city of salisbury work session november 21, 2016 · city of salisbury work session november 21,...

CITY OF SALISBURY

WORK SESSION

NOVEMBER 21, 2016

Public Officials Present

Council President John " Jack" R. Heath Mayor Jacob R. Day (arr. 4: 42 p.m.)Council Vice-President Muir Boda Councilman James Ireton, Jr.Councilwoman April Jackson Councilman R. Hardy Rudasill aft. 6: 15 p.m.)

In Attendance

Assistant City Clerk Diane Carter, City Administrator Tom Stevenson, Assistant City Administrator JuliaGlanz, City Attorney Mark Tilghman, Fire Chief Rick Hoppes, Internal Services Director Keith Cordrey,Director of Human Resources Jeanne Loyd, Housing & Community Development Department DirectorSusan Phillips, Community Development Grants Specialist Theo Williams, Administrative Office AssistantNancy Talbott, County Administration Director Wayne Strausburg, Salisbury- Wicomico Planning andZoning Planner Gloria Smith, Faith Baptist Church Senior Pastor Robert C. Reinert, Jr., Community of Joy-Church of the Brethren Pastor Martin Hutchison, interested citizens and members of the press

On November 21, 2016 the Salisbury City Council convened in Work Session at 4: 34 p.m. in CouncilChambers, Room 301 of the Government Office Building. The following is a synopsis of the informationprovided and discussion held.

Fire Service Agreement Presentation

Dr. Harold Cohen presented the results of TriData LLC' s Evaluation of the Fire Service System Fees and

Strategic Plan in Wicomico County/ City of Salisbury as jointly contracted to do by the City of Salisbury andWicomico County in order to determine a fair and equitable method for compensating the City for providingFire and Emergency Medical Service ( EMS) response to certain County areas closely bordering the City. Heprovided an overview of the data collection and evaluation process, presented highlights of the three models

for County reimbursement to the City for Fire and EMS Services provided, and the mediation process goingforward as the City and County work toward formalizing an agreement which would allow renewal of theCounty-City Fire Service Agreement which expired in 2014.

Discussion took place throughout the presentation; a copy of the presentation is included as part of theminutes.

OPEB Presentation

Kevin Binder of the City' s Health Insurance Brokers Bolton Partners, with input as needed from InternalServices Director Cordrey and Human Resources Director Loyd, presented his firm' s analysis of the City' scurrent Other Post- Employment Benefits ( OPEB) Plan which pays a percentage of each Retiree' s health

insurance premium for Life in conjunction with changing to a Fixed Dollar Benefit Plan geared towardreducing and stabilizing the City' s current unfunded, undefined liability which represents this retiree benefitand according to Government Accounting Standards Board ( GASB) guidelines must show on anorganization' s balance sheet. He provided an overview of the evaluation process which incorporated

November 21, 2016 Work Session

IPage

actuarial estimates, medical costs trends, and canvassing of other Maryland Government Agencies as tools inestablishing three options for the City to consider along with continuation of the current plan in conjunctionwith establishing a trust to pre- fund this benefit expense.

After discussion which included Mayor and Staff supporting Option 2, Council requested additionalinformation regarding the cost for inclusion of spouse coverage for new hires in Option 2, and a breakdownof types of coverage for current retirees; a copy of the presentation is included as part of the minutes.

President Heath called for a brief recess at 6:41 p.m. prior to discussion of the next Agenda item.

City of Salisbury Bicycle Network Plan

Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee Chair Matt Drew and Melissa Miklus of Alta Planning & Design

presented the 2017 Salisbury Bicycle Network Plan by first providing an overview of the planning processwhich incorporated input from the Mayor and Council, Salisbury' s Bicycle & Pedestrian AdvisoryCommittee, Salisbury- Wicomico County Department of Planning, Zoning, and Community Development,and the Citizens of Salisbury that Alta Planning & Design used in developing the Plan, and then explaininghow a fully developed Bicycle Transportation Plan improves municipal revenues and improves communityhealth. Ms. Miklus provided more detailed information on the Network Plan including the concept of aCatalyst Project which for Salisbury would be the North/ South Rail Trail. A copy of the Bicycle NetworkPlan is included as part of the minutes.

After discussion, Council reached consensus to move this item forward to Legislative Session.

Solar Farm Text Amendment

Salisbury- Wicomico Planning and Zoning Planner Smith provided an overview of Rev. Reinert' s request onbehalf of Faith Baptist Church to amend the text of Title 17 — Zoning to add Solar Farms as a permitted usein R-5A, R- 8A, and R- 10A Residential Districts. Ms. Smith provided highlights of the PlanningCommission' s review process which resulted in the Planning Commission forwarding a favorablerecommendation to the Mayor and Council for a proposed text amendment that would permit Solar Farms bySpecial Exception in the requested districts as well as R-5A, R- 8A, and R- 10A Residential Districts. Should

Council approve the request, an amendment to the 2006 Faith Baptist Church Annexation Plan would be

necessary since the property was originally designated for residential development when annexed; all similarproperties annexed into the City since 2006 that were slated for residential development and are still vacant,would become eligible as well, for Solar Farms as a permitted use on the property. Solar Farms as apermitted use would go before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) for approval as a Special Exception,which would allow review of conditions and approval on a case by case depending on the location of theproperty and uses of adjacent properties.

Discussion included life of the solar technology/ facility, decommissioning plan for the mostly recyclablecomponents of the facility, and fence protection of the facility. Rev. Reinert spoke briefly about the severalproposals Faith Baptist had received which all included a 20- year land lease contract with option for a 5-

yearextension of the lease, maintenance of the fenced in property, and eventual decommission plan that thecompany would undertake when the lease expired.

After discussion, Council reached consensus to move this item forward to Legislative Session.

November 21. 2016 Work Session

2IPage

Naylor Mill Park Deed Transfer/ Scenic Drive Agreement and Easement

City Attorney Tilghman provided an overview of the Naylor Mill Deed Transfer-Henry S. Parker ComplexScenic Drive Agreement and Easement process that had taken place whereby Attorney Paul Wilber and hehad agreed on language in the deed, and Assistant City Administrator Glanz and County AdministrationDirector Strausburg had agreed upon language in the agreement and easement documents. In summary, theCity will convey property to the County and the County in return will ensure that the City, residents andusers still have access to the City- owned property and should that access be cutoff in the future, the Countywill provide parking along the Scenic Drive Roadway.

Council reached consensus to move this item forward to Legislative Session.

North Prong Park Plan- Property Acquisition

City Administrator Stevenson with input as needed from Housing & Community Development DepartmentDirector Phillips and Community Development Grants Specialist Williams reviewed and entertainedquestions relative to the memorandum he had provided Council which included a comprehensive overview

of the history of and the City' s history with the property, as well as answers to questions Council had raisedat the November 7, 2016 Work Session; a copy of the memorandum is attached as part of the minutes.

After discussion which also included more extensive comments on costs associated with and possible

sources of funding for repurposing the property and remediation of the property if necessary, verification thata title search was necessary prior to the City acquiring the property, and clarification that the City didsuccessfully obtain a court issued order to abate in May 2015 but did not execute the order, there wasCouncil consensus to move this item forward to Legislative Session.

Motion to Convene in Closed Session

At 7: 45 p.m. Vice President Boda moved, Ms. Jackson seconded, and the vote was 4- 0 to convene in ClosedSession in accordance with the Annotated Code of Maryland 10- 508( a)( 1); Mr. Rudasill had exited the Work

Session at 6: 15 p.m.

At 7: 50 p. m. the Closed Session adjourned on a motion by Vice President Boda, which was seconded by Ms.Jackson and approved by a 4- 0 vote in favor. Council reconvened in Open Work Session where PresidentHeath reported that while in Closed Session, Council had discussed a personnel issue. Thereafter, the Open

Work Session adjourned. .

00, 4„:„ kCzAssistant City Clerk

Counc. ' resident

November 21, 2016 Work Session

3Page

11/ 21/ 2016

VALUATION OF FIRE SERVICE SYSTEMFEES AND STRATEGIC PLAN

WICOMICO COUNTY AND CITY OFSALISBURY, MD

iriData LLC

Dr. Harold C. Cohen

t r

1flag •cr.

iSCOPE OF SERVICE S1 Ck _ sr

City of Salisbury Provided Services f;TService Provision e. _

2015- 3. 520 EMS Responses and 1. 330 t> _,

Eve Responses

r

mom ,,

City/ County Relationships GrazeY Y P 0.:

d

sitHistory r

Where is the problem? a,

Figure'_. Pdtpbory m arid SW.. E. n-

1

11/ 21/ 2016 ,

Y '' CRITICAL ISSUE- A CENTRALIZED DATA

SOURCE

There should be one central data source that stores official, authentic data.

Includes fire and EMS responses, response times, EMS EMAIS data, NFIRS, and similardatabases.

Data integrity and security.

Data accessibility to those authorized.

Easy alignment with GIS and other predictive software.

jit. s°•'

yss-: .'fir

CRITICAL ISSUE- A CENTRALIZED DATASOURCE

Alpha to Omega Data Resource

Use NFPA 1710 and NAEMSD Dispatch Variables

Difficult to determine multiple dispatch intervals (Initial dispatch, redispatch, finaldispatch)

Should strive for automatic population of, EMAIS and NFIRS reports

2

11/ 21/ 2016

w_

DESIGNATION OF AREAS

Urban- City of SalisburySuburban- Delmar, Parsonburg, Hebron, FruitlandRural- All other companies

911 Center times i. e. call received to dispatch werenot available

Manual entry errors are a likely cause of errors

RESPONSE TIMES- 90TH PERCENTILE

T mow . . f t. 0 brigSobs U1} ' r o .•.$?

awr Trelmarr,

REnrsbburc

y9 Kc a • N' AP' h

Cl,0 oni',• it ) act p F4 obiga

r.,. . « I) Unable to determineOitlandjx 00a i9 Time or day.

1 i

3

11/ 21/ 2016

90TH % ILE BY TRAVEL ZONE

Figure 1. 90th Percentile Total Response Times by Response Zone •

Fire and EMS) for the First Arriving Unit, CY13- 15

J. l .'i l

ti i, .•

411:'

SS

mmLf

ri; ‘1-

71 .:

a/ 1 Q1{ th - Q Q F Q 4. N Q Pf O[

jjr,141, .$:pG c0f1 V115 N N - O {\ T Q rrl an Nl:.

Pi. an

N r'rl • r- t N .` Cu N IfT Vl N l! l Q M t! l n'1 y. t'rl

a[- oO

1 [[ et [ 1 [ m1 ass tan 55 IS 55 [ ID! [ t t>D{.. 5-74 * 107

Sattltloa' aaW`

sti‘

ne

ww^^

ao •

anar-'

n° pl : vao

AUTOMATIC AND MUTUAL AID

Automatic Aid- Units are automatically dispatched acrossdistrict boundaries based on pre-assigned agreements ( i. e.

City of Salisbury to Hebron)Mutual Aid- Units are dispatched based on specific requestor dispatcher decision.

Automatic Aid calls from the City of Salisbury are increasing.

Mutual Aid calls from and into the City are increasing, butthe increase is proportional.

4

11/ 21/ 2016

EMS PROJECTION MODELS

We are unsure whether these are incident or unit numbers;

The reduction of EMS calls in the County area between 2013 -and 2014 of 4 percent is questionable. It also skews theprojections;

The City of Salisbury includes County calls that the City hasdirect responsibility for (that is, responds as automatic aid);

All data provided by County 911 Center.

EMS HIGH/ LOW PROJECTIONMODELS

Salisbury Suburban Rural

Uall High SowSMbn• Section Nlgh low

SaSSbary 51. 1 5, FMCC S i s_a660i b.10.40%

140%Ottm 7. 441117% L n',remSi?

05:0'% NMra114=

1A)' ! 290% 55 . rar,s~is hSR3V% {: 9s•

SaSatwaS. L. 16

t`,• s ;

a weiCriceil O;1_134Shan6own• ; IDOS A21%

Total Ric' rm, mcrp 6.601 . : : 120% is. r 53.zyb% :76 Yx

17e358.Ix :.•-;L!% TOG N+*+ r. TSG4.+l./' IOlal k+ d:. ..

61/ jar17% TZ2..3%

5•

11/ 21/ 2016

FIRE HIGH/ LOW PROJECTIONMODELS

City of Salisbury Suburban Rural

SieHen , High low

NIDh lowStation tow High MA.

Yy

l I

fIaWllNoennld

E UID !

y+.

s.

ap'ti`'r _

r.

wJw{,SSckl1.0.Y7'F

She prows

11Lw 8li1

x

xF.1

Anecdote] •

T

A

Pwetlre etIb4.• n A., Hobson Worllde

16 * 4 x1rPP

Ku1I!-ryry

Ati

rtriv RASAlton 1itV

111 bolo! 201%.//

tl

FINANCIAL CHALLENGES

Were not provided the level of detail needed.

Volunteer companies not required to produce audited or

closely reviewed financial reports.Used a cost per call projection.

Units responding to fewer calls will have higher costs per calldue to sunk costs ( purchase prices are comparable whether

responding to 300 or 3000 calls annually).Career services will experience higher costs due to humanresources costs.

6

11/ 21/ 2016

yc "

EMS AND FIRE COST PER CALL

EMS Cost Per Call Cost Fire Cost Per Call Cost

ityofSaaa ry - $ 2' 88+ tart .?; . sou'ry,'•a'. g2i8.95 rc3T

Iri --." .' r 7 , 1

3 5., e.'t" .ff '

t", '': It 4v'-‘1.4.A.4-11: r744." 1; ter:

S _

t *.

l332:9<' IS ft-t ra rx€?$ S&+` ; pi 2st/5 41Y

Rural ' _?T

T.i pr-0;74mot

1^'. i Rcc

A 47-OCT"`J b71

EMS COST DEFICIT FOR CITY OFSALISBURY

Shaton - Cah Coat pet Con Not Cannons , DefSDfCon

Salisbury 1

SaDr>r. 97 — Oyu aJvlar.

x5104D " _ S1I3.91. : fr' $

G588576' rr..'.

l

Sobbury 16 - t^"{ .: '. i C ..R.% .: 1

t.e..

LDf.. Y' T•y.:. li

6i MU... 5172 c__u t_..545.77 ear-4. •_...1985725 t.`.Ja. i._.::.9Idol _— ( 11+.++. 1-.-. rat Xl^ M5.97

A, L l - Ice's

15197D01

f? ' I1; r* •• t- ct { :

111146] 8 a

7

11/ 21/ 2016

REIMBURSEMENT FOR CITY

SERVICES

The County and City should reach consensus on adoptingthe easiest method to achieve an equitable reimbursement

program.

Adding additional volunteer companies near the City isunwarranted.

The City expended between $469, 525 and $700,787providing EMS service into the-Cite.---OurobjCMS should be contacted to review any reimbursementplan for possible AKA violations.

MODEL ONE-ACTUAL COST

REIMBURSEMENT

The County would pay the City $ 193.00 per call thatinvolved a patient transport.

Non- transport calls are usually not reimbursed by mostinsurance providers. This is slowly changing due to resourcesexpended on non- transport calls.

The County and City could negotiate a supplement for non-transport calls including those where no patient is involvedor a patient is treated but not transported.

City of Salisbury would retain control of finances.

8

11/ 21/ 2016

MODEL 2- DEEP DISCOUNT

County would reimburse the City a guaranteed payment of220 per call.

Treatment or transport status would not affect payment.

County would gain financial control of the call. Countywould be allowed to seek full reimbursement.

This would yield approximately $798,820 annually.Reduces risk for the City.

MODEL THREE- CITY COLLECTS WITHMINIMAL COUNTY REIMBURSEMENT

As with Model One, the City would seek collection of allfees.

County would pay $100 for transport or $50 for non-transport.

City assumes all financial risk.

County allows the City to pursue collection for services asthe City sees fit.

City to realize approximately $302,650 in addition tocollections.

9

11/ 21/ 2016

FIRE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT

City unreimbursed costs are $288.95 per call.This would be regardless of time and type of serviceprovided.

Should result in approximately $384,304 in reimbursement.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1: Wicomico County should keep accurate recordsof all response time intervals from 911 Connect thru Unit. Returning toStation.

Recommendation 2: Review dispatch protocols to ensure accuratetime measurements. Time for Salisbury Stations 1 and 2 should indicatewhether the responses occurred during volunteer or career staffingtimes.

Recommendation 3: Wicomico County should continue to provide afixed, equal financial grant for each fire company

10

11/ 21/ 2016

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 4: The County fife_thiefs should work with theCounty Director of Finance to create an annual report that providesfor more,accurate and meaningful financial information.Recommendation 5: No new volunteer companies should be formedto respond to County calls that Salisbury is currently handling as firstdue.

Recommendation 6: County residents who are served first due by theCity of Salisbury should be charged no more than City resident rates.

Recommendation 7: Wicomico County and the City of Salisburyshould choose One of the dbove models, or a variation of a model todetermine reimbursement for EMS expenses

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 8: The County should pay the City $288.95 for eachfire call that the City responds to as first due in Suburban WicomicoCounty. Oversight should be provided as described above.

Recommendation 9: Wicomico County and the City of Salisburyshould enter into a mediation agreement in order to reach consensus

on implementing a reimbursement plan for services provided by theCity.

Recommendation 10: After completing the reimbursementagreement, Wicomico County and the City of Salisbury shouldcontract with a consulting firm to perform a comprehensiveassessment.

11

11/ 21/ 2016

KEYS TO SUCCESS

Wicomico County and City of Salisbury public safety officials mustexercise leadership by collaboration and consensus building.Aggressive action is needed to modernize the 911 Center operations

emphasizing the development of single point, authentic informationmanagement.

County and City fire/ EMS leadership should achieve consensus onresponse standards, including time, level and weight of response.The lines between response districts must be blurred. Efforts should bemade to practice " closest unit response."

KEYS TO SUCCESS

Use this opportunity as a guide for the future.

Develop a sense of urgency for handling the specificsituation.

Develop and long-term strategy for the City-County servicesituation.

Elected officials should hold fire/ EMS leadershipaccountable for the successful outcome of consensusefforts.

12

11/ 21/ 2016

TRIDATA LLCDR. HAROLD C. COHEN

443)829- 8113

Hcohen@Tridata. com

4

13

SUURY

stenit

i) pyr O

1732

OPEB Plan

November 21, 2016

BOLTON ( IM PARTNERS

Current OPEB Plan

City Pays 50 percent of the premium for Life

Includes family coverageEligible at retirement

Current Premiums

EPO pre- 65 $469. 71 per month

PPO pre-65 $553. 34 per month

Pre- 65 real cost is higher because retirees are older thanemployees

Post 65 supplemental plan - $519.46 per month

Current Cash Cost - $500,000 for 74 retirees

Actuarial Estimates

All Actuarial Calculations Start with a Cash flow

estimate

Today' s Focus is on the estimated cash flows

Actuaries Do Not know the future

Assumptions

State assumptions for turnover and retirement

Current 2015 Society of Actuaries mortality

Current Society of Actuaries medical trend increase

50 percent of eligible retirees elect coverage

Other Measures

The actuarial accrued liabilitySteps

1. Determine the amount you would need in the bank to

cover the estimated cash flows for each participant

2. For retired participants you are done

3. For employees spread allocate between the past and

present

Depends on an interest rate

We assumed 3 . 5 percent for this purpose

Will be focus of future accounting rules

Estimated Projected Cash Cost

0

rE "

M+ r„ w}.

6•T,

r yr

PEnd

iin.gi r y

n

mx;Fa,„¢' t,,

rt+ r

s M Dollar . a,,

n, ay '

t '

T

rr . ..,

2016 Dollars . A.,

wvr

4. f.L4. , 9sr , 4 4

ti` '•`.. . ` Joky 2. 3% Inflation

2021 642,000 573,000

l2026 11 931,000 Il 742,000 . . I2031 1, 463, 000 1, 040,000

2036 2, 002,000 1, 270,000 l

Medical Trend

Medical Costs increase faster than the rest of the

economy

Medical Costs are projected to increase a little over 5

percent through 2050

A little over 3 percent in real dollar

A 3 percent annual increase over 20 years is an 109

percent increase

One way to control cost is to change the benefit froma percent of the premium to a fixed dollar model

Maryland Governments that are movingtoward fixed dollar benefits

Baltimore County — all employees hired after 2007

Housing Authority of Baltimore City — Benefit capped

for all employees not retirement eligible in 2006

Others already had fixed dollar subsidies

Cecil County

Cambridge

Many governments to the South have fixed dollarbenefits

Option 1

Three Tiers

current retirees

Current employee

Future hires

No change for current retirees

Current employees benefit

3, 500 fixed dollar cap on employer subsidy

No spouse subsidy

Future Hires

Same as current employees but a 20 year requirement to get

benefit

Option 2

Three Tiers

current retirees

Current employee

Future hires

No change for current retirees

Current employees benefit

3, 500 fixed dollar cap on employer subsidy7, 000 fixed dollar cap on H+ W employer subsidy9, 500 fixed dollar cap on Family employer subsidy

Future Hires

Same as Option 1 (20 year requirement and no spousecoverage)

Option 3

Two Tiers

current retirees and employees

Future hires

No change for current retirees and employees

Future Hires - No benefit

Estimated Impact of Proposed Change

Actuarial Accrued Liability

Actuarial Accrued LiabilityvV

3.5 percent Discount Rate

rFYE Current Plan Option 1 Option 2

e

Option 3

2016 27,661,000 18, 273,000 II 19, 428,000 rn, ,000 H2021 38,300,000 II 22,000,000 1 23, 700,000 37,300, 000

2026 r 51,500,000 25,800,000 28,000,000 46,700, 000

2031 II 66,800,000 ( 29, 100,000 31, 800, 000 i 54,200,000 1


Benefit Payments

Cash Flow of`Expected Benefit Payments

Future Retirees lw FYE— Current Plan Option 1 Option 2 Option_3

201r - 208, 000 143, 000 177,000 208,000

2026 .____—_ -472,000_Jw_---_-272,000 r 341,000 472,000,

886,000lr 450,000 it 554,000 - fT

886,004I 20361_ 1, 389,000 640,000 764,000, 1, 389,0001


Benefit Payments

L _ Cash Flow of Expected Benefit Payments

All Participants

FYE 11 curre__n_t Plan 11 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 1

2021 1Y

642,000 . 579,000 _ 613,0001 642,000 12026 1 _ 931,000 ^ I 733,000_^ I 802,000 931,000_ 12031 I 1, 463, 000 1 1, 030,000 1, 134,000 [_— 1, 463,000 12036 11 2, 002, 000 1 1, 257,000 1, 381,000 2, 002,000

Comparison of Accrued Liability

Actuarial Liability $ millions

s0.o

60.0

40.0

20.0

2016 2021 2026 2031

Current Plan — Option 1 — Option 2 — Option 3

Required Disclosure

o This presentation has been prepared for the City of

Salisbury for the purposes of presenting the results of the actuarialvaluation. It is neither intended nor necessarily suitable for otherpurposes. Bolton Partners is not responsible for the consequences of anyother use. The Actuarial Valuation Report dated June 24, 2016 and

August 29, 2016 correspondence to City Government, discloses the datawe relied upon, the actuarial methods and assumptions, and include otherrequired disclosures under Actuarial Standard of Practice (ASOP) # 41.

o Future medical care cost increase rates are unpredictable and could be

volatile. They will depend upon the economy, future health care deliverysystems and emerging technologies. The trend rate selected is based onan economic model developed by a health care economist for the Societyof Actuaries. Future medical trend increases could vary significantly fromthe model. Model inputs will be updated periodically based on the bestestimate of the economy at that time. Small changes in the model inputscan results in actuarial losses or gains of 5 to 15 percent of liabilities.

IIIINIF

c.

sa

a;

rt. r

4 r 4r ;- t \

1J

f

per )

t,,. t

r lt r. - Pr,

ritt:---- ' ,, 4 I. , -..), dn.. - •-----' .7_,,,,,,A ,,,c,,,,:o. _

Ei-

i

JJ Alitr: ? 4—i1!1 IS

J 1

V V

P

0

O (- Is 0uryOCYCL NETW0mg. PLAN

Prepared ca

alta

rPLANNING'''. DESIGN

2017 Salisbury Bicycle Network PlanPrepared by:

ARRO Consulting, Inc. and Alta Planning + Design

ARRCtGLANNPIG' DESIGN

1Y 4.•

with oversight and assistance provided by:

Office of the Mayor

Jake R. Day. Mayor of Salisbury

Tom Stevenson. City Administrator

Julia Glanz, Assistant City AdministratorChris Demone. Public Information Officer

City CouncilJohn " Jack" R. Heath, President

Muir Boda. Vice President

April Jackson

Jim Ireton

R. Hardy Rudasill

Bicycle &} Pedestrian Advisory CommitteeMatt Drew. Chair

Rosa Roma McGregor, Vice Chair

John FoleyJoe Howard

Jeremy KirkendallMarion Keenan

Salisbury- Wicomico Co. Dept. of Planning, Zoning, and Community DevelopmentKeith Hall, AICF'

Citizens of Salisbury

CONTENTS

Contents

Table of Figures iii

Introduction 1

Role of the Salisbury Bicycle Network Plan 1

SECTION 1. The Planning Process 3

1. 1 Salisbury Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee( BPAC) 3

1. 2 Data Collection and Analysis 3

1. 3 Public Involvement 4

1. 4 The City's Branding Effort 5

1. 5 Planning Guidance 10

SECTION 2. Network Development 11

2.1 Overview 11

2.2 Existing Conditions 11

Types of Bicyclists 11

Bicycle Facility Types 13

2.3 Network Development 18

2.4 Bicycle Network 19

SECTION 3. Implementation 24

3. 1 Methods for Implementation 24

3. 2 Prioritization Process 30

3.3 Considerations for Prioritization 30

3. 4 Cost Estimates 36

3. 5 Funding Sources 40

Primary Grants 40

State Funding Programs 46

Additional State Grant Opportunities 49

Additional Federal Grant Opportunities 50

Additional Private Grant Opportunities 51

n

QABLEFIGURLLES iur .<: g { .

Salisbury. MD Wayfinding Concept# 1 Downtown Salisbury On- Street Bicycle Sign 6

Salisbury. MD Wayfinding Concept# 2 City of Salisbury On- Street Bicycle Sign 7

Salisbury. MD Wayfinding Concept# 3 Specialized Park Drive Loop Bicycle Sign 8

Figure 1- 1: Designated Bicycle Lane: Closed Section- with Parking 9

Figure 1- 2: Bike Lane Marking 10

Figure 2- 1: Who Do We Plan For 12

Facility Continua 17

Existing and Proposed Bike Routes 19





Lane Narrowing 26

Parking Reduction 27

Lane Configuration 28

Roadway Widening 29

Bike Route Prioritization 31





Table 3- 1: Bicycle Network Plan Individual Route Analysis 37



iii

Bicycle Network PlanIntroduction

INTRODUCTION `

The BicycleBicycle Network Plan is a result of the City of Salisbury's commitment to creating aregional bike network for the benefit of citizens and tourist designed to be compatible

with bicyclists of all abilities. Valuable input and guidance were provided by the CityStaff. the Mayor and Council of Salisbury, private citizens, the City of Salisburys Bicycle

and Pedestrian Advisory Committee ( BPAC). and several local advocacy groups.including Bike-SBY. ESIMBA. and Wicomico Environmental Trust. Collectively. a vision to

improve the bicycling experience and culture was crafted. The area currently offers avariety of bicycle routes and facilities consistent with the Citys Comprehensive Plan.

However. many gaps exist both locally and regionally that make bicycling less thanideal. This Plan identified those gaps and proposes a network of facilities to complete a

safe and efficient transportation network.

As a Network Plan. this document focuses mainly on infrastructure. planning level costs.and implementation phasing. The City and County should consider implementing otheraction steps in conjunction with facility improvements. The League of American

Bicyclists identifies five key components that comprise a bicycle friendly community.

These components are known as the ' Five E' s' - Engineering (which is the focus of thisPlan). Education. Enforcement. Encouragement. and Evaluation. Salisbury has

embraced the Five E approach. and in 2015 was awarded the Bronze Bicycle Friendly

Community award by the League. As Salisbury continues to enhance bikeability as acomponent of overall livability for residents and enjoyment for visitors. additional

programs should be folded into the implementation phasing of this Plan. This mayinclude educational campaigns for youth. regularly scheduled enforcement workshops

for the police department. events to encourage new ridership, and a consistentevaluation report card to track the cultural and infrastructure changes.

ROLE OF THE SALISBURY BICYCLE NETWORK PLAN

The purpose of the Salisbury Bicycle Network Plan is to provide a framework for

implementing bicycle facilities across the City and provide connectivity to the County.For implementation of this Plan to be as successful as possible. it is important to realize

that bicycle facilities cannot simply end at the City corporate boundaries. For this

reason. facilities are shown extending beyond the City lines into the County in order tobetter coordinate and facilitate future improvements across jurisdictional boundaries.

While proposed facilities have been demarcated outside of the incorporated City of

Salisbury. implementation and programming considerations will be determined by theindividual jurisdiction(s).

Page 1

Bicycle Network PlanIntroduction

The framework consists of a map indicating where types of facilities are recommended,a matrix with the suggested method of implementation. a prioritization time frame, and

planning level cost estimates. This study focuses on the network. action steps. anddesign guidelines to more effectively connect people with the places where they live,work. play, learn, and access multi- modal transportation facilities. The Plan advances

the ideals of safety, connectivity, livability, awareness, and health and wellness that alignwith the values of the City and County as a whole.

The recommendations of this Plan build upon previous local and regional plans and are

intended to be incorporated into future transportation and land use planningdocuments and decision- making.

While the implementation section provides phasing based on criteria established by thecommunity BPAC, every opportunity should be seized to advance the development of

the network. Rehabilitation and paving schedules. new development. changes in land

ownership, and road improvement projects should be vetted prior to construction toevaluate if components of this bicycle network can be included in the improvement

project.

Page 2

Bicycle Network Plan Section I.

The Planning Process

SECTION 1 1 - THE PLANNING PROCESS I . ' -

1. 1 , SALISBURY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE

BPAC)

The development of this Plan was guided by the sEa

m1

community and Salisbury Bicycle and Pedestrian o

Advisory Committee. a group of individuals

representing the bicycling and pedestrian wa

interests of the community. The City staff, alongwith consultants. interacted with the community 7ftG4.,and committee to formulate specific t'

recommendations on three ( 3) separate Vy

occasions throughout the process. focusing on NJ 0"-

the proper visions and goals. Ultimately, the y

Salisbury Mayor and Council reviewed andadopted the findings and recommendations P Il '-contained in this Plan.

3

4 )

1. 2 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

After collecting baseline information about the study area. the consultants beganassessing existing conditions. Aerial photography and geographic informational

systems (GIS) data were used to identify opportunities and constraints for bicycle facilitydevelopment. These preliminary findings were confirmed through a fieldreconnaissance of the area. The existing conditions and the preliminary findings were

then presented to the community BPAC as a point of beginning for determining therecommendations.

Overall. Salisbury's roadway network providesZII : ' yJ .- .&

ample opportunities to add bicycle infrastructurerj f:gtt- ,, .. r '

through restriping projects without significant : f'-- t' il' 1% t l

infrastructure modifications to curbs and

roadway widths. Many of the routes selected for v J)the network are two- lane corridors with edge of '—•' A

pavement or curb-to-curb widths of thirty feet -

which easily can be restriped for two five- footl

Page 3

Bicycle Network Plan Section L


bicycle lanes and two ten-feet wide travel lanes. Based on locally adopted plans,

community, and BPAC input to identify regional off-road/ separated bike • laneconnections to major activity generators, the following two-game changingopportunities manifested:

The north/ south rail line bisecting Salisbury connects the downtown to destinationssouth including Salisbury University and points north including residential areas. Heavy

jj . .,: y pedestrian traffic walking the rail alignment

riIIII

AP,,,-,, suggests an existing demand for connectivity

y4ljlme t . z. along this corridor. Peppered along thel

4 .; aj alignment already are retail establishments.c® • f "",rf ' , , restaurants, and a brewery. This potential rail

Y r with trail corridor could become a catalyst fora

mien a livability, economic development, and retainingstudents from Salisbury University who will

u, choose to develop their professional lives and

AA

fl-tti' 3 1

settle with families in a more walkable and

bikeable environment. Also. this proposed rail

trail affords opportunities to connect adjacent communities of Delmar and Fruitland to

Salisbury.

The east/west abandoned rail line is anV-

f'f"4-opportunity to pull people into Salisbury via aregional trail. This will provide opportunities for ' s4'

bicycle tourism and enhance the ability of 'y; '

4

s 1 b `'residents to choose healthy transportation '

at:+ •!



The BPAC played a key role in distributing information and gathering feedback from

citizens. The first phase of public input consisted of establishing need and desire for anetwork. Determining key destinations and origins across the area established a series ofhubs" by which the new" spokes" of the bicycle network will connect.

In addition to gathering input for this Network Plan. the public input process allowedthe BPAC to reach across the community to build momentum for implementation. Asmore residents are aware of the Plan, a critical mass of champions will begin to be the

voice for improved facilities and safety for existing bicyclists and those who remain inthe 56 percent (or more) of the population who are interested in riding. but concernedabout bikeway types that are comfortable to ride on. connectivity to their destinations.

and safety.

This process was the beginning of the Education IEN © ®®gand Encouragement components of the League in®g®® 4: 1 iii Oof American Bicyclists "Five E' s." The BPAC should

identify and plan for future events and efforts to L.. -, •;. - -. r_ lcontinue to build awareness of the Plan and how V. X.

community members can monitor projectst -— --

asZIKEL

across the City that are opportunities to A i

implement bicycle facilities or improve safe 3 r— of

crossings and circulation for bicyclists of all ages Jaand abilities. A -- - : (

1 ,_c_

1. 4 THE CITY' S BRANDING EFFORT

A Bicycle Wayfinding Plan effort was completed in parallel to this Network Plan. Thegoal of the Wayfinding Plan was to establish a brand and creative package, as well as

craft a sign family that could be used for off-road and on- road facilities. Prior to

completing the Bicycle Wayfinding Plan, the City embarked on a re- branding effort tocraft a new identity for Salisbury. This re- branding effort became the inspiration for thedevelopment of a wayfinding sign family that includes kiosks that featuring the newbrand. In addition. the bicycle network will have three distinct creative sign packages

connecting the overall network: one for the Park Drive Loop. one for Salisbury overall.

and one featuring the new Downtown Logo.

As facilities are implemented throughout the City, the bicycle wayfinding signs can be

added along corridors to direct bicyclists to key destinations and provide confidencethat users are traveling along their intended path to their desired destination.

Page 5

a, a

q; c6 m Cr t9 ` v

4.<

aA a g. . y DOWNTOW ; 4; ',e.

c_._._ - rte U r 9 0 00 o

tI:1- B

Cf

d r ° Sign tittering Detail 4,

ll

Or„ _ v

4Vt

0 G a P• b 4 ';- Jl A ° 0 bCP Do • ° k pi,' y 0° _.

v, IICb NO Street X mer• a L%

JA. LP1 VIILLAGE

INIIUMHEIGHTHEIGHT

LLSILNS i0 BE 0l LILC 1w NI: PRINTED PANEL 1 O

IS( LE

Ia eSHiWITH W AO> Iwc

L - a- - L. . m. 1\ QTrzP. w° mreDL SHnu f A

LL Sr.xroKMPu l„vPJi VLSE PLIPOPEEIELIM WIH FNMA CLEARANCE j

1AII l rtt I HEIGHT Of

SIX - L®'r

DTSD

TO HAK THREE A CASUAL PALE TRAVELIIME Q SIX a0rsmovr0N5 MAXIMUM MINUTES PER MILE 110 MPH) SHOUT)

BE USED FOR TIME ESPNATES

i........:POLE TO BE!COMPLIANT WITH-

IOCALPUBLICV2Q15IXPi. QV

STATE DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION

k

MUTCD Directional Confirmation Turn Street Sign Marker

Downtown Directional( Dal Downtown Confirmation 99 Downtown Arrow( DA-0 Downtown Arrow( DA- RI Downtown Arrow IDA' St Downtown Street Rider IDSRI

Salisbury, MD Wayfinding Concept # 1 Downtown Salisbury On-Street Bicycle SignN

ot 1

o00

o

oe j8•

B

tr .-y,-` ` c o0 $ IY --

cio

0o g ' i o, dK,IJ.

pr ' cPo

trSign LMtering Detail Th5 pL...-d-r 4

0

p-c Y .

n• `

oQ 0 :`' :: lf1`

r'.

t

r

Al

ft °

0 -9a

A ° o.

Ae

v m n. k 1^- 3° o

1 ,.• I myritrma 10x. 0 io 4JW trifroar® c.rt ®

OBL181I.N M.Y HSNL ThL

IANiE PLYFIL Yy

r ,

Y Y.

tLY1IIRAWO nen 44l

7ALL YV i.'" al

I

VaV.

NYM* WLLIrCtM M1fll. t] EwUR

omiC66J1-0,5 W[ WY

itt

PEP.

YCnrw{MYdr° 1

BE 1.' msJR hE6i.YniF2 ......---• )

S

PUt tO H Cp@IIMi Yitr=tr.'rtac ewa ttn.w \ •

STATE CUT. C( IWASPORTAtter

h.'s\

MURD Directional Confirmation Turn Street Sign Marker

Salit.ry° oatimal( SD) Salisbury Confirmation( SC) Saisb, ry Arrow( SA-U Saisbiry Arrow ISA- Salisbury Arrow ISA- S) Sai>4ry Street Rider( SSA)

t

Salisbury, MD Wayfinding Concept #2 City of Salisbury On-Street Bicycle Sign

r a o, P °.

t: ° '• as° ° o' o ° pp 8w

r+' ® it DRIVeEi 5

n '` ..) A o Am . 0

C3° n1 rOOr

Dn III_. °

p°Opo OD 0° D i e„ iUe° ! II' - , > °

DtDc4A

e

o

vv Sign Lettering Detail (. y

0 '' R

GI

ocp• ri

ssoGfir_.

AL • r

1i0{ /

i ° •

DO °

Q Ait fl a

R:' ° 0) .. L h 4'

L• .O o O o -

a'}'--rig P n , f4=0 /.

Or Pr"...° 11 0-41

di4

Jr LET MIILAC{ IEITEA HUCHi rDPAPK.: J ALUM NU

SOOEEI

PANEPMN'°', p

BEI

7MINMUM HE f.HI WITHUV MPRINTED PNIEl1 PoAI( mV PM WITH IN COATING

4.0115T L//

IFriss AND SYMBOL SHALL ALLSGN MCCNPLY\ ,„„ 1/4. 1„,: y V` 1SIEPEIPOPEFLICINE NtrX' TWA CLEMA L JJ' imY '

Ir: - _'HEIGHT ffT, t rr DZI

a

it SIGNS TO HAVE THREE t AUSUAL PKEIPAKI IINEOE 51} 1

DESTINATIONS MAXMUM MiNU1fSRA NILE IIOMPXISNW1p 4REUSED FOR TO& ESTMATES „.......—

T

POE TO OE CCMIJANI WITHLDGL PUBLIC WOWS DEPT. CX

STATE DEPT OF IMNSRNTAINNI

MUTCD Directional Confirmation Turn Street Sign Marker

Park Directional( PM Park Confirmation( PC) Park Anmw( PAAI Park Arrow( PA' R) Park Arrow( PA- S) Park Street Rider( PSR)

1

Salisbury, MD Wayfinding Concept #3 Specialized Park Drive Loop Bicycle Sign av



1. 5 PLANNING GUIDANCE

Prior to developing facility recommendations. existing planning documents were

reviewed to set a baseline for previously adopted facilities and efforts that may affect abicycle network. A number of routes had already been established but few werecurrently implemented. In addition to local planning documents. a number ofpublications were consulted to support best practices for implementation and network

development. Those include:

o Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities by the American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

o National Association of City Transportation Officials ( NACTO) Urban

Bikeway Design Guide

o Bicycle Policy and Design Guidelines from the Maryland State HighwayAdministration

o Maryland Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices from the Maryland

State Highway Administration

Publications such as these set minimum dimensional requirements for facilities and

provide guidance for the integration of bicycle facilities along roadways and acrossintersections. As Salisbury implements the recommendations within this Plan. eachproject should be vetted to provide maximum comfort for the intended level of bicyclist.

5. 101 s•.

44 pQ

PARKING LANE

5' e* tu MBSrawhd. m

PARKING LANE ME5• rola. ww

j,and

acme LANE R3-17

S Maims r erar aMent b cataq.

II'

BICYCLE LANE UIE

V

S• Mm texts Ire. Wtla be nary

IIA Wake a reaaawb, TiAmara Derma Enna 4 Traec.

TRAVEL LANE

The Mercyan. IDr d ee. d haws

Il ay. Warn Mme wrath a V- I I'depWad epee roadway dasstaaem t91CYOE LANE

el Pry* In.See

SYMBOL

I

9iy i''

Serra, 2m41Gcermtl iWf II it I ri11>)I, 11BICYCLE LAM! SIGN

Use MCIAUTCO 7. See

1R3-17

S2.24[ arerKM& gale

Figure 1- 1: Designated Bicycle Lane: Closed Section- With Parking

Page 9

Bicycle Network Plan section I.


rawto Y»

Indles

nl72 Inchon

Figure 1- 2: Bike Lane Marking

The bicycle network put forth in this document does not provide engineering leveldetail; however, the above documents can be referenced in conjunction with design to

determine the best design details for implementation.

Page 10

Bicycle Network Plan Section 2.

Network Development

SECTION 2 NETWORK DEVELOPMENT i-

2. 1 OVERVIEW

This Plan recommends a complete network of bicycle facilities for the City of Salisbury

and surrounding Wicomico County that will link communities. neighborhoods. schoolsand colleges, and businesses. The network consists of existing and proposed facilitiessuch as bicycle lanes, rails to trails, paved shoulders, bicycle boulevards. shared vehicle

lanes and signed routes. This section includes an overview of the bicyclist we are

planning for, bikeway types, bicycle network recommendations including bike routes.the project prioritization process, and program recommendations.

2. 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS • JEXISTING FACILITIES

The City of Salisbury has very few existing bicycle facilities. There are several routes that

are already established but not currently implemented. According to The League ofAmerican Bicyclists' 2015 review of the City the existing bicycle network is comprised of

only 7% of the total road network and only 1% of arterial streets have bike lanes. Overall.

the City's current Network lacks continuity as existing routes are scattered anddisconnected from one another.

TYPES OF BICYCLISTS

Bicyclists' skill levels greatly influence expected speeds and behavior, both in separated

bikeways and on shared roadways. Each of these groups has different bicycle facilityneeds. so it is important to consider how a bicycle network will accommodate each

type of cyclist when creating a non- motorized plan or project. The bicycle infrastructureshould accommodate as many user types as possible, with decisions for separate orparallel facilities based on providing a comfortable experience for the greatest number

of people. Since this Plan focuses on many user types. it is critical to consider in the hubsand spokes method WHO you are connecting to. WHERE. and WHICH facility type may

be key to their comfort and safety.

Bicyclists can be categorized into four distinct groups based on comfort level and ridingskills. The characteristics. attitudes. and infrastructure preferences of each type are

described below.

Page 11

I3icycle Network Plan Section Z.

Network Development

STRONG AND FEARLESS ( APPROXIMATELY 4% OF POPULATION)

This cyclist type is characterized by the bicyclists that will typically ride anywhere

regardless of roadway conditions or weather. These bicyclists can ride faster than otheruser types. prefer direct routes, and will typically choose roadway connections even ifshared with vehicles over separate bicycle facilities such as multiuse paths.

ENTHUSED AND CONFIDENT ( APPROXIMATELY 9% OF POPULATION)

This user group includes bicyclists who are fairly comfortable riding on all types ofbikeways but usually choose low traffic streets or multi-use paths when available. These

bicyclists may deviate from a more direct route in favor of a preferred facility type. Thisgroup includes all kinds of bicyclists such as commuters, recreational riders, racers, andutilitarian bicyclists.

INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED (APPROXIMATELY 56% OF POPULATION)

This user type comprises the bulk of the cycling population and represents bicyclistswho typically only ride a bicycle on low traffic streets or multiuse trails under favorableweather conditions. These bicyclists perceive significant barriers to their increased use of

cycling, specifically traffic and other safety issues. These people may become "EnthusedConfident" with encouragement education, and experience.

carless a". nww.•7 Emil; s: I

r. ' `+ `411Pc°nlid. o

1

Art

NoHOw

i4I .

Li- I4Interested( m 4 ib .•

ConcernedI i oft - R31j" v

CO lHi _i-+ ..fLL `. d T.

SSl _ry y,

w C t K

a. Q f' Mt—H. 1 i

Figure 2- 1: Who We Plan For

NO WAY, NO HOW (APPROXIMATELY 31% OF POPULATION)

Page 12


Network Development

Persons in this category are not bicyclists and perceive severe safety issues with riding in

traffic. Some people in this group may eventually become more regular cyclists withtime and education. A significant portion of these people will never ride a bicycle other

than on rare occasions or under special circumstances (e.g., in a park or with a child).

With the presence of Salisbury University, the City experiences an influx of new bicyclists

each year. Facilities surrounding the University and those connecting students and

employees to housing should provide maximum protection and comfort for users. In

addition, as Salisbury plans to retain and attract young families. areas around schools,daily uses, parks, and centers of entertainment should be evaluated to provideseparation and clear wayfinding to build confidence for young riders. In addition, these

populations require clear educational programming to establish proper behavior inboth bicyclists and motorists to foster courteous and lawful behaviors.

BICYCLE FACILITY TYPES

When choosing facility types to generate a well-connected network for the region, it isessential to understand the different types of facilities and in what conditions they

should be implemented. The following range of bikeway types summarizes the bicyclefacilities by level of protection.

SIGNED SHARED ROADWAY ( SIGNED ROUTE)

Signed routes use bicycle signage and markings

to increase driver awareness on the roadway. esanD

Signed routes may also include traffic calmingdevices and intersection treatments to improve

the safety for bicyclists and all other „ ' 19- 7transportation modes. A signed shared roadway q

j 'I

is recommended where calm roadways linking MI WM

neighborhoods, schools, and parks serve as

alternate routes to unsafe corridors. Sharrows5'

may be used in areas with higher traffic volumesand vehicle conflicts.

SHARED LANE MARKINGS ( SHARROWS)

Shared lane markings are pavement markings used tof '' ;,

A*'

indicate shared space for bicyclists and motorists.

Sharrows are used on roads where dedicated bicycle 1lanes are desirable. but not possible due to constraints -- Lc.-- —

a

roadway width, on- street parking. etc). Placed every 1001


Network Development

to 250 feet along a corridor, sharrows make motorists aware of the potential presence ofcyclists. direct cyclists to ride in a specific direction, and guide cyclists to ride further

from parked cars to avoid ' dooring' collisions.

PAVED SHOULDER

A paved shoulder is the part of a roadway that iscontinuous to the travel lane, separated by a stripe. A , y a

minimum of four feet is preferred where possible, '',... `, , r'although there is no minimum width for paved shoulders.

Contingent upon available right-of-way, paved shoulders ; g;, should be considered in the construction of new roadways - ,`

Y,_

01%

or the upgrade of existing facilities. Paved shoulders are . r ,: iitcommon on rural roads with low traffic volumes.

BICYCLE LANE

Bike lanes designate an exclusive space for bicyclists

through the use of pavement markings and signage. The ` 3/4' icdt

bike lane is located adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes ,, • sT

and is generally used in the same direction as motor it ° "vehicle traffic. The bike lane is typically located on the - J r:

right side of each travel lane. and should be wide enough

for a bicyclist to ride comfortably between the adjacent r ,travel lane and either the curb. road edge, or parking lane. ' i,t ,""The typical width for a bike lane is between four and six j(

afeet, depending on the roadway configuration. y,, ,-

r

BUFFERED BIKE LANE

Similar to a conventional bicycle lane. a buffered 11/4'•• -•

bicycle lane has an additional marked buffer

component separating the bicyclists from the `.,` _,„ y^., C, it:;, w, 7;,motor vehicle lane. The purpose of the buffered

bicycle lane is to increase separation between I 'motor vehicle traffic and bicyclists on high i'e 47volume and/ or high speed roads. especially those 1 •

fie iA

r .. zwith a high frequency of large vehicle traffic. Theme _ added separation increases bicyclists' safety and ' Comfort.

Page 14


Network Development

BICYCLE BOULEVARD

Bicycle boulevards are streets with low tmotorized traffic volumes and speeds. f 4

ydesignated and designed to give bicycle travel We 4.,,,, '

priority. Bicycle boulevards use signs. pavement ' • ., r; i . K..,.zz ii n> -„ „ -

markings. and speed and volume management ii '"

measures to discourage through trips by motort r

vehicles and create safe. convenient crossing of " ybusy arterials. Many of the design treatments of rt.":_ -- i

bicycle boulevards not only benefit bicyclists, r .;`T " '` "- a- ' \

A

but they also help create ' quiet" streets that j' - 4' ibenefit residents and improve safety for all roadusers.

CYCLE TRACK

A cycle track is an exclusive bike facility thatcombines the user experience of a separated v- ft'i -path with the on-street infrastructure of a

y<? t'

conventional bike lane. A cycle track is physically a,,_y 4I' e- i7Iseparated from motor traffic and distinct from

tS

r ; rt r-t-.,-.

the sidewalk. Cycle tracks have different forms "+ 0t _. ` =

4_.*i J

c 1._..

but all share common elements - they provide ilrspace that is intended to be exclusively orprimarily used by bicycles. and are separatedfrom motor vehicle travel lanes, parking lanes.and sidewalks.

Cycle tracks may be one-way or two-way. and may be at street level. sidewalk level, or atan intermediate level between the street and sidewalk height A combination of curbs.

medians. bollards. on-street parking, and different pavement/color is used to protectand differentiate the cycle track from motor traffic and the sidewalk.

Page 15

Bicycle Network Plan Section2.

Network Development

SHARED- USE PATH

A shared- use path is physically separated fromASK

motorized traffic and accommodates , Y 42

a f ^.t ain

pedestrians and two-way bicycle traffic A -P. °

41,,,,`", ;" 7n , e1 °;

shared- use path is often used for recreation and

users of all skill levels preferring separation from4

vehicle traffic. Those within the roadway corridor , Q

right-of-way. or adjacent to roads. are called 'sidel 4.4. ``"'

paths.' Those within or adjacent to railroad right

of-way are called ' rail- trails' and shared-use trailsp

r,

within a greenspace corridor, utility corridor, or fib aw.4 ipublic use easement are often referred to as

greenway trails.'

Page 16


Network Development

Facility Continua

The following continua illustrate the range of bicycle facilities applicable to various roadway environments, based on theroadway type and desired degree of separation. Engineering judgment, traffic studies, previous municipal planning efforts,community input and local context should be used to refine criteria when developing bicycle facility recommendationsfor a particular street. In some corridors, it may be desirable to construct facilities to a higher level of treatment than thoserecommended in relevant planning documents in order to enhance user safety and comfort. In other cases, existing and/or future motor vehicle speeds and volumes may not justify the recommended level of separation, and a less intensivetreatment may be acceptable.

Arterial/ Highway Bikeway Continuum( without curb and gutter)

Shared Lane Marked Wide Shoulder Wide Shoulder Protected Bicycle Shared Use Path

Curb Lane Bikeway Bikeway Lane: protected

with barrier

tµ ty

t

r

1 "I jai . Cal

Arterial/ Highway Bikeway Continuum( with curb and gutter)

Marked Wide Conventional Buffered Protected Bicycle Lane: Protected Bicycle Protected Bicycle

Curb Lane Bicycle Lane Bicycle Lane at-grade, protected Lane: protected Lane: curb

with parking with berrie.

separatedj ,,, gte- t _ , log ts

gia

III

Collector Bikeway Continuum

Shared Lane Marked Wide Conventional Wide Bicycle Buffered

Curb Lane Bicycle Lane((( Lane ( Bicycle Lane

t' ' . IY L7 r L7 e' If-7.3 eTh

Mitt' k1WItIIU !Page 17


Network Development

2.3 NETWORK DEVELOPMENT -

The recommended bicycle network was developed based on information from several

sources: input from City Staff: input from the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian AdvisoryCommittee (BPAC); public input obtained online and at public meetings: previous plans

and studies; review of existing bicycle facilities; noted bicycle trip attractors; and theconsultants' field analysis. Field reconnaissance focused on the potential and need for

bicycle facilities along key roadway corridors that create links between neighborhoodsand key destinations.

It is important to note. some of the proposed alignments are outside of Salisbury City

limits: therefore. implementation is contingent upon future planning and programming

considerations of the appropriate jurisdiction or entity (e.g. Delmar. Fruitland. WicomicoCounty, and Maryland State Highway Administration).

Page 18

2.4 BICYCLE NETWORK

w' 1' ri

I d1- Ee - ;

i

c-i1-- 3 Il

R Virc:-s

r •'• iw• '

j p

1` s

N

tIsI t

t

i 1` II .-

t i\ I :°

mss\ , \ t•,\,s^ 0:----a re:

p° 1

4 ‘-- I a 0i0.t°L Y• A.. x'14 CVS`/ , C1,iU 1_ 0-

ii -4 T t/ 0 -

war -1-1 " '

q_ f+

r

i

11 _ , : 1-

4'/ S' . g

11277( 4 7:-."-." l ' f,.

iJ

L N /,

71/,'[.^o e

S. , ,,,...- si;' N, .. : A.IY/cC

ilt-r-.. \4- 7, J 7. J

AJ 1 ,

E rte

EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROPOSED NETWORK EXISTING NETWORK BACKGROUND

BIKE ROUTES te. --- Brwhiny Fate. — ° v'^ set.. gniRads

2017 Salisbury Bicycle Network r . ew 1°°

py s...,. e ___ Ii- On ltn t i. Ina

Y. 14.SS— n p ....r

sne.. ms. o,. m.. a Swio.•

1 NLES P 0 r+1 nanny to 5thLEI Yip

0 O6 1. 2 ry CI ails

r

3.

a;

Kt

R1

oxww

t 7 M\ wnfiy- Ili

L.)° t

1y 4

1I P

ars r

j \/"./...------------------\ ''' ., \,,,,,;:y•-•

J;ir,:, , 1: 7.3;

7ice\``— , .a 1 1 p ` J

Ounrf

1- 1 I+ yam 0t ,

1 1 pl l

1 ! DoT/V, -

Sao .#

1 ,` L /r j/ ems\; ,/

r q I

T1 icy t- f ',,,,ya J°6Y.

r.,:;.1.,` '

c

y - c1 t

I 47— i ;# 1

ill ,"•YA

T

o Vim..j/—'"

a "" %.

s4 `\ .; ` { (; s=

t

Irj.' 6:.,-_a.


BIKE ROUTES aib Lw --- e.. s may Um Full Lone — Bike Lane SON Pam Lacy Food.

2017 Salisbury Bicycle Network a,n.. a ee. l.. ___ ww. sa. v. m era ewwam — r... w Roms

Caewm+A,CryarSesser A.m mCon.. cwi.

6a. Ooi`°° ___ Tw ew wr w. rwlan. Roads

We

To Be Lamm] — SinO °as

f L__1 l F 1MrLES m,d:.,mI= wa.

0 0. 3 0. fi ry CI OH Ln

iftrte ` I i

l. eq11

I

J- 1_ 411 CI r 1—ry,f -, 19.. r-

1 A1

11

7

1 0

1 U A i

1 1a

f I

Ii

ir4-=

Ii r d( t

i II I II, J.

1

I1I

JC

JIii \

1

11 °

C•^ 1 / \ '-\ _ .-....ems/ ``

s•

IT ^ tea i 2 9

Y , . -i \s sue...,,

OD

ii iF

1 I

1.." 1 r{ 1 1I f; t L . ..r

a i 1 1 1 1l

I I I ,.1 I •' j A r ;

i..

1 1 1

r14 I I r' ,

4 + i ,1 11, 1% %% I I i. i s

I. i

I" } I / , ya


BIKE ROUTES San... U. rune. — s°.°" m"°°

2017 Salisbury Bicycle Network d,r.aeu,.. --- ..+.. as r.. — e.. mr.. e — Ti. d

n..--. a..•A'...•.

ed...•. s.. p P..

i"- 7- ln__Muaes t 0 " s. ne., na vO wow

0 03 06 O trr.. a

r- __.- --—r{ (".I G, N' i/i ,

w.F t :

1:7, 11:

C%°,:11,jivk \ ,....-.., rn, • , \--\F.' : arc?:

sir ,N,:

a....

A_ C„," e I' 1 t' r \

t"--","'P V'

i ..\` .` —.

1.71 ems' `.

r,

717_ Tim a

M+ m'- m"

pd l

mil 4•

v , v , rte "Y

ii do 1;: 17.4- J r J m, ;, I, a" y far

0P li

y i /A( sianc

C.1

i1' ' i 1 r

gN

I rp ri r

C

I / ter:.«... ' r=te{

lI1 r

e-- l ; kr j

1 O

0

5 ( I

1 ;% 1 _ l.+r ®

q

N. 1i

I FI t

i! "'/ is•

g_ t`., 1'\

R...

1A}

J'

9 P

I

f.

P, 7.7,- %'\

c‘'


BIKE ROUTES Bain --- B..*" Mr W.' LI u. — B.. L, m Sd. oa, — Len' Ran

2017 Salisbury Bicycle Network Boeac B.. w --- w..,.. sm. P. T — B.. BaY,.., o mad m. aFtner.

Bs. MMVV< --- inl Bikes May Um Full Lane1Q °

mnv.m NCh pu+w..wm.vc..*......

O ParksBlanp` io0e 0.Wmro] SN. mw

MILES 0 vay M ryYecOmbSYO W..

0 0J 0. 6 0 O C•Yy

Lam-' 'II- '

s irIt1 )

5, , • . 1

bit t, k

r9 }

2.: c"--,--, /

i/ // -

C--)---

c'., 9Tf / p a0w

d1ft a

L8, ,-

71;

I

i j :/--- 3 I r

p, 'i l !I` X1 1 v -7

AL

i"—

it

w

1\-

ThV .1- C\ ~ _ t i

r c V

C----/----< L

r- 1


BIKE ROUTES Dos try Una Ful la — eau tr. so•••

2017 Salisbury Bicycle Network aw Roe

norm84 BL.. N irr BM YF U. IJI

Gessm AC. Irrn w'mafary tram. O Wtees

yr._f-- LI MM1ES K} rwrrryib 5u}

CI—

0 03 06 ryv+ in DYE


Implementation

SECTION 3 ± f';INIPLEMENTATI& ICF }' k* ' It/Act-0 'fin.* th tt + j °

3. 1 ' METHODS FOP IMPLEMENTATION I

Once a network segment is selected for implementation, facility design typically follows.For this Plan. some facilities. such as bicycle routes or shared- lane markings. will require

signage and limited construction activities. Others may require more intensive

restriping, road reallocation, and reconstruction. Preliminary design plans should bereviewed by multiple stakeholders, including emergency service personnel and the local

police department so they can offer suggestions and have their voices heard from thevery beginning.

Annual operations and maintenance costs vary, depending upon the facility to bemaintained, level of use, location, and standard of maintenance. Operations and

maintenance budgets should take into account routine and remedial maintenance over

the life cycle of the improvements and on-going administrative costs for the operationsand maintenance program.

On- road bicycle facilities can be implemented in a variety of ways. These are described

briefly below:

Striping - Some roadways can be simply striped with bicycle lanes because ofadequate, wide widths of the roadway's outside lanes. This is an inexpensiveimplementation method.

Pavement Marking - Shared Lane Markings, as described in Section 2. are simplepavement markings added to the roadway. In these cases, additional pavementwidth is not needed. Therefore, this is an inexpensive implementation method.

Roadway Retrofit (Lane Narrowing) - In some cases, existing roadway travel lanescan be narrowed to allow for a roadway restriped with bicycle lanes. The typicalminimum travel lane is 10'. This is still inexpensive but requires removal of old

striping. It is ideal to restripe during a scheduled resurfacing.

Roadway Retrofit (Road Reallocation) - In some cases, a reduction in travel lanescan be implemented to include bicycle lanes or other facilities. A full traffic

analysis is required before implementing a road diet. A typical road diet occurswhen converting a four- lane road to a three- lane with bicycle lanes.

Page 24


Implementation

Roadway Retrofit ( Bicycle Boulevard) - The addition of pavement markings,

signage, and traffic calming measures can be added at varying costs on an

existing residential roadway.

New Construction - When a new roadway is constructed or existing roadwayreconstructed. bicycle lanes, paved shoulders. sidepaths. or other facilities maybe included in the project.

During Staff and Planning Commission review of private development plans. inclusion of

any part of the Network Plan is advisable if the area to be developed or redevelopmentoverlaps one or more of the routes on the Network Plan.

Page 25


Implementation

Lane NarrowingDescription Guidance

Lane narrowing utilizes roadway space that exceeds Vehicle lane width:

minimum standards to provide the needed space for bike

lanes. Many roadways have existing travel lanes that areBefore: 10-15 feet

wider than those prescribed in local and national roadway After.10- 11 feetdesign standards, or which are not marked. Most standards

allow for the use of 11 foot and sometimes 10 foot wide Bicycle lane width:

travel lanes to create space for bike lanes. Guidance on bicycle lanes applies to this treatment.

a KW

se

kBefore

tt, a,

I24' Travel/ Parking

r

11 ` y"4 ? r7T

i

r"'er - x. wl .- a[/ } ?,, ` •

I _ "

rte - %' A•1

V Ce.,

i Lf

Yf T'

r;

d gsf'}- * zz•sa

iiif 41•....,.

N . .,kka'-.2.., W4.r .. SY`w. m-r,..'a2 v',".'tra°S4 e,.:- i"...C. '' t+a.,,4 a. `

eM,

o2, After

0,frI

s

8, Parking t 6' Bike 10' Travel rI '

4'' r ,

TI 7.117' €` y

V 1 44T< !"

3:71::-.."L; . Ii-

sr"

8 4- C '

1

at c•

l 4k,. r I

a;

1a

Discussion

Special consideration should be given to the amount of heavy vehicle traffic and horizontal curvature before the decisionIs made to narrow travel lanes. Center turn lanes can also be narrowed in some situations to free up pavement space forbike lanes.

AASKTO supports reduced width,lanes in A Policy on Geometric Design ofHighways and Streets:' On interrupted-flow opera-1 Lion conditions at low speeds( 45mph or less), narrow lone widths are normally adequate and have some advantages!

Additional References and Guidelines Materials and Maintenancerases Guide for the Development ofWcycle Facilities. sots. Repair rough or uneven pavement surface. Use bicycleAAStRaA Polkyon GeomeMC Design o/ Highways andStreets. 2004.

compatible drainage grates. Raise or lower existing gratesRACro. urban street Design Guide. zot3.

and utility covers so they are flush with the pavement.

r_

Page 26


Implementation

Parking ReductionDescription Guidance

Bike lanes can replace one or more on-street parking lanes Vehicle lane width:

on streets where excess parking exists and/ or the impor-

Parking lane width depends on project. No travel laneLance of bike lanes outweighs parking needs. For example,

narrowing may be required depending on the widthparking may be needed on only one side of a street.Eliminating or reducing on- street parking also improves of the parking lanes.sight distance for bicyclists in bike lanes and for motorists Bicycle lane width:on approaching side streets and driveways.

Guidance on bicycle lanes applies to this treatment•

tilt, •• - :'a ;. Before

1,- 04. ` o

2EParking/ Travel

0 1 _—_ tiL

mow'° ;e

J/ 1 A p

Mi 4) 1L.-• •--""

i F R "

s o 0'ob ° rve u• ,

After fu . q gc.c.,. ¢

8Park(ng 6' Bike 10Travel 10' Travel 6' Bikeo _ t

J _liel

Ir4:tr;1 .

1 I /lt-

Discussion

Removing or reducing on- street parking to install bike lanes requires comprehensive outreach to the affected businessesand residents. Prior to reallocating on-street parking for other uses, a parking study should be performed to gaugedemand and to evaluate impacts to people with disabilities.

Additional References and Guidelines Materials and Maintenance

AASHID. Guide for the Development of&'cycle hdBria. 2012. Repair rough or uneven pavement surface. Use bicycleAASHTQA Policy on Geometric Design ofHighways and Streets. 2004.

compatible drainage grates. Raise or lower existing gratesand utility covers so they are flush with the pavement

Page 27


Implementation

Lane Reconfiguration

Description Guidance

The removal of a single travel lane will generally provide Vehicle lane width:

sufficient space for bike lanes on both sides of a street.

Streets with excess vehicle capacity provide opportunities • Width depends on project No narrowing may be

for bike lane retrofit projects. needed if a lane is removed.

Bicycle lane width:

Guidance on bicycle lanes applies to this treatment.

f auscc

v' 7 b Before

e

lfkt " 2rr'

F•

beya i

1 1 12 Travelr

I 1• Travel1

yF

oP

i.

brikb.1 '

I

1 ri

it'.acgthiliit1$•

ilasitiar

s'v'F£' i*,-,,l,,,,;,,,,,1/4".:.,.

sue , A er

dp

t'. tlp . 1an. 10 12' yI . pA ir

aayF66ike

1Travel1

10- 12' TurnI

d irrrr

r

r- 1e2 i.. ieT Rft}y

r' r ,« 1''''

t';'" a

r. ht A•

J, .- i .;

Discussion -

Depending on a street' s existing configuration, traffic operations, user needs and safety concerns, various lane reductionconfigurations may apply. For instance, a four- lane street( with two travel lanes In each direction) could be modified toprovide one travel lane in each direction, a center turn lane, and bike lanes. Prior to implementing this measure, a trafficanalysis should identify potential impacts.

Additional References and Guidelines Materials and MaintenanceAASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle FodlRies. 2012. Repair rough or uneven pavement surface. Use bicycleFHWA. Evaluation ofLane Reduction' Road Diet' Measures on Gashes. compatible drainage grates. Raise or lower existing gratesPublication Number: FHWA- HRT- 10-053. 2010.

L NACTO. Urban street Design Guide. 2013.and utility covers so they are flush with the pavement. i

Page 28


Implementation

Roadway WideningDescription Guidance

Bike lanes can be accommodated on streets with excess Guidance on bicycle lanes applies to this treatment.

right-of-way through shoulder widening. Althoughroadway widening incurs higher expenses compared with

4 foot minimum width when no curb and gutter is

re-striping projects, bike lanes can be added to streetsPresent.

currently lacking curbs, gutters.and sidewalks without the • 6 foot width preferred.high costs of major Infrastructure reconstruction.

o 'cam,q : o,; Before

a,

9,, - 4 foot

IA - minimum After

a real

I

f CL,Nctin

sk.

j

Discussion

Roadway widening is most appropriate on roads lacking curbs, gutters and sidewalks.

If it is not possible to meet minimum bicycle lane dimensions, a reduced width paved shoulder can still improve condi-

tions for bicydists on constrained roadways. In these situations, a minimum of 3 feet of operating space should beprovided.

Additional References and Guidelines Materials and Maintenance

AA9RQ Guide for the Development of Bicycle Fod& fa 2012. The extended bicycle area should not contain any roughjoints where bicyclists ride. Saw or grind a clean cut at

1the edge of travel lane, or feather with a fine mix in a

non- ridable area of the roadway.

Page 29


Implementation

3. 2 PRIORITIZATION PROCESS

The recommendations in this Plan include dozens of individual projects that together

make up the overall proposed bicycle network. These projects will be developed

incrementally over the coming years. Some will be developed based on locallydetermined priorities. while others will be built as opportunities arise ( such as when

funding or right-of-way becomes available. or when new development facilitatesconstruction). While the partners of this Plan should certainly take advantage of

implementation opportunities as they arise, there also needs to be a plan in place forproactively developing the network in a logical and strategic manner. This sectionoutlines a set of prioritized projects for that purpose. These should be pursued for

development as part of a coordinated effort among the many stakeholders included inthis planning process.

3. 3 f CONSIDERATIONS FOR PRIORITIZATION l'

During the planning process, several factors or criteria were considered in determiningrelative priorities for implementation of individual routes. Those criteria included:community support; safety and comfort; access, multi-modal connections. gap closures:

suitability (ease of implementation): and Low Stress Facility (will this be super easy for

my kids and grandmother to ride?). Each factor was ranked for each route. The

priorities as shown on the prioritization map are the result of this effort.

The first step in implementation will be to identify all the parties involved. theirresponsibilities, and designate a champion to monitor the process. This champion will

coordinate with stakeholders to maintain momentum for implementation and record

challenges and barriers to implementation and work with local and regional partners to

focus on engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation. Eachyear. the priorities of this Network Plan should be evaluated to adjust implementation

time frames and continue to understand how' key players can work together to improvebicycle safety and comfort for residents and visitors of Salisbury. MD.

Page 30

rI . C

t F a1`r.- s`'

Y i j1

N. `\ t,

ili ,O F

JJ

1

yg+ ` 1 s

c---_____<,4. '..„ ‘ 11 17,,._ .

rn• - i

C-- „

tr_ trn of'' ''''''.., .`,

p its{ r ! \ i a-

y l

11n l-- 1h S h' 1

ftLk*rcea? ,7;, t0 c_

5tr; s ic

i

l

J7: 0\Jf

rte`I ' S rf.

13f•L- Imo' ? i : ` i' // ^`` F t; , ac,

s

124,7---n-

1 i 1

N', A.-...-- l i \ f

r, r

0lt. /' `1

v

l i

7 l C

71"--;----, ; NO

t' ":\\\ 1/1.% — 1 \` i? t";"- tt

3

v • •v,.......,., .C.,- ...%.%\

BIKE ROUTE PROPOSED NETWORK BACKGROUND

PRIORITIZATION 0 gyp°"

2017 Salisbury Bicycle Network mom

m

Do— 4 OW W. 0 • wmo. a...•• dYVM1U'

CIrl IYLES tMn.

0 06 12 Cry

Tmst yvwmtll

o a...

Q(-_\--. , I

astw—ge'

arr:f

igqli'

0

2\tt, 7r • •

y41....,.,

w

0 I

t`, ..

1F

4

y.

0I'

f

ifrn --S .,----,-- i i7; 4 1 -.!

6Q1 ` ;

pi s t•.`.

i if_

1 '

1 I

171.Y J ym I 0's

i

pt ,,,,„, , 6 r -

Tom..+"':

4: h ' fi C G

Wi N r> 7

7 7 ! :^'

7 .. if Imo e'\

cr

V.p1 i i' 4. 7 , . m" a

yi _ 1 ter'

3'

v\d `V 1_ //

ffir,.. 7 " a .... ,

9 tb+. is tiw I

i g ` camfi4 F. -.

T

Hiq

p


PRIORITIZATION p - E.. u„ at,. F, d..

2017 Salisbury Bicycle Network R

m........,

m.......,-

v.........

r—i_n_i-- i MILES P to Ps*.

0 02 04 M way

iI l

I

Ii 1,I_

In L

F-

1l. M t 11 i 1 I

n

I1 l /a i is_ ) r l

I 1 7

1 i

1

r Y' 1 t

r j.-, It, Y 1„ ,

N

0; 1 i 1.t

1ff \/

1

1...

1

1 1z i ` 1` Li ii

r,--,.

s it r r Y • f

1

q i i l1 i1 • I (

1L 1

1,- -- J —1r

4 i •• `\ 3" 1.r ` t L % ' d l

eji \\:`,;:-.----c\,, ., ke

I ' 013

1 1

a E

I1

cgg '.1_ ®

f.; . / t

ii 11 1 —


PRIORITIZATION 0

2017 Salisbury Bicycle Network mm

pie..

new . v—wn.. C -

1^ 1_ 1- 1_ 1-- 1utES ` r,,. O Pl..a 02 04 4 p ...

O au'.

r 0 sfSOS r

t

1 1Y ti

4 -a.' d'

ice`," .......:.

eN, rC 1 .1 a Ala

s",...

i r1-

i — l .. 7f:

f-= I _- it i; : fi_

ri ft

IfM.

a___a'

I otr

LV

fie » y e / E.3

I_._.___

d /

J . . Y-- ld

u

JJtr. .

li

4,5:11.--\ t7n, \ '‘, ii".., ,' i A4 I i

a

tF' 1 /s

c lVtyv

P s

tr:

hc

4

5

f15 , ‘,....,' ...".\\. 1

t 1V ?"'


PRIORITIZATION F. rlry

2017 Salisbury Bicycle Network u., R.„

wa Roesao.,,.°p......, .....,. a.,...w,,...FSR.

a .

CIparkji

0 02 00 MPto lra pai. zvll

4ICM mw=

y , a i 1 C`-

S t,

V

ma y'

F;

l WW1J/ li.. 7

y ' _r

f `moo • " J ! ', moo.

1 }1; y j J

0 Js. /i o I2

Cf r.

s

1_ t / N•.

r:A.._.

5 ,

jI, fL

tsNC.....„,

Fi r s f

JJ 7 ! r J]

r r,

77- „, "..- frF,


PRIORITIZATION Fmge"° Fa"

2017 Salisbury Bicycle Network m.Rama

per

3—..asa,C..+.mon. r.om... we Mt

innrTh P O n°

O mom+


Implementation

3. 4^ COST ESTIMATES ;

Cost estimates were developed for each route on the Bicycle Network Plan. The

estimates are shown on the matrix, Table 3- 1. The estimates were based on the

following:

o Striping and pavement markings: $ 1. 00 per LFo Signage: $ 40 per SF ( includes post)

o New asphalt paving: $ 100 per tono Kiosks: $ 20,000 each

Page 36

TABLE 3- 1

BICYCLE NETWORK PLAN

INDIVIDUAL ROUTE ANALYSISs-to rf arm 1m Wltmk I f1M4KI 14, 1741.18 t!' ba Is 1.Ij 1: 75,111E11, 271

75-..i 51zwater eaT15 1. 1321 RazSel_ Bike Lane 356681 1,000 1

Fitzwater Persons Man Proposed Bice lane 445462 51. 003 1

SQUnt9FBCow by North Park

G11'l1 Proposed Sharrow 118303 1200 1

Fitzwater Parsons Man Proposed Bike Lane 11082 - .$ 1500 ._ __ 1

ne/ Popax rtLocust/ Park Heights Rail Trail S Park Proposed Sllaokr 936323 1.503 1Vi

FIOS// ater Parsons Man Proposed Bike Lane 532241 52.600 1

Vne/ Poplar I Local/ Park Nestle Rail Trail S. Park Proposed Bike Lane 111825 2.000 1

Man/ Mill Drvtion Canton Proposed Bike Lane 430431 2000 1

Eastern Shore ere Ohttias College Proposed Multi-Use Shared Path 352.856 52.500 1

Vre/ Poplar I Want/ Park Heights Rail Trail S Para Proposed Sharrow 168024 12.500 1

Main/ Mill Division Casten Proposed Bike Lane 483.594 2300 1

Satnlaker At the Curve by North Pak dien P.Proposed Bike Boulevard 520281 4000 1

Beaglin Park Glen South Pak[ free Proposed MdU-the Shared Path 303126 5.000 1 •

Satmaker Briarcliff North Park drive Propose] Bike Lane 196042 16000 I

Man/ Me Division Cartel Proposed BlieLane 136233 5650) 5

Man Drva:ei 13 Proposed Bike lane 1515 52.500 I

College Riversideside Ca PJcpoAdBike Lane 24965 1,500 I

Waverly South Carol] Proposed Bike Lane 319142 59000 1

lItt the Curve by North PakSdVIak9Drivel

Glon Proposed Bike lane 292005 59000 I

South Riveryce Orison Proposed Bike Lane 49018 31400 1

Beagl.Eak ObOcealCty _ Mt l lemon emposed_ Multi: Use Shared.( ads 149y49 45000 1

Beaplin Park Mt Henan Glen Proposed Multi-Use Shared Path 249323 164000 1

Glen Schlmsake Lag Proposed Multi-Use Shared Path 421022 11500 1

College Camden Snwodl Ropuss.] Multi-Use Sheen Path 134964 32000 1

Along Rail Line Carroll

tC (Continue gloge lCOueaia entity rail

Proposed Trail 258296 250.000 1

priority 1 Subtotal 12642110

Division Marti RT 13 Proposed Bike Lane 162322 1. 500 2

Lincoln limbo Trail Proposed Sharrow 313606 31. 500_ 2

Long School Entrance Main Proposed Bike Lane 63 2. 114 3500School

Dmstn Man RT13 Proposed Eke Lane 33382 53300 2

Med6d41 Vile lthxa4p Pjopmed_ MU:tiUse.SharedpaU 162235 17,500 2_

long I Hillside North Park Drive SC11301 entrance Proposed Bike Lane 148239 32.500 2

Dry60OjC1itolkOn EONn LeaeraSloe 0rj'R Mu:tiUse Sltaed.Path 2588.12 11Q00 2.

Orvea' Man RI 13 Proposed Bike Lane 151963 51800 2

13 Mack tad Proposed Multi-Use Shared Path 10609 334000 2

DrSion or Through Campus College Bateman Proposed Mull)-Use Shared Path 152621 545000 2

Isabella Rt13 Mill Proposed Multiuse Shared Path 184584 550.000 2

Priority 2 Subtotal 118.000

Pemberton Nanticoke Pak Entrance Proposed Bike Lane 39331 11900 3

Man 13 50 Proposed Buffered Bike Lane 501329 200 3

Main 13 50 Proposed Steered Bike Lana 541145 12503 3

Carroll Riverside 13 Proposed Multi- Use Sled Path 202041 35.000 3Shared

Isabella Mill Ri50 Proposed Bike Lane 233.826 3500 3

Pnenurst I Ma( ielo Rnersae College Proposed Bike Boulevard 691. 392 5.000 3

Carroll River Proposed13 Proped Multi-Use Shared Path 230295 6000 3

Rnenurst/ Mayfield Rverside Collate Proposed Bike Boulevard 933639 36000 3

Doom:Cd Cater, Trail Fyoposed_ Bike Lang 2102.32 54503_

Hammond Church MioCleneck Proposed Multi- Use Shared Path 3187.19 17.003 3

Onley S DiMSIon Er] Proposed Bike Lane 339122 10000 3

Moleneck Hammond Boaolin Park Proposed Multi- Use Shared Path 631015 S1Q000 3

wGaily BeallkaPark Raf( Rail Roposod_& ke Lane 159145 10.0003

Isabella Mill Rt50 Proposed Brae Lane 398892 5120 30

Main 13 5D Proposed Bike Lane 350842 516.000 3

x•Ki.rtne-! OM Tn k75tihil leilli: lS.1 trZclitia fOlg.01.1111rfil KOMBR 5241

Carroll Riverside 13 Proposed Mull Use Shared Path 693022 18000 3

lake Street Main Keene Proposed Bike Lane 612506 19000 3

Carroll Riverside 13 Proposed Multi- Use Shared Path 644 445 20.000 3

Carroll Riverside 13 Proposed' Multi Use Shared Path 940028 25000 ' 3 '

trail 13 Hampshire Proposed Trail 934 643 25,000 3

Church/ Old Ocean City 13 Guilford Proposed Buffered Bike Lane 513894 528000 3

Pemberton Nanticoke Park Entrance Proposed Bike Cane 112546 532000 3

Troll 13+ - _..-. - Hampshire Proposed" Trail 415913 5126000, a 3 :..

Priority 3 Subtotal 396500

EYoe Poplar Snow Hill Proposed Sharrow 105273 1, 500 4 ..

Main 50 Church Proposed Buffered Bike Lane 351873 2500 4

Glen E Main Lone Propoxd Sharrow a 139466

Main 50 Church Proposed Buttered Bike Lane 313843 4000 4

Dickerson Oliphant Dagsloro Proposed Bike Lane .. 144561' 54.500 4

Carroll 13 Snow Hill Proposed Bike Lime 149596 85000 4

Jasmine Naylor Mill r NcrthpointC •_ Proposed Bike Lane 698026 56000 4

Snow Hill Carroll SSChuraker Proposed Bike Lane 1731. 65 6000 4•

Johnson Snowhill . - Kestrel Way Proposed Bike Lane 2236.86 , , $ 6,6110 4

Dickerson/ Northpeinte Jasmine Oliphant Proposed Bike Lane 24291 53,500 4

Main Isabella Fitzwater erOpesed_ Bik0 Lane 300462 - $ 8500 4 -

Jasmine Naylor Mill Northpdinte Proposed Bike Lane 105476 10000 4

Main 50 Church _ Proposed Buffered Bike Lane. 2060 53 01200 4

S Schumaker Snow Hill Beaglin Park Proposed Bike Lane 479852 15000 4

Naylor Mill Zion Rt 13 Proposed Bike Lane 627393 - $ 19000 4

Snowhill Lincoln Gail Proposed Multi- Use Shared Path 58969 520000 4

Snowhill Lincoln' e - • ! rail Proposed_ Mu IiiUse Shared Path 111664. 30.000 - • 4

Northoate Hampshire Naylor Mill Proposed Multi- Use Shared Path 185694 50000 4

Oniey,Trail Onley Snowhill - Proposed frail 228965 65000 4

S Schumaket_ Beaulin Johnson Proposed Multi- Use Shared Path 505318 150000 4

Priority 4 Subtotal 426,100

Civic Old Ocean City Mount Herman Proposed Sharrow 360166 1, 000 5

Bateman Division Trail Proposod. Bi hes May Use Full 1431, 7

Beaglin Pars South Park Drive/Vine Snow Hill Proposed Multiuse Shared Path 325958 55.000 5

Moss Hill Old Ocean Coy ; Middleneck Proposed Sharrow . 24350.94 55000 5

Lincoln Division Snowfall Proposed Sharrow 462313 53.500 5

50 Ward y a. > E Main Proposed_ Bike Lane " - • 2138,97 — $ 6,500 . _ 5. '

50 Main 13 Proposed Bike Lime 130252 35.000 5

Priority 5 Subtotal 64,000

Cedar Division Cameen Proposed Bike Lane 941661 500 Not Prioritized

Cedar Shopping Center - 13 Wound the corner;up to Kay1._ Proposed_ Biks Lane • . 421,169 1,500_, NotPrioritized,_Ceder Shopping Center 13( Around the corner up to Kiwi Proposed Bike Lana 679 397 3000 Not Priorlttzed

Cedar Division. Camden proposed Bike Lane 134855 3,500 Not Priedtized

Division Main Cedar Proposed Bike Lane 218893 6000 Not Prio-itizeo

Cedar - Division, Camden y Proposed_ Bike Lane 234252 54800 Not PrioritizedCamden Main Cobblers Proposed Bike Lane 25393 53000 Not Prioritized

Shads point/ Main Holly Hill Camden prolosed_ Bike Lane 388006 57,500 NOIPnoritizedLNorthwood 13 Naylor Mill Proposed Sharrow 994916 8.000 Not Prioritized

Shads Point/ Main - Holly Hill ' ' Camden Proposed... Bike Lane 423786 - $ 12500 Not Prioritized_Division Colburn Mill/ Division Cedar/ traffic circle Proposed Bike Lane 495301 515.000 Not Pria'itized

COuiblwn Mill' Division Union Church Proposed Bikes May Use Full Lane 230635 S20000 Not Prioritized •

Unprlorltlzed Subtotal 91,100

Wesley Pine Blue , Dogwood - Proposed;_ Multi; Us Shared Path 983.872 1, 000 Outside Limits_

Shads Point Riverside Holly Hill Proposed Bikes May Use Full Lane 12533B 1500 Outside Limits

Hinman Johnson• Schumaker Proposed_ Bikes May. de Full Lane 1833,92 1, 600 Outsideumits_

Elleqeod' Marine! Plantation Fitzwater Pemberton Proposed Bikes May Use Full Lane 139979 2,500 Outside Limits

Colburn Mill Union Church' SE Proposed_ Bikes MayUse Full Lane 292036- 2.500 Outside Limits_ .

Owens Branch 50 Trail Proposed Connection 342058 82.800 Outside LimitsUnion Church Colburn Mil I 5 PrOpOsed_ Bikes May UseFull Lane 4163 53000_, OOtsideLmits_

Lon Beaglin Park Naylor Mill Proposed Bike Lane 152834 4. 500 Outside limits

Ellepood/ Marine/ Plantation_ Fitzwater ' Pemberton _ - Pr000sed:_ MultiUso Shared Path 225468 S5.0000utside OmitsHoneysuckle 13 Division Proposed Bike Boule are 2328.24 5000 Outside Limits

OldOcean City Guilford Beaglneark Proposed_ Bike Lane 455995 - 55,000 Outside Limits_Church Hill S Park SSchumaker Proposed Bike Lane 136503 5, 000 Outside LimitsSchumaker Hinman Briarcliff Proposed,_ Bikes May Use Full Lane - 512261 55,00 __ Outside Limits_

Jersey Re Naylor Mill Connelly Milt Proposed Bikes May Use Full Lane 553333 5,000 Outside Limits

Advenlin - Jersey N, West Proposed.. Bike Lane - 25165 56000_ Outslde Limits,_

Gordy Beagkn Park Rail trail Proposed Bike Lane 254583 53.500 Outside Limits

Hamshire Goddard Pkwy ' Northoate proposed_ Bike Lane 311) 45 7, 500_ Outslde Limits_

Division Bateman Division transition to Coul burn Mill Proposed Sharrow 50993 8500 Outside Limits

Gordy Beaglin Park ' Rail trail Proposed Bike Lane 28201 S8.500 Outside Limits

Lion Beaglin Park Naylor Mill Proposed Bikes May Use Full Lane 10213.1 8.500 Outside Limits

Riverside Drive Loblolly - Sharps Point Proposed_ Bikes May, Use full Lane - 10293.3 - $ 5500_, Outside LimitsQueen N W t 50 Poposed Bike Lane 3038 19 58600 Out dr.Limits

llifri7 lat'm 1171 F`1Slhl IFlauls"ill L : era+ Om..A1 787X1 , l Py7:a5ii3

BC! Y'eEHJKll1— Jasel 9113 tlm.l91kLSMayUse FlitLax 1225575 f14000_ Odt+l4?Umns_Nutters Gass Johnson Caulbaum Mill Proposed Bikes May Use Full Lane 119643 S10.000 Outside Limes

Pine BNB 13 RlyarYde Orbe tru444.. 4Bike Lane 54619 S15.000_ OutSiaajm[s_

Was Naylor Mill AdvennA Probasco Bike Lane 5691.85 18.000 OUtsbe limits

Canldeg Cobden Colege Bike In 685163 f20,000_ Outvbe0mtsWas Adventist Isabella Proposed Bike Lane 713601 520.000 Outside Limits

J01XI5o41 Keslal.Way arross lxidpeatl3 and beyad Rvylun. 1_& KC. Lane 1606.61 S22.000Outsb imts_bRrsor. Kestral Way across bridge at 13 and beyond PrOpOSed Bikes May Use Full Lane 299925 52511X1 Outside Limes

95eyRd Keene Na51arM41.... Lu j l_Blke Lane 115851 534000_ Out elimin_

50 Isabella Naylor Ma Probasco Bike Lane 101549 530000 Outside Limits

Beagkn Park Gordy Zips Proposed MultI-Use Shared Path 186461 S50.1200 Outside Limn

Blamed/ Marne/ Ranatvn Fiavvater PernbertOn Propovxl trail 159619 550.000 Outside Limes

Along Rail Lbe Caul40N

ICdr:taue along entire asPhi Trail 254066 SI0000 Outside times

Naylor Mill Rt 13 Fail Trail Proposed Multi-Use Shared Path 250528 515.000 Outside Limits

RaiLTJai1 50 NayloIXMil Propaad_ Trail 354808 sicopoo Outside limn

iral lake Rail Trail Proposed trail 461492 3125000 Outside Limits

RaalliyLr 50 NaylO! M41 Browsed_ Jlail 72619 s200,0op_ Ouuide llmts,_

Lornarc Port Run Trail Sae path Naylor MIT Propose Trail 109154 5300.000 Outside Limn

Ellen od/ Maine/ Ralatim Ftrwater Pemberton Proposed Trail 12491. 1 5350000 Outadetimis

Outside City Limits Subtotal 51. 632.900

Ree{vde term dente¢ - - . loblolly Eroposed_ Blkes May,Uw Fug lax 111455 5500_ EnstigWeal Caoll Man Esstvhg

adeagBikes May Use Full

997.199 51. 003 Exsag

OiwKbn Mash Camden Ervtng Bike Lane 182982 1500 Existing

North Park Ma'In Beagle) Park Existng Bike Boulevard 18936 55000 Exrstu: qNrthPark Nall Beaglippark Existing.. Bike Boulevard 34 243 3]. 500Existing_Nohh Park Man Beaglm Park Enable Wye Boulevard 37532 58000 Emend5ath.ParELSVMtlB Mall Beadlin.Parb Exisbx_ Elbxe Boulevard _ 829521 51.2.000 ExistingBmal-. Park Old Ocean City t* l Peas Exsaq Exsetlno Side Path 277515 515000 tasting3 Cedar Ka/ ExiStinp Exrstix Side Path 349169 95 COO Erist330

Existing Subtotal 5205500


Implementation

3. 5 FUNDING SOURCES 4

Federal funding from the Unites States Department of Transportation is typicallydirected through the State Highway Administration to local governments either in the

form of grants or loans. Some Federal programs require matching or shared funds from -

the local government entity.

Maryland offers a wide variety of federal and state funded programs to help plan, design.and build projects throughout the state. The information below outlines key grantcriteria and requirements as well as helpful information for Salisbury. Contact and onlineinformation is listed for each program.

PRIMARY GRANTS

These federal and state grants are the primary funding sources for bicycle andpedestrian projects. State staff can help local communities identify ways to combine the

grants to successfully implement projects. All grant funding is provided on areimbursement basis.

Transportation Alternatives Program (SHA): The program provides funding for projectsthat enhance the cultural. aesthetic. historic. and environmental aspects of the

intermodal transportation system.

Eligible Grantees: Eligible Bike/Pedestrian Projects:

o Metropolitan Planning o Planning and Design of Bike/Organizations( select projects for Pedestrian Facilities and Safe Routes

50% of available funding) with for Non- Drivers ($25,000 maximum)

populations of 200,000 or o Construction of Bike/ Pedestrian

greater Facilities

o Local/ County Jurisdictions o Construction of Safe Routes for Non-

o Transit Agencies Drivers

o Federal Public Land Agencies o Conversion of Abandoned Rail to

o Local/ County School Districts Bike/

o Pedestrian Trails

Requirements:

o Funding Source: Federal. All TAP projects must comply with ADA. NEPA, Davis-

Bacon wage rates, Buy America, -and other applicable state and federalregulations.

Page 40


Implementation

o Local match: 20 percent of total eligible project costs as a cash match. A TAP

grant can cover up to 80 percent of the construction costs. Prior project work.

right-of-way acquisition and in- kind services may not be counted toward the 20percent match requirement

o All TAP projects must meet the following criteria:

Open to the public and benefit all Marylanders. not a specific group orindividual.

Serve a transportation purpose. connecting two destinations ( TAPprojects cannot be solely recreational in purpose. but may be phased aslong as each phase continues to serve transportation destinations.)

Unrelated to planned or existing highway projects. routine highwayimprovements, or required mitigation for a planned or existing highwayproject. TAP projects may be enhancements to larger federal- aid

highway projects.

Located on publicly-owned right-of-way or on right-of-way encumbered

with a permanent easement held by a state agency or the governmentagency sponsoring or co-sponsoring the project

Program Contact:

o Christy Bernal. SHA Assistant Transportation Alternative Program Liaison.410- 545- 5675. [email protected]

o http://www.sha.maryland.gov/Index.aspx?PagelD=144

Maryland Bikeways Program ( MDOT): The program supports projects that maximize

bicycle access and fill missing links in the state's bicycle system. focusing on connectingshared- use paths and roads and enhancing last- mile connections to work. school.

shopping and transit.


o State Agencies o Feasibility Assessments. Design&o Metropolitan Planning Engineering

Organizations o Construction of Shared Use Paths.

Local/ County Jurisdictions Cycletracks and Bicycle Lanes

o Transit Agencies o Shared Lane and other pavement

o Federal Public Land Agencies markings

o Bicycle Route Signage and

Page 41


Implementation

Wayfinding

o Bicycle Capital Equipment( e.g.

parking)

o Other Minor Retrofits to Support

Bicycle Routes

o Education Materials to Support

Bicycle Projects

Requirements:

o Funding Source: State

o Local Match: Zero percent for Priority Minor Retrofit projects. 20 percent for otherPriority Projects, 50 percent for non-priority projects. Match may include cash orin- kind services contributing to the project, including expenditures up to 24months prior to a Bikeways project award.

o All Bikeways Projects must meet at least one of the following criteria:

Located substantially within a Priority Funding Area, within 3 miles of arail transit station or major bus transit hub;

Provide or enhance bicycle access along any gap identified in theStatewide Trails Plan;

Identified as a transportation priority in the County's most recent annualpriority letter submitted to MDOT.

o Priority Projects are defined as any of the following:

Enhance bicycle access within 3 miles of a rail transit station

Provide or enhance bicycle access along a missing link identified in theStatewide Trails Plan

Enhance bicycle circulation within or access to a Sustainable Community.Designated Maryland Main Street. census tract at or below 60% of area

median income, major university, central business district. or importanttourist or heritage attraction.

Contact:

o MDOT Office of Planning and Capital Programming. 410- [email protected]

o http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/newMDOT/Planning/ Bike/ Bikeways.html

Page 42


Implementation

Recreational Trails Program (SHA): A federally-funded program assisting developmentand maintenance of smaller scale motorized and non-motorized trail. trailhead and

restoration projects. Examples of trail uses include hiking, bicycling, in- line skating.equestrian use. canoeing. kayaking. cross-country skiing, snowmobiling. off-road

motorcycling. all- terrain vehicle riding. four-wheel driving, or using other off-roadmotorized vehicles. Recreational Trails is now a part of the larger Transportation

Alternatives Program due to the latest federal transportation law. MAP-21. but has

retained dedicated funding.


o State Agencies (DNR projects o Construction of New Trails

received 50% of funding o Maintenance and Restoration of

o Local/ County Jurisdictions Existing Trailso Private Groups/ Individuals o Development/Rehabilitation of

with government agency co- Trailside Facilities and Linkages

sponsor) o Purchase/ Lease of Trail Construction

Equipment

o Trail/ Corridor Easement and PropertyAcquisition

o Interpretive/ Educational Programs.

Signage and Maps Related to

Recreational Trails Use

Requirements:

o Funding Source: Federal. Grant awards cannot exceed $ 40,000 for newconstruction and $ 30.000 for other projects.

o Local match: 20 percent of total project cost as a cash match.

o Recreational Trails projects with the following criteria are preferred:

Connect communities with natural/ cultural areas or tourism areas ( ie.

Scenic Byways. Heritage Areas. Canal Towns. etc.)

Broad- based community support

Complete a missing link in the State Trails Plan

Link or complete existing trails

Mitigate trail impacts on the natural environment

Page 43


Implementation

Construction or maintenance accomplished with youth conservation

corps or service groups

Loop trails that do not connect to a broader network and sidewalk

projects are not generally awarded funds.

Contact:

o Terry Maxwell. SHA Landscape Architecture, 410- 545-8637,tmaxwell @sha.state.md.us

o http://www.sha. maryland.gov/Index.aspx?Pageld=98

Safe Routes to Schools ( SHA): A program providing funding for education andinfrastructure improvements in the vicinity of state-funded K- 8 institutions that promote

students walking and cycling to school. Safe Routes to School projects must berequested through the larger Transportation Alternatives Program due to the latest

federal transportation law. MAP-21.


o Local/ County Jurisdictions o Construction of New Trails

o Local/ County School District o Bike/ Pedestrian safety classes forstudents

o Traffic education and enforcement

near schools

o Public awareness campaigns for

press and community leaderso Sidewalk Improvements (within 1. 5

miles of school)

o Traffic calming and speed reductionimprovements

o Bike/ Pedestrian CrossingImprovements

o On- and Off-Street Bike/ Pedestrian

Improvements

o Bicycle Parkingo Traffic diversion, education and

enforcement

Page 44


Implementation

Requirements:

o Funding Source: Federal ( part of Transportation Alternatives)

o Local match: 20 percent of total project cost as a cash match

o Safe Routes to School projects with the following criteria are preferred:

The project and its outcomes are viable

Addresses an infrastructure or programmatic gap

Contact:

o Jessica Shearer. SHA Transportation Alternatives Program Manager. 410- 545- 5653.

[email protected]

o http://www.roads.maryland.gov/ Index.aspx?PageID=735

Maryland Highway Safety Office Grant (MVA): This grant aims to reduce the number of

motor vehicle-related crashes, deaths. and injuries on Maryland highways. The State' s

Strategic Highway Safety Plan is a data-driven plan that identifies the top safety

priorities that are eligible for funding. As of 2014. pedestrian safety is a top safety priority.


o State Agencies o Pedestrian Safety Projects Consistento Local/ County Jurisdictions with SHSP Strategies (see below)

o Law Enforcement Agencies

o Non- Profit Organizations

o Higher Education Institutions

Requirements:

o Funding Source: Federal ( Highway Safety Improvement Program funds)

o Local match: 20 percent of total project cost as a cash match.

o Projects must match one of the top safety priorities and implement thestrategies identified in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan:

Develop model processes to identify and prioritize high- incidentlocations and system-wide pedestrian safety issues:

Page 45


Implementation

Develop and evaluate model approaches to engineering builtenvironments that accommodate safe pedestrian travel:

Develop and evaluate model approaches to improving pedestrian andmotorist awareness and behavior, including education and enforcementefforts; and

Create partnerships among state, regional, and local stakeholders to

develop action plans that address high- priority locations and system wideissues using comprehensive approaches to pedestrian safety.

Contact:

o MHSO Regional Traffic Safety Program contacts can be found ath ttp://m hso.mva.ma ryla nd.gov/SafetyProg ra ms/ p rog ra m_ reg Iona l_ traffic_prog ram.htm

STATE FUNDING PROGRAMS

These are State Highway Administration dedicated funding programs that support

bicycle and pedestrian improvements on state roads. SHA internally identifies, designsand constructs many of the projects. Local communities can identify and requestprojects for SHA evaluation.

ADA Retrofit (SHA Fund 33): A fund to upgrade existing sidewalks. curb ramps,intersections and driveway entrances along state roadways to be compliant with theAmericans with Disabilities Act( ADA).

Requirements:

o Fund 33' s purpose is to retrofit existing, non-compliant sidewalks up to the latestADA standards.

o Projects are not limited to Priority Funding Areas.

Contact:

o John Gover. SHA Innovative Contracting, 410- 545-8766. [email protected]

Page 46


Implementation

Sidewalk Retrofit (SHA Fund 79): A fund to construct missing sidewalk segments alongState roadways to fill gaps within the pedestrian network. The missing segment must be

located in an Urban Area (as defined by the Census). Local matching fund contributionsmay be reduced or eliminated for projects located in Designated Sustainable

Communities, in a Priority Funding Area. or where SHA determines that there is asubstantial public safety risk or significant impediment to pedestrian access.

Requirements:

o Local jurisdiction must provide public notice of the sidewalk project and citizens

an opportunity to provide input help secure right-of-way. easements, or right-of-entry agreements: and agree to maintain or repair the sidewalks aftercompletion.

o The cost to construct or reconstruct a sidewalk shall be shared equally betweenthe State and local government except as provided below. If a sidewalk is

located in a ' Sustainable Community per Housing and CommunityDevelopment Article §§6-301 and 6-305. construction may be funded entirely bythe state.

If a sidewalk is located in a Priority Funding Area and SHA determines

that a substantial public safety risk or significant impediment to

pedestrian access exists and the adjoining roadway is under neitherconstruction nor reconstruction, sidewalk construction shall be identified

as a system preservation project and may be funded 100 percent by thestate.

If a sidewalk is located in a Priority Funding Area and requested by thelocal government the construction costs may be split between the state75 percent) and local jurisdiction (25 percent).

Contact:

o Sanjay Kumar. SHA Highway Design. 410- 545-8826, [email protected]

Community Safety and Enhancement Program ( SHA Fund 84): A fund for highwayreconstruction and improvements along SHA roadways within urban centers thatpromote safety and economic development. Projects are generally requested by localjurisdictions in the annual transportation priority letter sent to MDOT.

Page 47


Implementation

Requirements:

o Local jurisdiction must agree to maintain sidewalks and other improvements after

completion.

o Project limits must be located within a Priority Funding Area.

Contact:

o Teri Soos, SHA Community Design. 410- 545-8845, [email protected]

Bicycle Retrofit (SHA Fund 88): This is a fund to provide bicycle improvements alongstate roadways.

Requirements:

o Local jurisdiction must provide public opportunity to provide input and must helpsecure right-of-way. easements, or right-of-entry agreements.

o In cases of off-road improvements, such as a parallel or shared- use path. the local

jurisdiction must agree to maintain improvements after completion.

o The parallel/ shared-use path must be within 100 feet of a SHA roadway.

o If a shared- use path requested by a local jurisdiction is within a Priority FundingArea, the cost to construct shall be shared between the state (75 percent) and local

government (25 percent).

o If SHA determines that a substantial public safety risk or significant impediment topedestrian access exists and the adjacent roadway is not under concurrent

construction or reconstruction, SHA may opt to fund 100 percent of theconstruction, provided funding is available.

o If a shared- use path requested by a local jurisdiction is not within a Priority FundingArea. the construction cost shall be shared between the state (50 percent) and local

government( 50 percent).

Contact:

o Luis Gonzalez. SHA Innovative Contracting, 410- 545- 8826. [email protected]

Page 48


Implementation

ADDITIONAL STATE GRANT OPPORTUNITIES

Community Legacy Program ( DHCD): The program provides local governments and

community development organizations with funding for essential projects aimed atstrengthening communities through activities such as business retention and attraction,

encouraging homeownership and commercial revitalization. Projects must be located

within an approved Sustainable Community to be eligible for funding. Bicycle andpedestrian opportunities include streetscape improvements and as part of mixed-use

developments.

Contact:

o Kevin Baynes. DHCD Community Programs. 410- 209- 5823. [email protected]

Program Open Space ( DNR): The program consists of two components, a local grant

component often called Localside PO5 and a component that funds acquisition and

recreation facility development by the State. The localside component provides financial

and technical assistance to local subdivisions for the planning. acquisition. and/ ordevelopment of recreation land or open space areas.

Contact:

o Program Open Space Local Support Staff contacts can be found at

http://www.dnrstate.md.usAand/ localsupport/ Is_ contacts.asp

Community Parks and Playgrounds ( DNR): The program provides funding to restoreexisting parks and create new park and green space systems in Maryland's cities andtowns. Flexible grants are provided to local governments which help them rehabilitate.

expand or improve existing parks. Funding can help develop environmentally orientedparks and recreation projects. create new parks, or purchase and install playground

equipment in older neighborhoods and intensely developed areas throughout the state.

Page 49


Implementation

Contact:

o Community Parks and Playgroups Local Support Staff contacts can be found athttp://www.d nr.state.md.us/ land/ loca lsu pport/ Is_ contacts.asp

Maryland Heritage Areas Financial Assistance Programs ( MHT): Designated Maryland

Heritage Areas are eligible for various tax credits, grants and loans. These financial

assistance programs support for a wide variety of historic preservation- related activities.Bicycle and pedestrian opportunities involve inclusion in heritage tourism development

and educational programs.

Contact:

o Richard Hughes, Heritage Areas Program Administrator. 410- 514-7685,

ric hard.hughes@ma ryland.gov

ADDITIONAL FEDERAL GRANT OPPORTUNITIES

Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recover (TIGER) Grants ( USDOT):

The TIGER Discretionary Grant program, provides a unique opportunity for the DOT toinvest in road. rail, transit and port projects that promise to achieve critical national

objectives. The TIGER program enables DOT to examine a broad array of projects ontheir merits, to help ensure that taxpayers are getting the highest value for every dollarinvested. In each round of TIGER, DOT receives many applications to build and repaircritical pieces of our freight and passenger transportation networks. Applicants must

detail the benefits their project would deliver for five long- term outcomes; safety.economic competitiveness. state of good repair, livability and environmentalsustainability.

Contact:

o FHWA Office of Infrastructure Finance and Innovation. 202-366- 0301.

TIGERgrants© dot.gov

o http://www.dot.gov/tiger

Page 50

Bicycle Neiwork Plan Section 3.

Implementation

Rivers. Trails. and Conservation Assistance Program ( NPS): The program extends and

expands the benefits of the National Park Service by helping connect all Americans to

their parks. trails. rivers. and other special places. When a community asks for assistance

with a project. NPS staff provides free. on- location facilitation and planning expertisefrom conception to completion. Assistance can include visioning and planning,developing concept plans for trails, parks and natural areas. setting priorities and

identifying funding sources.

Contact:

o RTCAP Maryland Support Staff can be found at

http://www.nps.gov/orgsktca/ contactus.htm# MD

o http://www.nps.gov/orgs/rtca/index.htm

Federal Lands Access Program ( FHWA): The program is intended to improve

transportation facilities that provide access to, are adjacent to, or are located within

Federal lands. The program supplements State and local resources for public roads,

transit systems, and other transportation facilities. with an emphasis on high- use

recreation sites and economic generators. Bicycle and pedestrian opportunities include

planning, design and engineering. construction. rehabilitation. and preventativemaintenance of facilities accessing public lands.

Contact:

o Frances Ramirez. Federal Lands Highways Program Coordinator. 202- 493- 0271.

[email protected]

o http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/flap/

ADDITIONAL PRIVATE GRANT OPPORTUNITIES

There are a variety of other public and private grant opportunities available to fundbicycle and pedestrian projects. The specific project-type is the first step to determining

funding eligibility. Several examples are included below.

Page 51

Bicycle. Network Plan Section 3.

Implementation

o The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation ( http://www.rwjf.org/) invests in

grantees (e.g., public agencies, universities, and public charities) that are working

to improve the health of all Americans. Current or past projects in the topic area

walking and biking" include greenway plans, trail projects, advocacy initiatives.

and policy development.

o The PeopleForBikes Community Grant Program

http://www.peopleforbikes.org/ pages/ community-grants) provides funding forimportant and influential projects that leverage federal funding and build

momentum for bicycling in communities across the U. S. These projects includebike paths and rail trails. as well as mountain bike trails, bike parks, BMX facilities.

and large-scale bicycle advocacy initiatives.

o The National Center for Safe Routes to School

http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/ funding- portal/ private- funding) identifies ways for

communities to solicit non-government funding for Safe Routes to School

activities. The multiple benefits of SRTS programs. including the safety. health.environment and community impacts, often align with the interests of the local

community.

o Local Wellness Centers

o The Cycle Maryland initiative is an effort to encourage more Marylanders to get

out and ride, and to make bicycling a true transportation alternative. Cycling is agreat way to connect to your community, support a cleaner environment,

encourage a healthier lifestyle. reduce household transportation costs and enjoyMaryland' s magnificent landscape.

www.cycle.maryland.gov provides an one-step web portal for information aboutcycling infrastructure, plans. funding opportunities and events.

Page 52

city of salisbury work session november 21, 2016 · city of salisbury work session november 21,...

Documents