FAUQUIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE 10 Hotel , Suite 305 Warrenton, VA 20186 (540) 422-8200 (540) 422-8201 Fax

Members: Matt Sheedy, Marshall District Chris Butler, Board of Supervisors Bill Hodge, Cedar Run District Rick Gerhardt, Board of Supervisors Pete Eltringham, Scott District Adrienne Garreau, Planning Commission James Lawrence, Center District Mark Nesbit, Virginia Department of Transportation Dave Newman, Lee District Patrick Mauney, Rappahannock-Rapidan Planning District Commission

Regular Meeting November 18, 2020, 5:00 p.m. Warren Green Building, Second Floor Meeting Room, 10 Hotel Street Warrenton, Virginia

PLEASE NOTE: DUE TO RESTRICTIONS RELATED TO COVID-19 THERE WILL NOT BE AN OPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS MEETING. PUBLIC COMMENTS MAY BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE MEETING. ALL ACTION BY THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE ARE ADVISORY AND WILL REQUIRE A FUTURE PUBIC HEARING AND ACTION BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AT WHICH ANY INTERESTED PARTY WILL BE AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.

1. Introductions

2. Election of Officers

3. Approval of Minutes – October 24, 2018

4. Staff Updates A. Route 29 Updates B. SMART SCALE Applications

5. VDOT Updates

6. New Business A. Review Restrict Truck Requests 1. Beverleys Mill (Route 600) 2. Old Dumfries Road (Route 667) 3. Greenwich Road (Route 603) B. Budgets

Page 1 of 2

C. FY 22-27 Secondary Six-Year Plan (SSYP) – Unpaved Roads 1. Cabin Branch Road (Route 780) 2. Elk Run Church Road (Route 634) 3. Washwright/Keyser Road (Route 734)/(Route 735) 4. Ebenezer Church Road (Route 648) 5. Belcoir Road (Route 751) 6. Crawleys Dam Road (Route 809) 7. Crenshaw Road (Route 624)-(Northern 0.9 mile section only) 8. Paradise Road (Route 685) D. Survey Methodology for Rural Rustic Roads E. Identify Potential Project for Telefee Funds

7. Other Items

8. Member Comments

9. Adjournment

Page 2 of 2

MINUTES OF FAUQUIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE October 24, 2018 5:00 P.M. 2nd Floor Conference Room – Warren Green Building 10 Hotel Street Warrenton, VA 20186

Members Present: Chair, Jim Stone; Vice Chair, Matthew Sheedy, Chris Butler, Rick Gerhardt, Adrienne Garreau, Peter S. Eltringham, Patrick Mauney, James Lawrence

Guests Present: Mark Nesbit, Virginia Department of Transportation Roy Tate, Virginia Department of Transportation Ben Davison, Virginia Department of Transportation Darlene Marshall, School Board Transportation Office

Staff Present: Marie Pham, Maureen Williamson

1. Election of Officers

Action: On a motion made by Mr. Stone and seconded by Supervisor Butler, it was moved to elect Supervisor Gerhardt as Chair of the Transportation Committee. The motion carried unanimously.

Action: On a motion made by Ms. Garreau and seconded by Mr. Gerhardt, it was moved to re-elect Mr. Sheedy as Vice-Chair of the Transportation Committee. The motion carried unanimously.

2. Citizens’ Time

The following citizen comments were made during Citizens’ Time. The residents ‘names and comments are listed in the order in which each spoke.

Mrs. Linda and Mr. John Suter spoke in opposition to the paving of Rokeby Road. Mrs. Suter noted having submitted a letter for the Committee’s consideration in which is cited the reasons for their opposition. She said that they have lived on the road for twenty-eight years and therefore speak from experience and noted having selected the property on a due to its disinviting nature to traffic including motorcycles and bicycles. She shared that several years ago, the County and Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) hard surfaced the northern portion of the road from Route 710 south for about 500 yards to mitigate washouts from heavy rain storms and the routine freezing and thawing of winter. She reported that while VDOT tried to maintain the hard-surfaced portion, the road continued to , developed , and deep ruts and ultimately VDOT removed the hard surfacing and re-graveled the road. Therefore, she added that staying with gravel gives VDOT the option to regrade and fix the road in short periods of time.

She also expressed concern for hard surfacing only the southern portion of the road as she felt it will encourage and/or attract motorcyclists and bicyclists to enter the road not realizing that the

2

northern portion of the road is gravel and not fit for their vehicles. Additionally, she expressed concern for delivery/service vehicles that she believes would travel even faster than they do now on the road. She closed by saying that Rokeby Road should remain a gravel road to help keep the overall speed down. Mr. Suter added that the road is barely wide enough for two vehicles to pass each other safely.

Keyser Road resident, Ms. Lori Udall, spoke in opposition to the paving of the road. She noted having lived on the road for twenty-eight years and has a family history with the road for over seventy years. Ms. Udall expressed concern that hard surfacing the road would invite traffic that does not normally travel the road. She suggested these being motorcyclists, bicyclists and sightseers. She added that there is a large equestrian community and a local hunt that would be adversely affected if the road were hard surfaced. She feels that there are more fatalities on paved roads than gravel roads. She also noted that she feels not all of the residents of Keyser Road were notified of the potential for hard surfacing. She asked that residents of offshoot roads also get notified of upcoming meetings as well. She said she disagrees with VDOT’s “no plan approach” to hard surfacing and thinks it is a terrible policy.

Keyser Road resident, Ms. Ann Emery, spoke in opposition to the paving of the road. Ms. Emery noted that due to the abundance of livestock facilities within the area including eleven horse facilities, two cattle operations, and one alpaca farm, she is against hard surfacing. She said that a paved road is not conducive to the cattle that graze close to the road. She said that the road is frequented by hikers, walkers and joggers, children walking to/from the school bus, people on horseback, and a domestic pig that roams freely. She commented that the country road is mostly comprised of residential traffic and in some places, is not able to accommodate cars passing side by side. She said that paving the road would ruin its rural agricultural nature as it is today.

Ms. Virginia Wright spoke in favor of paving and/or for major improvements to Washwright Road. She noted a one hundred year family history with the road. She said the first part of Washwright Road is level and suggested that if VDOT would regularly maintain the road and clear the culverts that would take care of the first part of the road. She noted that Washwright Road is a to Keyser Road due to the . She described the north end of the road as being a bedroom community with the south end comprised of larger estates. She told the Committee that there are not many places along the road where two cars can comfortably pass each other.

Mr. Tom Clark spoke in favor of paving Ebenezer Church Road.

Mr. Phil Neason spoke in opposition to the paving of Keyser Road. He feels that two cars cannot comfortably pass each other. He stated that if there is intent to removing trees along the road at Hume Winery, he will be opposed.

Ms. Carole Miller spoke in opposition to having any portion of Rokeby Road paved. She has lived on the road since 1962. She is absolutely opposed to paving the road. She feels that once a portion of the road is paved, the remaining sections of the road will be paved. She does not feel there is any stigma associated with living on a and in fact, some may welcome living on a dirt road as the traffic is not as bad.

3

Ms. Jody Warfield spoke in opposition to the paving of Rokeby Road. She agreed with all residents of the road that have spoken in opposition to paving. She feels that the hard surfacing of the road does not make fiscal sense because it costs as much to maintain a paved road than a gravel road. She also noted that both have the potential to wash out.

Mr. Glen Coleman spoke in opposition to the paving of Keyser Road. Mr. Coleman is against paving and he noted the historical nature of the road. He noted possessing a Civil War map with Keyser Road represented on it and said the road used to go across Marriott Ranch to Chester Gap where the Rappahannock River starts. He feels the road was used by a fair number of General Robert E. Lee’s retreating troops who came down this road after the Battle of Gettysburg. He said that paving the road would be a major adjustment to the area and its surrounding properties.

Mr. Randy Mays spoke in opposition to the paving of Washwright Road. Mr. Mays told the Committee that to his knowledge there are only five houses along the road. He said that he knows of two homeowners who are adamantly opposed to having the road paved. A third homeowner has his house under contract and said presumably the buyer knows the property is on a gravel road. He stated that if you cannot get more than half the residents of the road to agree to paving, it does not make sense. He added that if the County chooses to pave the road, the hedge row on either side of the road will be destroyed and the trees will never grow back.

Ms. Catherine Larmore spoke in opposition to the paving of Rokeby Road. She stated that the VDOT “no plan process” is a very weak point in the discussion. She said that each of us has a different idea of what a gravel road is. She feels that Rokeby Road needs engineering as water velocity is greater on a paved road than it is on a gravel road. She continued by saying that if we already have trouble with water on a gravel road it is not going to get better with the paving of the road. She stated that she is concerned about the use of tax payer money as to whether paving some of these roads are in the best interest of the County. She remarked that it would be much easier to make comments on something she could see, but without knowing the extent of the work needed to pave the road, it is difficult to provide an intelligent answer to the question whether to pave or not to pave.

Ms. Beth Rasin spoke in strong opposition to the paving of Keyser Road and Washwright Road.

Ms. Julie Bolthouse, of Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) spoke on behalf of the Remington Walks project and of a recent analysis done by VDOT for the of Business 15/29 and West Main Street. She reminded the Committee that in 2016, PEC received a grant from the PATH Foundation to improve park, trail, and pedestrian opportunities in the Town of Remington. At the August 2017 meeting, Ms. Bolthouse spoke before this Committee to bring awareness to the intersection being thought of for improvements specifically to return the intersection to a four-way stop. At that time, Ms. Bolthouse asked for the Committee’s opinion on the proposed recommendations. However, she reported that VDOT’s analysis, which included crash history, does not warrant the need for a 4-way stop at this intersection.

To encourage pedestrian usage and enhance safety, she said the crosswalks were proposed to connect the residential side of Remington with the downtown environment. Stop signs were proposed at the current unregulated crosswalks as a way to enhance safety. She said that a part of the vision included bringing people downtown in a pedestrian environment, which she said is

4

to encourage spending and therefore supporting economic development in downtown Remington. She feels that the intersection should be looked at in a broader light than just than simply adding two stop signs. The stop signs and crosswalks were proposed to enhance the downtown environment, economic development, pedestrian safety and to get people walking more.

Supervisor Gerhardt told residents that any decision made tonight will be reflected in the meeting minutes. He also said that this evening’s efforts are part of a work session and the next steps include discussion, selection and prioritization of the roads by the Committee and then making the recommendation to the Board of Supervisors (BOS). He said that it is the BOS who has the authority to select the roads for paving.

3. Approval of the October 2017 Committee Meeting Minutes

ACTION: On a motion made by Supervisor Butler and seconded by Mr. Eltringham it was moved to approve the October 25, 2017 m e e ting minutes. The motion carried unanimously.

4. September 2018 – VDOT Monthly Report

Mr. Nesbit said that VDOT has planned a public citizen information meeting to provide information about the upcoming project to replace the signalized intersection of Route 15/17/29 Business, Route 15/17/29 , and Route 880 (Lord Fairfax Road) with a grade-separated and two . The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, November 13 from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in The Barn at Lord Fairfax Community College, 6480 College Street, Warrenton. A brief presentation will be delivered at 5:30 p.m. VDOT staff, engineers from Dewberry and Shirley Contracting Co. will be available to discuss the design-build project and answer questions. The project is scheduled to begin in the winter of 2018. Construction will be complete by winter 2020. Traffic will begin to use the new interchange in summer 2020.

Mr. Nesbit said that VDOT held a public hearing on Route 15/29 Business over the Rappahannock River, which is just south of Remington. VDOT invited residents and other interested parties to attend a design public hearing on Tuesday, October 16, 2018 from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Remington Volunteer Fire Department, 200 East Marshall Street, Remington. He said about sixteen residents attended the public hearing, which was an opportunity for those in attendance to give VDOT comments and/or suggestions regarding the proposed project to rehabilitate the bridge. Mr. Eltringham asked Mr. Nesbit if the historic nature of the bridge was factored into the planning of the work. Mr. Nesbit replied yes. Mr. Eltringham also asked if Ms. Mary Root, resident of Remington and advocate of bridge rehabilitation was informed as to the scope of work. Ms. Garreau commented that Ms. Root served on the County Bridge Committee that made the recommendations that were adopted by the BOS for the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. She added that Ms. Root’s viewpoint is a good representative of the viewpoint we have on the Transportation Committee. Mr. Eltringham agreed. Mr. Nesbit said that Ms. Root has been kept informed.

Mr. Nesbit told the Committee that VDOT, Fauquier County and community stakeholders have met several times to reach consensus on improvements to the Route 29 - New Baltimore Corridor between Warrenton and the Prince William County line. Another meeting is set for Thursday,

5

October 25, 2018 from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the Warren Green Building (BOS meeting chamber), 10 Hotel Street, Warrenton, to further discuss potential projects. VDOT has identified several specific locations where safety improvements are needed based on recent crash history and trends. These include the intersections of Route 29 and Route 215 (Vint Hill Road), Route 600 (Broad Run Church Road) and Route 676 (Riley Road).

Mr. Nesbit said that VDOT has proposed improvements using alternative intersection designs that have proved to improve safety and reduce crashes when implemented in other locations. Fauquier County and the local community have requested that additional study be undertaken to determine the most appropriate improvements for those locations. VDOT Chief Engineer, Garrett Moore, will facilitate the meeting.

Mr. Eltringham asked Mr. Nesbit if, given the long stretch of rain and the prediction for additional inclement weather, is there anything going on in the County that is atypical or special planning to deal with any issues the rain may have caused. Mr. Nesbit responded saying that VDOT would do nothing other than what is normally done to prepare for a weather event.

Mr. Nesbit told the Committee that VDOT will manage the Broadview project per the Town of Warrenton’s request. He reminded the Committee that during the FY2018 Smart Scale process, the Town of Warrenton split the Broadview Avenue project and submitted two applications to: 1) Complete funding on the Broadview Avenue roadway improvements in the amount of $2.59 million; and 2) to fund a second $2.8 million project to make improvements at the intersection of Broadview, Frost and West Shirley Avenues. He said that since the Smart Scale award, Town of Warrenton staff and engineering consultants, Kittelson & Associates, developed an alternative design to the plan that VDOT introduced in May. The Town’s alternative design proposed enhanced access to businesses with a combination of open turn and medians, driveways and inter-parcel connections, and pedestrian crossings. Mr. Nesbit said that the changes from VDOT's design warranted their performing a re-scoring of the project to ensure it met the Smart Scale criteria for funding. He noted that on October 18, 2018 VDOT notified the Town of Warrenton that the proposed design passed the re-scoring and is still eligible for funding with its Smart Scale allocation.

Mr. Eltringham asked when the results of two traffic engineering studies 1) Riley Road and Brookside – sign and speed review; and 2) Brookside Parkway and Millstone – intersection operational review would be completed. Ms. Pham said that she would forward the results of the engineering studies to the Committee once received from VDOT.

Supervisor Butler commented that he followed a bus through the new in front of Walmart at East Shirley Avenue and Falmouth Street with no issues. Mr. Nesbit said the roundabout was a joint venture between VDOT and the Town of Warrenton and will improve traffic flow and pedestrian safety. He estimated the roundabout cost $434,000, which is about the same as installing traffic signals and said that VDOT provided $217,000 for the project. Walmart proffered $180,000 for intersection improvements when it expanded the store three years ago. The Town of Warrenton had budgeted the remaining $37,000 in its fiscal 2017 capital projects fund.

6

5. New Business

 FY 20-25 Secondary Roads Six-Year Plan (SSYP) Ms. Pham reminded the Committee that each spring VDOT provides the County with a budget for secondary road projects. She said that funding for these projects is divided into two categories: 1) District Grant Funds - unpaved road funds that can only be used to hard surface unpaved roads in the state system with fifty or more vehicles per da;y and 2) Telefee Funds - secondary road construction funds that can be applied to any secondary road construction project.

Ms. Pham said that with our current allocation the County is receiving $3.7 million in unpaved road funding over the next six years. Staff has allocated almost $2 million of that in the plan. Referring to the program allocations for FY 20-25, she told the Committee that Shenandoah Path (Route 607) is in progress with the first half to be completed by end of 2018 and the second half to be fully funded in 2019. She said that Stoney Road (Route 636) will continue to receive funding as will Dullins Road (Route 798), Old Culpeper Road (Route 800) and Springs Mill Road (Route 823). She made note of the fact that Rogues Road (Route 602) has been and will receive the majority of Telefee funding for the next few years. However, in fiscal year 2024 we do need a new project.

At this meeting, Ms. Pham said she would like members to consider what we have heard from all residents on each of the roads as well as present the statistics in order to gauge the Committee’s interest in adding roads, roads needing further discussion, or roads deleted from the options. Essentially, Ms. Pham asked what staff can do to assist the Committee to make a recommendation to the BOS by April 2019.

Unpaved Road Projects:

Ms. Pham said that available funding for unpaved roads is approximately $1.8 million and that would come in starting July 1, 2022. She estimates one mile of gravel road costing $.5 million and estimates adding 3.5 miles of roadway to the plan. Mr. Eltringham asked if funding could be accelerated. Mr. Davison confirmed that at times there are overages on some projects and that the surplus could be applied to another project. Ms. Pham said that in the past, VDOT has allowed funding for unpaved roads to remain unallocated and to list it as a line item or future year balance entry account. However, the more roads we can add the better and the less at risk for losing the funding in the future. She said that if the Committee is comfortable with what is presented tonight, then it may be appropriate to move forward this evening. She confirmed that the Committee will need to send a recommendation to the BOS by April 2019. She commented that many of the roads presented tonight will not provide a clear cut decision.

Mr. Nesbit asked if he could clarify comments made by residents in regard to VDOT not using engineered plans. He said that the Rural Rustic Program, by Virginia code, allows VDOT to pave low volume roads. He added that the treatment aims to keep traditional rural ambience, while improving the within the current right-of-way or 30’ prescriptive easement. To clarify, he said VDOT strives to identify all potential issues upfront. He said that the process does include identifying centerlines, locating drainage

7

pipes and changing them out if needed, an abbreviated environmental process and meeting with property owners when it is determined that there may be impact to property, as permission to remove trees for instance needs to be obtained. Mr. Sheedy asked if the roads being discussed tonight have been visited by VDOT. Mr. Nesbit said that as County staff identifies roads for the program, a site visit is done by VDOT to identify problem areas and issues of concern like steep banks and trees. He added that problem areas for each of the roads being discussed tonight should have already been identified.

Ms. Pham said that now that the Committee has heard from residents, she would like to go through the statistics of each road this evening. She said that she would like to gauge the Committee’s interest level in the roads discussed this evening.

Ms. Pham noted that there are residents who wished to remain anonymous when providing comment on the paving of roads. Many property owners have not wanted their vote to be known to their neighbors. Therefore, she said that the data reflects those who responded and who did not while still giving the total numbers.

Cabin Branch Road (Route 780) • Two parallel roads make the road attractive for cut-through purposes for possible increase to traffic • Two-section paving process due to water crossing - 0.9 mile to the south and 0.2 mile to the north • School Transportation Office has cited concerns with flooding and washout. School buses will only travel from Cliff Mills up Cabin Branch to Hiddenbrook Hill • VDOT replaced culverts due to water crossing earlier in 2018, but did not increase capacity; therefore, culverts may still be an issue • No crash history • 23 unique property owners, 7 responded, 2 support, 5 oppose • Request for hard surfacing came from a supporter of the road being hard surfaced

The Committee had concern with potential pressure to fix the middle section of the road if the two ends are hard surfaced. There was also concern for vehicles that will start down the road think the entire length is paved and then get down the road to find that pavement turns to gravel. Mr. Nesbit said that this is an understandable concern and that signage will alert travelers to the change in road surface. Mr. Sheedy noted that without more resident support, he is not inclined to support it. Mr. Eltringham said he feels that more resident response is needed.

Mr. Sheedy asked who received a letter regarding the public outreach meetings and the potential for paving. Ms. Pham said that all residents along the road, with frontage, residents who have access onto another road, or live off a private street or that has access to the road received a letter. Ms. Pham said that within the letter it was stated that a resident need not be present at the public outreach meeting for their opinion to be heard. She said she would accept a phone call, letter or email with resident preferences.

8

Curtis Road (Route 803)  Dead end road in southern Lee District  School Transportation Office will not travel because there is nowhere to turn around at the end of the road. If a is constructed, the School Transportation Office would reconsider traveling the road.  Safety concerns for children walking a mile plus, in the dark, along the road due to no school bus service  1 property damage only crash – side swipe opposite direction  11 unique property owners, 4 responded, 4 support, 0 oppose

Mr. Eltringham asked if constructing a turnaround is something VDOT can do as part of the resurfacing. Ms. Pham said that VDOT has constructed turnarounds on other roads. Mr. Roy Tate of VDOT confirmed that this is a good candidate for Rural Rustic constructability.

Staff confirmed that they have not heard from the landowner with the most frontage along the road. Mr. Tate said he feels that ownership of the large parcel belongs to a pulpwood farm.

Ebenezer Church Road (Route 648)  Cedar Run District  Through Road  Closest parallel roads are Rogues to Midland Road to the northwest and Blackwelltown Road (Route 646) to the southeast  1 property damage only crash – non-collision  School Transportation Office does not travel even under normal conditions, as the road is too narrow and there is a problem with water drainage.  18 unique property owners, 3 responded, 1 supports, 2 oppose

Ms. Pham said that a year ago, staff made an effort to gauge interest and letters were sent to residents about the potential for the road being hard surfaced.

Elk Run Church Road (Route 634)  Cedar Run District  Through Road  Closest parallel roads are Elk Run Road (Route 806) to the west and Blackwells Mill Road (Route 617) to the southeast  4 Crashes – 3 property damage only crash and 1 non-visible injury  School Transportation Office will travel on road  34 unique property owners, 2 responded, 1 supports, 1 opposes

Mr. Stone, who is familiar with the road, remarked that it is a beautiful gravel road and stated he would like to see it remain a gravel road.

Ms. Marshall of the Fauquier County School Transportation office said the road is good and school busses only have to pull off of it in the snow and ice.

9

Grace Church Lane (Route 664)  Cedar Run District  Dead end road  No crash history  No comment from School Transportation Office  13 unique property owners, 7 responded, 7 support, 0 oppose

Harts Mill Road (Route 688)  Through Road  Closest parallel road is Holtzclaw Road (Route 681) to the east  2 Crashes on subject road – both property damage only; 3 crashes north – 2 property damage only and 1 Non-visible injury  School Transportation Office does not travel Harts Mill Road and did not comment on its condition  27 unique property owners, 8 responded, 2 support, 6 oppose

Ms. Garreau commented that this is one of the County’s classic country roads.

Holtzclaw Road (Route 681)  Through Road  Closest parallel roads are Harts Mill Road (Route 688) to the west (0.75 mile) and St. Leonards Lane (private) to the east  No crash history  School Transportation Office does not travel the Springs Road side due to the road condition (narrow, sides drop off, and uneven) and flooding in heavy rain  21 unique property owners, 11 responded, 0 support, 11 oppose

Keyser Road (Route 735)  Dead-End Road (Connects through via Washwright Road)  Closest parallel road is Leeds Manor (Route 688)  1 property damage only crash – Sideswipe Opposite Direction  School Transportation Office travels from Washwright Road (Route 734) to Whiskey Still Lane (private) but did not comment on the condition of the road  77 unique property owners, 39 responded, 24 support, 15 oppose

Ms. Pham noted that some residents along Keyser Road (Route 735) were also in favor of hard surfacing Washwright Road (Route 734), which is used as an entrance to Keyser Road (Route 735).

Old Morgansburg Road (Route 834)  Cedar Run District  Dead-end road  No crash history  School Transportation Office does not travel on Old Morgansburg Road (Route 834) and did not comment on the road condition

10

 8 unique property owners, 4 responded, 0, oppose, 4 support

Rokeby Road (Route 623)  Through road  Only southern section of the road would qualify for hard surfacing  Closest parallel roads are Delaplane Grade Road (Route 712) to the west and Maidstone Road (Route 713) to the east  No crash history  34 unique property owners, 16 responded, 5 support, 11 oppose

Ms. Marshall commented that the road is quite narrow and, therefore, the school busses will not travel it.

Washwright Road (Route 734)  Through Road  Closest parallel road is Leeds Manor Road (Route 688)  2 property damage only crashes – Fixed Object Off Road and Head On o Concern expressed for school bus head on collision with a passenger vehicle – accident occurred within the S-curve many residents have called dangerous  School Transportation Office travels this road but did not comment on the road condition  33 unique property owners, 8 responded, 2 support, 6 oppose

Ms. Pham said she heard from residents about the dangerous S-curve on the road. She reminded the Committee that the goal of the Rural Rustic Program is to hard surface the road as it is. She wanted to caution the residents who wanted the S-curve addressed, that as part of the hard surfacing process the S-curve would not be straightened out.

Mr. Sheedy asked if Keyser Road (Route 735), which connects with Washwright Road (Route 734), should be looked at individually or combined due to the connection to Washwright Road (Route 734). Mr. Eltringham suggested considering both individually as funding is going to be allocated separately.

Mr. Mauney asked which portion of Keyser Road (Route 735) had the most support. Ms. Pham said that there was a lot of support along the northern section of the road. She cautioned saying that the portion of the largest section of the road we can do is very short.

Ms. Pham said that based on feedback staff heard from residents, she recommends adding Curtis Road (Route 803) due to the safety concern for children walking along the road, as the School Transportation Office will not travel down this road as there is no turnaround for busses. She said that VDOT noted this was a good candidate for hard surfacing. She also recommended Grace Church Lane (Route 664) as a road with no opposition to hard surfacing as well as Old Morgansburg Road (Route 834), which could be added to the list based on strong resident support for hard surfacing.

11

Action: On a motion made by Supervisor Gerhardt and seconded by Mr. Eltringham, it was moved to accept Ms. Pham’s recommendation that Curtis Road (Route 803), Grace Church Lane (Route 664), and Old Morgansburg Road (Route 834) be added to the FY 20-25 Secondary Roads Six-Year Plan. The motion carried unanimously.

Ms. Pham reviewed the funding saying that if the Committee chooses to fund three roads: Curtis Road (Route 803), Grace Church Lane (Route 664), and Old Morgansburg Road (Route 834) that leaves about $1 million not programmed. Mr. Sheedy asked if the County would lose funding if it is not programmed. Ms. Pham said that in the past it was acceptable to have money not programmed; however, she said she would verify this with VDOT. Mr. Nesbit said that he feels it is best to program all funding. Ms. Pham said that this is money that would not be spent until July 2023; therefore, staff has the flexibility to continue to evaluate alternatives and the Committee can delete or add roads based on outreach and road statistics.

Mr. Eltringham agreed with Ms. Pham’s recommendation to add Curtis Road (Route 803), Grace Church Lane (Route 664), and Old Morgansburg Road (Route 834) to the FY 20-25 SSYP, but he is unsure if he or the Committee has enough information to prioritize them. Ms. Pham said that she would recommend putting Curtis Road (Route 803) at the top of the list due to safety concerns.

Ms. Garreau said that some of the roads are so controversial that they may not even qualify for the program. She said that Keyser Road (Route 735) and Rokeby Road (Route 623) are so divided among the residents that have responded. Mr. Eltringham said that all of the roads need to be reworked at some level. He asked that staff put together additional data for the Committee to study in order to be ready for the January 2019 meeting and to put a comprehensive recommendation together for the BOS.

Ms. Pham recommended, and the Committee agreed, that Holtzclaw Road (Route 681) not be given consideration based on the opposition to hard surface this road.

Mr. Sheedy said he does not see a reason to pursue Rokeby Road (Route 623) given the nature of the respondents. Ms. Pham said that she and VDOT evaluated the entire length of Rokeby Road (Route 623) to determine if it qualified for hard surfacing. Supervisor Gerhardt asked how this road came to be considered for the Rural Rustic Program. Ms. Pham said that the four requests were sent directly to Supervisor McDaniel for her consideration. The requests came mostly from the residents along the southern portion of the road up toward Briar Lane. Ms. Garreau asked VDOT if regrading or other improvements could be done to improve the road. Mr. Sheedy said that there is a long stretch of water that runs along the side of the road where there might be an opportunity for culverts to help. Mr. Tate said that VDOT maintenance and environmental staff have been working in that area to determine if the water can be rechanneled; however, he cautions that there are laws against changing the flow of water. However, if the water is rechanneling due to clogged culverts, then yes, VDOT can do something.

12

Action: On a motion made by Mr. Eltringham and seconded by Mr. Sheedy, it was moved that Rokeby Road (Route 623) be removed from the list of considerations for FY 20-25 Secondary Roads Six-Year Plan. The motion carried unanimously.

Supervisor Gerhardt told Ms. Pham that Mr. Wayne Arrington claims he owns the right-of- way of Shenandoah Path (Route 607) and if the County were to pursue paving, he would close the access. Ms. Pham said that the County plan is to pave only the southern portion of the road.

Secondary Street Acceptance:

Ms. Pham told the Committee that residents along two private roads have submitted for secondary street acceptance: Crawleys Dam Road and Old Devils Turnpike. She noted that it is the responsibility of the residents who live along the streets to bring the roads up to state standards before VDOT will take them into their system. Ms. Pham cautioned that this is not an inexpensive process and estimated the cost to be about $1 million per mile of road. She noted Crawleys Dam Road in particular, as there are utilities running along the edge of the road that would need to be moved, go through a process to create plats to dedicate the right of way, develop engineering plans, and have the road constructed properly. She asked the Committee to either recommend or deny Crawleys Dam Road and Old Devils Turnpike.

Mr. Eltringham asked why the Committee would recommend these roads to the BOS without an estimate as to what it would cost to bring these roads up to state standards. Ms. Pham said that the process to add existing roads that are not maintained by the state begins with the local Board of Supervisors.

Action: On a motion made by Supervisor Gerhardt and seconded by Ms. Garreau, it was moved that Crawleys Dam Road and Old Devils Turnpike be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration for VDOT to add the roads to the Secondary System for maintenance. The motion carried unanimously.

6. Staff Updates Ms. Pham had no staff updates at this time.

7. Member Comments Supervisor Butler thanked Mr. Stone for his service to this Committee and for serving as its Chair. He said the Committee wishes him all the best.

Mr. Eltringham expressed that he would like the Committee to meet more than once a year.

8. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:42 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held on Wednesday, January 23, 2019.

ROUTE 29 / NEW BALTIMORE ADVISORY PANEL MEETING #18

October 22, 2020 U.S. 29 New Baltimore Project Status

1) Summary of project estimates & available funding

2) Section 106/NEPA Schedule & Project Limits

3) “Cut the Hills” Project Financials Update

4) Panel Priority #1: Dual left-turn lanes, SB 29 to Vint Hill Road

5) Panel Priorities #2 & #3, Status, Schedule & Project Estimates

6) Meeting calendar • January 2021 update: Following SMART SCALE Round 4 scoring

Virginia Department of Transportation “Cut the Hills” Project Financials

Line Item Project Budget Project Expenditures Preliminary Engineering* $ 612,138 $583.776.76 VDOT Right of Way Acquisition $ 500 $162.59 Construction Total $4,007,151 Design Build Bid $3,544,568 $3,525,565.21 Construction CEI & Admin. $ 210,083 $247,904.39 Construction Contingency $ 100,000 $0 Incentive $ 150,000 $0 VSP & FCSO (traffic control) $ 2,500 $50,011.14 Project Total $4,619,789 $4,407,420.09

* Includes Alternative Analysis, Traffic Analysis, Procurement Documents and Plans, Survey Geotechnical and Cost to Cure Parcel #001 Final report, project is in close-out phase UPC 114713

Virginia Department of Transportation 3 Phase 2 Improvements: Rt. 29 / Rt. 215 & Rt. 29 / Rt. 600 Intersections

Preliminary Right-of-Way & Project Construction Total Costs Engineering Utilities Priority 1: Rt. 29 SB dual left turn lanes $653,075 $400,000 $ 1,500,000 $2,553,075 Priority 2: Rt. 600 to 29 SB left- turn lanes $620,000 $550,000 $1,300,000 $2,470,000 Priority 3: Rt. 215 dual right turn lanes $380,000 $55,000 $540,000 $975,000 Phase 2 total project costs $5,998,075

Total HSIP allocation for improvements $7,400,000.00 Cut the Hills project, actual cost $4,407,420.09 Funds remaining for Phase 2 improvements $2,992,579.10 Phase 2 Priority 1 project estimated cost $2,553,075.00 Total remaining funds $439,504.10 Cost estimates are current dollar values

Virginia Department of Transportation 4 Section 106/NEPA Schedule & Study Limits

VDOT/VDHR coordination: mid-March to October Va. Department of Historic Resources concurred on October 8 that the undertaking will have No Adverse Effect to historic properties provided that VDOT consults with VDHR and Buckland Preservation Society to determine areas where borrow/spoil disposal activity during project construction should be avoided within the limits of the Buckland Mills Battlefield. This completes Section 106 process for all 3 projects NEPA Studies: April to October 2020 To include water quality, hazardous materials survey, endangered species NEPA study completed October 21 for Phase 2, Priority 1, U.S. 29/215 dual left-turn & merge lane

Virginia Department of Transportation Panel Priority #1 Route 29 / Vint Hill Rd Dual Left Turn and Merge Lane

Project Phase Estimated Cost Preliminary $653,075 Engineering Right of Way $400,000 Acquisition & Utility Relocations Construction $1,500,000 Total $2,553,075

Virginia Department of Transportation 6 • Survey work completed and design is under way • Public involvement planned for late Fall 2020 (COVID-19 pandemic will require format changes or may delay the meeting)

Virginia Department of Transportation Panel Priority #2 Route 29 / Broad Run Church Rd Dual Left Turn Lanes

Project Phase Estimated Cost Preliminary $620,000 Engineering Right of Way $550,000 Acquisition & Utility Relocations Construction $1,300,000 Total $2,470,000

Note: All costs are in 2020 dollars and will be inflated at funding application.

This project is being submitted for SMART SCALE funding

Virginia Department of Transportation 8 Panel Priority #3 Route 29 / Vint Hill Road Dual Right Turn Lanes

Project Phase Estimated Cost Preliminary $380,000 Engineering Right of Way $55,000 Acquisition & Utility Relocations Construction $540,000 Total $975,000

Note: All costs are in 2020 dollars and will be inflated at funding application.

This project is being submitted for SMART SCALE funding

Virginia Department of Transportation 9

Smart Scale Proposed Projects (FY 22-28)

November 18, 2020 SMART SCALE: Overview  Adopted in April 2014 as House Bill 2  Transportation Projects have to be scored and prioritized  Localities with population < 200,000 limited to 4 applications  Planning District Commissions (PDCs) with population < 500,000 limited to 4 applications  Fauquier will submit (4) projects  RRRC will submit (3) projects for Fauquier County  Five scoring factors: 1. Accessibility (15%) 2. Congestion (10%) 3. Economic Development (35%) 4. Environmental Quality (10%) 5. Safety (30%)  Weighted Score / Funding Request (in $10M)

2 SMART SCALE: Key Dates  April 17, 2020 ◦ Submission deadline for pre-applications.  April 3 - June 1, 2020 ◦ Pre-applications screening review, conducted by VDOT/DRPT staff. ◦ At close of pre-application screening, applicants will know which applications can advance.  June 1, 2020 ◦ Full application period opens  Aug. 17, 2020 ◦ Submission deadline for full applications.  January 2021 ◦ Release of project prioritization and base allocation scenario. Presentation to the CTB  January 2021 - June 2021 ◦ CTB member meetings, public meetings, funding scenario review. ◦ CTB approves SYIP in June 2021.

3 PDC Project #1: I-66 EB Exit 28 Ramps & Route 17 R-CUT

 Closes the current interchange crossover  Moves affected movements to the new U-Turn intersection  Total Cost: $7,549,147  Estimated Reduction in Crashes: 63%

New Restricted Closed Median Crossing

Carters Run Rd Winchester Rd

New U-Turn Location

4 PDC Project #2: I-66 WB Exit 28 Ramps & Route 17 Intersection Roundabout  Redesigns west bound (WB) intersection to a roundabout  Reduces queuing of the north bound (NB) Route 17 to WB I-66 traffic that backs up through the eastbound ramp intersection  Total Cost: $8,907,188  Estimated Reduction in Crashes: 82%

Concrete Median

Winchester Rd

New Roundabout Intersection

5 PDC Project #3: Route 29 & Lees Mill Road Intersection  Project restricts intersection at Lees Mill  Project closes crossovers  Restricts the motel entrance intersection  Total Cost: $6,804,947  Estimated Reduction in Crashes: 63%

Left/U-Turn Only Left/U-Turn Only

Closed Medians

6 County Project #1: Route 55 and Zulla/Belvoir Road Roundabout  Project converts intersection to a roundabout  Project adds crosswalks and  Total Cost: $10,937,500  Estimated Reduction in Crashes: 82%

Sidewalk Additions New Roundabout Intersection

John Marshall Hwy – RT 55

John Marshall Hwy RT 55

7 County Project #2: Route 29 & Vint Hill Road (Route 215) Dual Right Turn Lanes  The project will add a second right turn lane on Route 215  Top PSI intersection in Fauquier County  Total Cost: $1,273,999  Adds capacity to intersection

Lee Hwy – RT 15/29

Lee Hwy – RT 15/29

Additional Right Turn Lane

8 County Project #3: Route 29 & Broad Run Church Road (Route 600) Dual Left Turn Lanes  Project adds an additional west bound (WB) left turn lane on Route 600  Total Cost: $3,243,229  Improves safety & operational performance

Lee Hwy – RT 15/29

Additional Left Turn Lane

9 County Project #4: Route 17 & Covington’s Corner Road R-CUT  The project converts the 4 leg two-way stop controlled intersection to an R-CUT  Total Cost: $7,815,164  Estimated Reduction in Crashes: 82%

New Restricted New U-Turn Crossing Intersection Movement New U-Turn Movement

Balls Mill Rd

Marsh Road – RT 17 Marsh Road – RT 17

10

FAUQUIER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING ADMINISTRATION 10 Hotel Street, Suite 305 Third Floor – Court and Office Building Warrenton, VA 20186 29 Ashby Street, Suite 310

Warrenton, VA 20186 (540) 422-8210

Fax: (540) 422-8201 (540) 422-8200 ZONING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Fax: (540) 422-8201 Third Floor – Court and Office Building 29 Ashby Street, Suite 310 Warrenton, VA 20186

Zoning & Development Plans: (540) 422 - 8220 Permitting & Building: (540) 422-8230 Fax: (540) 422-8231

MEMORANDUM

TO: Fauquier County Transportation Committee

FROM: Joseph Costello, Transportation Planner

DATE: November 18, 2020

SUBJECT: VDOT Monthly Report – October 2020

Attached is a copy of the October 2020 monthly report. This outlines projects that are currently in development in Fauquier County as well as ongoing construction activities, traffic engineering studies, maintenance activities, and upcoming bridge maintenance activities.

Warrenton Residency Fauquier County Monthly Report October 2020

VDOT COVID-19 Weblink

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/covid-19.asp

Projects in Development:

NEXT PROJECT LAST MILESTONE AD DATE MILESTONE Route 602 – Rogues Road R/W acquisition November Public Hearing Corridor Section Improvements Spring 2020 2021 Route 622, Whiting Road, RR RR Coordination Public Involvement January 2022 Crossing Potentially Route 17, Bridge replacement Right of Way Public Hearing Advanced to over Southern RR & Route 805 Acquisition January 2021 Public Hearing Route 647, Bridge Replacement September PE start Postponed. Date over Thumb Run 2021 TBD http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/culpeper/rt17bridge.asp http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/culpeper/647bridge.asp http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/culpeper/roguesrd.asp

Rural Rustic Projects in Development:

NEXT PROJECT LAST MILESTONE AD DATE MILESTONE Rt. 800 Old Culpeper Road Start Design Design Approval August 2021 Rt. 823 Springs Mill Road Start Design Design Approval August 2021 *Constructed using state Forces/Hired Equipment

Fauquier County Monthly Report October 2020

Town of Warrenton:

LAST PROJECT NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE MILESTONE Route 17/29/211 – Broadview Ave. Final Design December R/W Authorization Corridor Improvement Smartscale Approval 2021 Route 17/29/211 - Frost Ave, December Broadview Ave, Shirley Ave, & Final Design R/W Authorization 2021 Waterloo St. Intersection Approval

Improvements Smartscale

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/culpeper/broadview.asp

Warrenton Interchange:

A construction contract was awarded to Shirley Contracting Co. on February 21,2018. Dewberry Inc. is providing engineering design services to Shirley as part of the design build team. Project currently tracking on time and on budget. Traffic signal removed on 6/23. Bridge over Rt. 29 is open and Rt. 29 traffic is now freeflow. Project is substantially complete and the contractor is working on punchlist items. The project webpage is here: http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/culpeper/warrentoninterchange.asp

Rt. 29 / New Baltimore Corridor - Phase 2

Phase 2 improvements currently under review. The Advisory Group’s first priority project is the construction of double SB Rt. 29 left turn lanes onto EB RT. 215.The second and third priority projects are being submitted for Smart Scale funding. The 1st priority project is in design and a consultant has been selected. Survey and environmental reviews are complete. Quarterly update was held via virtual format on 10/22. The next project milestone will be public involvement in late fall. Tentative advertising date is 11/2021.The project webpage is here: http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/culpeper/rt._29_fauquier_county.asp

Rt. 29 / Rt. 605 Dumfries Road – Intersection Improvements

Rebuild Traffic Signal to Mast Pole/Arm and modify Dumfries Road approach to provide 3 left turn lanes. Signal work is underway.

Rt. 29 Northern Corridor Signal System Improvements

New signal system hardware and timing/coordination plan to be implemented in the next several months. Includes the five signalized intersections from Rt. 29/Comfort Inn Dr. to Rt. 29/Rt. 215.

Smart Scale

http://vasmartscale.org/

Page 2 of 5

Fauquier County Monthly Report October 2020

Projects under Construction:

• Rt. 636 Stoney Road 0636-030-P28, (UPC 113790) Scope: Rural Rustic Road improvement project Status: Under Construction – Estimated Completion May 2021

• Rt. 798 Dulins Ford Road 0798-030-P24 (UPC 113791) Scope: Rural Rustic Road improvement project Status: Under Construction – Estimated Completion May 2021

• Bridge Deck Cleaning and Washing (NFO)BRDG-967-414, N501 (UPC 111853) Scope: Bridge Deck Cleaning and Washing (Various locations) Estimated Contract Completion Date: August 3, 2020 (Contract is in Term 3) (Currently Inactive)

• Remington Bridge 0015-023-719, B617 (UPC 95112) The project is complete and open to traffic. Date: October 9, 2020 http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/culpeper/rt15remington.asp

• On-Call Bridge Maintenance Contract BRDG-967-457,N501 (UPC 115014) Scope: Bridge Maintenance (Various locations) Estimated Contract Completion Date: October 23, 2020 (Contract is in Term 1) (Currently Inactive)

• Historic Waterloo Bridge EN18-030-R32, C510, B660 0613-30-748, C501 (UPC 113411)- Contractor has installed main truss and is performing final work activities prior to opening bridge to traffic. Scope: Restoration of Historic Waterloo Bridge Estimated Contract Completion Date: April 30, 2021 http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/culpeper/waterloo.asp

• On-Call District Signal Contract – Various Locations Scope: Specific to each Task order (To be updated for each task) Estimated Contract Completion Date: April 27, 2020 (Term 1)

• On-Call MASH Guardrail Improvements GR07-967-426, N501 (UPC 112166) Various Locations NTP: March 12, 2018 Scope: Guardrail Improvements Estimated contract completion date: December 31, 2020

• ADA Compliance – Various Locations NTP: February 25, 2019 Scope: On call ADA compliance Estimated contract completion date: December 31, 2020 (Term 2) (Currently Inactive)

• Surface Treatment ST7A-967-F20, P401 (UPC 115071) The project was deemed complete and accepted on October 16, 2020. NTP: March 2, 2020 Scope: Surface Treatment Estimated contract completion date: October 16, 2020

Page 3 of 5

Fauquier County Monthly Report October 2020

• Plant Mix PM7D-967-F20 (UPC 115079) NTP: April 5, 2020 Scope: Plant mix Estimated contract completion date: November 20, 2020

• Slurry Seal SS7A-967-F20, P401 (UPC 115070) – The project was deemed complete and accepted on August 25, 2020. NTP: February 13, 2020 Late Start Approved: March 30, 2020 Scope: Slurry Seal Estimated contract completion date: October 30, 2020

• PM7D-967-F20 (UPC 115079) NTP: April 5, 2020 Scope: Plant mix Estimated contract completion date: November 20, 2020

VDOT Paving Program Weblink

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/culpeper/20culpeperdistrictpaving.asp

Traffic Engineering Studies:

 Route 674, Frytown Road - Citizen request for speed study betweem Duhollow Rd. and Old Auburn Rd., Study pending.

 Route 1541, Iron Bit Dr. - Additional Speed Limit Signage requested to cover all routes. Request approved for 25mph signs. Signs have ben installed.

 Route 15/29Bus, James Madison Street – Request to review 35mph speed zone. Study pending.

 Route 29 and Route 663 Intersection - Marking review under way

 Route 17/28 Intersection near the Sheetz. Marking review

 Route 672 , Duhollow Rd. request for Speed Limit Posting of 35 Mph

 Route 601 Hopewell Road & Route 629 Highpoint Ln - Speed review from PW county line into Fauquier and review for enhanced intersection signing at route 629

 Rte. 28 Bealeton - Review of pavement markings at drop lane adjacent to Sheetz

 Marsh Run Watershed Signs Various routes (8 locations)

 Route 776, Landmark School Rd , Sign review for One-Lane Bridge over Little River Str. #0306232

 Route 17 - House Bill 941 & Senate Bill 556 - Coordination ongoing regarding implementation.

Page 4 of 5

Fauquier County Monthly Report October 2020

Safety and Operational Improvements:

 US-17 (Warrenton to I-66) – Law Enforcement Pull Off Areas Developing design of paved safety shoulders in advance of existing Right Turn Lanes for Rt. 698 Obannon and Rt. 699 Merry Oaks. Areas will increase safety when pulling vehicles off of US-17.

Maintenance Activities:

 Performed grading and stone application on 22 routes.  Performed mowing operations on 6 routes.  Performed shoulder/ditching operations on 6 routes.  Performed & asphalt patching on 22 routes.  Performed pipe repair replacement operations 26 routes.  Performed tree & debris removal 13 locations.  Performed weather related activities.

Work Order Report:

 Work Orders Received-187  Work Orders Closed-117  Work Orders Pending-70

Report a Road Problem: 1-800 FOR ROAD(1-800-367-7623) www.vdot.org

Submitted By:

D. Mark Nesbit, P.E. Warrenton Residency Engineer

Page 5 of 5

FAUQUIER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING ADMINISTRATION 10 Hotel Street, Suite 305 Third Floor – Court and Office Building Warrenton, VA 20186 29 Ashby Street, Suite 310

Warrenton, VA 20186 (540) 422-8210

Fax: (540) 422-8201 (540) 422-8200 ZONING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Fax: (540) 422-8201 Third Floor – Court and Office Building 29 Ashby Street, Suite 310 Warrenton, VA 20186

Zoning & Development Plans: (540) 422 - 8220 Permitting & Building: (540) 422-8230 Fax: (540) 422-8231

MEMORANDUM

TO: Fauquier County Transportation Committee

FROM: Joseph Costello, Transportation Planner

DATE: November 18, 2020

SUBJECT: Request to Restrict Through Trucks on Beverleys Mill Road (Route 600), Old Dumfries Road (Route 667) and Greenwich Road (Route 603)

Staff has received citizen requests asking for through truck restrictions on Beverleys Mill Road (Route 600), Old Dumfries Road (Route 667) and Greenwich Road (Route 603) (See attached). These requests suggest that several roads have become cut-throughs for truck traffic between Interstate 66 and Route 28. See map below.

The citizens making these requests have mentioned an increase in dump truck traffic and expressed concern about near misses, wear on the road(s), trucks going slightly off the road, leaving skid marks and noise. Current data (as of 10/13/20), shows that 2020 has seen less crashes than usual.

AADT All Crashes All Crashes Truck Crashes Truck Crashes 2013-2020 2020 2013-2020 2020 Beverleys Mill 2400 51 3 3 0 Road Old Dumfries 1500 51 1 6 1 Road Greenwich Road 2200 79 9 12 3

The Code of Virginia §46.2-809 and Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) Guidelines (attached) provide a mechanism for localities to formally request that VDOT restrict through trucks on certain sections of primary and secondary routes to promote the health, safety and welfare of the public without creating an undue hardship on any transportation users. These guidelines require that an alternative route must be available for any restriction of through trucks on a route.

In evaluating Beverleys Mill Road, Old Dumfries Road and Greenwich Road, many of the nearby roads have similar characteristics such as width, lack of shoulders, and surrounding land uses. This makes the requirement of finding a reasonable alternative difficult, in that restricting truck traffic on one road and designating another similar road as the alternative could lead to the alternative being overloaded. Also, the restriction would not apply to truck traffic with an origin or destination along the restricted route(s).

In addition to designating an alternative route, the Board of Supervisors must hold a public hearing and resolve to enforce the restrictions with local law enforcement agencies. It is noted that Prince William County would also need to be part of the through truck restriction process as the Greenwich Road crosses into their jurisdiction. Should the Board decide to pursue through truck restrictions on Greenwich Road, Prince William County would be contacted to consider holding a public hearing and passing a similar resolution. Official requests are studied by VDOT and in the case of secondary roads, the decision to restrict trucks is made by the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Transportation.

The Transportation Committee is requested to consider the merits of restricting through trucks on Beverleys Mill Road (Route 600), Old Dumfries Road (Route 667) and Greenwich Road (Route 603), to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.

Attachments:

1. Guidelines 2. Citizen Requests 3. Resolutions Adopted by Commonwealth Transportation Board October 16, 2003

GUIDELINES FOR CONSIDERING REQUESTS TO RESTRICT THROUGH TRUCKS ON PRIMARY AND SECONDARY HIGHWAYS

Section 46.2- 809 of the Code of Virginia provides: The Commonwealth Transportation Board, or its designee, in response to a formal request by a local governing body, after such body has held public hearings, may, after due notice and a proper hearing, prohibit or restrict the use by through traffic of any part of a primary or secondary highway if a reasonable is provided. The Board, or its designee, shall act upon any such formal request within nine months of its receipt, unless good cause is shown. Such restriction may apply to any truck or truck and trailer or semitrailer combination, except a pickup or panel truck, as may be necessary to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Commonwealth. Nothing in this section shall affect the validity of any city charter provision or city ordinance heretofore adopted.

Background It is the philosophy of the Commonwealth Transportation Board that all vehicles should have access to the roads on which they are legally entitled to travel. Travel by any class of vehicle on any class of highway should be restricted only upon demonstration that it will promote the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Commonwealth without creating an undue hardship on any of the users of the transportation system. The Board recognizes that there may be a limited number of instances when restricting through trucks from using a segment of a primary or secondary roadway will reduce potential conflicts, creating a safer environment and one that is in accord with the current use of the roadway. The Board has adopted these guidelines to govern and regulate requests for through truck restrictions on primary and secondary highways.

Process The Commonwealth Transportation Board delegates the authority to restrict through truck traffic on secondary highways to the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Transportation. Such

1 restrictions can apply to any truck, truck and trailer or semi trailer combination, or any combination of those classifications. Consideration of all such restrictions by the Commissioner is subject to these guidelines as adopted by the Board. The Commonwealth Transportation Board retains the authority to restrict through truck traffic on primary highways.

In order to conform to the requirements of the Code of Virginia and to insure that all concerned parties have an opportunity to provide input, the local governing body must hold a public hearing and make a formal request of the Department. The following must be adhered to: (A) The public notices for the hearing must include a description of the proposed through truck restriction and the alternate route with the same termini. A copy of the notices must be provided. (B) A public hearing must be held by the local governing body and a transcript of the hearing must be provided with the resolution. (C) The resolution must describe the proposed through truck restriction and a description of the alternate, including termini. (D) The governing body must include in the resolution that it will use its good offices for enforcement of the proposed restriction by the appropriate local law enforcement agency.

Failure to comply with (A), (B), (C) and (D) will result in the request being returned. The Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Commissioner shall act upon any such formal request within nine months of its receipt, unless good cause is shown.

Criteria Travel by any class of vehicle should be restricted only upon demonstration that it will promote the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Commonwealth without creating an undue hardship on any users of the transportation network. The Virginia Department of Transportation will consider criteria 1 through 4 in reviewing a requested through truck restriction. The proposed restriction must meet both the first and second criteria in order to be approved:

1. Reasonable alternate routing is provided. The alternate route will be evaluated for traffic and

2 safety related impacts. To be considered ³reasonable´, the alternate route(s) must be engineered to a standard sufficient for truck travel, and must be judged at least as appropriate for truck traffic as the requested truck restriction route. If an alternate route must be upgraded, the improvement shall be completed before the truck restriction can be implemented. The termini of the proposed restriction must be identical to the alternate routing to allow a time and distance comparison to be conducted between the two routings. Also, the alternate routing must not create an undue hardship for trucks in reaching their destination. 2. The character and/or frequency of the truck traffic on the route proposed for restriction is not compatible with the affected area. Evaluation will include safety issues, accident history, engineering of the roadway, vehicle composition, and other traffic engineering related issues.

In addition to meeting the first two criteria, the proposed restriction must meet either the third or the fourth criteria in order to be approved.

3. The roadway is residential in nature. Typically, the roadway will be judged to be residential if there are at least 12 dwellings combined on both sides within 150' of the existing or proposed roadway center line per 1,000 feet of roadway. 4. The roadway must be functionally classified as either a local or collector.

Failure to satisfy criteria 1 and 2, and either criteria 3 or 4 will normally result in rejection of the requested restriction.

The Commonwealth Transportation Board when deemed necessary may modify or revise any provisions or criteria contained in these guidelines.

3 (FY 22-28) SSYP Fauquier County Secondary System Potential Rural Rustic Road Additions

Route Street Name Traffic From To Length $1000 Estimated Cost Comments Location Count (Miles) / Mile Bealeton 634 Elk Run Church 78 758 0.8 M. N. 0.80 500 $400,000 Road 758 Bealeton 634 Elk Run Church 78 0.8 M. N. 1.5 M. N. 0.70 500 $350,000 Road 758 758 Bealeton 634 Elk Run Church 78 1.6 M. N. 637 0.70 500 $350,000 Road 758 Marshall 734 Washwright 241 735 688 1.12 500 $560,000 Road Marshall 735 Keyser Road 195 734 Dead End 1.27 500 $635,000 Bealeton 809 Crawleys Dam 70 615 Rock Dead End 0.70 500 $350,000 Candidate - 16-18' existing width, newer houses being Road Run Rd built along roadway. Warrenton 685 Paradise Road 80 687 Opal End of State 0.20 500 $100,000 Candidate - 14-16' existing width, 10 Mailboxes, flat Rd Maintenance terrain, no outlet Bealeton 751 Belcoir Road 130 668 Dead End 1.00 550 $550,000 Candidate - 14-16' existing width, no outlet, appears Savannah to be mainly farm traffic using roadway. Branch Marshall 624 Crenshaw Road 56 Rt. 50 One Lane 0.90 600 $540,000 Candidate - 14-16' existing width, rolling terrain, has Bridge one pinch point that would require a road shift within Easement. Would eliminate gravel maintenance past one lane bridge.

Fauquier County Secondary System Construction Program Estimated Allocations (FY21 to FY26)

Funding Source FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 Total District Grant $835,704 453,874 603,160 $620,476 620,476 620,476 $3,754,166 Unpaved TeleFee $195,369 $195,369 $195,369 $195,369 $195,369 $195,369 $1,172,214 Total $1,031,073 $649,243 $798,529 $815,845 $815,845 $815,845 $4,926,380

Fauquier County Secondary System Construction Program Estimated Allocations (FY22 to FY27)

Funding Source FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 Total District Grant $453,874 $603,160 $620,476 $620,476 $620,476 $620,476 $3,538,938 Unpaved TeleFee $195,369 $195,369 $195,369 $195,369 $195,369 $195,369 $1,172,214 Total $649,243 $798,529 $815,845 $815,845 $815,845 $815,845 $4,711,152

Fauquier County Secondary System Construction Program Estimated Allocations (FY 21-26)

Additional Total Previous FY 21-26 Project Funding Source Funding FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 Cost Funding Total Required

Rogues Road TeleFee $5,022,524 $4,436,417 $586,107 $195,369 $195,369 $195,369 $0 $0 $0 $586,107 (Rt. 602) Whiting Road CTB Formula - Unpaved $2,045,000 $2,045,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 (Route 622) State CTB Formula - Unpaved Stoney Road State $240,000 $142,301 $97,699 $97,699 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $97,699 (Rt. 636) District Grant Unpaved Dulins Ford Road District Grant Unpaved $330,000 $30,000 $300,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 (Rt. 798)

Old Culpeper Road (Rt. 800) District Grant Unpaved $490,000 $40,000 $450,000 $408,005 $41,995 $0 $0 $0 $0 $450,000

Springs Mill Road (Rt. 823) District Grant Unpaved $330,000 $0 $330,000 $30,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $330,000

District Grant Unpaved Curtis Road (Rt. 803) $535,000 $0 $535,000 $0 $111,879 $423,121 $0 $0 $0 $535,000

District Grant Unpaved Grace Church Lane (Rt. 664) $370,000 $0 $370,000 $0 $0 $180,039 $189,961 $0 $0 $370,000

District Grant Unpaved Old Morgansburg Road (Rt. 841) $330,000 $0 $330,000 $0 $0 $0 $330,000 $0 $0 $330,000

Cabin Branch Road (Route 780)- District Grant Unpaved $450,000 $0 $450,000 $0 $0 $0 $100,515 $349,485 $0 $450,000 N .9 Cabin Branch Road (Route 780)- District Grant Unpaved $100,000 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $100,000 S .2 Ebenezer Church Road (Route 648)- District Grant Unpaved $540,000 $0 $540,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,991 $369,009 $470,000 W .9 Ebenezer Church Road (Route 648)- District Grant Unpaved $420,000 $0 $420,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $70,000 $251,467 $321,467 E .9 TeleFee $0 $0 $0 $193,149 $193,149 $193,149 $579,447 Available Funding District Grant $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Unpaved

Fauquier County Secondary System Construction Program Estimated Allocations (FY 22-27)

Additional Total Previous FY 22-27 Project Funding Source Funding FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 Cost Funding Total Required

Rogues Road TeleFee $5,022,524 $4,631,786 $390,738 $195,369 $195,369 $0 $0 $0 $0 $390,738 (Rt. 602) Whiting Road CTB Formula - Unpaved $2,045,000 $2,045,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 (Route 622) State

Old Culpeper Road (Rt. 800) District Grant Unpaved $490,000 $448,005 $41,995 $41,995 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,995

District Grant Unpaved Springs Mill Road (Rt. 823) $330,000 $30,000 $300,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $300,000

Curtis Road (Rt. 803) District Grant Unpaved $535,000 $0 $535,000 $111,879 $423,121 $0 $0 $0 $0 $535,000

District Grant Unpaved Grace Church Lane (Rt. 664) $370,000 $0 $370,000 $0 $180,039 $189,961 $0 $0 $0 $370,000

Old Morgansburg Road (Rt. 841) District Grant Unpaved $330,000 $0 $330,000 $0 $0 $330,000 $0 $0 $0 $330,000

Cabin Branch Road (Route 780)- District Grant Unpaved $450,000 $0 $450,000 $0 $0 $100,515 $349,485 $0 $0 $450,000 N .9 Cabin Branch Road (Route 780)- District Grant Unpaved $100,000 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000 S .2 Ebenezer Church Road (Route 648)- District Grant Unpaved $540,000 $0 $540,000 $0 $0 $0 $100,991 $369,009 $70,000 $540,000 W .9 Ebenezer Church Road (Route 648)- District Grant Unpaved $420,000 $0 $420,000 $0 $0 $0 $70,000 $251,467 $98,533 $420,000 E .9 Elk Run Church Road (Route 634)- District Grant Unpaved $400,000 $0 $400,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 $400,000 S .8 section Elk Run Church Road (Route 634)- District Grant Unpaved $350,000 $0 $350,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $51,943 $51,943 Middle .7 section Elk Run Church Road (Route 634)- District Grant Unpaved $350,000 $0 $350,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N .7 section TeleFee $0 $0 $193,149 $193,149 $193,149 $193,149 $772,596 Available Funding District Grant $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Unpaved

FAUQUIER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING ADMINISTRATION 10 Hotel Street, Suite 305 Third Floor – Court and Office Building Warrenton, VA 20186 29 Ashby Street, Suite 310

Warrenton, VA 20186 (540) 422-8210

Fax: (540) 422-8201 (540) 422-8200 ZONING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Fax: (540) 422-8201 Third Floor – Court and Office Building 29 Ashby Street, Suite 310 Warrenton, VA 20186

Zoning & Development Plans: (540) 422-8220 Permitting & Building: (540) 422-8230 Fax: (540) 422-8231

MEMORANDUM

TO: Fauquier County Transportation Committee

FROM: Joseph Costello, Transportation Planner

DATE: November 18, 2020

SUBJECT: FY 22-27 Unpaved Road Projects

Each spring VDOT provides the county with a budget for its secondary road projects. Funding for these projects is broken into two categories: (1) unpaved road funds (previously referred to as CTB Formula – Unpaved State funds and now referred to as District Grant Unpaved funds) that can only be used to hard surface unpaved roads in the state system with 50 or more vehicles per day and (2) secondary road construction funds (TeleFee funds) that can be applied to any secondary road construction project.

Based on the FY 21-26 budget for secondary road projects, Fauquier County expects to receive approximately $3.6 million for its unpaved roads between FY 22-27.

Unpaved Road Projects

Staff is asking the Transportation Committee to make a recommendation on nine roads, five previously considered and four are new roads. Each road was evaluated by VDOT, county staff and the School Transportation Department. Additionally, staff surveyed property owners along each of the roads.

The Transportation Committee did not make a final decision when it last met in 2018 on five of the roads previously under consideration for hard surfacing. Each of these roads were resurveyed and the committee is asked to re-evaluate them. The roads are:

1. Elk Run Church Road (Rt. 634) 2. Ebenezer Church Road (Rt. 648) 3. Cabin Branch Road (Rt. 780) 4. Keyser Road (Rt. 735) 5. Washwright Road (Rt. 734)

Staff also received requests to consider four unpaved roads for inclusion in the FY 22-27 Secondary Roads Six-Year Plan (SSYP). Staff conducted outreach in October 2020 on these new roads. The four new roads are:

6. Belcoir Road (Rt. 751) 7. Crawleys Dam Road (Rt. 809) 8. Crenshaw Road (Rt. 624) 9. Paradise Road (Rt. 685)

Following a summary of each of the roads is an attached map and all public comments received.

1. Elk Run Church Road (Rt. 634) is a through road where the closest parallel roads are Elk Run Road (Rt. 806) to the west and Blackwells Mill Road (Rt. 617) to the southeast. The road is approximately 2.3 miles in length which would be broken into three sections. The first section from Deep Run Mill Road (Rt. 758) to 0.8 miles north would cost $400,000. The second section from 0.8 miles north to 1.6 miles north of Rt. 758 would cost $350,000. The third and final section from 1.6 miles north of Rt. 758 to Ensors Shop Road (Rt. 637) would cost $350,000.

 Out of 34 unique property owners, 13 responded (38.2%); 11 support (32.3%), 2 oppose (5.8%).  The road has an annual daily traffic count of 78 vehicles per day.  There was one rear-end crash on the road since 2013 with a crash severity of C. Nonvisible injury.  The School Transportation Office reported buses travel this road unless it is bad weather.

2. Ebenezer Church Road (Rt. 648) qualifies under the Rural Rustic Program, however the middle portion of the road is slightly narrow at roughly 16 feet wide and there may be conflicts with utilities including gas and fiber optic lines. The 1.8 mile road will be split into two 0.9 mile sections in the SSYP. The first section will hard surface from Rogues Road (Rt. 602) to .9 miles north for $540,000, and the second section will hard surface .9 miles north from Rogues Road (Rt. 602) to Blackwelltown Road (Rt. 646) for $420,000.

 Out of 18 unique property owners, 5 responded (27.8%); 4 support (22.2%), 1 oppose (5.5%).  The road has an annual daily traffic count of 51 vehicles per day.  There was one rear-end crash on the road since 2013 with a crash severity of property damage only.  The School Transportation Office reported buses travel this road but have had to pull off the dirt section for snow/ice.

3. Cabin Branch Road (Rt. 780) has a narrow water crossing almost a mile north of Cliff Mills Road (Rt. 681). The road remains narrow for a short extent and then widens back out at the northern intersection with Conde Road (Rt. 737). As a result only the southern 0.9 mile and northern 0.2 mile would qualify to be hard surfaced as a Rural Rustic Road. The southern 0.9 mile section would cost $450,000 and the northern 0.2 mile section would cost $100,000 to hard surface. Two parallel roads make the road attractive as a cut-through and could increase traffic.

 Out of 23 unique property owners, 10 responded (43.5%); 8 support (34.7%), 2 oppose (8.7%).  The road has an annual average daily traffic count of 50 vehicles per day.  There was one angle crash on the road since 2013 with a crash severity of C. Nonvisible injury.  The School Transportation Office reported buses will only travel Cliff Mills to Hiddenbrook Hill Drive (private drive) along Cabin Branch. The rest of the road has a drop off on both sides and the bridge always floods.

4. Keyser Road (Route 735) Keyser Road is a dead-end road that connects through to Leeds Manor Road (Rt. 688) via Washwright Road. The Keyser Road section being considered for hard surfacing is 1.27 miles and would cost an estimated $635,000 to hard surface. Keyser and Washwright Roads connect but would be constructed and programmed funds as separate segments.

 Out of 36 unique property owners on the Keyser segment under consideration for hard surfacing, 21 responded (58%); 19 support (52.8%), 2 oppose (9.5%).  Keyser has an annual average daily traffic count of 200 vehicles per day.  There was one angle crash on Keyser Road since 2013 with a crash severity of property damage only.  The School Transportation Office reported “We travel Keyser from Washwright to Fox Run Lane. That road is terrible and have to also pull of it a lot. There are ruts on both sides of the road and it is extremely narrow. It develops deep ruts because of heavy rains.”

5. Washwright Road (Route 734) Washwright Road is a through road that connects Leeds Manor Road (Rt. 688) to Keyser Road (Rt. 734). Washwright Road is 1.12 miles long and would cost an estimated $560,000 to hard surface. Keyser and Washwright Roads connect but would be constructed and programmed funds as separate segments

 Out of 17 unique property owners, 6 responded (35.3%); 3 support (18%), 3 oppose (18%).  Washwright has an annual average daily traffic count of 240 vehicles per day.  There were two crashes on Washwright Road, one was a non-collision property damage only and the other an angle crash causing only property damage.  The School Transportation Office reported buses travel Washwright Road but it is a road they constantly have to pull off of sometimes for weeks at a time.

6. Belcoir Road (Route 751) is a dead-end road mainly utilized by farm traffic, the road is directly off of Savannah Branch Road (Rt. 668). The road is one mile long and would cost an estimated $550,000 to hard surface.

 Out of 2 unique property owners, 2 responded (100 %); 1 support (50%), 1 oppose (50%).  The road has an annual average daily traffic count of 130 vehicles per day.  There have been no crashes on the road since 2013.  The School Transportation Office reported they cannot travel on this road since it is extremely narrow and has no turn around for the bus.

7. Crawleys Dam Road (Route 809) State maintenance ends at a dead-end road but the private road extends south around City of Fredericksburg owned property and connects Crawleys Dam Road with Curtis Road (Rt. 803). Newer homes have been built in recent years along Crawleys Dam Road. The 0.7 mile section would cost an estimated $350,000 to hard surface.

 Out of 18 unique property owners, 6 responded (33.3%); 6 support (33.3 %), 0 oppose (0%).  The road has an annual average daily traffic count of 70 vehicles per day.  There have been no crashes on the road since 2013.  The School Transportation Office reported buses travel on this road. It is narrow in a few places and has ruts in certain sections and the bus has to pull off in inclement weather.

8. Crenshaw Road (Route 624) is a long winding dirt road from John S Mosby Hwy (Rt. 50) to Rectortown Rd (Rt. 713). The .9 miles considered for hard surfacing goes from the paved access portion of Crenshaw Road where it meets Rt. 50, to the one lane bridge. The road has a rolling terrain, with one pinch point that would require a road shift within Easement. The hard surfacing would eliminate gravel maintenance past the one lane bridge. The road would cost approximated $540,000 to hard surface.

 Out of 7 unique property owners, 7 responded (100 %); 3 support (43%), 4 oppose (57%).  Many interested citizens living nearby reached out in opposition to hard surfacing the road because of the unique historic and scenic value of the road.  The road has an annual average daily traffic count of 60 vehicles per day.  There was one deer related crash on the road since 2013 with a crash severity of C. Nonvisible injury.  The School Transportation Office reported buses travel on this road from Old Carter Mill Road and Rectortown Road. The road is quite narrow but they have traveled it in the past, however there are currently no students on it.

9. Paradise Road (Route 685), is a dead-end road directly off of Opal Road (Rt. 687). The state maintained section ends after about 0.2 miles and gives way to a private drive that extends another 0.6 miles. The terrain is flat. The 0.2 mile section would cost an estimate $100,000 to hard surface.  Out of 12 unique property owners, 3 responded (25%); 3 support (25%), 0 oppose (0%).  The road has an annual average daily traffic count of 80 vehicles per day.  There have been no crashes on the road since 2013.  The School Transportation Office reported they cannot travel this road as it is extremely narrow and has no turn around for the bus.

Unpaved Road Candidates for Rural Rustic Program

MARSHALL CrenshawRoad MARSHALL DISTRICT DISTRICT Ke SCOTT R y o ser ad Road DISTRICT Washwright

50

17

I66 SCOTT 55 DISTRICT CEDAR RUN MARSHALL 245 DISTRICT DISTRICT nezerd Roa Ebe rch u Ch 215 CENTER DISTRICT

211

h c n 29 a d Bra 28 n Ro

Cabi CEDAR RUN DISTRICT 15

MARSHALL LEE DISTRICT DISTRICT 17

Paradise CEDAR RUN Road LEE DISTRICT DISTRICT ElkRu

n

C hu

r

c

h

Roa Belcoir d

R am oad D d LEE DISTRICT eys l LEE DISTRICT Roa

Craw LEE DISTRICT Legend New Outreach 10 Repeat Outreach Miles Cabin Branch Road (Route 780)

AADT 50 Crashes 1 Length 1.1BULL miles

MOOSECT District Marshall OLINGER RD Unique Property Owners 23 GREAT CONDE RD Responses 10 DANE CT LN Support Hard Surfacing 8

Oppose hard Surfacing 2 SPRINGHOUSE

seg. 2 TURNING _ RUNLN _ seg. 1

HIDDENBROOK HILL DR

C A B IN B R A N C H R D

JOLLEYLN OWL LN OLINGER RD

CATBIRD LN

CLIFF MILLS RD

REDLIN LN Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase,LAUREL IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong BROOKKong), (c) OpenStreetMap LN contributors, and the GIS User

LOCUST CLEAR Community RUNDR

SPRING LN Legend Tax Parcels Survey Area Responded 0.5 Road Miles Rural Rustic Road Candidate Elk Run Church Road (Route 634)

AADT 78 Crashes 1 Length 2.3 miles District Cedar Run Unique Property Owners 34 M ResponsesIDL 13 AND Support Hard SurfacingRD 11 Oppose hard Surfacing 2

LN

HAWKS S MONARCH R D R SO N LN E K HOP R S A seg. 3

LN

NNYCL

E J

SPRINGS C RD H BASS _ IM seg. 2 N EYLAKEL

ELK N RUNCHU N

LYL EN HEAV R CH

RD

_ seg. 1 EEK R C LN ILL WAGON TRL M

CAMDENDR

LL RD I INE M GOLDM

RD

CKWELLS A

BL

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Legend Tax Parcels Survey Area Responded 1.5 Road Miles Rural Rustic Road Candidate Keyser Road (Rt. 735)

HUME RD VE CO LEED LEEDSLN LN CT

S BRIAR PATCHRD D E THE L L L N

D T ER T UM S IO H ER R MM R LN N SUL MA

MCD O WICKLAND FARM NA LDS LN LN

Y L E E SKN E HI D LLL S WTI S MANORR

D

TR

D H G I

LN

FOX RUN R E N P L ASHWR M W CAR

FAR

LN

T

N O

M

BRAE

KEYSER RD

LN N N RBUR AI ST R AADT 200 A D Crashes 1 CH WEDDE Length 1.27 District Marshall Unique Property Owners 36 Responses 21 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Support Hard Surfacing 19 Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User

Oppose hard Surfacing 2 L A K E S U N S E T L N Community

Legend Tax Parcels Survey Area 1 Responded Miles Road Rural Rustic Road Candidate Washwright Road (Rt. 734)

RD ME HU N SL ER M M U S

MCDONALDS LN WICKLANDFARMLN

WHISKEY STILL LN

N

KE D Y R SER RUNL

X

O RD F N L IGHT RM A F SHWR A ER P W

CAR

T

MON E LN

BRA

LE E

D

S

MA

NO

R

RD AADT 240 Crashes 2 Length 1.12 District Marshall Unique Property Owners 17 Responses 6 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, Support Hard Surfacing 3 NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User URN STAIN RB Community Oppose hard Surfacing HA3 DE C LN D DR WE Legend Tax Parcels Survey Area 1 Responded Miles Road Rural Rustic Road Candidate Keyser Road (Rt. 735) & Washwright Road (Rt. 734)

HUME RD VE CO LEED LEEDSLN LN CT

S BRIAR PATCHRD D E THE L L L N

D T ER T UM S IO H ER R MM R LN N SUL MA

MCD O WICKLAND FARM NA LDS LN LN

Y L E E SKN E HI D LLL S WTI S MANORR

D

TR

D H G I

LN

FOX RUN R E N P L ASHWR M W CAR

FAR

LN

T

N O

M

BRAE

KEYSER RD

LN N N RBUR AI ST R A D Crashes 3 CH WEDDE Length 2.39 District Marshall Unique Property Owners 53

Responses 27 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, Support Hard Surfacing 22 NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Oppose hard Surfacing 5 L A K E S U N S E T L N Community

Legend Tax Parcels Survey Area 1 Responded Miles Road Rural Rustic Road Candidate Ebenezer Church Road (Route 648)

TTRD LL CATLE DOWE RD

BACK LINDENST RD OFF

TRD

R AIRPO LO N G S T A LK LN

IRIS TRL

B E A LE T O N R D

CEDARLAN EFARM MIDLAND RD RD

RO seg. 2 N L

G CHURCHRD

U R

E FORD

T

SRD

A

R

ENEZE T BLACKWELLTOWN RDS EB

FOREVER LN

seg. 1

UKTU TIMB LN AADT 51 Crashes 1 Length 1.8 District Cedar Run Unique Property Owners 18 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, Responses 5 NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Support Hard Surfacing 4 Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Oppose hard Surfacing 1 Community

Legend Tax Parcels Survey Area 1 Responded Road Miles Rural Rustic Road Candidate Belcoir Road (Route 751)

S A V A N N A H B R A N C H R D

Belcoir Road

AADT 130 Crashes 0 Length 1.0 Mile District Lee Cost $550k Unique Property Owners 2 Responses 2 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, Support Hard Surfacing 1 NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Oppose hard Surfacing 1 Community

Legend Tax Parcels Survey Area 1 Responded Road Miles Rural Rustic Road Candidate Crawleys Dam Road (Route 809)

THOMPSONS G MILLRD O LS L L D E V D EIN R KW C LL RD I M BLA

DUSG O T L PK D RIVENOAKLN WY

RD N RU WARRENTON RD CK RO

DAMRD

EYS L W A

R MOUNT C EPHRAIM RD

C URT RD

L

I L SRD I

M

G

N

PRI

S

LN H

TARALEIG

AADT 130 S Crashes 0 R KED BACKWOOD Length .7 miles INLR SKIL District Lee M

Unique Property Owners 18 S TR

Responses 6 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, incrementL P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Support Hard Surfacing 6 Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Oppose hard Surfacing 0 Community

Legend Tax Parcels Survey Area Responded 0.5 Road Miles Rural Rustic Road Candidate Crenshaw Road (Route 624)

JOHN S MOSBY HWY

R EC TO RS LN

RD

AW

SH

REN C

PL UMR UNLN

GREENFI ELD FA R M S LN

L F AKE AR MRD

D

R

KA

O

AT AADT 60 Crashes 1 Length 0.9 Miles D District MarshallO V Unique Property Owners 7CO T E L Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin,Responses Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS,7 FAO,N NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN,Support Kadaster Hard NL, Ordnance Surfacing Survey, Esri Japan, 3 METI, Esri China (Hong Kong),XMO (c)UN OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User O TL F OpposeN hard SurfacingCommunity 4

Legend Tax Parcels Survey Area Responded 0.5 Road Miles Rural Rustic Road Candidate Paradise Road (Route 685)

AADT 80 Crashes 0 Length .2 miles District Marshall Unique Property Owners 12 Responses 3 Support Hard Surfacing 3 Oppose hard Surfacing 0

RD E

ARADIS P

D

ER Z

EE R B R ME SUM

P a ra d is e R o a d OPAL RD W IT H E R S M ILL W A Y RD HILL

ROUTTS

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, KNIGHT Esri China (Hong SKong),CT (c) OpenStreetMapAMBERVIEW contributors, LNand the GIS User COOKS Community CT

Legend Tax Parcels Survey Area Responded 0.2 Road Miles Rural Rustic Road Candidate

FAUQUIER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING ADMINISTRATION 10 Hotel Street, Suite 305 Third Floor – Court and Office Building Warrenton, VA 20186 29 Ashby Street, Suite 310

Warrenton, VA 20186 (540) 422-8210

Fax: (540) 422-8201 (540) 422-8200 ZONING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Fax: (540) 422-8201 Third Floor – Court and Office Building 29 Ashby Street, Suite 310 Warrenton, VA 20186

Zoning & Development Plans: (540) 422 - 8220 Permitting & Building: (540) 422-8230 Fax: (540) 422-8231

MEMORANDUM

TO: Fauquier County Transportation Committee

FROM: Joseph Costello, Transportation Planner

DATE: November 18, 2020

SUBJECT: Survey Methodology for Rural Rustic Roads

Staff asks that the Transportation Committee consider and establish a methodology for who should be surveyed in future outreach and how results should be analyzed.

Current practice is for staff to notify all residents with frontage on the road under consideration, even if they don’t have to access it, and to notify anyone who has to access the road for the public meeting. If there is a private street off the road being considered, everyone on the private street is notified as well. This year public meetings have been restricted by county ordinance in response to COVID-19. Staff has had to adapt to these changes. Instead of holding public meetings, staff sent mailings to property owners with frontage along road segments being considered for rural rustic paving including a web-based survey where property owners could choose ‘support’ or ‘oppose’ hard-surfacing. Property owners were also provided staff contact information to reach out and ask questions and provide feedback. The same rules were followed in determining who to send a letter to asking whether they supported or opposed hard surfacing.

When reviewing the results of the survey, current practice is to give one vote to each unique property owner along the road. For example, if one person owned six properties but they only had one dwelling unit and one site address, they got one vote, not six.

Options to consider include: 1. Continuing with the current rules 2. Surveying only unique property owners with frontage along the road under consideration. 3. Surveying only unique property owners with frontage, those who must access their property and those who may commonly access the road (even if there is another potential route) 4. Survey each property owner regardless if they are ‘unique’ for option 1,2 and 3. In other words, if a person owns multiple properties along a roadway they would get a vote for each individual property they own.

FAUQUIER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING ADMINISTRATION 10 Hotel Street, Suite 305 Third Floor – Court and Office Building Warrenton, VA 20186 29 Ashby Street, Suite 310

Warrenton, VA 20186 (540) 422-8210

Fax: (540) 422-8201 (540) 422-8200 ZONING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Fax: (540) 422-8201 Third Floor – Court and Office Building 29 Ashby Street, Suite 310 Warrenton, VA 20186

Zoning & Development Plans: (540) 422-8220 Permitting & Building: (540) 422-8230 Fax: (540) 422-8231

MEMORANDUM

TO: Fauquier County Transportation Committee

FROM: Joseph Costello, Transportation Planner

DATE: November 18, 2020

SUBJECT: FY 22-27 Construction Projects

Each spring VDOT provides the county with a budget for its secondary road projects. Funding for these projects is broken into two categories: (1) unpaved road funds (previously referred to as CTB Formula – Unpaved State funds and now referred to as District Grant Unpaved funds) that can only be used to hard surface unpaved roads in the state system with 50 or more vehicles per day, and (2) secondary road construction funds (TeleFee funds) that can be applied to any secondary road construction project.

Based on the FY 21-26 budget for secondary road projects, Fauquier County expects to receive nearly $1.2 million for secondary road construction projects for FY 22-27.

Approximately $586,107 of the TeleFee funds in the current FY 21-26 SSYP is allocated to Rogues Road (Route 602) improvements leaving a balance of approximately $586,107 for new projects starting in FY 24. Note that projects using the TeleFee funds do not have to be fully funded through construction.

Secondary Road Construction Projects

For the past several years Rogues Road (Rt. 602) has received the majority of the available funding for Secondary Road Construction projects. The scope for this project has been reduced to fit within the available funding, allowing new construction projects to be added to the FY 22-27 SSYP with funding becoming available in FY 23-24.

At this time, committee members have the opportunity to recommend potential construction projects for further review by VDOT and County staff. County staff will present findings to the committee at a future meeting for consideration in the SSYP.