traffic Signal Photo Enforcement Engineering Analysis Template Local Jurisdiction: ___________________________ VDOT District:________________ (County/City/Town) Intersection: _____________________________________________________ Street Name (Route #) at Street Name (Route #) Intersection approaches under consideration for photo enforcement: This Study performed under the direction of ____________________________ (licensed professional engineer) A. INTERSECTION & SIGNAL DATA (Include information on all approaches not just those under consideration for photo enforcement) 1. Signal Visibility a. Minimum Sight Distance to Signal Approach Grade Speed Limit (mph) Measure (ft) Required (ft)* *See attached table of minimum sight distance requirements from the MUTCD. b. Are “SIGNAL AHEAD” signs present? Yes No Are “SIGNAL AHEAD” signs needed? Yes No Are other warning signs present in the vicinity of the intersection? Yes No Explain: _________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ c. Information on Signal Heads Approach Lens Size Lens Type (LED or Bulb) Back Plates (Yes or No) 2. Pavement and Markings Data a. Stop bars in “good” condition? Yes No Explain: _________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ b. Lane lines “clearly” visible? Yes No Explain: _________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ 131 c. Crosswalks “clearly” marked? Yes No Explain: _________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ d. Pavement conditions (ruts, potholes, cracking, etc.)? Good Explain: _____________________________________________ Fair Explain: _____________________________________________ Poor Explain: _____________________________________________ e. Pavement surface treatments exist? (rumble strips, texturing, pavers, etc.) Yes Explain: _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ No 3. Provide scaled diagram of intersection including: pavement markings, width of lanes and medians, location of signal heads and signs, locations of loops/detectors, and grades. N 132 B. SIGNAL TIMING & TRAFFIC DATA (Include information on all approaches not just those under consideration for photo enforcement) 1. Clearance Intervals Approach Posted Speed Limit Grade Width of Intersection Yellow Interval All Red Interval Existing Calculated* Existing Calculated* *Reference ITE Guidelines for Determining Traffic Signal Change & Clearance Intervals April 2020. 2. Include existing controller settings for each phase and each time-of-day. Information should include applicable settings such as minimum green, max 1 & 2, passage, minimum gap/ext, protected-permissive, lead-lag, yellow and all red, walk and ped clearance time, recall settings, offsets, cycle length, etc. Include analysis of peak hour conditions and discuss whether signal timings (phasing, cycle length, progression, coordination, etc) are contributing to red-light running problem. a. Do signal timings or phasing factor in as a possible contributor to RLR at this intersection? Yes Explain: _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ No Explain: _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ b. List comments or recommendations on potential signal timing or phasing changes: _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ 3. Vehicle Detection Data Approach and Movement Detection Type (loop, video, etc.) Detector Location (measured from stop bar) 4. 48-Hour Traffic Volume & Classification Data (Concurrent with 12- hour violation survey) Approach and Movement Daily Volumes Peak Hour Volumes Total Heavy Vehicles Total Heavy Vehicles 133 C. CRASH & ENFORCEMENT DATA (Include information on all approaches not just those under consideration for photo enforcement) 1. Most Recent Three-Year Crash Data Collision Type 3-year Total Number of Injury Crashes Number of Fatal Crashes Crashes Associated With Red-Light-Running Angle Rear End Head On Sideswipe Pedestrian Bicyclist TOTAL 2. Crash Rate a. Number of crashes per million entering vehicles: _____________ b. Locality rate for comparison (if available): _____________ 3. Violation Rate a. Number of red light running citations per year issued by law enforcement at the evaluated intersection, if available. Number: __________ Year: ___________ b.12-hour observed violation rate (conducted concurrently with traffic count survey) Date: ______________ Time Period: ________ *per 1000 vehicles 4. Enforcement and Operational Issues a. Describe the difficulty experienced by law enforcement officers in patrol cars or on foot in apprehending violators. _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ b. Describe the ability of law enforcement officers to apprehend violators safely within a reasonable distance from the violation. _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ c. Are pedestrians at risk due to violations? Yes No Explain: __________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Approach and Movement Traffic Volume Number of Violations 134 Number of pedestrians per hour? _______ Pedestrian crosswalk provided? Yes No d. Have there been any changes to the operations of the intersection (signal timing, restriping, or increased enforcement) within the past three years? Yes No Explain: __________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Minimum Sight Distance 85th Percentile Minimum Speed Sight (mph) Distance (ft) 20 175 25 215 30 270 35 325 40 390 45 460 50 540 55 625 60 715 Table 4D-2 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, (2009 Edition) Transportation Research Board (TRB), Washington, DC, 2003 135 Code of Virginia Title 15.2. Counties, Cities and Towns Subtitle II. Powers of Local Government Chapter 9. General Powers of Local Governments Article 5. Additional Powers § 15.2-968.1. (For contingent expiration date, see Acts 2023, c.738, cl. 2) Use of violation monitoring systems to enforce trafficlight signals and certain traffic control devices A. For purposes of this section: "Owner" means the registered owner on record with the Department of Motor Vehicles. "Traffic control device" has the same meaning as set forth in § 46.2-100. "Traffic control device violation monitoring system" means equipment that produces one or more photographs, microphotographs, video, or other recorded images of vehicles used or operated in violation of signs or markings placed in accordance with § 46.2-830. Traffic control device violation monitoring systems shall not be used to enforce violations of traffic light signals or speed limits. "Traffic light signal violation monitoring system" means a vehicle sensor installed to work in conjunction with a traffic light that automatically produces two or more photographs, two or more microphotographs, video, or other recorded images of each vehicle at the time it is used or operated in violation of § 46.2-833, 46.2-835, or 46.2-836. For each such vehicle, at least one recorded image shall be of the vehicle before it has illegally entered the intersection, and at least one recorded image shall be of the same vehicle after it has illegally entered the intersection. B. 1. The governing body of any county, city, or town may provide by ordinance for the establishment of a traffic signal enforcement program imposing monetary liability on the operator of a motor vehicle for failure to comply with traffic light signals in such locality in accordance with the provisions of this section. Each such locality may install and operate traffic light signal violation monitoring systems at no more than one intersection for every 10,000 residents within each county, city, or town at any one time, provided, however, that within planning District 8, each such locality may install and operate traffic light signal violation monitoring systems at no more than 10 intersections, or at no more than one intersection for every 10,000 residents within each county, city, or town, whichever is greater, at any one time. 2. In addition to the authority provided in subdivision 1, the governing body of any locality in Planning District 23 may provide by ordinance for the establishment of a traffic control device violation monitoring system imposing monetary liability on the operator of a motor vehicle for failure to comply with traffic control devices in such locality in accordance with the provisions of this section. Such governing body may install and operate a traffic control device violation monitoring system at any intersection deemed by the governing body to be negatively impacted by traffic due to the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Express Lanes Hampton Segment (4C) Project (HREL-P). C. The operator of a vehicle shall be liable for a monetary penalty imposed pursuant to this section if such vehicle is found, (i) as evidenced by information obtained from a traffic light 1 1/23/2026 12:00:00 AM 136 signal violation monitoring system, to have failed to comply with a traffic light signal within such locality or (ii) as evidenced by information obtained from a traffic control device violation monitoring system, to have failed to comply with a traffic control device within such locality. No operator shall be liable for a penalty pursuant to clause (i) and a penalty pursuant to clause (ii) arising out of the same act. No monetary penalty shall be imposed pursuant to this section for a first offense of failing to comply with a traffic control device, as evidenced by information obtained from a traffic control device violation monitoring system, and such operator shall be issued a written warning. D. Proof of a violation of this section shall be evidenced by information obtained from a traffic light signal violation monitoring system or traffic control device violation monitoring system authorized pursuant to this section. A certificate, sworn to or affirmed by a law-enforcement officer employed by a locality authorized to impose penalties pursuant to this section, or a facsimile thereof, based upon inspection of photographs, microphotographs, videotape, or other recorded images produced by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system or traffic control device violation monitoring system, shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein. Any photographs, microphotographs, videotape, or other recorded images evidencing such a violation shall be available for inspection in any proceeding to adjudicate the liability for such violation pursuant to an ordinance adopted pursuant to this section. E. In the prosecution for a violation of any local ordinance adopted as provided in this section, prima facie evidence that the vehicle described in the summons issued pursuant to this section was operated in violation of such ordinance, together with proof that the defendant was at the time of such violation the owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle, shall constitute in evidence a rebuttable presumption that such owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle was the person who committed the violation. Such presumption shall be rebutted if the owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle (i) files an affidavit by regular mail with the clerk of the general district court that he was not the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation or (ii) testifies in open court under oath that he was not the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation. Such presumption shall also be rebutted if a certified copy of a police report, showing that the vehicle had been reported to the police as stolen prior to the time of the alleged violation of this section, is presented, prior to the return date established on the summons issued pursuant to this section, to the court adjudicating the alleged violation. F. Imposition of a penalty pursuant to this section shall not be deemed a conviction as an operator and shall not be made part of the operating record of the person upon whom such liability is imposed, nor shall it be used for insurance purposes in the provision of motor vehicle insurance coverage. No monetary penalty imposed under this section shall exceed $50, nor shall it include court costs. Any finding in a district court that an operator has violated an ordinance adopted as provided in this section shall be appealable to the circuit court in a civil proceeding. G. A summons for a violation of this section may be executed pursuant to § 19.2-76.2. Notwithstanding the provisions of § 19.2-76, a summons for a violation of this section may be executed by mailing by first class mail a copy thereof to the owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle. In the case of a vehicle owner, the copy shall be mailed to the address contained in the records of the Department of Motor Vehicles; in the case of a vehicle lessee or renter, the copy shall be mailed to the address contained in the records of the lessor or renter. Every such mailing shall include, in addition to the summons, a notice of (i) the summoned person's ability to rebut the presumption that he was the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation 2 1/23/2026 12:00:00 AM 137 through the filing of an affidavit as provided in subsection E and (ii) instructions for filing such affidavit, including the address to which the affidavit is to be sent. If the summoned person fails to appear on the date of return set out in the summons mailed pursuant to this section, the summons shall be executed in the manner set out in § 19.2-76.3. No proceedings for contempt or arrest of a person summoned by mailing shall be instituted for failure to appear on the return date of the summons. Any summons executed for a violation of this section shall provide to the person summoned at least 30 business days from the mailing of the summons to inspect information collected by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system or traffic control device violation monitoring system in connection with the violation. H. Information collected by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system or traffic control device violation monitoring system installed and operated pursuant to subsection B shall be limited exclusively to that information that is necessary for the enforcement of traffic light or traffic control device violations. On behalf of a locality, a private entity that operates a traffic light signal violation monitoring system or traffic control device violation monitoring system may enter into an agreement with the Department of Motor Vehicles, in accordance with the provisions of subdivision B 21 of § 46.2-208, to obtain vehicle owner information regarding the registered owners of vehicles that fail to comply with a traffic light signal or traffic control device. Information provided to the operator of a traffic light signal violation monitoring system or traffic control device violation monitoring system shall be protected in a database with security comparable to that of the Department of Motor Vehicles' system, and used only for enforcement against individuals who violate the provisions of this section. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all photographs, microphotographs, electronic images, or other personal information collected by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system or traffic control device violation monitoring system shall be used exclusively for enforcing traffic light or traffic control device violations and shall not (i) be open to the public; (ii) be sold or used for sales, solicitation, or marketing purposes; (iii) be disclosed to any other entity except as may be necessary for the enforcement of a traffic light or traffic control device violation or to a vehicle owner or operator as part of a challenge to the violation; or (iv) be used in a court in a pending action or proceeding unless the action or proceeding relates to a violation of § 46.2-830, 46.2-833 , 46.2-835, or 46.2-836 or requested upon order from a court of competent jurisdiction. Information collected under this section pertaining to a specific violation shall be purged and not retained later than 60 days after the collection of any civil penalties. If a locality does not execute a summons for a violation of this section within 10 business days, all information collected pertaining to that suspected violation shall be purged within two business days. Any locality operating a traffic light signal violation monitoring system or traffic control device violation monitoring system shall annually certify compliance with this section and make all records pertaining to such system available for inspection and audit by the Commissioner of Highways or the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles or his designee. Any person who discloses personal information in violation of the provisions of this subsection shall be subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 per disclosure. Any unauthorized use or disclosure of such personal information shall be grounds for termination of the agreement between the Department of Motor Vehicles and the private entity. I. A private entity may enter into an agreement with a locality to be compensated for providing the traffic light signal violation monitoring system or equipment or traffic control device violation monitoring system or equipment, and all related support services, to include consulting, operations and administration. However, only a law-enforcement officer employed by 3 1/23/2026 12:00:00 AM 138 a locality may swear to or affirm the certificate required by subsection D. No locality shall enter into an agreement for compensation based on the number of violations or monetary penalties imposed. J. When selecting potential intersections for a traffic light signal violation monitoring system, a locality shall consider factors such as (i) the accident rate for the intersection, (ii) the rate of red light violations occurring at the intersection (number of violations per number of vehicles), (iii) the difficulty experienced by law-enforcement officers in patrol cars or on foot in apprehending violators, and (iv) the ability of law-enforcement officers to apprehend violators safely within a reasonable distance from the violation. Localities may consider the risk to pedestrians as a factor, if applicable. K. 1. Before the implementation of a traffic light signal violation monitoring system at an intersection, the locality shall complete an engineering safety analysis that addresses signal timing and other location-specific safety features. The length of the yellow phase shall be established based on the recommended methodology of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. No traffic light signal violation monitoring system shall be implemented or utilized for a traffic signal having a yellow signal phase length of less than three seconds. All traffic light signal violation monitoring systems shall provide a minimum 0.5-second grace period between the time the signal turns red and the time the first violation is recorded. If recommended by the engineering safety analysis, the locality shall make reasonable location-specific safety improvements, including signs and pavement markings. 2. Before the implementation of a traffic control device violation monitoring system at an intersection, the governing body of the implementing locality shall complete an engineering safety analysis that addresses the impact of the HREL-P on congestion, accident rates, and driver disregard for traffic control devices. If recommended by the engineering safety analysis, the locality shall make reasonable location-specific safety improvements, including signs and pavement markings. L. Any locality that uses a traffic light signal violation monitoring system or traffic control device violation monitoring system shall evaluate the system on a monthly basis to ensure all cameras and traffic signals are functioning properly. Evaluation results shall be made available to the public. M. Any locality that uses a traffic light signal violation monitoring system to enforce traffic light signals shall place conspicuous signs within 500 feet of the intersection approach at which a traffic light signal violation monitoring system is used. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that such signs were in place at the time of the commission of the traffic light signal violation. N. Prior to or coincident with the implementation or expansion of a traffic light signal violation monitoring system or traffic control device violation monitoring system, a locality shall conduct a public awareness program, advising the public that the locality is implementing or expanding a traffic light signal violation monitoring system or traffic control device violation monitoring system. O. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, if a vehicle depicted in images recorded by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system or traffic control device violation monitoring system is owned, leased, or rented by a county, city, or town, then the county, city, or town may access and use the recorded images and associated information for employee disciplinary 4 1/23/2026 12:00:00 AM 139 purposes. 2007, cc. 836, 903;2010, c. 175;2012, cc. 805, 836;2014, c. 163;2015, c. 714;2023, c. 738. This section has more than one version with varying effective dates. Scroll down to see all versions. The chapters of the acts of assembly referenced in the historical citation at the end of this section(s) may not constitute a comprehensive list of such chapters and may exclude chapters whose provisions have expired. § 15.2-968.1. (For contingent effective date, see Acts 2023, c.738, cl. 2) Use of photo-monitoring systems to enforce trafficlight signals A. The governing body of any county, city, or town may provide by ordinance for the establishment of a traffic signal enforcement program imposing monetary liability on the operator of a motor vehicle for failure to comply with traffic light signals in such locality in accordance with the provisions of this section. Each such locality may install and operate traffic light signal photo-monitoring systems at no more than one intersection for every 10,000 residents within each county, city, or town at any one time, provided, however, that within planning District 8, each such locality may install and operate traffic light signal photo- monitoring systems at no more than 10 intersections, or at no more than one intersection for every 10,000 residents within each county, city, or town, whichever is greater, at any one time. B. The operator of a vehicle shall be liable for a monetary penalty imposed pursuant to this section if such vehicle is found, as evidenced by information obtained from a traffic light signal violation monitoring system, to have failed to comply with a traffic light signal within such locality. C. Proof of a violation of this section shall be evidenced by information obtained from a traffic light signal violation monitoring system authorized pursuant to this section. A certificate, sworn to or affirmed by a law-enforcement officer employed by a locality authorized to impose penalties pursuant to this section, or a facsimile thereof, based upon inspection of photographs, microphotographs, videotape, or other recorded images produced by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system, shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein. Any photographs, microphotographs, videotape, or other recorded images evidencing such a violation shall be available for inspection in any proceeding to adjudicate the liability for such violation pursuant to an ordinance adopted pursuant to this section. D. In the prosecution for a violation of any local ordinance adopted as provided in this section, prima facie evidence that the vehicle described in the summons issued pursuant to this section was operated in violation of such ordinance, together with proof that the defendant was at the time of such violation the owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle, shall constitute in evidence a rebuttable presumption that such owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle was the person who committed the violation. Such presumption shall be rebutted if the owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle (i) files an affidavit by regular mail with the clerk of the general district court that he was not the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation or (ii) testifies in open court under oath that he was not the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation. Such presumption shall also be rebutted if a certified copy of a police report, showing that the vehicle had been reported to the police as stolen prior to the time of the alleged violation of this section, 5 1/23/2026 12:00:00 AM 140 is presented, prior to the return date established on the summons issued pursuant to this section, to the court adjudicating the alleged violation. E. For purposes of this section, "owner" means the registered owner of such vehicle on record with the Department of Motor Vehicles. For purposes of this section, "traffic light signal violation monitoring system" means a vehicle sensor installed to work in conjunction with a traffic light that automatically produces two or more photographs, two or more microphotographs, video, or other recorded images of each vehicle at the time it is used or operated in violation of § 46.2-833 , 46.2-835, or 46.2-836. For each such vehicle, at least one recorded image shall be of the vehicle before it has illegally entered the intersection, and at least one recorded image shall be of the same vehicle after it has illegally entered that intersection. F. Imposition of a penalty pursuant to this section shall not be deemed a conviction as an operator and shall not be made part of the operating record of the person upon whom such liability is imposed, nor shall it be used for insurance purposes in the provision of motor vehicle insurance coverage. No monetary penalty imposed under this section shall exceed $50, nor shall it include court costs. Any finding in a district court that an operator has violated an ordinance adopted as provided in this section shall be appealable to the circuit court in a civil proceeding. G. A summons for a violation of this section may be executed pursuant to § 19.2-76.2. Notwithstanding the provisions of § 19.2-76, a summons for a violation of this section may be executed by mailing by first class mail a copy thereof to the owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle. In the case of a vehicle owner, the copy shall be mailed to the address contained in the records of the Department of Motor Vehicles; in the case of a vehicle lessee or renter, the copy shall be mailed to the address contained in the records of the lessor or renter. Every such mailing shall include, in addition to the summons, a notice of (i) the summoned person's ability to rebut the presumption that he was the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation through the filing of an affidavit as provided in subsection D and (ii) instructions for filing such affidavit, including the address to which the affidavit is to be sent. If the summoned person fails to appear on the date of return set out in the summons mailed pursuant to this section, the summons shall be executed in the manner set out in § 19.2-76.3. No proceedings for contempt or arrest of a person summoned by mailing shall be instituted for failure to appear on the return date of the summons. Any summons executed for a violation of this section shall provide to the person summoned at least 30 business days from the mailing of the summons to inspect information collected by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system in connection with the violation. H. Information collected by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system installed and operated pursuant to subsection A shall be limited exclusively to that information that is necessary for the enforcement of traffic light violations. On behalf of a locality, a private entity that operates a traffic light signal violation monitoring system may enter into an agreement with the Department of Motor Vehicles, in accordance with the provisions of subdivision B 21 of § 46.2-208, to obtain vehicle owner information regarding the registered owners of vehicles that fail to comply with a traffic light signal. Information provided to the operator of a traffic light signal violation monitoring system shall be protected in a database with security comparable to that of the Department of Motor Vehicles' system, and used only for enforcement against individuals who violate the provisions of this section. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all photographs, microphotographs, electronic images, or other personal information collected by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system shall be used exclusively for 6 1/23/2026 12:00:00 AM 141 enforcing traffic light violations and shall not (i) be open to the public; (ii) be sold or used for sales, solicitation, or marketing purposes; (iii) be disclosed to any other entity except as may be necessary for the enforcement of a traffic light violation or to a vehicle owner or operator as part of a challenge to the violation; or (iv) be used in a court in a pending action or proceeding unless the action or proceeding relates to a violation of § 46.2-833, 46.2-835, or 46.2-836 or requested upon order from a court of competent jurisdiction. Information collected under this section pertaining to a specific violation shall be purged and not retained later than 60 days after the collection of any civil penalties. If a locality does not execute a summons for a violation of this section within 10 business days, all information collected pertaining to that suspected violation shall be purged within two business days. Any locality operating a traffic light signal violation monitoring system shall annually certify compliance with this section and make all records pertaining to such system available for inspection and audit by the Commissioner of Highways or the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles or his designee. Any person who discloses personal information in violation of the provisions of this subsection shall be subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 per disclosure. Any unauthorized use or disclosure of such personal information shall be grounds for termination of the agreement between the Department of Motor Vehicles and the private entity. I. A private entity may enter into an agreement with a locality to be compensated for providing the traffic light signal violation monitoring system or equipment, and all related support services, to include consulting, operations and administration. However, only a law-enforcement officer employed by a locality may swear to or affirm the certificate required by subsection C. No locality shall enter into an agreement for compensation based on the number of violations or monetary penalties imposed. J. When selecting potential intersections for a traffic light signal violation monitoring system, a locality shall consider factors such as (i) the accident rate for the intersection, (ii) the rate of red light violations occurring at the intersection (number of violations per number of vehicles), (iii) the difficulty experienced by law-enforcement officers in patrol cars or on foot in apprehending violators, and (iv) the ability of law-enforcement officers to apprehend violators safely within a reasonable distance from the violation. Localities may consider the risk to pedestrians as a factor, if applicable. K. Before the implementation of a traffic light signal violation monitoring system at an intersection, the locality shall complete an engineering safety analysis that addresses signal timing and other location-specific safety features. The length of the yellow phase shall be established based on the recommended methodology of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. No traffic light signal violation monitoring system shall be implemented or utilized for a traffic signal having a yellow signal phase length of less than three seconds. All traffic light signal violation monitoring systems shall provide a minimum 0.5-second grace period between the time the signal turns red and the time the first violation is recorded. If recommended by the engineering safety analysis, the locality shall make reasonable location-specific safety improvements, including signs and pavement markings. L. Any locality that uses a traffic light signal violation monitoring system shall evaluate the system on a monthly basis to ensure all cameras and traffic signals are functioning properly. Evaluation results shall be made available to the public. M. Any locality that uses a traffic light signal violation monitoring system to enforce traffic light signals shall place conspicuous signs within 500 feet of the intersection approach at which a 7 1/23/2026 12:00:00 AM 142 traffic light signal violation monitoring system is used. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that such signs were in place at the time of the commission of the traffic light signal violation. N. Prior to or coincident with the implementation or expansion of a traffic light signal violation monitoring system, a locality shall conduct a public awareness program, advising the public that the locality is implementing or expanding a traffic light signal violation monitoring system. O. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, if a vehicle depicted in images recorded by a traffic light signal photo-monitoring system is owned, leased, or rented by a county, city, or town, then the county, city, or town may access and use the recorded images and associated information for employee disciplinary purposes. 2007, cc. 836, 903;2010, c. 175;2012, cc. 805, 836;2014, c. 163;2015, c. 714. This section has more than one version with varying effective dates. Scroll down to see all versions. The chapters of the acts of assembly referenced in the historical citation at the end of this section(s) may not constitute a comprehensive list of such chapters and may exclude chapters whose provisions have expired. 8 1/23/2026 12:00:00 AM 143 Transportation Committee Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: February 2, 2026 Agenda Section: County Projects Update Title: County Projects Update Attachments: TC02-02-26CountyProjectsUpdate.pdf 144 145 Transportation Committee Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: February 2, 2026 Agenda Section: Other Title: Other Attachments: TC02-02-26Other.pdf 146 147