Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Home , Delmarva Peninsula, Ocean Highway

final

report

prepared for

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Maryland Department of Transportation

October 20, 2006

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Board Members

Marvin R. Long, Wicomico County, MPO Chair

Rick Pollitt, City of Fruitland, MPO Vice Chair

Michael P. Dunn, City of Salisbury

Charles Fisher, Tri-County Council for the Lower Eastern Shore of Maryland

Luther Hitchens, Town of Delmar, Maryland

Mike Nixon, Maryland Department Of Transportation

John F. Outten, Town of Delmar, Delaware (Non-Voting)

Stevie Prettyman, Wicomico County

Ralph Reeb, Delaware Department of Transportation (Non-Voting)

Theodore E. Shea II, Wicomico County

Barrie P. Tilghman, City of Salisbury

Technical Advisory Committee

John Redden, Wicomico County Department of Public Works, Chair

Ray Birch, City of Salisbury Public Works, Vice Chair

Dr. Kwame Arhin, Federal Highway Administration

Brad Bellaccico, City of Salisbury Chamber of Commerce, Transportation Subcommittee

Bob Bryant, Ocean City/Wicomico County Airport Authority

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Bob Cook, Delmarva Water Transport Advisory Committee, (Ex-Officio)

James Dooley, State Highway Administration

Tracey Gordy, Maryland Department of Planning

Rob Hart, Shore Transit

Lenny Howard, Maryland Transit Administration

Dan Johnson, Federal Highway Administration

Sara Bynum-King, Town of Delmar, (Maryland and Delaware)

Gail McFadden-Roberts, Federal Transit Administration

Mike Nixon, Maryland Department of Transportation

Mike Pennington, Tri-County Council for the Lower Eastern Shore of Maryland

Rick Pollitt, City of Fruitland

Jim Thompson, State Highway Administration

Paul Weber, City of Salisbury Transportation & Safety Advisory Committee

Staff

John Lenox, Planning Director

Gary Pusey, Long-Range Transportation Planner

This report was developed to document the long-range transportation plans and projects of the Salisbury/Wicomico Area through 2030, to comply with the Federal Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

final report

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

prepared for

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Maryland Department of Transportation

October 20, 2006

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Table of Contents

About the Plan ...... vii

1.0 Introduction to the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process...... 1-1 1.1 Development of the Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Planning Organization ...... 1-1 1.2 Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Planning Organization Structure ...... 1-2 1.3 Study Area...... 1-5 1.4 Use of the Long-Range Transportation Plan...... 1-6 1.5 Developing the Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Area Long-Range Transportation Plan ...... 1-7 1.6 Public Involvement Process...... 1-8

2.0 Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Area Policy Goal and Objectives...... 2-1 2.1 Federal Metropolitan Planning Guidance ...... 2-1 2.2 The State of Maryland ...... 2-2 2.3 Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Planning Organization Goal and Objectives ...... 2-3

3.0 Existing and Future Conditions...... 3-1 3.1 Location and General Description of the Study Area...... 3-1 3.2 Population and Employment Projections...... 3-2 3.3 Major Transportation Routes...... 3-5 3.4 Existing and Forecast Highway Conditions...... 3-17

4.0 Financially Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan ...... 4-1 4.1 Project Identification...... 4-1 4.2 Estimated Available Funding...... 4-2 4.3 Constrained Projects...... 4-7 4.4 Unfunded Needs...... 4-17

5.0 Environment...... 5-1 5.1 Environmental Justice...... 5-1 5.2 Environmental Mitigation...... 5-7

6.0 Multimodal Transportation...... 6-1 6.1 Local Public Transportation Services ...... 6-1 6.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Walkways ...... 6-5 6.3 Goods Movement...... 6-10

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization i 7384.200

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Table of Contents (continued)

7.0 Transportation Operations...... 7-1 7.1 Maryland State Highway Administration...... 7-1 7.2 Wicomico County...... 7-2 7.3 City of Salisbury ...... 7-3 7.4 City of Fruitland...... 7-5 7.5 Town of Delmar...... 7-5 7.6 Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Planning Organization ...... 7-6

Appendix A Existing and Forecast Traffic Projections...... A-1

Appendix B Trip Generation Projections...... B-1

Appendix C Maryland State Highway Administration Annual Average Daily Traffic – 2000-2004...... C-1

Appendix D Constrained and Unfunded Transportation Projects – 2007-2030 ...... D-1

Appendix E Wicomico County Department of Recreation, Parks, and Tourism 2005 Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreation Plan Maps ...... E-1

Appendix F Air Quality Conformance Determination Sussex County, Delaware...... F-1

Appendix G Maryland Atlas of Greenways, Water Trails, and Green Infrastructure (2000 Edition)...... G-1

Appendix H Level of Service Criteria ...... H-1

ii Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 7384.200.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

List of Tables

3.1 Population History and Projections for Wicomico County ...... 3-3

3.2 Population History and Projections for Wicomico County and Maryland’s Lower Eastern Shore...... 3-4

3.3 Labor Force History and Projections for Wicomico County and Maryland’s Lower Eastern Shore...... 3-5

3.4 Federal Functional Classification System...... 3-13

4.1 Wicomico County Percentage of State Highway Administration Capital Expansion...... 4-5

4.2 Capital Expansion Projects, State Highway Administration...... 4-6

4.3 System Preservation Projects, State Highway Administration ...... 4-7

4.4 Total Constrained Capital Expansion Projects (2007-2030)...... 4-9

4.5 Total System Preservation Projects...... 4-9

4.6 State Highway Administration Constrained Projects...... 4-10

4.7 Estimated Shore Transit Capital Costs (2007-2030)...... 4-14

4.8 Estimated Shore Transit Capital Funding Sources (2007-2030)...... 4-15

4.9 Estimated Shore Transit Operating Costs, Wicomico County (2007-2030)...... 4-17

4.10 Estimated Shore Transit Operating Funding Source ...... 4-17

4.11 State Highway Administration Unfunded Needs...... 4-18

4.12 City of Fruitland Unfunded Needs ...... 4-18

5.1 Regional Population Summary by Race/Ethnicity...... 5-2

5.2 Regional Population Summary by Poverty Status...... 5-4

5.3 Regional Population Summary by Age (2000)...... 5-5

5.4 National Environmental Policy Act Environmental Review...... 5-8

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization iii

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

List of Tables (continued)

5.5 Environmental Safeguards...... 5-9

5.6 Highway Needs Inventory Projects and Areas of Ecological Importance in Their Vicinities ...... 5-11

6.1 Maryland’s Geographic Trading Partners: U.S. Census Regions ...... 6-21

7.1 Planned Traffic Control Devices in the City of Salisbury ...... 7-3

iv Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

List of Figures

1.1 Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Planning Organization Urbanized Area ...... 1-2

1.2 Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Planning Organization Study Area ...... 1-6

3.1 Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Planning Organization Incorporated Areas and Boundary...... 3-2

3.2 Population History and Projections for Wicomico County ...... 3-3

3.3 Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Network ...... 3-6

3.4 Location of Wicomico County on the Delmarva Peninsula...... 3-7

3.5 Wicomico County Primary and Secondary Radials...... 3-10

3.6 Federally Classified Roadways in the Study Area...... 3-13

3.7 Wicomico County Collector Roads ...... 3-15

3.8 Metropolitan Activity Centers ...... 3-16

3.9 Existing Congestion Levels (2006)...... 3-19

3.10 Projected Congestion Levels (2030)...... 3-21

4.1 Constrained Highway Capital Expansion Projects and System Preservation Projects ...... 4-8

5.1 Regional Distribution of Minorities...... 5-3

5.2 Percentage of Persons Living Below the Poverty Line ...... 5-4

5.3 Regional Distribution of Population Age 65 and Older ...... 5-6

6.1 Recognized and Potential Greenways, Water Trails, and Protected Lands in Wicomico County ...... 6-8

6.2 Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Planning Organization Freight Transportation Network ...... 6-11

6.3 Freight Mode Share in Wicomico County (2003) ...... 6-17

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization v

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

List of Figures (continued)

6.4 Freight Mode Share in Wicomico County (2030) ...... 6-18

6.5 Tope Commodities Moved by Truck, Rail, and Water in Wicomico County (2003 and 2030) ...... 6-19

6.6 Direction of Goods Movement by Truck, Rail, and Water (2003 and 2030) ...... 6-20

6.7 Top Trading Partners by Inbound Tonnage ...... 6-22

6.8 Top Trading Partners by Outbound Tonnage ...... 6-23

7.1 Location of Existing Traffic Signals with Planning Improvements, City of Salisbury...... 7-4

7.2 South Division Street at College Avenue/Beaglin Park Drive/ Snow Hill Road Area...... 7-6

7.3 Pemberton Drive Area...... 7-7

7.4 Mill Street/Carroll Street/Riverside Drive/Camden Avenue Intersection...... 7-8

7.5 U.S. Route 13 North/Foskey Lane/Bi-State Boulevard Area...... 7-9

vi Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

About the Plan

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

About the Plan

This Long-Range Transportation Plan is intended to identify and detail the transportation plans, projects, and programs that will be carried out in the Salisbury/Wicomico metropolitan area during the Plan’s 25-year timeframe. Area transportation projects must be included in this Plan to qualify for Federal funding. Project inclusion reflecting new and/ or evolving needs shall be updated on regular intervals and published in supplemental reports/attachments. This document is organized into several sections. A brief description of each section’s contents is listed below:

Section 1: Introduction to the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process Gives a context for which to appreciate this Plan, as well as an overview of the metropolitan transportation planning process. The purpose of this section is to give readers a broad view of how the planning process works and to describe the methodologies used for developing the Long-Range Transportation Plan.

Section 2: Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Area Policy Goal and Objectives Describes the area’s goals and objectives as they relate to transportation. The goals and objectives are a statement of the policy that guides the Salisbury/ Wicomico metropolitan transportation planning process. The section also discusses the techniques used to develop the Long-Range Transportation Plan and gather public input for the Plan.

Section 3: Existing and Future Conditions This section contains a detailed description of current socioeconomic and travel conditions, and how future years will impact the region’s transportation system.

Section 4: Financially Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan This section presents fiscally constrained highway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects included in the Plan, and discusses future funding for transportation in the area.

Section 5: Environment This section is a policy statement regarding transportation projects so that any adverse impacts will not fall disproportionately on minority or low- income populations. Also included is an assessment of environmental mitigation activities undertaken in the Salisbury/Wicomico area.

Section 6: Multimodal Transportation This section details the multimodal elements of the Plan, including transit, bicycle and pedestrian walkways, and goods movement.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization vii

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Section 7: Transportation Operations This section reviews a number of operational strategies to relieve vehicular congestion and improve performance of existing transportation facilities.

viii Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

1.0 Introduction to the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

1.0 Introduction to the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process

1.1 Development of the Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Planning Organization

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) are designated under Title 23, Section 134 of the U.S. Code and are defined as an urbanized area with a population of more than 50,000 persons and having a density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile.

The 2000 Census indicated that an urbanized area consisting of the Cities of Salisbury and Fruitland; the Towns of Delmar, Maryland, and Delmar, Delaware; and the adjacent unincorporated areas of Wicomico County, Maryland, and Sussex County, Delaware, met the qualifying criteria for the establishment of an MPO (represented in Figure 1.1). As of July 1, 2000, the urbanized area population of this new MPO, called the “Salisbury/ Wicomico Metropolitan Planning Organization” (S/WMPO), was 59,426 persons, with 57,986 persons residing in Maryland (97.6 percent) and 1,440 persons residing in Delaware (2.4 percent).

As an officially designated MPO, certain Federal requirements must be met by the S/WMPO. One of these requirements is the development and adoption of a Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) addressing transportation facilities, including major roadways, transit, and other facilities for a minimum 20-year period. The S/WMPO will be required to prepare and adopt its LRTP, which will extend to 2030, by October 1, 2006. An Interim Five-Year Transportation Plan was developed and formally adopted by the S/WMPO Board on September 26, 2005, to function as a placeholder until the adoption of the LRTP. The Interim Plan focused specifically on transportation projects proposed for the next five years and included a general discussion of transportation issues for the remaining 20 years of the MPO’s planning horizon. The information presented in this document represents the first official, fiscally constrained LRTP for the S/WMPO study area.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 1-1

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Figure 1.1 Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Planning Organization Urbanized Area

1.2 Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Planning Organization Structure

The S/WMPO was officially established by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in the fall of 2003. This MOU was signed by the participating entities, which include the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT); Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT); Wicomico County; City of Salisbury; City of Fruitland; Town of Delmar, Maryland; Town of Delmar, Delaware; and the Tri-County Council for the Lower Eastern Shore of Maryland. The S/WMPO was designated by Maryland Governor Robert L. Ehrlich on February 19, 2004, and serves as the Federally designated MPO for the region.

1-2 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Mission

Established to maintain and conduct regional transportation planning, the S/WMPO promotes a “continuous, cooperative, and comprehensive” (3-C) process designed to enhance the movement of people and goods throughout the S/WMPO region and consistent with the comprehensively planned development of the region. S/WMPO’s planning process brings together representatives of the S/WMPO entities into a single regional transportation forum to facilitate this process.

The primary mission of S/WMPO is to perform transportation planning and coordination within the region. S/WMPO will ensure that prevailing Federal transportation guidelines are followed and will establish regional consensus on the transportation planning, products, and programs.

S/WMPO also will coordinate its activities with the appropriate authorities and departments of all impacted state and local governments. Its establishment will strengthen the continuing local transportation planning processes of the states, counties, and municipalities. S/WMPO will coordinate the efforts of the individual governmental units to help solve regional problems and implement regional goals and policies.

As S/WMPO works to fulfill its mission, the major goals include:

• The efficient movement of people and goods;

• The use of existing facilities to the fullest extent practical;

• The use of limited financial resources to generate maximum benefit to the transportation system;

• To limit impacts on air quality, the built environment, as well as historic, cultural, and natural resources; and

• To ensure public involvement throughout the transportation planning and project development process.

Governing Structure

MPO Council

The primary governing body of the S/WMPO is the MPO Council. As outlined in the agency’s bylaws, the Council consists of 11 members, of which nine are voting members and two are nonvoting members.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 1-3

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

The voting constituency of the Council is comprised of representatives from the following governments and agencies:

• MDOT; • Wicomico County (three positions); • City of Salisbury (two positions); • City of Fruitland; • Town of Delmar, Maryland; and • Tri-County Council for the Lower Eastern Shore of Maryland.

The nonvoting membership of the Council consists of two members representing the following agencies:

• DelDOT; and • Town of Delmar, Delaware.

The Council meets on an annual and as-needed basis to act on items of regional significance pertaining to transportation issues within the MPO study area. The representatives of the local governments are designated by the local governmental entities, while the representatives of MDOT and DelDOT are designated by their respective agencies. Staffing is provided by the Salisbury-Wicomico Department of Planning, Zoning, and Community Development.

The Council’s Chairperson, Vice-Chair, and one other Board Member appointed by the Chair serve on an Executive Committee that meets as needed in order to provide guidance or conduct minor business of the MPO that may arise between meetings.

MPO Technical Advisory Committee

A Technical Advisory Committee advises the MPO Council on technical issues and makes recommendations to the Council concerning relevant projects and programs. The Technical Advisory Committee consists of representatives from a number of agencies, including the following:

• MDOT; • Maryland Department of Planning; • Wicomico County Department of Public Works; • City of Salisbury Public Works; • City of Salisbury Transportation and Safety Advisory Committee; • City of Fruitland; • Town of Delmar (Maryland and Delaware portions);

1-4 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

• Tri-County Council for the Lower Eastern Shore of Maryland; • Shore Transit; • City of Salisbury Chamber of Commerce Transportation Subcommittee; • Ocean City/Wicomico County Airport Authority; and • Delmarva Water Transportation Advisory Committee.

Ex-Officio members include:

• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); • Federal Transit Administration (FTA); • Maryland Transit Administration (MTA); and • Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA).

Other issues relative to the organizational structure such as alternatives, officers, staff structure, committees, financial organization, and other similar items can be found in the bylaws adopted by the Council.

1.3 Study Area

In accordance with Federal regulations, the S/WMPO study area must encompass both the existing urbanized area, as defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, and the contiguous area expected to develop during the time period covered by this LRTP. The S/WMPO LRTP is required to be approved by October 1, 2006, and will cover the period to 2030. The Interim Plan adopted in September 2005 focused on specific transportation projects planned for the next five years, with policies containing general recommendations for the period beyond five years. The Interim Plan served as the precursor to this document, the fiscally constrained LRTP.

The defined study area includes land adjacent to the Census-identified urbanized area located in Wicomico and Sussex Counties and is shown in Figure 1.2. The boundary of the study area is based on the growth areas identified in the Comprehensive Plans for those jurisdictions located within the urbanized area. The Wicomico County Comprehensive Plan, adopted February 3, 1998, identifies a “Metro Core”, including the Cities of Salisbury and Fruitland, the Town of Delmar, and surrounding county lands around the municipalities where growth is encouraged and directed. The portion of the study area in Delaware is based on the Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Delmar, Delaware, and includes lands contained in its “Area of Study.” Both of these plans’ recommendations were included to develop the S/WMPO study area. The S/WMPO is responsible for the metropolitan transportation process only within the identified study area for the S/WMPO.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 1-5

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Figure 1.2 Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Planning Organization Study Area

1.4 Use of the Long-Range Transportation Plan

In the Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan area, the LRTP’s primary purpose is to guide the MPO and government agencies in the transportation decision-making process. In general, the LRTP is intended as a tool to channel transportation investments where they can be most effective. The LRTP also can guide other municipal and state officials, local service organizations, industrial leaders, and citizens to plan in concert with the region’s overall transportation goals.

It should be emphasized that a LRTP can only be implemented if it is realistic in terms of design and available resources, and only if it conveys the attitudes of the citizens living in the area. In that regard, this LRTP is designed to be flexible, and it attempts to reflect those characteristics unique to the region and its citizens.

1-6 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

This LRTP can be amended and/or updated by approval of the MPO Board, after appropriate citizen involvement. Projects in the MPO’s transportation improvement program, or TIP, and included in the MDOT’s statewide program (the Consolidated Transportation Program or CTP) shall be the near-term vehicle for implementing the LRTP.

1.5 Developing the Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

An Interim Five-Year Transportation Plan was developed and formally adopted by the S/WMPO Board on September 26, 2005, to function as a placeholder until the adoption of the LRTP. The Interim Plan focused on transportation projects that already had been identified in the local jurisdictions’ adopted Comprehensive Plans and Capital Improvement Plans. Many of these plans already had been vetted internally by the local jurisdictions, presented for public comment, and subsequently adopted. The Interim Plan represents the first coordinated attempt to consider planning on a regional basis over a five-year period. This document replaces the Interim Plan and represents the first official fiscally constrained LRTP for the S/WMPO study area.

MDOT supported development of this LRTP by providing general oversight and guidance. The MPO Technical Advisory Committee, comprised of staff from the local jurisdictions in the MPO area, also provided guidance on the development of the LRTP. Available data used in this LRTP were derived from a variety of sources (i.e., U.S. Bureau of the Census, Maryland Department of Planning).

During the development of this LRTP, information on transportation needs and issues was collected and synthesized from local, state, and Federal sources, including the Wicomico County Comprehensive Plan (1998) and planning documents provided by MDOT, Wicomico County, the Cities of Salisbury and Fruitland, and the Town of Delmar (Maryland and Delaware portions). Based on transportation needs identified in these documents, this Constrained LRTP (Section 4.0) presents transportation projects through 2030 constrained according to priorities and available funding.

Finally, this LRTP identifies current and future issues affecting transportation and mobility in the S/WMPO area through 2030, including transportation operations, environmental considerations, goods movement, and articulates strategies to address these issues. Much of the information on the issues facing the S/WMPO area was collected through existing LRTP materials, but also through interviews with key stakeholders, including state and local agencies. Throughout the development of the LRTP, special emphasis was placed on the planning areas delineated in Federal transportation legislation, including environmental mitigation, freight, and multimodal (non-auto) transportation.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 1-7

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

1.6 Public Involvement Process

Input from MDOT and supporting agencies as well as local agency staff who worked on the plans referenced in this document has been considered and incorporated where appropriate. A number of Technical Advisory Committee meetings were held that involved and represented a range of interests in the MPO study area. The public involvement process associated with the development of the Interim Plan also has been incorporated into this LRTP.

A draft of the MPO’s LRTP will be made available for public review and comment in the Wicomico County Department of Planning, Zoning, and Community Development and the Wicomico County Public Library. A newspaper advertisement also will be posted announcing the availability of the draft LRTP and the LRTP also will be posted on the County’s Internet web site before adoption by the MPO Council. All public comments received during this process will be considered in the preparation of the final version of the MPO’s LRTP.

1-8 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

2.0 Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Area Policy Goal and Objectives

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

2.0 Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Area Policy Goal and Objectives

2.1 Federal Metropolitan Planning Guidance

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) identified seven planning factors that are required to be incorporated into the metropolitan transportation planning process. The recently enacted Federal transportation reauthorization, the “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users” (SAFETEA-LU), restated the importance of these factors and gave additional emphasis to safety and security considerations. The Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Planning Organization (S/WMPO) has considered these factors during the development of this 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and has determined that the recommended projects and the financial component of the LRTP are in accordance with these factors. The metropolitan transportation planning factors, as modified by SAFETEA-LU, are as follows:

Metropolitan Transportation Planning Factors

1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency;

2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users;

3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users;

4. Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight;

5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and state and local planned growth and economic development patterns;

6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight;

7. Promote efficient system management and operation; and

8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 2-1

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

2.2 The State of Maryland

In its 1992 session, the Maryland General Assembly passed the Economic Growth, Resource Protection, and Planning Act of 1992. One of the key provisions of this Act is the implementation of “7 Visions for Future Development in the State of Maryland.” These Visions relate not only to new urban development, but also to conservation of resources, protection of sensitive areas, and stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay and its drainage basin.

This Goals, Objectives, and Policy framework shall be the S/WMPO’s principal source of land use, environmental, and growth policy. This LRTP and any future updates will build on the following Visions.

1. Development is concentrated in suitable areas.

The intent of this Vision is that investments for roads, water and sewerage facilities, schools, transportation, and other facilities will support new growth in existing communities or in areas specifically designated for growth.

2. Sensitive areas are protected.

The intent of this Vision is that certain designated sensitive areas (including steep slopes, habitat for threatened and endangered species, streams and their buffers, 100- year floodplains) are to be protected from the adverse impacts of development.

3. In rural areas, growth is directed to existing population centers and resource areas are protected.

This Vision works hand in hand with Vision 1, by encouraging the concentration of growth in existing urban centers. Its basic premise is that state and local governments should look to existing communities as a focus of development activity, thus protecting the land resources of the State, keeping in mind the existing historical and cultural characteristics of those communities.

4. Stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay and the land is a universal ethic.

The focus of this Vision is to change the way government and the citizens of Wicomico County think and act in their daily lives. Environmental degradation and inefficient use of land and resources in the Chesapeake Bay Region is a cumulative result of individual lifestyle choices over the last half century.

5. Conservation of resources, including a reduction in resource consumption, is practiced.

Conservation of resources and the efficient use of land are intricately intertwined. Conservation of energy, water, soil, air, and other resources is necessary in a consumer-driven economy. Within the context of economic growth, resource protection, and growth management, conservation policies must be developed that work in concert with land development and land preservation programs.

2-2 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

6. To assure the achievement of paragraphs 1 through 5 of this subsection, economic growth is encouraged and regulatory mechanisms are streamlined.

Many of the problems associated with existing land development practices are aggra- vated by the cumulative effect of existing regulations at the Federal, state, and local level. Practices must be reviewed to assure that they support the economic development of planned growth areas while continuing to protect sensitive resources within those areas.

7. Funding mechanisms are addressed to achieve these visions.

Long-term financial benefits to the county government can be achieved through a logical and efficient development pattern. In the short term, existing infrastructure construction, maintenance, and related-service needs must be met to make the achievement of those efficient development patterns a reality. Existing and innovative mechanisms to provide adequate funds must be explored.

2.3 Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Planning Organization Goal and Objectives

In addition to the eight Federal planning factors put forward for metropolitan transportation planning as well as the seven visions established by the State of Maryland, the S/WMPO has identified and adopted a general transportation goal and a group of objectives that are in support of the SAFETEA-LU metropolitan planning factors that are specific to the study area. The goal and objectives, grouped by category, are included in the S/WMPO member jurisdictions’ adopted Comprehensive Plans and provide a framework for the recommendations contained in this LRTP. The goal and objectives continue to be a priority in moving forward toward 2030 and are identified below.

S/WMPO Transportation Goal

To provide a comprehensive multimodal transportation network that will ensure the safe, convenient, and efficient movement of people and goods through the local system as well as over long distances among places of residence, employment, recreation, shopping service, and education in a manner as least disruptive as possible to existing and future residents.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 2-3

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

S/WMPO Transportation Objectives

System Management and Maintenance

• Coordinate local, state, and Federal efforts to provide an efficient transportation system that also will maximize the capacity and safety of the existing transportation system.

• Encourage local jurisdictions to control the location and intensity of adjacent land development so that highway traffic loads will not exceed planned design capacities.

Safety

• Establish a transportation network that moves people and goods efficiently, yet safely.

• Provide for the safe and efficient integration of private, commercial, emergency, and seasonal traffic, including application of effective and enforceable traffic controls and restrictions.

• Separate pedestrian and vehicular traffic and provide defined, safe, and convenient pedestrian crossing points.

Access and Mobility

• Provide new and improved access to and within the population centers of the region, to include not only the road network, but also to include means of mobility, such as the public transit system.

• Provide a logical road network in order to maximize the public investment in its existing facilities.

• Promote the separation of local and through traffic.

• Improve access to and movement within the Central Business District (CBD) of Salisbury.

• Consider an additional in-town river crossing for the City of Salisbury.

• Minimize and control the number of access points to arterial highways and collector streets and discourage strip commercial development with unlimited access along major highways through the use of service roads.

• Investigate the possibility of providing an interchange or other alternative in order to provide an improved means of access between U.S. Route 50 Business and U.S. Route 13 Business.

2-4 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

• Coordinate with applicable jurisdictions the improvement of traffic circulation in the region by providing connecting roads to the radial road network that now exists to allow circumferential movement around the Cities of Salisbury and Fruitland, and the Town of Delmar.

Multimodal

• Coordinate the various modes of transportation so that they complement each other.

• Support the preservation and revitalization of the Delmarva rail system.

• Encourage the improvement of an efficient, convenient public transportation system to serve the special travel needs of the transportation disadvantaged.

• Explore the possibility of the development of a multimodal transportation and distribution complex, which would provide efficient transportation services to the entire region.

• Provide the Salisbury-Wicomico County Airport with improved and direct access to U.S. Route 50.

• Encourage the development of a safe and efficient continuous bikeway system throughout the region interconnecting high-activity centers such as schools, parks, playgrounds, shopping areas, and employment centers with major residential neighborhoods.

Environmental

• Maximize the desired use of transportation systems while minimizing possible negative effects upon neighborhoods, the environment, and the general public.

• Provide and preserve scenic areas and other open space areas along major highways.

• Locate and design new transportation facilities and make facility improvements in a manner that will avoid destruction of the natural environment and minimize disrup- tion to developed urban settings. Improve existing transportation facilities wherever possible, if adverse environmental impacts can be avoided, rather than create new highway corridors that may compound adverse effects on the environment.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 2-5

3.0 Existing and Future Conditions

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

3.0 Existing and Future Conditions

3.1 Location and General Description of the Study Area

The Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Planning Organization (S/WMPO) area consists of the City of Salisbury; the City of Fruitland; the Town of Delmar, Maryland, and Delmar, Delaware; and unincorporated areas of Wicomico County, Maryland, and Sussex County, Delaware. Figure 3.1 illustrates the study area, which encompasses approximately 65 square miles and is centered around the intersection of U.S. Route 13 Business and U.S. Route 50 Business, the two major highways in the area that intersect in downtown Salisbury and is the source of Salisbury’s slogan as the “Crossroads of Delmarva.” The S/WMPO area is located approximately equidistant from three major urban areas – Philadelphia to the north, Baltimore-Washington, D.C. to the west, and Norfolk and the Hampton Roads area to the south.

The study area for this Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) generally conforms to what the City of Salisbury’s and Wicomico County’s Comprehensive Plans refer to as the “Metro Core.” The Metro Core is anticipated to experience the most intensive development in the region. The Wicomico River extends from downtown Salisbury southwest to the Chesapeake Bay and is the study area’s most prominent natural feature.

The City of Salisbury is the largest municipality in the area and, according to the 2000 Census, had a total population of 23,743. The City of Fruitland had a population of 3,774. The Town of Delmar, Maryland, had a population of 1,859 while the Town of Delmar, Delaware, had a population of 1,407. The 2000 Census determined the population of the urbanized area to be 59,426 residents.

Due in large part to its ideal location in the center of the Delmarva Peninsula and at the intersection of two major highways, the S/WMPO study area will most likely maintain its current status as a regional center of economic activity in the future. As noted in the Wicomico County’s Comprehensive Plan adopted in February 1998, by capitalizing on the area’s location and other advantages, growth and development could change the com- plexion of the study area and must be properly managed to ensure the retention of those essential characteristics that make the region a great place to live and raise a family. One aspect of this growth management to which the Comprehensive Plan refers concerns the region’s transportation network and its ability to accommodate future growth pressures.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 3-1

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Figure 3.1 Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Planning Organization Incorporated Areas and Boundary

3.2 Population and Employment Projections

Population

Population and employment projections, which predict where people will live and work, are related to the transportation needs of an area. Historical and projected data for population is included in Table 3.1. Data for Wicomico County is used because historical and projected data are not available for the study area These data were developed by the Maryland Department of Planning, Planning Data Services in 2005 and indicate that population growth in Wicomico County has been remarkably steady for the three decades between 1970 and 2000, with the total population increasing by approximately 10,000 persons each decade. This amount of growth is expected to continue for the 2000 to 2010 period and is projected to increase slightly for the 2010 to 2030 period. Between 2010 and 2030, total population is expected to increase by an average of about 1,100 persons annually.

3-2 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Table 3.1 Population History and Projections for Wicomico County

Change Year 2000-2030 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Amount Percent

Total Population 54,236 64,540 74,339 84,644 94,750 106,050 117,050 32,406 38.3% Average Household Size 3.08 2.72 2.56 2.53 2.46 2.43 2.39 (0.14) (5.5%)

Source: Maryland Department of Planning, Planning Data Services, September 2005.

Between 2000 and 2030, the total population of Wicomico County is expected to increase by a total of 32,406 persons, or by 38.3 percent. At the same time that the total population of Wicomico County is increasing, the average household size is decreasing, fueling the demand for additional housing and adding to the region’s development pressures. The historic and future population trend is depicted visually in Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2 Population History and Projections for Wicomico County

Population (in Thousands) 140

120 117,050 100 106,050 94,750 80 84,644 74,339 60 64,540 54,236 40

0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Year

Source: Maryland Department of Planning, Planning Data Services, September 2005.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 3-3

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

To better understand this trend within a regional context, Table 3.2 compares the population growth of Wicomico County with that of the other counties that comprise Maryland’s Lower Eastern Shore (Dorchester, Somerset, and Worcester). As the data indicate, although population growth on the Lower Eastern Shore is expected to steadily increase through 2030, the majority of this growth is anticipated to occur in Wicomico County. For the three other Lower Shore counties (excluding Wicomico County), the total population is expected to increase by 30.3 percent between 2000 and 2030. In Wicomico County during this same period, the population is expected to increase by 38.3 percent.

Table 3.2 Population History and Projections for Wicomico County and Maryland’s Lower Eastern Shore

Change Year 2000-2030 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Amount Percent

Wicomico County 54,236 64,540 74,339 84,644 94,750 106,050 117,050 32,406 38.3% Other Lower Shore 72,771 80,700 88,704 101,964 113,075 124,675 132,900 30,936 30.3% Countiesa Lower Eastern Shore 127,007 145,240 163,043 186,608 207,825 230,725 249,950 63,342 33.9%

Source: Maryland Department of Planning, Planning Data Services, September 2005. a Other Lower Shore Counties includes Dorchester, Somerset, and Worcester Counties.

Employment

Similar trends for employment projections appear in the area and region, as illustrated in Table 3.3. The Maryland Department of Planning projections indicate Wicomico County’s labor force will increase by more than 18,000 persons during the period between 2000 and 2030, representing a 40 percent increase. The labor force in the remainder of the Lower Eastern Shore is expected to increase by less than 10,000 persons, or by about 20 percent.

These data indicate that Wicomico County and, in particular, the Metro Core area that includes the Cities of Salisbury and Fruitland and the Town of Delmar, will continue to be the economic hub of the Lower Eastern Shore through 2030.

3-4 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Table 3.3 Labor Force History and Projections for Wicomico County and Maryland’s Lower Eastern Shore

Change Year 2000-2030 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Amount Percent

Wicomico County 23,401 31,641 39,134 44,815 51,390 57,270 62,860 18,045 40.3% Other Lower Shore 30,270 38,405 43,350 48,655 54,200 57,480 58,460 9,805 20.2% Countiesa Lower Eastern Shore 53,671 70,046 82,484 93,470 105,590 114,750 121,320 27,850 29.8%

Source: Maryland Department of Planning, Planning Data Services, October 2005. a Other Lower Shore Counties includes Dorchester, Somerset, and Worcester Counties.

3.3 Major Transportation Routes

One of the most vital elements of the S/WMPO region is its transportation system, particularly its network of roads, streets, and highways. A good roadway system is essential to the orderly functioning of a region in order to provide mobility for people, emergency services, and goods as well as access to land. A balanced and coordinated transportation system that provides for the economical and efficient movement of people and goods is essential to the future growth and proper development of any community. A road and highway system that is free from congestion also contributes to a high quality of life in an area.

Historically, the S/WMPO area has been in the fortunate position of being the transportation center of the central Delmarva Peninsula in general and the Lower Eastern Shore in particular. The region is served by an excellent regional network that links with Baltimore and Washington to the west, Wilmington and Philadelphia to the north, Norfolk to the south, and the ocean resorts to the east. Figure 3.3 illustrates the study area, which is located at the intersection of two major regional highways, U.S. Route 50 and U.S. Route 13, and contains a portion of the Norfolk Southern north-south rail line through the Delmarva Peninsula. The area includes a river-oriented port and a modern airport facility. These four modes of transportation constitute a balanced transportation system providing for interstate, regional, and intracounty movement of goods and people.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 3-5

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Figure 3.3 Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Network

The Regional Highway System

As noted above, the S/WMPO area is centrally located on the Delmarva Peninsula at the intersection of two major north-south and east-west transportation corridors that traverse the Delmarva Peninsula. The area serves as the focal point or “hub” of the entire highway network for the region. The major north-south highway corridor on the Delmarva Peninsula is U.S. Route 13, which links the Philadelphia-Wilmington area to this region and is a direct through-route to Norfolk and points southward. The major east-west transportation corridor on the lower Delmarva Peninsula is U.S. Route 50, which currently serves as a vital link connecting the Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area to the S/WMPO area, and to Ocean City and other beach resorts along the Atlantic coast. Figure 3.4 provides an overview of the regional situation of Wicomico County relative to the Delmarva Peninsula and other states.

3-6 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Figure 3.4 Location of Wicomico County on the Delmarva Peninsula

Metro Core Highway System

The highway system within the S/WMPO area is primarily a radial system consisting of a network of arterials that radiate outward from Salisbury’s CBD, and connect the CBD with the City of Fruitland, the Town of Delmar, and other major traffic generators. The majority of these arterials extends beyond the S/WMPO study area and connects the small towns and rural areas of the region with the Salisbury urban area. These arterials, which radiate out from the center of the City of Salisbury in all directions, provide the basic foundation for the remainder of the region’s highway network.

Primary Radial Corridors and the Salisbury Bypass

There are presently eight primary radial corridors extending outward from the City of Salisbury’s CBD, forming the basic framework for the entire area’s transportation system. Most of the radial corridors are linked on the periphery of the Metro Core by the Salisbury Bypass/Ocean Gateway (U.S. 13 and U.S. 50). The following paragraphs describe each of these primary facilities:

U.S. Route 13/50 – Salisbury Bypass/Ocean Gateway – The Salisbury Bypass/Ocean Gateway is a fully access controlled multi-lane divided highway that encircles

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 3-7

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

approximately two-thirds of the metro core from U.S. 50 on the northwest to U.S. 13 on the South. The Bypass links most of the primary radials (described below) emanating from Downtown Salisbury or Fruitland and more importantly carries through traffic from both U.S. 13 and U.S. 50 around the Metro Core. The Federal Functional Classification System categorization of the Salisbury Bypass/Ocean Gateway (U.S. 13/U.S 50) is “rural principal arterial – other.”

U.S. Route 13 Business/U.S. Route 13 – U.S. Route 13 serves as the primary north-south regional and national highway between Hampton Roads, Virginia and Wilmington/ Philadelphia. Within the S/WMPO area, U.S. 13 Business is a four-lane uncontrolled- access highway that is classified as “urban/rural principal arterial – other.” It is the major north-south axis in the S/WMPO area transportation network and is the most heavily traveled route in the system. Between the south and north interchanges with the Salisbury Bypass (U.S. 13) and running through the Cities of Salisbury and Fruitland, U.S. 13 Business is classified as “urban principal arterial –other.” North and south of the Metro Core, U.S. 13 is classified as a “rural principal arterial – other” and connects with Delmar (to the north) and Princess Anne (to the south).

U.S. Route 50 Business/U.S. Route 50 – U.S. Route 50/U.S. Route 50 Business is the major east-west axis in the area’s transportation system and is the second most heavily traveled route in the region. Through the S/WMPO area, U.S. 50/U.S. 50 Business is four-lane highway classified as “rural principal arterial – other” with uncontrolled access, except in Downtown Salisbury where there is partial control of access. The newly completed section of Ocean Gateway (Salisbury Bypass) signed as U.S. 50, which is classified as a “rural principal arterial – other,” has full access control.

Maryland 349 (Nanticoke Road) – Maryland 349 is the major approach to the Salisbury urban area from the west. The primary function of this route is to serve as a connector between the small towns in the southwest sector of the County and the Salisbury urban area. It is classified as a ‘rural minor arterial.’

Maryland 12 (Snow Hill Road) – Snow Hill Road is presently the main approach to the Salisbury urban area from the southeast and serves as a connector between the Salisbury urban area and the Town of Snow Hill in Worcester County. This two-lane arterial is presently one of the heaviest traveled minor routes in the County. It has an interchange with U.S. Route 13. Within the Bypass, Snow Hill Road is classified as “urban principal arterial – other” while outside the Bypass it is classified as “rural minor arterial.”

Maryland 346 (Old Ocean City Road) – This narrow two-lane minor arterial, which extends in an east-west direction from the city limits of Salisbury to the Worcester County line, serves as a major connector between the Salisbury urban area and the subdivisions and small towns (Parsonsburg, Pittsville, and Willards) located east of the City of Salisbury.

Maryland 350 (Mt. Hermon Road) – This two-lane highway, which extends from the City Limits of Salisbury eastward to Powellville, serves as a primary means of access to a number of activity centers adjacent to this route.

3-8 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Camden Avenue/Allen Road – Camden Avenue is a two-lane minor arterial that serves as a primary connector between the downtown Salisbury area and the concentrated residential areas in the southwest sector of the City. Salisbury University is located along this route and has a substantial impact on the amount of traffic generated. This major thor- oughfare, which runs parallel to U.S. Route 13 Business on the west side, extends from the CBD of Salisbury in a southerly direction to the City of Fruitland, and then becomes Allen Road as it connects with the village of Allen, where it serves as a major collector between Allen and the Salisbury-Fruitland area.

Jersey Road/Lake Street – This two-lane road, which extends from U.S. Route 50 Business northward to the Delaware State line, currently collects local traffic from adjacent residential developments and several activity centers. This radial also serves as a connector between the Salisbury urban area and the lower part of Delaware.

Secondary Radial Corridors

In addition to these eight primary radials, there are a number of secondary radials that serve to supplement the major radial system from the City of Salisbury by providing an alternative transportation route and with a similar level of service (LOS) as the primary radial nearby. These minor radials serve to link the downtown Salisbury area with residential developments and activity centers adjacent to their routes, but the volume of traffic is substantially lower along them than along the aforementioned major radials originating in Salisbury. These minor radials include:

• Eastern Shore Drive/South Division Street/Coulbourne Mill Road; • Riverside Drive; • Pemberton Drive; • West Road; • East Main Street/Glen Avenue; • Zion Road; • Johnson Road; and • Levin Dashiell Road.

These secondary radials along with the eight primary radials form the backbone for the S/WMPO area road network with Salisbury at its center. Figure 3.5 lists the location of the primary and secondary radials.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 3-9

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Figure 3.5 Wicomico County Primary and Secondary Radials

Other Transportation Corridors

City of Salisbury – In addition to the roadways extending outward from the City of Salisbury, there also are roads that perform a vital function by intersecting the radials. The College Avenue/Beaglin Park Drive/Northeast Collector is one such road which, when completed as planned, also will incorporate Kelly Road, Naylor Mill Road, the planned Westside Collector and Crooked Oak Lane to form a “mini-bypass” around the downtown Salisbury area. This future roadway will provide a more direct route for residents from the developing residential areas south and west of Salisbury to reach the commercial areas north of the City.

The remainder of the Salisbury area’s highway system consists of a network of local roads and major and minor collectors branching out from these basic radials. These roads and streets provide access to the residential areas and activity centers between the arterials. The primary function of local roads within the Salisbury area’s street system is to provide access to abutting properties and, in the case of the collector streets, to collect traffic from adjoining local streets and convey it to the arterials for distribution throughout the S/WMPO area.

3-10 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

The highway system within the Salisbury area is substantially influenced by various natural and manufactured features, which act as barriers to the optimum traffic circulation pattern. The most significant natural barrier is the Wicomico River and its tributaries. All east-west traffic must eventually funnel into one of the three bridge crossings. The branches of the Wicomico River and Johnson’s Pond act as barriers to circumferential movement within the urban area and force most traffic to move radially.

City of Fruitland – The City of Fruitland is bisected by U.S. Route 13 Business into easterly and westerly parts. The land adjacent to U.S. Route 13 Business is becoming a heavily developed commercial corridor. U.S. Route 13 Business intersects with U.S. Route 13 – Salisbury Bypass – on the City’s eastern end. Other major roadways in Fruitland also provide access to Salisbury and include Division Street, Camden Avenue, and Riverside Drive. Other significant roads in the City intersect these roads in an east-west direction and include Main Street, St. Luke’s Road/Cedar Lane, and Sharp’s Point Road.

Town of Delmar – Delmar’s major roads include U.S. Route 13 and Delaware 13A/ Maryland 675 that extend in a north-south direction, and Delaware 54 that extends in an east-west direction. Maryland 675 and Delaware 54 intersect at the center of Town, dividing the Town into four quadrants, and serve both local and regional traffic.

Highway Functional Classification System

The functional classification of the street and highway network is an essential step in the development of an efficient transportation network for the S/WMPO area. Functional classification is the process for grouping streets and highways into classes or systems, according to the character of service they are intended to provide. The intended function of a road or street provides a planning basis for determining appropriate system management techniques to be applied.

By establishing such a system, local streets and highways can be assigned an acceptable LOS that the local jurisdictions can strive to either attain or maintain. A functional classification system also provides a means for prioritizing new construction or other road improvements to upgrade circulation for existing development and for newly developing consistent with a logical pattern.

The Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA), in cooperation with Wicomico County, has classified roadways within the region in accordance with the Federal Highway Functional Classification system. The Functional Classification System includes separate classifications for urban and rural systems, which are delineated in Table 3.4. The S/WMPO area contains both systems, with the rural system located outside of the designated urbanized area. While the LRTP endorses this classification system, some of the functional class roads listed in Table 3.4 are not considered in this LRTP. Figure 3.6 illustrates the roadway classification of roads within the S/WMPO area that are considered in this LRTP.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 3-11

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Principal Arterial System

The highest level of highway service identified by the classification system is the Principal Arterial. For urban areas, of which a majority of the S/WMPO study area is classified, the Principal Arterial system is further broken down into Interstate, Other Freeways and Expressways, and Other Principal Arterials.

The primary purpose of the principal arterials is to provide continuous and efficient routes for movement of high-volume traffic between towns or major traffic generators, including that of an intrastate or interstate nature. Principal arterials should carry the major portion of trips not only entering and leaving the urban area but also between the major activity centers within the urban area. Direct access to adjoining land should generally be limited to certain key points although, in urban areas, those roadways classified as Other Principal Arterials may not have access controls. Arterial highways often serve as boundaries between various neighborhoods. On-street parking should be prohibited.

Minor Arterial System

The Minor Arterial system includes all arterials not classified as principal arterials and is intended to serve shorter trips more so than the principal arterials. The Minor Arterial system also offers a lower level of traffic mobility. Minor arterials should interconnect with and augment the Principal Arterial system. As with principal arterials, minor arterials should not extend into neighborhoods, but instead should serve as boundaries. Ide- ally, urban minor arterials should be spaced about one-half mile apart in heavily urbanized areas and two to three miles apart in more suburban areas. In rural areas, minor arterials should link cities and larger towns and form an integrated network providing intrastate and intercounty service.

Collector Systems

Collector streets serve the function of moving traffic from local streets, providing limited access to abutting land, and providing for the movement of traffic to arterial highways. For some collectors, route continuity is not always essential but it should be encouraged.

3-12 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Table 3.4 Federal Functional Classification System

Urban System Rural System

Principal Arterial Principal Arterial Interstatea Interstatea Other Freeways and Expressways Other Principal Arterials Other Principal Arterials Minor Arterial Streets Minor Arterial Streets Collector Roads Collector Streets Major Collector Local Streets Minor Collector Local Roads

Note: Italics designate classifications that are not considered in this Long-Range Transportation Plan. a There are no Interstates in the Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Planning Organization study area.

Figure 3.6 Federally Classified Roadways in the Study Area

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 3-13

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

The Urban Collector system also provides circulation within residential neighborhoods, and commercial and industrial areas. Collector roads usually penetrate into residential neighborhoods, distributing trips from the arterials through the neighborhoods to the ultimate destinations or collecting traffic from local streets and channeling it to the arterial system.

In rural areas, the collector system is further broken down into major and minor collectors. The Rural Minor Collector system is not considered in this LRTP, but is discussed briefly here for informational purposes.

Major Collector (Rural System)

The Rural Major Collector system serves travel of primarily intracounty rather than statewide importance, and predominant travel distances are shorter than on arterial routes. Major collectors provide service to towns and to significant traffic generators of equivalent importance in the rural areas such as schools, large recreation areas, or some similar activity. The Rural Major Collector system would link these uses with other similar areas or to routes of higher classification.

Minor Collector (Rural System)

The basic purpose of the Rural Minor Collector system is to collect traffic from primarily local activity centers in order to provide access to major collector streets. A minor collector would provide direct access to adjoining land uses.

The Rural Minor Collector system is not addressed by this LRTP.

In addition to the highway functional classification system considered in this LRTP, Wicomico County also has adopted a classification system for collector roads for its own purposes, including the amount of “strip residential development” allowed to occur on these roads. This classification system is shown on Figure 3.7 and is included here for informational purposes only.

3-14 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Figure 3.7 Wicomico County Collector Roads

Source: Wicomico County Public Works Department.

Local Systems

The most extensive part of the S/WMPO area’s road network is local streets, which have the primary purpose of providing direct access to adjoining properties. A secondary purpose is to provide linkages with minor collector streets. This type of street is normally found within planned subdivisions.

The local systems also are not addressed by this LRTP.

Major Activity Centers

Historically, the primary traffic generators within the S/WMPO area were concentrated within Salisbury’s CBD and along the major arteries radiating outward from the CBD. Over time, the area has grown tremendously in size and scope of activities. Today, the major traffic generators are both extensive in scale and widely scattered. Figure 3.8 shows the location of some traffic generators within the S/WMPO study area. The City of

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 3-15

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Fruitland and the Town of Delmar also are experiencing commercial growth that is generating significant traffic. Presently, primary traffic generators within the region include the following general categories:

• Shopping Centers; • Strip Commercial Development; • Industrial Complexes; • Office Complexes; • Schools and Other Institutional Uses; • Hospitals, Health Facilities, and Medical Centers; and • Multifamily Residential Development.

Figure 3.8 Metropolitan Activity Centers

3-16 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

3.4 Existing and Forecast Highway Conditions

An analysis of the existing road system in the S/WMPO area as it relates to LOS helps to determine which roadways need improvement. An analysis of existing and future highway conditions was conducted using current traffic counts and future forecast levels on the highway system, which are detailed in Appendix A. The analysis also utilized data for future build-out forecast of residential and commercial space in the S/WMPO area, which are listed in Appendix B. Estimated LOS is based on a volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio by The Traffic Group. The existing and projected traffic volumes are for illustrative purposes and are not comprehensive enough to be considered an engineering study. Some sections in the transportation network do not have an LOS assignment because data was not provided by The Traffic Group.

Furthermore, a trend analysis using SHA historic annual average daily traffic (AADT) counts (see Appendix C) reveals high-growth segments for selected roadways in the S/WMPO area over the 2000 to 2004 period.

Existing Traffic Volumes

Existing and programmed system capacity (i.e., the number of vehicles that can be safely accommodated on a facility or any segment of a facility) can be used as both a measure of the system’s ability to serve both through traffic and adjacent land use. System performance is measured as the ratio between the actual or projected traffic volumes and the actual or programmed capacity and is expressed as the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio.

The v/c ratio is a conventional LOS measure, which can be translated into the general operating conditions a driver will experience while traveling on a particular facility. LOS reflects driver satisfaction with a number of factors that influence the degree of congestion, including speed and travel time, traffic interruption, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort and convenience, and delays. While the actual operating conditions and LOS are dependant upon a multitude of other variables, most notably facility type, the level of congestion can be approximated based on the v/c ratio. This analysis estimates LOS based on a volume-to-capacity ratio provided by The Traffic Group and categorizes roadways into the following commonly accepted six congestion categories:

• LOS A, represents a free flow where individual users are virtually unaffected by others in the traffic stream. LOS A describes a condition with low-traffic volumes and high speeds with little or no delays. There is little or no restriction in maneuverability due to the presence of other vehicles. Drivers can maintain their desired speeds and can proceed through signals without having to wait unnecessarily.

• LOS B, is in the range of stable flow, but the presence of other users in the traffic stream begins to be noticeable. LOS B affords above average conditions, and is typically used for design of rural highways.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 3-17

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

• LOS C, also is in the range of stable flows, but marks the beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream. LOS C is normally utilized as a measure of “average conditions” for design of facilities in suburban and urban locations. It also is considered acceptable in rural locations.

• LOS D, represents high density, but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted and the driver experiences a generally poor level of comfort. Small increases in traffic flow will generally cause operational problems at this level. LOS D is considered acceptable during short periods of time and is often used in large urban areas.

• LOS E, represents operating conditions at or near capacity. Operations at this level are usually unstable, because small increases in flow or minor perturbations within the traffic stream will cause breakdowns.

• LOS F, is used to define forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount which can traverse the point and queues form behind the point. LOS F is characterized by demand volumes greater than the roadway capacity as complete congestion occurs and, in an extreme case, the volume passing a given point drops to zero. Under these conditions motor- ists seek other routes in order to bypass congestion, thus impacting adjacent streets.

A capacity analysis of the existing road system in the S/WMPO area as it relates to LOS can help determine which roadways are in need of improvement. A report prepared for the S/WMPO analyzes the current roadway conditions for several key segments within the S/WMPO area and calculates a v/c ratio based on existing average daily traffic (ADT) and peak-hour and directionality factors.1 The report approximated the LOS from the calculated peak-hour v/c ratio.

Figure 3.9 shows the current congestion levels as calculated with data from the previously referenced report.2 Currently, there are two roadways within the S/WMPO area that are experiencing some congestion: U.S. Route 13 in the Delmar area; and U.S. Route 50 between Waltson Switch Road and Forest Grove Road. Given that these areas already are experiencing traffic congestion, it is likely that congestion on these roadways will increase over the horizon of this LRTP.3 Furthermore, as population and development in the study area rise, demand on existing transportation systems will increase. As a result, roadways that currently experience free-flow movement will likely become mildly or moderately congested in the future.

1 The Traffic Group, “Wicomico County Transportation Study,” June 2006. 2 See Appendix H for level of service threshold criteria. 3 Growth factor and external traffic assumed by The Traffic Group.

3-18 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Figure 3.9 Existing Congestion Levels 2006

Forecast Traffic Volumes

The aforementioned report also used existing average daily traffic volumes and future development forecasts from the Wicomico County Planning Office to predict future 2030 daily traffic volumes on major roadway segments within the study area. The report used factors to reduce daily volume forecasts to peak-hour volumes suitable for capacity analysis. While the majority of the segments studied are projected to have mild or no congestion, several segments that were studied are forecasted to exceed their existing capacities by 2030.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 3-19

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

The following segments are projected to have a level of service of “E,” indicating some congestion:

• U.S. 50 Business from Beaglin Park Drive to the Salisbury Bypass, • Snowhill Road from College Avenue to the Salisbury Bypass, • Snowhill Road from Wildlife Lane to Airport Road, • South Salisbury Boulevard from Vine Street to Main Street, and • Nanticoke Road from Old Quantico Road to Crooked Oak Lane

The following segments are projected to have a failing level of service of “F,” indicating severe congestion:

• U.S. 50 Business/Salisbury Parkway from Queen Street to Booth Street, • U.S. 50 from the Salisbury Bypass to Forest Grove Road, • U.S. 13 from the Salisbury Bypass to the Maryland State Line/Delmar, and • U.S. 13 from the Salisbury Bypass to the Wicomico County Line.

Much of the most severe congestion is expected to occur on U.S. Route 13 toward the Town of Delmar where much of the existing, recently developed, and future development is proposed to occur. The Wicomico County Planning Office projects the ultimate development potential along this corridor (including the Town of Delmar) to be more than 3,000 residential units and about two-million square feet of office/retail development.4

Furthermore, the Wicomico County Planning Office projects a total buildout of future office development along U.S. Route 50 east of the Salisbury Bypass to reach slightly more than two-million square feet.5 Such a significantly sized development will add traffic to an already heavily traveled corridor to Ocean City and the beach areas. As a result, the projected peak-hour v/c ratio is anticipated to reach more than 1.50.6 In other words, the volume of traffic on U.S. Route 13 north of Salisbury will exceed the designed capacity by 50 percent and, without additional capacity, the resulting LOS will be severely congested.

Figure 3.10 shows anticipated congestion levels within the S/WMPO study area using data from a traffic report recently prepared by The Traffic Group for the S/WMPO for inclusion in this LRTP.7

4 Appendix B. 5 Appendix B. 6 Appendix A. 7 See Appendix H for level of service threshold criteria.

3-20 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Figure 3.10 Projected Congestion Levels 2030

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 3-21

4.0 Financially Constrained Long- Range Transportation Plan

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

4.0 Financially Constrained Long- Range Transportation Plan

The Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Planning Organization (S/WMPO) Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is required by Federal transportation regulations to be financially constrained to the funding that is reasonably expected to be available over the applicable time period. This LRTP contains recommendations for proposed projects with expected funding sources to 2030.

4.1 Project Identification

The projects identified for funding in this LRTP are those contained in existing documents, including several that have been adopted locally. These include the fiscal year (FY) 2007 to 2011 Wicomico County Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the FY 2007 to 2011 City of Salisbury CIP, the FY 2006 to 2011 City of Fruitland CIP, the FY 2007 to 2008 Town of Delmar CIP, and the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) Highway Needs Inventory – Wicomico County 2006 Revised. No projects have been submitted by the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) for inclusion in this LRTP for the portion of Delaware that is within the S/WMPO study area.

A complete list of the identified projects is included in Appendix D. A total of 59 projects are listed, of which 19 are considered capacity expansion and 40 are considered system preservation. Projects categorized as “system preservation” maintain and improve existing facilities while “capacity expansion” projects increase the capacity of the transportation system through the construction of new facilities and the expansion of existing ones. Some of the most significant roadway capital expansion projects planned include the U.S. Route 50 – Ocean Gateway interchange; the U.S. Route 50 – Ocean Gateway access-control improvements; the U.S. Route 13 – North Salisbury Boulevard/Ocean Highway reconstruct with access-control improvements; the West Side Collector proposed in the Wicomico County CIP; the Pemberton Drive widening; the Riverside Drive roundabout; and completion of the Northeast Collector by the City of Salisbury. In addition, Shore Transit proposes to construct a new facility to centralize its operations.

Metropolitan Transportation Planning Factors

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) identifies eight planning factors that are required to be incorporated into

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 4-1

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

the metropolitan transportation planning process. The S/WMPO has considered these factors during the development of this LRTP and has determined that the recommended projects and the financial component of the LRTP are in accordance with these factors. Furthermore, each participating agency applied the eight SAFETEA-LU planning factors during the identification and prioritization process to ensure that the proposed projects meet Federal goals. The SAFETEA-LU planning factors are:

1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency;

2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users;

3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users;

4. Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight;

6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight;

7. Promote efficient system management and operation; and

8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.

Using the SAFETEA-LU metropolitan planning factors and the goals and objectives of this LRTP, the participating agencies identified projects that have funding commitments, or “constrained” projects and additional transportation needs without current funding commitments, or “unconstrained” projects. The resulting Constrained LRTP focuses on those priority projects with identified funding. A short description of unfunded (unconstrained) needs also is included in this Constrained LRTP.

4.2 Estimated Available Funding

Maryland Department of Transportation’s (MDOT) Finance Office developed financial projections used in this Constrained LRTP to determine the amount of state funding that will be available through 2030. Current CIPs for Wicomico County, the Cities of Salisbury and Fruitland, and the Town of Delmar were reviewed to identify their respective planned near-term transportation expenditures.

The assumptions used to estimate future available funding for highway capital improvements are described in the following paragraphs.

4-2 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Total Program Revenues/Expenditures (Operating and Capital)

MDOT used actual revenue/expenditure figures from FY 1981 to FY 2002, and FY 2002 Trust Fund Forecast and Draft Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP) estimates for the period FY 2003 to FY 2008. Funding from 2009 to 2030 is based on a historic 3.75 percent average annual growth rate. Federal funding projections are based on a historic 4.7 percent average annual growth rate for both highway and transit program funds. Federal funding received directly by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) supporting Maryland transit operations in the National Capital region was not included in the historic analysis.

Operating Expenditures

Operating expenditures were forecast using actual historical expenditures from FY 1981 to FY 2002 and operating budget projections from FY 2003 to FY 2008. Future expenditures from FY 2009 to FY 2030 are based on projections derived by inflating the previous year with an estimate of inflation (Consumer Price Index or CPI) plus one percent. The projected annual inflationary change is based on forecasts provided to MDOT by two economic forecasting firms. The one percent above CPI is meant to account for the additional operating costs associated with future capital expansions.

Capital – Systems Preservation

MDOT analyzed department records to determine the historic split between systems preservation and capital expansion from FY 1981 to FY 2002 and used the draft version of the FY 2003 to FY 2008 CTP to determine the current split for Wicomico County. For the period FY 2009 to FY 2030, an average annual growth rate of 2.5 percent was assumed for systems preservation expenditures to reflect the continuing aging of the highway infrastructure.

Capital – Expansion

Capital expansion expenditures were estimated by subtracting both operating and systems preservation expenditures from the total program expenditures for each year.

Wicomico County – Percentage of Capital Expansion

In order to determine the percentage of funding that Wicomico County would presumably receive toward long-range transportation recommendations, MDOT split historic capital expenditures (FY 1981 to present) into “surface” and “nonsurface” categories. Surface categories included highway (SHA) and transit (Maryland Transit Administration (MTA), Maryland Commuter Rail (MARC), and WMATA) costs. Nonsurface included port, avia- tion, and motor vehicle administrations, and the Secretary’s Office expenditures.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 4-3

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

The surface/nonsurface data and the system preservation/expansion data were combined, analyzed, and evaluated to produce estimates of the percentage of Maryland expansion associated with surface transportation for the various time periods. Estimates of likely available surface capital expansion expenditures in Wicomico County over the period 2009 to 2030 were derived from historical records and used with the above- mentioned projections to produce the estimates shown for Wicomico County as a percent of Total Surface Expansion and as a percent of Total Maryland Expansion. Furthermore, FY 2001 through FY 2003 were adjusted to account for the impacts of constructing the Salisbury Bypass.

Table 4.1 shows the results of the aforementioned analysis and identifies availability of Capital Expansion funds for Wicomico County through 2030. In addition to the funding analysis conducted by MDOT, the current FY 2006 to 2011 Maryland CTP was reviewed to examine planned near-term expenditures over the next six years.

The detailed analysis indicates that $199.7 million in state funding is available for surface capital expansion projects in Wicomico County beginning in 2009 and extending through 2030. This Constrained LRTP assumes 2007 as the base year, which increases the amount of available funding to $202.1 million.

SHA proposes nine new state highway capital expansion projects planned for the S/WMPO area through 2030 totaling $220.9 million, which are eligible for surface capital expansion funds as shown in Table 4.2. SHA also proposes eleven system preservation projects, which are programmed in the FY 2006 to 2011 CTP and are planned within the S/WMPO boundary area, with obligated funding totaling $6.8 million. Table 4.3 lists the system preservation projects planned for the S/WMPO area, which are included in the FY 2006 to 2011 CTP prepared by MDOT for Wicomico County. Given that CTP projects already are obligated, available funding for capital expansion projects in this Constrained LRTP totals a little more than $195.0 million.

4-4 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Table 4.1 Wicomico County Percentage of State Highway Administration Capital Expansion (Millions of Dollars)

Statewide Total Wicomico Total Expansion Surface Private Surface County Wicomico County Fiscal Year Funds Percentage Funds Available Percentage Expansion Funds

2003 $1,013 $3.0 2004 $904 $2.1 2005 $717 $2.0 2006 $462 $1.4 2007 $274 $1.3 2008 $268 $1.1 2009 $546 $481 $21 $502 $5.5 $5.5 2010 $580 $511 $21 $532 $5.8 $5.8 2011 $615 $541 $22 $563 $6.1 $6.1 2012 $649 $571 $22 $593 $6.5 $6.5 2013 $683 $601 $22 $623 $6.8 $6.8 2014 $717 $631 $22 $653 $7.1 $7.1 2015 $752 $662 $23 $685 $7.5 $7.5 2016 $787 $692 $23 $715 $7.8 $7.8 2017 $822 $723 $23 $746 $8.1 $8.1 2018 $856 $753 $23 $776 $8.5 $8.5 2019 $890 $783 $24 $807 $8.8 $8.8 2020 $925 $814 $24 $838 $9.1 $9.1 2021 $962 $847 $24 $871 $9.5 $9.5 2022 $999 $879 $24 $903 $9.8 $9.8 2023 $1,042 $917 $25 $942 $10.3 $10.3 2024 $1,078 $949 $25 $974 $10.6 $10.6 2025 $1,117 $983 $25 $1,008 $11.0 $11.0 2026 $1,157 $1,018 $25 $1,043 $11.4 $11.4 2027 $1,198 $1,054 $25 $1,079 $11.8 $11.8 2028 $1,238 $1,090 $25 $1,152 $12.2 $12.2 2029 $1,281 $1,127 $25 $1,152 $12.6 $12.6 2030 $1,321 $1,163 $25 $1,188 $12.9 $12.9

Total 2009 to 2030 $20,216 $17,790 $518 $18,308 $199.7 $199.7

Total 2003 to 2030 $23,855 $210.6

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 4-5

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Table 4.2 Capital Expansion Projects, State Highway Administration (Thousands of Dollars)

Estimated Facility Project Description Project Cost

U.S. Route 13 – South Fruitland Boulevard Divided highway $6,700 reconstruct U.S. Route 13 – North Salisbury Boulevard/Ocean Highway Divided highway $50,800 reconstruct with access control improvements U.S. Route 50 – Ocean Gateway Access control $64,800 improvements U.S. Route 50 – Ocean Gateway Interchange construct $31,300 Maryland 12 – Snow Hill Road Multilane urban $17,900 reconstruct Maryland 349 – Nanticoke Road Multilane reconstruct $25,100 Maryland 12 – Snow Hill Road Two-lane reconstruct $15,300 Maryland 350 – Mt. Hermon Road Two-lane reconstruct $8,800 Maryland 346 – Northeast Collector Road Phase II a Bike path $225 Total $220,925

Source: Maryland State Highway Administration Highway Needs Inventory – Wicomico County 2006 Revised.

a Consolidated Transportation Program FY 2006 to 2011.

4-6 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Table 4.3 System Preservation Projects, State Highway Administration (Thousands of Dollars)

Estimated Facility Project Description Project Cost

U.S. Route 13 – Salisbury Bypass Resurface northbound roadway $,1331 U.S. Route 13 Business – Salisbury Boulevarda Resurface $382 U.S. Route 50 Business – Salisbury Parkway Resurface $1,120 U.S. Route 50 Business – West Salisbury Boulevard Resurface eastbound roadway $329 Maryland 675B – Bi-State Boulevard Resurface $382 U.S. Route 50 Business – Salisbury Parkwaya Bridge rehabilitation $377 Maryland 991 – Main Street Bridge upgrade electrical systems; $2,401 structural and mechanical repairs U.S. Route 13 Business – Salisbury Boulevard Drainage improvement $1,265 Maryland 513 – East Cedar Lane Construct roundabout (preliminary $141 engineering only) U.S. Route 50 – Ocean Gateway Right-of-way for access controls $240 U.S. Route 13 Business – South Salisbury Boulevard Retrofit sidewalk $200 Total $6,837

Source: Consolidated Transportation Program FY 2006 to 2011. a Project under construction.

4.3 Constrained Projects

This Constrained LRTP includes capital expansion projects for both highway and transit as well as system preservation projects for both highway and transit. Figure 4.1 identifies the location of the constrained highway capital expansion projects in addition to system preservation projects (SHA only) in the S/WMPO area. Table 4.4 summarizes the anticipated costs and funding of constrained capital expansion projects in the S/WMPO area organized by responsible agency. Table 4.5 summarizes the anticipated costs and funding of system preservation projects in the S/WMPO area organized by responsible agency. Appendix D, which corresponds to the project map (Figure 4.1), presents a detailed list of the transportation projects included in the Constrained LRTP. It should be noted that the following map and tables do not provide information on unconstrained projects. Due to limited funding availability through 2030, not all of the improvement projects listed in Appendix D have identified funding associated with them at this time.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 4-7

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Figure 4.1 Constrained Highway Capital Expansion Projects and System Preservation Projects (State Highway Administration Only)

Legend: 1 U.S. Route 13 – South Fruitland Boulevard 10 U.S. Route 50 Business – West Salisbury Boulevard 2 U.S. Route 13 – North Salisbury Boulevard/Ocean Highway 11 Maryland 675B – Bi-State Boulevard 3 U.S. Route 50 – Ocean Gateway 12 U.S. Route 50 Business – Salisbury Parkwaya 4 U.S. Route 50 – Ocean Gateway 13 Maryland 991 – Main Street 5 Maryland 12 – Snow Hill Road 14 U.S. Route 13 Business – Salisbury Boulevard 6 Maryland 349 – Nanticoke Road 15 Maryland 513 – East Cedar Laneb 7 U.S. Route 13 – Salisbury Bypass 16 U.S. Route 50 – Ocean Gateway 8 U.S. Route 13 Business – Salisbury Boulevarda 17 U.S. Route 13 Business – South Salisbury Boulevard 9 U.S. Route 50 Business – Salisbury Parkway 18 Maryland 346 – Northeast Collector Road Phase II

a Project under construction. b Preliminary engineering underway.

4-8 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Table 4.4 Total Constrained Capital Expansion Projects 2007 to 2030 (Thousands of Dollars)

Total Total Estimated Project Cost Anticipated Funding Capital Expansion – Highway

State Highway Administration $220,925 $195,263 Wicomico County $6,060 $6,060 City of Salisbury $16,876 $16,876 Total $243,861 $218,199 Capital Expansion – Transit Tri-County Council for the Lower Eastern Shore $12,544 $12,544

Total $12,544 $12,544

Table 4.5 Total System Preservation Projects 2007 to 2030 (Thousands of Dollars)

Total Total Estimated Project Cost Anticipated Funding System Preservation – Highway

State Highway Administration $6,837 $6,837 Wicomico County $5,376 $5,376 City of Salisbury $6,840 $6,840 City of Fruitland $1,000 $1,000 Town of Delmar $800 $800 Total $20,853 $20,853 System Preservation/Operating – Transit Tri-County Council for the Lower Eastern Shore $87,593 $87,593 Total $87,593 $87,593

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 4-9

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

The following sections explain the methodology used to forecast future expenditures and revenues and presents a brief description of specific fiscally constrained highway improvement projects for each participating agency. Projects related to transportation operations are excluded in this Constrained LRTP, but are discussed further in Section 7.0.

MDOT – SHA

Based on the resulting estimates of total available capital expansion funding (less CTP obligated funds) of $195.0 million for SHA projects in Wicomico County, the following projects listed in Table 4.6 are financially constrained through 2030. These projects were identified through the 2006 Maryland SHA’s Highway Needs Inventory for Wicomico County. Constrained projects were identified jointly by MDOT and Wicomico County. The constrained SHA projects are discussed below. As previously mentioned, a full list of all highway projects considered, both constrained and unfunded, is included in Appendix D.

Table 4.6 State Highway Administration Constrained Projects (Thousands of Dollars)

Estimated Available Facility Project Description Project Cost Funding

U.S. Route 13 – South Fruitland Boulevard Divided highway $6,700 $6,700 reconstruct U.S. Route 13 – North Salisbury Boulevard/Ocean Highway Divided highway $50,800 $50,800 reconstruct with access control improvements U.S. Route 50 – Ocean Gateway Access control $64,800 $64,800 improvements U.S. Route 50 – Ocean Gateway Interchange construct $31,300 $31,300 Maryland 12 – Snow Hill Roada Multilane urban $16,338 $16,338 reconstruct Maryland 349 – Nanticoke Road Multilane reconstruct $25,100 $25,100 Total $195,038 $195,038

Source: Maryland State Highway Administration Highway Needs Inventory – Wicomico County 2006 Revised. a Total estimated cost of reconstruction of this entire section of Maryland 12 is approximately $17.9 million. The amount constrained ($16.3 million) is thus only a portion (about 91 percent) of the total cost.

4-10 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

S/WMPO Area Funding

In addition to state funding, Wicomico County, the City of Salisbury, the City of Fruitland, and the Town of Delmar also have proposed projects within the S/WMPO area on roadways considered by this LRTP and have identified funding sources for those projects.

Wicomico County

According to the Wicomico County CIP for FY 2007 through FY 2011, the County will expend a total of approximately $11.4 million on its highway system in the S/WMPO boundary area over the next five years and approximately $1.7 million on airport-related improvements. Of the $11.4 million programmed for highway expenditure in the S/WMPO area between FY 2007 and FY 2011, $6.0 million of this funding is dedicated to capacity enhancing projects and nearly $5.4 million is dedicated to system preservation projects. These constrained projects include:

Estimated Project Cost Available Funding Facility (Wicomico County) (Thousands of Dollars) (Thousands of Dollars) Capacity Expansion Westside Collector $5,360 $5,360 Johnson Road $700 $700 Total $6,060 $6,060 System Preservation Morris Mill Road $874 $874 Sherwood Manor $912 $912 Leonard Mill Pond Bridge $2,400 $2,400 Mt. Hermon Church Road $196 $196 Jersey Road $184 $184 Fire Tower Road $438 $438 Levin Dashiell Road $372 $372 Total $5,376 $5,376

The five-year (FY 2007 through FY 2011) Wicomico County CIP indicates the County will spend approximately $6.0 million on highway capacity expansion projects in the S/WMPO area over the next five years. Projecting into the future beyond the time period of the County’s CIP, it is estimated that the annual average amount available for capacity expansion projects is $1.2 million. Based on this analysis, it is estimated the County will have approximately $23.0 million available for roadway capital expansion projects between 2012 and 2030.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 4-11

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

City of Salisbury

The City of Salisbury’s Department of Public Works lists six capacity expansion projects and eleven system preservation projects. According to the City of Salisbury CIP for FY 2007 through FY 2011, the City will expend approximately $16.8 million on capacity enhancing projects and $6.8 million on system preservation projects. These constrained projects include:

Estimated Project Cost Available Funding Facility (City of Salisbury) (Thousands of Dollars) (Thousands of Dollars) Capacity Expansion Pemberton Drive Widening $3,830 $3,830 South Division Street Widening $1,720 $1,720 Riverside Drive Roundabout $6,500 $6,500 Northeast Collector Phase III $2,990 $2,990 Beam Street Extension $1,050 $1,050 Culver Road $786 $786 Total $16,876 $16,876 System Preservation East Main Street (Downtown Plaza) $520 $520 Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Patching $450 $450 Street Reconstruction $2,865 $2,865 Beaverdam Drive Bridge Repairs $395 $395 Circle Avenue Bridge Repairs $95 $95 Memorial Plaza Bridge Repairs $35 $35 South Division Street Bridge Repairs $80 $80 Isabella Street Shoreline Protection $1,880 $1,880 Naylor Mill Road Bridge Repairs $45 $45 Camden Street Pedestrian Bridge $165 $165 Mill Street Bridge Repairs $310 $310 Total $6,840 $6,840

The five-year (FY 2007 through FY 2011) City of Salisbury CIP indicates the City will spend approximately $16.9 million on highway capacity expansion projects over the next five years. Projecting into the future beyond the time period of the City’s CIP, it is estimated that the annual average amount available for capacity expansion projects is $3.4 million. Based on this analysis, it is estimated the City will have approximately $64.1 million available for roadway capital expansion projects between 2012 and 2030.

4-12 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

City of Fruitland

The City of Fruitland lists five projects under the Highways category in its CIP, which covers a five-year time horizon from FY 2006 to FY 2011. Funding for one system preservation highway project is provided with City funds. For this Constrained LRTP, the City of Fruitland did not submit any capacity expansion projects. The only project funded, totals nearly $1.0 million. The constrained project is:

Estimated Project Cost Available Funding Facility (City of Fruitland) (Thousands of Dollars) (Thousands of Dollars) System Preservation Hayward Avenue $1,000 $1,000 Total $1,000 $1,000

Town of Delmar

The Town of Delmar lists six transportation-related system preservation projects in the CIP, which covers a two-year time horizon from FY 2007 to FY 2008. Funding for these projects is provided by the Town of Delmar. For this Constrained LRTP, the Town of Delmar submitted six system preservation projects and funded five, which totaled $800 thousand. These constrained projects include:

Estimated Project Cost Available Funding Facility (Town of Delmar) (Thousands of Dollars) (Thousands of Dollars)

System Preservation Pennsylvania Avenue Streetscape $350 $350 Street Preservation $100 $100 Sidewalks $100 $100 State Street Park Walkway $100 $100 West East Street $150 $150 Total $800 $800

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 4-13

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Transit

Local Public Transportation Services

This section of the LRTP constrains the S/WMPO transit needs against estimated funding for the Wicomico County share of Tri-County Council for the Lower Eastern Shore, known as Shore Transit, from 2007 through 2030. The financial plan is intended to ensure that there is a reasonable likelihood that funding will be available to cover the cost of proposed improvements. This Constrained LRTP lists transportation projects that are needed to meet the demands of future growth of the transit system and identify the anticipated resources from Federal, state, and local sources to carry out the LRTP.

Capital Financing Plan

Through this Constrained LRTP, the S/WMPO is proposing to fund the Federal and state share for the transit service under Federal Transit Administration (FTA)/MTA grants. A summary of the average annual and cumulative transit capital costs is presented in Table 4.7. Table 4.8 provides a percentage break down of Shore Transit’s total capital costs by funding source over the time period 2007 through 2030. Note that the capital financing plan for Shore Transit assumes a 70 percent share for Wicomico County.

Table 4.7 Estimated Shore Transit Capital Costs, Wicomico County 2007 to 2030 (Thousands of Dollars)

Annual/Total Capital Costs Replacement Vehicles Other Capital Items Facility Total

Average Annual Capital Costs $406 $35 $1,960 a $2,401 Total Capital Costs (2007 to 2030) $9,744 $840 $1,960 a $12,544,300

a Represents Wicomico County’s share of the Shore Transit facility.

4-14 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Table 4.8 Estimated Shore Transit Capital Funding Sources 2007 to 2030 (Thousands of Dollars)

Percent of Funding Source Replacement Vehicles Other Capital Items Facility Total

Federal Capital Assistance $7,795 $672 $1,568 80%

State Capital Assistance $974 $84 $196 10%

Local Capital Assistance $974 $84 $196 10% Total $9,744 $840 $1,960 a 100%

a Represents Wicomico County’s share of the Shore Transit facility.

Facility – Shore Transit has been funded to plan and design a new transit facility in FY 2005 and FY 2006 to support transit operations in the tri-county area. While it is estimated that the total cost of the facility will be $2.8 million for construction and land acquisition, this Constrained LRTP assumes that Wicomico County’s share of the total cost of the facility is 70 percent or nearly $2 million. The Federal and state share of this project is estimated to cost nearly $1.8 million, with $196 thousand in local funds required.

Vehicles – Based on useful life criteria (most vehicles on the Shore Transit fleet are expected to last at least seven years) and the number of vehicles in the fleet, Shore Transit should be replacing about seven vehicles per year. Because no new expansion vehicles are needed to make the improvements recommended in the Transportation Development Plan (TDP), the total fleet size will remain at 53 vehicles. Assuming the fleet is comprised of 80 percent smaller buses and 20 percent larger buses, this will require Shore Transit to invest $406 thousand annually to replace its current fleet (in constant dollars). This will require approximately $9.7 million in funding over the 24-year time horizon. Federal and state grant funds are expected to cover 90 percent of these costs (about $8.8 million), with approximately $974 thousand required in local funds.

Other Capital Needs – Shore Transit has needs for various capital items, including garage equipment for maintenance activities at the current facility until new one is secured, a mobile lifting system, safety equipment, mechanics tools, computers, and new scheduling software. It is estimated that the cost of these elements is $35 thousand annually or $840 thousand over 24 years. As with other capital items, Federal and state funds are expected to cover 90 percent of these costs ($756 thousand), with $84 thousand required in local funds.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 4-15

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Operating Financing Plan Scenarios

Public transit services on the Lower Shore are supported by Federal Sections 5311 and 5307 public transit funding; Job Access and Reverse Commute grant funding; state Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and State Systems Technical Assistance Project (SSTAP) funds; local county funds; and passenger fares. Through this Constrained LRTP, the S/WMPO is proposing to fund the Federal and state share of the operating portion of transit service under FTA/MTA and Department of Human Resources (DHR) grants. With the majority of the system’s operating expenses being provided by Federal, state, and local governmental sources, the S/WMPO defined two alternative long-range service levels for Shore Transit from 2007 through 2030. Note that operating financing plan scenarios for Shore Transit assume a 70 percent share for Wicomico County.

Existing Service Level

This scenario would continue the current level of service (LOS) to 2030. The average annual system operation costs through this period are assumed to be $3.6 million in constant dollars – or approximately $87.6 million over the 24-year period. Assuming that passenger fares and other revenues would continue to cover about 26 percent, or nearly $964 thousand, of the annual operating costs, the net annual operating costs to be covered by Federal, state, and local governments would be about $2.7 million. Over the 24-year period, the resulting net operating cost for Wicomico County would be approximately $87.6 million.

Ten Percent Increase over Existing

This scenario considers a modest 10 percent increase in the LOS to implement the recommended service improvements set forward in the Transportation Development Plan or TDP (see Section 6.0). With this increase, the average annual system operation costs would be $4.0 million in constant dollars – or approximately $96.4 million over the 24-year period. Assuming that passenger fares and other revenues would continue to cover about 26 percent, or nearly $1.1 million, of the annual operating costs, the net annual operating costs to be covered by Federal, state, and local governments would be about $2.9 million. Over the 24-year period, the resulting net operating cost for Wicomico County would be approximately $96.4 million.

Table 4.9 presents a summary of these two scenarios. This table illustrates the differences between the average annual and cumulative local transit operating costs over the period 2007 to 2030 for both scenarios. Table 4.10 provides a percentage break down of Shore Transit’s total operating costs by funding source for each scenario over the time period 2007 through 2030.

4-16 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Table 4.9 Estimated Shore Transit Operating Costs, Wicomico County 2007 to 2030 (Thousands of Dollars)

Existing Service Level 10% Increase Over Existing Annual/Total Operating Costs (Scenario 1) (Scenario 2)

Average Annual Operating Costs $3,650 $4,015 Total Operating Costs (2007 to 2030) $87,593 $96,352

Table 4.10 Estimated Shore Transit Operating Funding Source 2007 to 2030 (Thousands of Dollars)

Percent Existing Service Level 10% Increase Over Existing Funding Source of Total (Scenario 1) (Scenario 2)

Passenger Fares and Other Revenue 26.4% $23,125 $25,437,

Federal/State Operating Assistance 37.4% $32,760 $36,036

Local Operating Assistance 36.2% $31,709 $34,879

Total 100.0% $87,593 $96,352

4.4 Unfunded Needs

Highway

The Constrained LRTP identifies two SHA unfunded long-range highway capacity enhancing projects with total estimated construction costs of approximately $25.7 million through 2030. Table 4.11 summarizes the costs of these projects. A detailed listing of constrained projects is available in Appendix D.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 4-17

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Table 4.11 State Highway Administration Unfunded Needs (Thousands of Dollars)

Facility Project Description Estimated Project Cost

Maryland 12 – Snow Hill Road Multilane urban reconstruct $1,562a Maryland 12 – Snow Hill Road Two-lane reconstruct $15,300 Maryland 350 – Mt. Hermon Road Two-lane reconstruct $8,800 Total $25,662

Source: Maryland State Highway Administration Highway Needs Inventory – Wicomico County 2006 Revised. a Total estimated cost of reconstruction of this entire section of U.S. 12 is approximately $17.9 million. The amount constrained ($16.3 million) is thus only a portion (about 91 percent) of the total cost.

Other Surface Projects

City of Fruitland

The Constrained LRTP identifies four City of Fruitland unfunded long-range surface projects with unknown construction costs through FY 2011. Table 4.12 summarizes these projects:

Table 4.12 City of Fruitland Unfunded Needs

Facility Estimated Project Cost

Capacity Expansion East Main Street Unknown System Preservation Irl Lane and Graydon Lane Unknown Clyde Avenue Unknown Selected Overlay Projects Unknown Total Unknown

Source: City of Fruitland CIP FY 2006 to 2011.

4-18 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Town of Delmar

The Constrained LRTP identifies one Town of Delmar unfunded long-range surface project with unknown construction costs through FY 2011. This system preservation project is known as the Walnut Street project.

S/WMPO Area Comprehensive Plans

In addition to the projects listed above, other transportation projects have been identified from various sources that also are located within the S/WMPO area. While funding for these is underdetermined, they are included in the local jurisdictions’ Comprehensive Plans and are proposed for construction over a long-range time horizon.

The following projects are proposed in both the Wicomico County Comprehensive Plan (1998) and the City of Salisbury Comprehensive Plan (1997). However, the Snow Hill Bridge – Ward Street Connection is only proposed in the City of Salisbury Comprehensive Plan.

Westerly Bypass Extension – Preliminary, long-range planning should begin for the extension of the existing Salisbury Bypass that would cross the Wicomico River in order to connect U.S. Route 50 west of Salisbury with U.S. Route 13 south of Salisbury. This would complete the last remaining section of a Beltway encircling Salisbury. A part of this rec- ommendation also should include a study of the need for an additional bridge crossing on the westerly side of Wicomico County that could be separate from the Bypass extension (see “New River Crossing” below).

Airport Road Relocation – This new alignment recommends that a direct access road be constructed from the intersection of Hobbs Road and U.S. Route 50 to the intersection of Airport Road and Maryland 350 (Mt. Hermon Road). The new alignment would provide a much needed direct means of access from U.S. Route 50 to the airport.

Traffic Control Studies – The S/WMPO study area is the single largest concentration of residents, visitors, and employees in the immediate region. Because of the regional nature of traffic moving into and through the area, additional traffic control measures should be undertaken on local streets and highways. Of particular concern is the proper evaluation of intersections for possible installation of traffic lights, proper turning lane markings, and proper striping of four lane highways. In some cases, additional directional signs may be required to provide regional visitors with a more convenient method of locating major destination points.

Newtown Bypass – Using existing abandoned rail right-of-way, the City should construct a direct link from the West Isabella Street bridge to North Salisbury Boulevard (U.S. Route 13 Business North). This will divert truck traffic from Isabella Street that runs through established residential areas. Mill Street should be extended to intersect with this new street.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 4-19

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

New River Crossing – A river crossing would connect the rapidly developing Pemberton Drive/Nanticoke Road area west of Salisbury with locations south of Salisbury and would help relieve traffic and congestion in Salisbury’s CBD. Currently, there are three bridges crossing the Wicomico River in Salisbury – at West Main Street, U.S. Route 50 Business, and Isabella Street. All are located relatively close to Salisbury’s downtown.

The S/WMPO should evaluate the need for an additional bridge crossing(s) of the Wicomico River in the westerly-southwesterly sections of the study area. At least three different areas should be evaluated in any study: 1) a rural crossing; 2) a suburban crossing; and 3) an urban crossing within the City of Salisbury. Because of the location of the City of Salisbury corporate limits on the east bank of the Wicomico River, city, and county coordination will be essential because the accessway and bridge may begin in Wicomico County but terminate within the City of Salisbury’s limits.

Each of the three general locations proposed for a new bridge has its advantages. An urban location has the advantage of improving traffic circulation around Salisbury’s downtown and would be located between Parsons Road and Salisbury’s CBD.

A suburban location has the advantage of being located away from the more congested areas near Salisbury’s downtown and would allow residents to travel circumferentially around Salisbury if part of a Beltway. The suburban location would be located in the general vicinity between Rockawalkin Road and Ellegood Street.

A rural location also may eventually be incorporated in the completion of a Beltway around Salisbury (see “Westerly Bypass Extension” above). Two possible locations include Upper Ferry Road or at the former Koppers’ property west of High Banks Estates. The rural and suburban locations would have significant environmental concerns to overcome.

Snow Hill Bridge – Ward Street Connection – Relocate Snow Hill Road to intersect with Ward Street and replace the existing bridge with a new structure similar to the South Division Street Bridge to allow for pedestrian access under the bridge. This would allow for a future connection with River Walk Park through the railroad bridge and a pedestrian crossing at Main Street.

4-20 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

5.0 Environment

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

5.0 Environment

5.1 Environmental Justice

The intent of environmental justice is to improve transportation opportunities, planning, and decision-making by including all public groups in the planning process and in the implementation of transportation services and facilities. “Environmental Justice” in this context refers to ensuring that the process of transportation planning is consistent with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal regulations require that environmental justice be considered during the preparation of the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).

Social and Economic Factors

A number of key social and economic factors associated with the metropolitan transportation planning process involve environmental justice considerations for groups such as minority and low-income populations. All Federal agencies and recipients of Federal aid must assure nondiscrimination in their programs and activities, in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition, Executive Order 12898 mandated that Federal agencies must address the topic of environmental justice by working to identify and respond to any disproportionately high and adverse human, health, or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority or low-income populations.

As a recipient of Federal funds, the Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Planning Organization (S/WMPO) must consider environmental justice issues in all of its activities, particularly during the conduct of major action such as the development of the 2030 LRTP. In order to comply with these Federal requirements, the following actions need to be taken:

1. Avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low-income populations;

2. Ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process; and

3. Prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-income populations.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 5-1

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

In planning transportation improvements, these groups must be treated fairly with effort made to ensure that they do not receive a disproportionate amount of adverse impacts from the development of proposed transportation projects.

Minority Population Distribution

A key step in addressing environmental justice issues involves identifying locations within the study area where high concentrations of minority and low-income populations are known to exist.

A summary of population groups within the Salisbury metropolitan area based upon the 2000 Census is provided in Table 5.1. Minority groups and populations of Hispanic/ Latino origin comprise a large percentage of the study area’s population. Minority racial and ethnic groups comprise about 32 percent of the overall population; therefore, outreach efforts are needed to involve these communities in the decision-making process.

Table 5.1 Regional Population Summary by Race/Ethnicity

Town of City of City of Salisbury Delmar, Salisbury, Fruitland, Urbanized Area Delaware Maryland Maryland Population Category Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share

Total Population 59,426 100% 3,266 100% 23,743 100% 3,774 100% White Alone 40,155 68% 2,424 74% 14,414 61% 2,483 66% Total Minority Population 19,271 32% 842 26% 9,329 39% 1,291 34% Black or African American Alone 16,314 27% 688 21% 7,673 38% 1,152 23% Other Race 2,957 1% 154 5% 1,656 1% 139 4% Hispanic or Latino 1,589 3% 89 3% 806 3% 70 2%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000.

A review of 2000 Census data at the census block level helps to identify the distribution of minorities throughout the study area. More diverse populations can be found just outside the Salisbury CBD, the northwest quadrant in particular. There also are sizeable minority communities adjacent southwest of Fruitland. The geographic distribution of minority populations in 2000 is illustrated in Figure 5.1.

5-2 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Figure 5.1 Regional Distribution of Minorities

Low-Income Population Distribution

A summary of the study area population by poverty status is provided in Table 5.2. Six- teen percent of the region’s total population lives within households whose incomes are at or below the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines.

A review of the geographic distribution of poverty data (Figure 5.2) results in several general findings of persons with incomes at or near poverty levels. The areas with the largest share of households living below the poverty level are concentrated in the northern area of Salisbury west of the Wicomico River, in particular near the port. There also is a concentration of households living below poverty south of downtown Salisbury between U.S. Route 13 to around Maryland 12.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 5-3

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Table 5.2 Regional Population Summary by Poverty Status

Town of Delmar, City of City of Salisbury Maryland/ Salisbury, Fruitland, Urbanized Area Delaware Maryland Maryland Category Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share

Population (1999) 56,250 100% 3,023 100% 22,026 100% 3,695 100% Below Poverty Level (1999) 8,759 16% 465 15% 5,248 24% 677 18% At or Above Poverty Level (1999) 47,481 84% 2,558 85% 16,778 76% 3,018 82%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000.

Figure 5.2 Percentage of Persons Living Below the Poverty Line

5-4 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Another factor related to poverty is the existence of zero-car households. Most zero-car households are concentrated in and near urban areas, where assisted transportation services are more likely to be available. In particular, nearly 50 percent of households in the area just northwest of the CBD have zero cars. Some zero-car households do exist in the rural segments of the study area, but they comprise a small percentage of the total population in those areas.

Finally, the lowest median household incomes within the study area can be found to the immediate northwest downtown Salisbury, and to the south and east. Conversely, the area further west of the City of Salisbury was recorded as having the highest-median household income ($63,684) in 1999.

Ageing Population Distribution

While age is not necessarily an indicator of income, individuals older than 65 years are more likely to fall into lower income or poverty categories after leaving the workforce. The reason why this is important to this LRTP is the transportation needs of these individuals is different from the needs of the general population and merits consideration.

The Salisbury area has a population that is ageing at a slightly higher rate than the State and the nation as a whole. At the national level, 12 percent of the total population is older than 65 years, while 11 percent of all Maryland residents are of similar age. As shown in Table 5.3, fully 13 percent of Wicomico County residents are older than 65 years. How- ever, 15 percent of the population of the Town of Delmar is older than 65, higher than the rest of the urbanized area.

Table 5.3 Regional Population Summary by Age 2000

Town of Delmar, City of City of Salisbury Maryland/ Salisbury, Fruitland, Urbanized Area Delaware Maryland Maryland Age Category Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share

Total 59,426 100% 3,266 100% 23,743 100% 3,774 100% Younger than 18 Years 14,624 25% 959 29% 5,172 22% 1,066 28% 18 to 64 Years 36,872 62% 1,823 56% 15,609 66% 2,260 60% 65 Years and Older 7,930 13% 484 15% 2,962 12% 448 12%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 5-5

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Elderly persons tend to be concentrated in and around the Metro Core of the S/WMPO study area, in all directions except for west of the Wicomico River as shown in Figure 5.3. Many westerly locations in the S/WMPO study area have both the highest and lowest per capita income. In particular, the City of Fruitland, particularly along the east banks of the Wicomico River, and the far eastern edges of the City of Salisbury appear to have the highest concentration of elderly persons. Regardless of their exact location, the presence of this large segment of the population should be sought as regional transportation deci- sions are made.

Figure 5.3 Regional Distribution of Population Age 65 and Older

5-6 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

5.2 Environmental Mitigation

Transportation often generates negative externalities affecting safety, human health, and the natural environment. Externalities occur from both the construction and maintenance of infrastructure and the operation of motor vehicles. Infrastructure externalities include effects on water systems (dewatering, runoff, sediment loadings, and erosion), soil processes (material-related pollution), and ecosystems (habitat destruction, degradation, and fragmentation).1

The construction of new transportation infrastructure is of special concern in environ- mentally sensitive areas. Collectively, the sensitive areas of Wicomico County, referred to as green infrastructure, cover more than 110,000 acres.2 Some of these sensitive ecosystems include the Nanticoke, Wicomico, and Pocomoke rivers; their riparian lands; the State Forest woodlands; the Chesapeake Bay critical areas; and numerous wetlands.3 Because Wicomico County’s rich array of sensitive areas, this LRTP outlines several strategies to mitigate against the adverse effects of existing, and especially future, transportation infrastructure.

Transportation infrastructure improvements make land more attractive for commercial and especially residential subdivision development in Wicomico County. According to the County’s Department of Recreation, Parks, and Tourism, between 1986 and 2004, subdivisions outside of the Metro Core consumed approximately 81 percent of the newly developed land. Today, developed land accounts for 10 percent of the County’s total area. In this context, transportation infrastructure projects in Wicomico County warrant the consideration of potential ecological and environmental effects. Various environmental regulations and mitigation measures aim to minimize the impact of road projects proposed in this LRTP.

Environmental Safeguards

Conservation, water, and air quality regulations are the most applicable environmental safeguards for transportation projects. In fact, projects advanced by Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) must comply with a number of environmental requirements. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an environmental review

1 Runoff pollution contaminants from roads include sediment, oils and grease, heavy metals, debris, and road salts. 2 The concept of green infrastructure was adopted by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Detailed information available at: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/greenways/gi/gi.html. 3 According to The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, concentrations of nitrate and phosphate in recent years have increased in the Wicomico River.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 5-7

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

process when Federal funds are applied to transportation projects. Table 5.4 presents the two generic documents prepared for environmental reviews under NEPA.

Table 5.4 National Environmental Policy Act Environmental Review

Document Description

Environmental Assessment (EA) Provides evidence/analysis for determining whether a transportation project will cause significant impacts.a Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Describes the purpose and need for the proposed action, the proposed alternatives, the affected environment, and the environmental consequences of the alternatives.b

a National Environmental Policy Act explains in detail the concept of “significance” based on two criteria: context and intensity. b Air quality is covered in the environmental review process.

There are other environmental safeguards applicable to transportation project planning in the State of Maryland and protected areas within Wicomico County. A number of these procedures are outlined in Table 5.5.

To address the pressure for land development associated with increased accessibility, Wicomico County promotes the conservation of undeveloped and agricultural lands. Low-density zoning is a common tool to this end. Also, easement acquisition, where governmental institutions and environmental organizations purchase development rights, is a technique that incorporates market principles for preservation and is integrated into the County’s land policies. According to the Wicomico Department of Recreation, Parks, and Tourism, easement efforts had preserved 7,730 acres of agricultural land until 2005. In addition, the County’s efforts to promote eco-tourism are concurrent to easing the economic viability of protected areas.

5-8 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Table 5.5 Environmental Safeguards

Procedure Description

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers In compliance with the Clean Water Act, these permits regulate the Section 404 Permit and Maryland discharge of dredged, excavated, or fill material in wetlands, Department of the Environment (MDE) streams, rivers, and other U.S. waters. Water Quality Certificate National Pollutant Discharge This permit, issued by MDE, puts limits of pollutant discharges Elimination System (NPDES) Permit coming from highway materials. Sediment and Erosion Plan Approval Issued by the MDE, this approval is required before construction to prevent siltation due to releases of sediment from active construction sites. Stormwater Management Plan Stormwater runoff typically increases due to the loss of ground Approval cover and the increase of impervious surfaces. Wicomico County and Salisbury Public Works Departments issue approval for these plans, which must encompass measures to control stormwater runoff via infiltration practices, shallow marshes, retention, and detention ponds. Wetland and Waterways Permit Because of their linear nature, highway projects often inflict impacts on wetlands, a common scenic feature in Wicomico County. With this permit, the MDE authorizes the maximum extent of wetlands to be affected and corresponding mitigation requirements for highway projects. Chesapeake Bay Critical Area The Chesapeake Bay Critical Area laws regulate all development Regulations occurring within 1,000 feet of tidal waters, adjacent tidal wetlands, and tributaries. Tracts in this section are designated as Resource Conservation Areas (RCA), Limited Development Areas (LDA), and Intense Development Areas (IDA). In the first 100 feet of land adjacent to the watershed, nonwater dependent structures such as roads are prohibited. In all Critical Area land uses, there are limits on the area of impervious surfaces. For LRTP projects, different land use regulations would apply depending on their particular locations. Locations closer to the Salisbury Metro Core have less restrictive regulations. Wildlife Management Area (WMA) Wicomico hosts the WMA of Ellis Bay, Johnson, and Nanticoke. As Regulations state properties, transportation infrastructure project proposals affecting these areas must undergo an internal review from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 5-9

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Mitigation Practices

According to SHA’s Office of Environmental Design,4 common mitigation practices utilized throughout the State and Wicomico County during and after construction of transportation infrastructure include:

• Wetland Management – Impacted wetlands are replaced by creating new wetlands within the watershed where the impact occurs. Specific works include reforestation and removal of fish blockages.

• Stream Restoration – This measure determines an alternative flow that tailors the natural tendencies of an altered stream when road infrastructure is put in place.

• Critter Crossings – Instead of installing infrastructure on the ground, critter crossings (elevated passes) allow safe passage for woodland animals and help to prevent harm to forests and streams. The purpose is to keep corridors that connect ecological hubs, thus minimizing the fragmentation of ecosystems.

• Erosion Control – SHA utilizes devices such as silt fences, portable sediment tanks, sediment bags, geotextile materials, and bioengineering materials to meet and often exceed the requirements of MDE. Another measure is to rapidly establish vegetation on exposed soil during construction.

• Nutrient Management – In this mitigation practice, the use of shallow marsh ditches slows highway runoff water during storms. If left unfiltered, pollutants would be released into water streams.

• Noise Barriers – Noise barriers are solid obstructions built between the highway and areas along a highway. Effective noise barriers typically may cut the loudness of traffic noise by as much as 50 percent.

LRTP Projects and Environmental Impacts

The projects proposed in the Maryland Highway Needs Inventory (2006) refer to enhancements of the primary system (U.S. Route 13 and U.S. Route 50) and the secondary system (Maryland 12, Maryland 349, and Maryland 350). Based on a review of proposed SHA projects in relation to maps derived from the 2005 Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreation Plan (see Appendix E), Table 5.6 reveals that the bulk of proposed projects are within the vicinity of areas with ecological importance, generally of small scale. The bulk of improvements are planned for locations near the Salisbury Metro Core, where lesser environmental externalities are involved. Given that incremental infrastructure enhancements

4 State Highway Administration brochure “Environmental Stewardship: SHA’s Contributions to Preserve and Enhance Maryland’s Coastal Bays.”

5-10 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan are planned, additional environmental impact will likely be limited. For all projects, mitigation mechanisms (detention ponds, shallow marshes, wetland creation, etc.) should be considered where appropriate for the proposed enhancements.

Table 5.6 Highway Needs Inventory Projects and Areas of Ecological Importance in Their Vicinities

Project Forests Wetlands Critical Area Agricultural

Primary System U.S. Route 13 – South Fruitland Boulevard – Divided highway reconstruct U.S. Route 13 – North Salisbury Boulevard/ Ocean Highway – Divided highway reconstruct with access control improvements U.S. Route 50 – Ocean Gateway – Vienna Bypass to White Lowe Road U.S. Route 50 – Ocean Gateway – At Hobbs Road/Walston Switch Road Secondary System Maryland 12 – Snow Hill Road – Worcester County line to south of U.S. Route 13 Bypass Maryland 12 – Snow Hill Road – North of U.S. Route 13 Bypass to city limits at Vine Street Maryland 349 Nanticoke Road – Crooked Oak Lane to U.S. Route 50 Maryland 350 – Mt. Hermon Road – Beaglin Park Drive to Airport Road

Note: Wicomico Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreation Plan (2005).

Air Quality Planning and Transportation Conformity

Pollutant emissions are the most representative transportation externality. Based on 1999 data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), mobile sources in Maryland con- tribute with 87 percent of carbon monoxide emissions, 60 percent of nitrogen oxide (NOx), 42 percent of particulate matter (PM) of 2.5 micron (PM2.5), 46 percent of PM10, 8 percent of sulfur dioxide, and 62 percent of volatile organic compounds.5 Wicomico County presently

5 http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/cap/state.tcl?fips_state_code=24#emissions_summary.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 5-11

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

complies with Federal and state standards for criteria air pollutants.6 Local pollutants have adverse effects on human health, agricultural productivity, fishing and commercial extraction, recreational facilities, and damage to the ecosystem. In terms of pollutant- related diseases, Wicomico holds a relatively good position in Maryland as reported by the EPA.7

Federal regulations require that air quality issues be considered during the preparation of the LRTP. The S/WMPO area meets air quality conformity criteria as identified in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA). The Sussex County, Delaware, portion of the area was previously not in conformance with ozone standards and was considered a “nonattainment area.” However, as noted by correspondence contained in Appendix F, the FHWA and FTA have determined that appropriate actions have been undertaken to adequately address this situation, and the Delaware portion of the S/WMPO area is no longer in a conformity lapse. The Maryland portion of the area is in attainment of the criteria contained in the CAAA.

6 http://www.epa.gov/air/data/nonat.html?st~MD~Maryland. 7 http://www.epa.gov/air/data.

5-12 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

6.0 Multimodal Transportation

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

6.0 Multimodal Transportation

This section addresses multimodal or “nonautomobile” forms of transportation. These forms of alternative transportation have the potential to mitigate traffic on highways, especially in the Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Planning Organization (S/WMPO) study area. Given the population and employment characteristics of the S/WMPO area as well as future residential and commercial development potential, the demand for multimodal transportation alternatives is likely to receive greater attention. This chapter high- lights several transport alternatives, including public transportation services and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Freight generating industries, goods moved, and the various modes that carry them also are considered in the following pages.

6.1 Local Public Transportation Services

The Tri-County Council for the Lower Eastern Shore of Maryland (dba Shore Transit) operates fixed routes in the Lower Eastern Shore area that link residents to locations in Wicomico, Somerset, and Worcester Counties. The fixed routes include urban routes in the Salisbury metropolitan area and regional routes connecting major population centers. In addition, demand-response services are available for riders who are outside the fixed- route service areas or who have difficulty accessing a fixed-route service or transfer point.

It is estimated that in fiscal year (FY) 2005, Shore Transit carried more than one million one-way passengers and ridership is expected to be even higher in FY 2006. Transit on the Lower Eastern Shore has seen a number of institutional and service changes in recent years. Changes have included the final consolidation of the three Locally Operated Transit Systems (LOTS) under the Tri-County Council for the Lower Eastern Shore of Maryland (TCC) that took place on July 1, 2004, and the service changes that the new system has implemented. Service improvements have involved:

• Service Expansions – Transit services in new areas, expanded hours, and increased frequencies;

• Service Reductions or Changes in Mode to Improve Cost Efficiency – Elimination of some feeder routes and transition of some fixed routes to demand-responsive services; and

• New Services – Creation of a new Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit service designed to complement the fixed-route services in the region.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 6-1

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Current transit services in the Lower Eastern Shore are described below. Fixed-route fares are $1.00 for regular fare and half fare for elderly, persons with disabilities, and students. Children, Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA) customers, and personal care attendants ride the fixed routes for free. The system has no free transfers – passengers pay each time they board the bus. Fares for the demand-responsive services vary depending on the location and circumstances of the user; the fares can range from free to $6.00 per trip.

Fixed Routes

The Salisbury metropolitan area is served by six fixed routes designated by color: Blue, Green, Orange, Pink, Purple, and Yellow. In addition, regional fixed routes provide transit services along the “triangle,” connecting Crisfield, Pocomoke, Ocean City, and Salisbury.

Demand-Response Services

In addition to its fixed-route services, Shore Transit operates a number of different demand-response services. Most of these current services were “inherited” with the creation of Shore Transit and had been provided previously by each of the three counties with the addition of the new ADA complementary paratransit service – Shore Access.

In light of Shore Transit’s recent organization and service changes, the demand-response services now cover all of the three counties. To create the regionwide service, Shore Transit has integrated demand-response services that traverse Wicomico, Somerset, and Worcester Counties. These services are coordinated and riders, funded through the various programs, are carried on the same vehicles and at the same time; only the funding source is different.

A summary of each demand-responsive service is provided below.

Shore Ride (General Public) – Shore Transit provides general public transit service for persons who reside more than three-fourths miles away from fixed-route bus stop/ transfer point. Essentially, this service is provided in the more rural areas of the counties that are not serviced by any fixed route. This service has replaced some of the feeder and loop services that were eliminated for low productivity. General public riders in rural areas not served by fixed routes are picked up at their homes and taken to the closest fixed-route stop/transfer points so they can utilize the fixed-route service.

Shore Ride (Special Services for Elderly/Disabled – State Systems Technical Assistance Project (SSTAP) Service) – Shore Transit provides transit services for the elderly/disabled riders under the SSTAP program. This service is provided in Wicomico and Worcester Counties. Shore Ride offers both curb-to-curb and door-to-door services.

Medical Assistance (MA) Transportation – Shore Transit provides Medicaid transportation to medical appointments for persons eligible for the Medicaid services in all three counties. MA clients are placed on the demand-response services (Shore Ride, Shore Ride

6-2 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Special, and Shore Access). If this service is requested for a destination outside of the three-county area, Shore Transit requires notice of such a need two business days prior.

Shore Access (ADA) – With the provision of regular fixed-route services, Shore Transit was obligated to provide Federally mandated ADA complementary paratransit service. Shore Transit began providing ADA paratransit service in 2003.

Changes to Transit in the Region

The TCC recently had a Transportation Development Plan (TDP) prepared for the tri- county area. The TDP was developed over a three-year period during which transit services on the Lower Eastern Shore experienced many changes, both in terms of the actual services being operated and institutional arrangements for how the community has organized to provide transit.

Services grew substantially during the period in which the TDP was developed. Many of the changes were made, in part, as a result of the alternatives presented in the TDP planning process. Others were made in response to budget constraints. As noted above, ridership has grown steadily and substantially from 160,000 passengers in FY 2001 to more than one million in FY 2005.

Major changes in the organizational structure also were made during the study period. The region successfully completed the consolidation of the three-county transit systems under TCC in FY 2005.

A major change in transit funding went into effect in FY 2004. With the 2000 Census, Salisbury was designated as an urbanized area. This means that funding for transit services in the urbanized portion of the County were transitioned from the Federal Section 5311 program (for nonurbanized areas) to the Section 5307 program. While most of the characteristics of the two programs are the same, unlike the Section 5311 program, the non-Federal share under Section 5307 cannot be from other Federal grant programs (such as Medicaid or Aging funds). An increase in local cash will be needed to maintain the services within the Salisbury urban areas.

Finally, the funding scenario in the State of Maryland changed significantly in recent years. Previously (late 200l to early 2002), the State was in the process of implementing an aggressive transit expansion program statewide, termed the Maryland Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP). This provided significant state revenues for transit, in addition to the traditional transit funding programs that have historically helped local transit systems close their deficits. With the decline in the State’s economy and the change in leadership, this program is no longer likely to be implemented. While Federal funds and the historical state funding programs (ADA and SSTAP) are likely to remain relatively stable, state transit expansion funding is not likely in the near future.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 6-3

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Recommended Transit Improvements

As mentioned above, the five-year TDP captures a number of institutional changes that already have been made in the region through July 2005, including the final consolidation of the three LOTS under the TCC on July 1, 2004. While the timeframe for the TDP is short range, a number of other recommendations are made for Shore Transit services, including:

• Transit Facility – Because its operating facilities are small and scattered throughout the region, Shore Transit received funding for a facility study (FY 2005 planning funds) and the preliminary review began during the summer of 2005. The focus of the planning process is on assessing the current and future facility needs, determining an appropriate location/site, estimating the cost and funding, and deciding on which entity should own the facility. Funding for design and build was approved in the system’s FY 2006 budget.

• Service Improvements for Remainder of FY 2006 – A number of service improvements are proposed for the remainder of FY 2006, including:

− Further improvements to the scheduling of Routes 1 and 2 (Crisfield-Salisbury; Pocomoke-Salisbury); − Further “rationalize” demand-responsive services; and − Use the SSTAP program to provide service along Route 12 from Snow Hill to Salisbury.

Service Improvements FY 2007 and Beyond Fixed Route

• Service Improvements in Salisbury – The recommended improvements in Salisbury are designed to streamline local services provided in the City while maintaining local coverage. The new services are designed to be more radial in nature, with timed connections provided mid-route on the new interlinings, aimed at reducing the need to transfer for many passengers as well as decreasing overall ride length.

• Sunday Fixed-Route Service in Salisbury – Another improvement to consider in the future is the provision of limited fixed-route service in Salisbury on Sundays. Cur- rently, customers can ride from Ocean City to Salisbury on Sunday but are unable to make connections for destinations within the City.

• Sunday Service on the Routes 1 and 2 – The Routes 1 and 2 are the only routes on the major “triangle” that do not operate on Sundays. It is recommended that limited Sunday service be considered on these routes, beginning in FY 2007 or FY 2008.

Expand the Consolidation Efforts by Further Coordinating with Local Human Service Agencies – While all the public transit services are being consolidated under the TCC, there are still a myriad of human service transportation programs operating on the Lower Eastern Shore. Once the three providers have come together under the TCC, it is

6-4 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

recommended that the TCC pursue further coordination arrangements with Lower Eastern Shore human service transportation providers.

Other Issues to be Addressed in FY 2006

Stable Funding Source – Probably one of the most pressing issues for Shore Transit/TCC management during FY 2006 will be to establish a stable, predictable funding plan for the agency. Currently, the Shore Transit services are funded through a variety of state and Federal grants, passenger fares, and local funds. The state/Federal grants require a local “match” to various degrees. The local share is contributed by the local county governments (using general funds, through the TCC, through the county Department of Social Services or DSS), the state Department of Human Resources (DHR), human service agency contracts (MA), and Division of Rehabilitation Services (DORS). TCC and the counties/ municipalities need to develop an ongoing agreement on how the local share will be allo- cated among the three counties and the local municipalities that receive transit services (e.g., City of Salisbury).

Improved Scheduling Software – When the counties combined their services under Shore Transit, the system created its own computer software to aid in maintaining the client database, taking trip requests, scheduling trips onto vehicles, and billing/accounting. As the system has grown and fixed-routes services have transitioned to demand-responsive services, Shore Transit has outgrown the capabilities of its software. New software with expanded capabilities needs to be procured and implemented.

6.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Walkways

The 1998 Wicomico County Comprehensive Plan is supportive of nonmotorized travel, stating that:

“The future vision for Wicomico County should be streets that are pleasant to walk along, safe and efficient bike routes, effective incentives for car- pools and vanpools, and a network of roads that moves people and goods efficiently throughout the County. The goal must be to shift from moving vehicles, to strategies that will result in balancing the need for cars and trucks, transit riders, bike riders, walkers, agricultural operations and emergency services.” (1998, page 66)

The County’s Comprehensive Plan’s Transportation Element promotes the construction of pedestrian facilities, including bicycle planning, greenways, and scenic roadways. Fur- thermore, Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) has worked to make improvements that are bicycle compatible in order to better incorporate bicycle and pedestrian improvements in highway projects, which complements many of the transportation goals found in the Wicomico County Comprehensive Plan.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 6-5

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Streetscape Improvements

Many cities in Wicomico County have or are planning to improve the appearance of their streetscapes. One approach to encouraging nonmotorized transportation is through implementing streetscape improvements. Pursuing streetscape improvements may be an attractive approach to promote the use of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, especially in areas with heavy pedestrian traffic, such as downtowns, or in urbanized areas.

In its CIP, projects in the Town of Delmar include streetscape improvements to the sidewalks, curb, and gutter on Pennsylvania Avenue as part of revitalizing the downtown core. Other streetscape projects in the Town of Delmar include installation of ADA- compliant sidewalks and walkways.

The City of Salisbury has programmed $450,000 in local funding for citywide curb, gutter, and sidewalk construction from FY 2007 through FY 2011. Approximately $25,000 will be used for replacing street intersections with handicap ramps.

Bicycle- and Pedestrian-Related Projects

In Maryland, the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) receives funding for projects related to bicycle and pedestrian improvements through the CTP. The CTP provides a detailed listing of planned or proposed capital projects throughout the State over a six-year period. The most recent CTP covers the time-period 2006 to 2011.

Retrofit Sidewalk and Sidewalk Program

SHA is programmed to receive $483,000 in the 2006 to 2011 CTP for the Sidewalk Retrofit Program. Of this total, Wicomico County is programmed to receive $200,000 in funding for 1,500 linear feet of sidewalk improvements to the principal arterial U.S. Route 13 Business at Bateman Street to Milford Street. Listed in the 2006 to 2011 CTP is funding for the SHA Sidewalk Program in the amount of $11.4 million. This program provides matching funds1 for the construction of sidewalks adjacent to state highways. The program is intended to support community revitalization and to encourage pedestrian usage along state highways.

Transportation Enhancements

Also listed in the 2006 to 2011 CTP is funding to SHA for its Transportation Enhancements Program. Projects approved under this program are considered local projects, and are

1 Fifty percent of project costs are required from local and municipal project sponsors; however, urban revitalization areas are eligible for 100 percent state funding and priority funding areas are eligible for 75 percent state funding.

6-6 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan controlled at the local level with oversight from SHA to ensure that all Federal and state requirements are met. The 2006 to 2011 CTP provides $225,000, in funding for the Northeast Collector Road Bike Path (Phase II) located in the City of Salisbury. The bike path will be between six- and 10-feet wide and will extend 3,642 linear feet.

Wicomico County Trail System

Greenways and Water Trails

The Maryland Greenways Commission released the 2000 edition of the Maryland Atlas of Greenways, Water Trails, and Green Infrastructure,2 which presents statewide, regional, and county-level maps of Greenways, Water Trails, Protected Lands, and Green Infrastructure in Maryland. The Atlas maps also designate protected lands, which are government or conservation agency-owned lands or those lands that are owned or under easement. They also depict existing, planned, and potential greenways corridors.

According to the Maryland Greenways Commission web site,3 greenways are defined as “natural corridors set aside to connect larger areas of open space and to provide for the conservation of natural resources, protection of habitat, movement of plants and animals, and to offer opportunities for linear recreation, alternative transportation, and nature study.” Many greenways are classified as ecological corridors or recreational corridors. Ecological corridors are intended to protect natural resources or wildlife, but they often have designated trails. Recreational corridors are largely used for recreational activities, but they also are meant to provide ecological and/or habitat benefits.

There are several types of trails defined by the Maryland Greenways Commission. Water trails are recognized routes where watercraft activities may take place. Connectors are land routes often found in urban areas that provide walkways or bikeways between places, essentially connecting built environments.

The State of Maryland has more than 1,500 miles of protected greenways, including more than 600 miles of trails. Wicomico County is home to six complete and/or partial greenways. Figure 6.1 illustrates the greenways, water trails, and protected lands in Wicomico County. Note that numbers one through eight in Figure 6.1 correspond to existing, partial, or potential greenways and trails, which are listed in detail in Appendix G.

2 Available at http://www.dnr.state.md.us/greenways/. 3 Accessed August 9, 2006.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 6-7

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Figure 6.1 Recognized and Potential Greenways, Water Trails, and Protected Lands in Wicomico County

Source: Maryland Greenways Commission and Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

Note: Existing greenways depict generalized areas and are not accurate at this scale.

Hiking Trails

Many hiking trails provide access to parks and recreational areas in Wicomico County. The Wicomico Department of Recreation, Parks, and Tourism maintains a number of hiking trails throughout the County, including those listed below:

• Adkins Mill (0.5 mile); • Cedar Hill Park and Marina (0.8 mile); • Leonards Mill (0.5 mile); • North Lake Park (0.3 mile); • Pemberton Historical Park (5.0 miles); • Riverwalk Park (1.0 mile); and • WinterPlace Park (2.0 miles).

Source: Wicomico County Salisbury, Maryland Visitor’s Guide http://www.wicomicotourism.org.

6-8 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Bicycling Trails

Maryland is home to an extensive network of paved and unpaved (off-road) bicycle trails. In coordination with Wicomico County, the Lower Eastern Shore Heritage Committee, a nonprofit organization representing historic, cultural, and natural resource conservation interests of Worchester, Wicomico, and Somerset Counties, provided a grant to create the Wicomico County Bike Route Project. A product of this project is a series of maps detailing bicycle routes in the three-county area. Bicycle routes in the Wicomico area include the following trails:

• Jackson’s Back (8.0 miles); • Zippity-Zoo-Da (9.0 miles); • Lucky 13 (13 miles); • Ferry Loop (14 miles); • Shore Bird (15 miles); • Cooper Looper (20 miles); • Civic Pride (25 miles); • Hanger Banger (25 miles); Source: Wicomico County Salisbury, Maryland Visitor’s Guide • Magical Mystery Tour (27 miles); http://www.wicomicotourism.org. • Tourist Tango (28 miles); • Pemberton Whitehaven (34 miles); • Furnace Town Loop (35 miles); • Cedar Hill Loop (36 miles); • Polks Pass (38 miles); • Milburn landing Loops (40 miles); • Teakle Ferry Run (50 miles); • Stickey Fingers (51 miles); and • Deal Island Express (62 miles).

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 6-9

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan4

Maryland’s vision for bicycle and pedestrian mobility is embodied in the State’s 20-Year Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Master Plan (2002). Mandated by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Act of 2001, the Plan demonstrates Maryland’s support of bicycle and pedestrian travel throughout the State. A companion to the 20-Year Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Master Plan is the Technical Appendix: Bicycle and Pedestrian Needs Inventory (2002). Out- lined in the appendix are 73.93 miles of state-owned roadway in Wicomico County that need bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The last piece of the 20-Year Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Master Plan is the Model Ordinances for the Enhancement of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access to Transportation Facilities (2002). This technical memorandum offers a model for developing regulatory tools (e.g., land use regulations) to promote pedestrian and bicycle facilities and access. MDOT currently is evaluating implementation of the 20- Year Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Master Plan and also is undertaking a review of model ordinances and the effectiveness of the tool. Once this effort is complete, it is anticipated that bicycle and pedestrians considerations will assume a more prominent role in the development process of highway projects.

6.3 Goods Movement

Freight transportation is an important part of the transportation mix in the S/WMPO area. The Salisbury area is served by highway (truck), rail, waterborne, and air freight providers that play a critical role in the region’s economy. Figure 6.2 depicts the respective freight transportation networks within the S/WMPO study area.

4 The 20-Year Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Master Plan, the Technical Appendix: Bicycle and Pedestrian Needs Inventory, and the 20-Year Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Master Plan Model Ordinances for the Enhancement of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access to Transportation Facilities are available at http://www.mdot.state.md.us/Planning/Bicycle/BikePedPlan.

6-10 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Figure 6.2 Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Planning Organization Freight Transportation Network

This section describes the existing freight transportation network and then identifies the current (2003) and future (2030) mix of commodities that are moved on the network. It concludes with a discussion of the economic impacts of freight transportation on Wicomico County.

Highway Network

Truck transportation is the most important goods movement mode serving the S/WMPO. Within a freight context, there are two major highways that service the S/WMPO study area, providing north, south, east, and west access to locations on the Delmarva Peninsula and beyond. The north-south highway is U.S. Route 13, and U.S. Route 50 serves as the principal east-west highway. The nexus of these highways is the City of Salisbury, often referred to as the “Crossroad of Delmarva.” These highways provide access to commercial

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 6-11

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

and industrial areas.5 The access that these highways provide has been key to attracting development and population. Furthermore, because the intersection of these highways acts as a gateway for transportation in, out, and through the region, they have become valuable segments in the freight transportation network, linking the region to the distribution hubs in Hampton Roads, Central Maryland, and the Northeast Corridor between Wilmington and Northern New Jersey. Given the City of Salisbury’s proximity to the highway network and the construction of modern roads and major bridges across the Chesapeake Bay, the S/WMPO study area is the preeminent hub for surface freight movement in the Lower Delmarva Peninsula.

Railroad Network

Of the 177 miles of Norfolk Southern railroad and its railroad operating subsidiaries in the State of Maryland, 12.3 miles of railroad run through Wicomico County from the Delaware State line in the Town of Delmar to Pocomoke City in Worcester County, Maryland.6 The County’s share of Norfolk Southern railroad mileage represents roughly seven percent of all Norfolk Southern railroad mileage in the State. Freight trains that run on the north-south alignment of the Norfolk Southern railroad offer an important transportation link to the Delmarva Peninsula. For example, a major freight generator in the City of Salisbury – Perdue Farms Processing Plant – utilizes rail to move goods, such as pelletized fertilizer, to the Midwest.

Port Facility

A longstanding transportation route to and from the Chesapeake Bay, the Wicomico River and its dredged channels (up to 14 feet) provide a navigable waterway for small boats and barges. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the waterway is often used to bring petroleum products, grains, and crude materials into the Port of Salisbury.7 The section of the Wicomico River included in USACE statistics includes waterway from the river mouth to Salisbury.

5 Restrictions to truck routes in the City of Salisbury Municipal Code are not identified. Part 397 of the State Highway Administration. Maryland Motor Carrier Handbook states rules for transporting hazardous materials, including the rule that hazardous materials must not be operated “over routes that go through or near heavily populated areas”. Available at: http://mva.state.md.us. 6 http://www.nscorp.com. 7 Available at http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/wcsc/pdf/wcusatl04.pdf.

6-12 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Salisbury-Ocean City-Wicomico Regional Airport

As described in the following commodities section, the Salisbury-Ocean-City-Wicomico Airport provides daily air cargo service via U.S. Airways Express and FedEx. The airport is the only air cargo facility on the Lower Delmarva Peninsula.

Commodity Flow Freight Movement

Goods movement is a broad term often used to describe the transport of commodities. Understanding what commodities are moving where, by what mode (highway, rail, air, and water), and with what impacts on the freight transportation system – both currently and under anticipated future conditions – is important to any coordinated freight strategy for a state, region, or county. Following is an analysis of statewide commodity flow freight movement, with particular emphasis on Wicomico County freight movement.

The primary data source for analyzing commodity flow freight movements is the TRANSEARCH commodity flow database purchased by MDOT for its ongoing statewide freight planning efforts.8 The TRANSEARCH data provide estimates of county-to-county and state-to-state freight flows by truck, rail, air, and water, as well as estimates for different commodity types for these modes.9

Types of Movement

• Inbound movements are defined as movements from any other region10 or an adjoining state to Maryland.

• Outbound movements are defined as movements from Maryland to any other region or adjoining state.

8 Portions of this commodity flow section were extracted from the Draft Maryland Freight Profile report (2005) completed by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. for the Maryland Department of Transportation. 9 TRANSEARCH data captures domestic commodity tonnage moving within the United States and does not capture “nonfreight” vehicle movements (empty trucks or railcars, service vehicles, etc.) or international movements. Two limitations of the TRANSEARCH data are its low estimates for waterborne and air cargo tonnage, due largely to the international nature of such movements, which is not fully captured in the database. 10 For this analysis, “regions” represent the nine regions designated by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 6-13

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

• Intrastate movements are defined as movements between any two counties in Maryland. This tonnage is counted only once, rather than counting it at both its origin county (as an outbound move) and its destination county (as an inbound move).

• Through movements are defined as movements between any two external (outside of Maryland) regions or adjoining states that are routed through Maryland, according to TRANSEARCH model assignments.

Truck Commodity Flow Freight Movement

Like most states in the United States, the majority of freight in Maryland is transported by trucks. In 2003, the truck share of total commodity movements by weight was 84 percent (around 554.2 million tons). Trucks provide critical first-mile/last-mile connections for rail, water, and air cargo. In 2030, truck tonnage is estimated to have a 90 percent share of total tonnage.11 More than half of the truck tonnage is through (56.3 percent in 2003, and 53.9 percent in 2030); another 18.1 percent to 19.1 percent (in 2003 and 2030, respectively) is inbound; a smaller 15.8 percent to 16.0 percent (in 2003 and 2030, respectively) is outbound; and the remaining share is intrastate: 9.8 percent to 11.0 percent (in 2003 and 2030, respectively).

Inbound truck movements of freight destined for Wicomico County from another region or adjoining state to Maryland in 2003 totaled 146,645 truck units, weighing 3,027,847 tons, and valued at $5,390,002,176. By 2030, truck units destined for Wicomico County are forecast to increase to 235,272, with tons carried forecast to increase to 4,523,320 and value forecast to increase to $11,972,752,574.

Outbound truck movements that export shipments by truck from Wicomico County to any other region or adjoining state to Maryland are not as high as inbound truck movements. Outbound flows from Wicomico County totaled 85,451 truck units weighing 1,826,600 and valued at $3,425,928,960. By 2030, truck units destined for locations outside Wicomico County are forecast to increase to 104,830, with tons carried forecast to increase to 2,226,685 and value forecast to increase to $7,609,978,333.

Intrastate truck movements comprise about 96 percent of intrastate tonnage in 2003 and 2030. Further analysis reveals common origin-destination pairs for intrastate truck traffic, with the top 25 pairs for intrastate truck shipments in 2003 collectively representing approximately 41.6 percent of intrastate truck shipments. One top origin-destination pair is intrastate truck shipments from Baltimore City to Wicomico County. In 2003, this origin-destination pair shows intrastate movement of 32,433 truck units that carried 742,676 tons of commodities valued at $710,930,240. By 2030, intrastate truck movement from Baltimore City to Wicomico County is forecast to increase to 62,540 truck units, with tons carried forecast to increase to 1,435,751 and value forecast to increase to $1,579,181,526.

11 In contrast to the 2003 tonnage, which includes data for truck, rail, water, and air in the total tonnage calculation, the 2030 tonnage includes only those modes for which data are available; namely, truck and rail.

6-14 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Although some variation in future origin-destination patterns is expected between counties, the Baltimore City-Wicomico County pair for intrastate truck traffic remains strong.

By weight, the top through traffic flows for the State of Maryland are south-to-north movements between Census Region 5 (South Atlantic States of Florida, Georgia, and the Carolinas) and Census Region 2 (Middle Atlantic State of New York), and between Census Region 5 and Census Region 1 (New England States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island). In 2003, these moves accounted for about 17.4 million and 14.7 million truck tons, respectively, and many of these moves are likely to utilize the I-95 corridor that spans Florida to Maine. Other high through movements include traffic between the adjoining states of Pennsylvania and Virginia (14.4 million and 16.3 million truck tons), followed by northeast-bound moves from Census Region 7 (West South Central states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas) to New Jersey and to Census Region 1. In 2003, these latter moves comprised 14.2 million and 13.2 million truck tons, respectively. The S/WMPO study area is most affected by intrastate through moves between South Atlantic states and other Mid-Atlantic states on the U.S. Route 13 corridor.

Rail Commodity Flow Freight Movement

Rail carries nearly 10 percent of Maryland’s total tonnage and serves high-weight commodities, accommodates long-haul movement of containers and autos, and links seaports with inland markets. More than half of the rail tonnage is through (54.6 percent in 2003, and 52.1 percent in 2030); around one-third of the tonnage is inbound (32.4 percent in 2003, and 32.7 percent in 2030); around one-tenth is outbound (9.7 percent in 2003, and 11.5 percent in 2030); and a small share is intrastate (3.4 percent in 2003, and 3.8 percent in 2030). Rail is often broken out into different “submodes” – intermodal (the movement of shipping containers), unit bulk (long trains carrying a single bulk commodity such as coal or grain), and carload (different types of railcars and commodities). In 2003, non- intermodal shipments comprise 93.4 percent of inbound rail tonnage to Maryland, while intermodal shipments comprise a much smaller share of 6.6 percent. In 2030, the share of intermodal increases to 9.5 percent, while the share of carload decreases slightly to 90.5 percent.

Inbound rail movements of freight destined for Wicomico County from another region or adjoining state to Maryland in 2003 totaled 400 rail units, weighing 36,080 tons and valued at $50,672,248. By 2030, rail units destined for Wicomico County are forecast to decrease to 299, with tons carried forecast to decrease to 26,754, but value forecast to increase to $112,557,707.12

Outbound rail movements that export shipments by rail from Wicomico County to any other region or adjoining state to Maryland are not as high as inbound rail movements. Outbound flows from Wicomico County totaled 208 rail units and carried 19,796 tons of

12 Infrastructure improvements are needed in order facilitate the increase of goods moved via the railway network in Wicomico County.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 6-15

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

commodities valued at $12,047,510. By 2030, rail units destined for a location outside Wicomico County are forecast to decrease to 129, with tons carried forecast to decrease to 11,956, but value forecast to increase to $26,761,002.

Because Salisbury is at the end terminus of the Norfolk Southern line, there is no through rail freight movement within the S/WMPO boundary.

Water Commodity Flow Freight Movement

Based on USACE data, freight traffic on the Wicomico River has been relatively steady between 1995 and 2003, with incremental variation between years. Over this period, the Wicomico River waterway carried goods totaling 12,989,000 short tons, with the highest tonnage reported in 2004 (1,868,000 short tons). The top commodity class transported along the waterway in 2004 was petroleum and petroleum products, representing approximately 56 percent (1,048,000 short tons) of total products moved. Next, crude materials, inedible except fuels (i.e., soil, sand, gravel, rock, and stone), accounted for roughly 36 percent (680,000 short tons) of total commodities moved in 2004. Food and farm products, specifically wheat, corn and soybean grains, accounted for approximately seven percent (140,000 short tons) of total commodities moved in 2004. For all of these products, domestic inbound movements accounted for the overwhelming majority, or 98 percent (1,844,000 short tons), of waterway commerce movements along the Wicomico River.

The City of Salisbury, because of its strategic location on the navigable Wicomico River and proximity to the Chesapeake Bay, has the potential to increase its waterborne trade. Currently there is no available land for port expansion, but public officials and private shippers should work together to explore ways to increase waterborne business through marketing initiatives and investments in existing infrastructure.

Air Commodity Flow Freight Movement

Most air cargo commodities that are shipped to/from the Salisbury area are drayed by truck from large domestic and international airports in the region, including Baltimore/ Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport, Philadelphia International Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport, or Washington Dulles International Airport. The Salisbury-Ocean-City-Wicomico Regional Airport is the lone gateway in the metropolitan area for air cargo traffic. There is some air cargo activity at the Salisbury-Ocean-City- Wicomico Regional Airport, but represents a small percentage of freight traffic in the metropolitan area. Freight generally consists of small packages delivered by integrated carries, such as FedEx, or is transmitted by U.S. Airways Express. In fact, FedEx packages feeding the Eastern Shore are often delivered three to four times daily on Cessna Caravans carrying general cargo and are then distributed by truck. Salisbury-Ocean-City-Wicomico Regional Airport also operates connecting flights for U.S. Airways Express to two destinations – Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Charlotte, North Carolina.

6-16 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Overall Commodity Flow Freight Movement

Mode Split

An analysis of TRANSEARCH data reveals that trucks carry the majority of freight tonnage in Wicomico County. The mode share for truck, rail, and water13 are provided in Figures 6.3 and 6.4. These mode shares are based on actual 2003 data and projected mode share. This analysis reveals that the mode split is not expected to change significantly in the long term.

Figure 6.3 Freight Mode Share in Wicomico County 2003 (in Tons)

Rail 0.7% Water 17.5%

Truck 81.8%

13 Air is excluded from the dataset due to data limitations.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 6-17

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Figure 6.4 Freight Mode Share in Wicomico County 2030 (in Tons)

Rail 0.4% Water 14.8%

Truck 84.8%

Wicomico Top Commodities

The total top commodities (by tonnage) that move in, out, and within Wicomico County by truck, rail, and water are illustrated in Figure 6.5. When specifically reviewing goods movement characteristics, the overwhelming majority of freight movements for Wicomico County are inbound (see Figure 6.6). Inbound movement of freight in 2003 was the predominant direction of freight movement for truck, rail, and water. As seen from Figure 6.6, the directional patterns apparent in 2003 are not forecast to change significantly in the long term by 2030. The two categories with outstanding growth through 2030 include petroleum and secondary traffic (principally consumer goods warehousing and distribution). Both categories will grow disproportionately and will be driven by increases in population, vehicle miles of travel (petroleum), and consumer spending (secondary traffic).

6-18 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Figure 6.5 Top Commodities Moved by Truck, Rail, and Water in Wicomico County 2003 and 2030 (Inbound, Outbound, and Through)

Tonnage (in Millions) 3.0

2.5 2003 2030 2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0 Non-Metallic Food or Kindred Clay, Concrete, Chemicals or Primary Metal Pulp, Paper, or Minerals Products Glass, or Stone Allied Products Products Allied Products Petroleum or Lumber or Secondary Machinery Farm Coal Products Wood Products Traffic Products

Commodity Class

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 6-19

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Figure 6.6 Direction of Goods Movement by Truck, Rail, and Water 2003 and 2030

Tonnage (in Millions) 12

10 9,770,121 2003 2030 8

6,317,554 6

4 3,602,805 2,802,764

77,196 60,440 0 Internal Outbound Inbound Direction

Maryland’s Trading Partners

Trading partners include top origins for flows into Maryland, as well as top destinations for flows outside the State.14 Census regions are defined in Table 6.1. In 2003, Maryland’s top three trading partners – Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Census Region 3 – account for about 50 percent of total flows by weight. These three accounted for about 51.7 percent of inbound flows, and about 47.7 percent of outbound 2003 flows by weight. In terms of 2003 value, the top five partners – Census Region 3, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Census Region 5, and Census Region 7 – accounted for about 52 percent of total value. The top five accounted for about 56.5 percent of inbound value and 45.9 percent of outbound value.

14 Only trading partners for truck and rail moves could be reliably identified.

6-20 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Table 6.1 Maryland’s Geographic Trading Partners: U.S. Census Regions

Census Division Comprising States

Census Region 1 Connecticut New Hampshire New England Maine Rhode Island Massachusetts

Census Region 2a New York Middle Atlantic Census Region 3 Indiana Michigan East North Central Illinois Ohio Census Region 4 Iowa Nebraska West North Central Kansas North Dakota Minnesota South Dakota Missouri

Census Region 5b Florida North Carolina South Atlantic Georgia South Carolina Census Region 6 Alabama Mississippi East South Central Kentucky Tennessee Census Region 7 Arkansas Oklahoma West South Central Louisiana Texas Census Region 8 Arizona Montana Mountain Colorado Utah Idaho Nevada New Mexico Wyoming Census Region 9 Alaska Oregon Pacific California Washington Hawaii

a Excludes New Jersey and Pennsylvania, which were broken out separately. b Excludes Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and Washington, D.C., which were broken out separately.

Trading partners in 2030 mirror those in 2003 – namely Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Census Region 3 – and account for about 48.9 percent of total flows by weight. These three accounted for about 52.4 percent of inbound flows, and about 44.3 percent of outbound flows by weight. These percent shares are very close to the reported 2003 data described above. In terms of 2030 value, the top five partners show identical shares of total, inbound, and outbound value in comparison to 2003. This is expected because the 2030 values were simply inflated over the 2003 values, and therefore preserve the same value distributions.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 6-21

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Wicomico County’s top trading partners vary depending on the direction of freight movement. Figures 6.7 and 6.8 illustrate the slight differences in trading partners for inbound and outbound freight movements for truck, rail, and water combined. For example, both types of movements share many of the same trading partners except: Census Regions 1 and 4; Cecil County, Maryland; Harford County, Maryland; and New Jersey. This means that many of Wicomico County’s top trading partners for inbound and outbound movements in 2003 will remain top trading partners in 2030. For inbound moves, freight tonnage is expected to continually rise between 2003 and 2030, with increasing amount of freight arriving from the County’s top trading partners listed in Figure 6.7. For outbound moves, the amount of tonnage exiting Wicomico County is not projected to drastically between 2003 and 2030 with the exception of Delaware.

Figure 6.7 Top Trading Partners by Inbound Tonnage 2003 and 2030

Inbound Tonnage (in Millions) 1.6

1.4 2003 1.2 2030

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 Census Pennsylvania Virginia New Jersey Census Region 3 Region 5 Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Harford County, Delaware Census Maryland Maryland Maryland Region 2

Trading Partner

Note: Census Region 2 Census Region 3 Census Region 5 New York Indiana Florida Illinois Georgia Michigan North Carolina Ohio South Carolina

6-22 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Figure 6.8 Top Trading Partners by Outbound Tonnage 2003 and 2030

Outbound Tonnage (in Thousands) 350

300 2003 2030 250

200

150

100

0 Pennsylvania Census Census Census Census Cecil County, Region 2 Region 3 Region 1 Region 4 Maryland Delaware Virginia Census Baltimore County, Baltimore City, Region 5 Maryland Maryland Trading Partner Note: Census Region 1 Census Region 2 Census Region 3 Census Region 4 Census Region 5 Connecticut New York Indiana Iowa Florida Maine Illinois Kansas Georgia Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota North Carolina New Hampshire Ohio Missouri South Carolina Rhode Island Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota

Spatial Distribution of Freight-Intensive Industries

The relationship between land use15 and transportation infrastructure is often complex, yet it is integral to analyzing freight movement and transportation corridors that will be heavily impacted. The following analysis identifies important trends in land use and, therefore, in freight trip generation. The data provide the ability to forecast trends affecting freight-intensive industries, which, in turn, is useful for Wicomico County when

15 Real output of freight-intensive industries at the county level is the proxy used for land use in this analysis.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 6-23

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

identifying operational, regulatory, and capital improvements that may be needed to accommodate future goods movement demands.

The data for this analysis are from Global Insight’s Business Demographics Model, which is an integrated historical and long-term (25-year) annual forecast covering the number of establishments, employment, and output (in nominal and real terms) for all four-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) classification industries for all counties and metropolitan areas of the United States. The dataset acquired for this analysis includes Maryland at the county level and the surrounding states in the Census region at the state level.

The aggregate distribution of freight-intensive real output is concentrated in Maryland’s geographic core, roughly in and around a triangle between Baltimore, Washington, D.C., and Frederick County. However, there appears to be some spatial variation of freight- intensive industries throughout the State when broken down by sector. There are five freight-intensive industries grouped into the following five sectors that operate throughout Maryland: manufacturing, merchant wholesaling, transportation, mining, and electric power generation.

Manufacturing

Manufacturing is defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as “establishments engaged in the mechanical, physical, or chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into new products. The assembling of component parts of manufactured products is considered manufacturing, except in cases where the activity is appropriately classified in … construction.”16 Much of Maryland’s manufacturing output currently is concentrated in and around Baltimore City, in the suburban counties to the north of Washington D.C., and in Frederick and Washington Counties. A second area of manufacturing concentration is located in Wicomico County.

Even though the workforce is expected to continue to contract, the quantity of freight generated in Wicomico County due to the manufacturing sector can be expected to increase along with its real output. Wicomico County is expected to follow strong statewide manufacturing real output growth. In 2000, Wicomico County’s proportion of total Maryland manufacturing real output was 3.1 percent. According to projections, Wicomico County’s proportion is expected to nearly double by 2030 to 6.0 percent, representing a 94.5 percent change in the proportion of the County’s share of total output in the State. Furthermore, Wicomico County’s rank in terms of real output in 2000 was 10. Projections indicate that Wicomico County will move up to rank seven among statewide counties in terms of real output in millions of dollars by 2030. Furthermore, growth in the Communications Equipment Manufacturing Sector will be significant in Wicomico County, as it will account for more than 70 percent of overall growth of all the freight- intensive industries in the County and more than 25 percent of the State’s total growth in this sector.

16 U.S. Census Bureau.

6-24 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Merchant Wholesaling

Wholesaling is defined by the U.S. Census as businesses that “sell merchandise to other businesses and normally operate from a warehouse or office.”17 These warehouses and offices are characterized by having little or no display of merchandise and are not intended to solicit walk-in traffic. Merchant wholesale establishments typically maintain their own warehouses, where they receive and handle goods for their customers.

Merchant wholesaling currently is not concentrated in Wicomico County, rather it is concentrated in six counties, which account for more than 82 percent of all real output in the State. However, Wicomico County’s merchant wholesaling real output in 2000 was $865 million and is expected to rise to $1,486 million by 2030.

Transportation

The transportation sector includes industries providing warehousing and storage of cargo as well as its transportation. The warehousing included in this sector differs from that in the wholesaling sector in that transportation firms do not own the merchandise stored.18

While activity in the transportation sector is primarily clustered in the Baltimore area, there are other smaller areas of concentration throughout the State. Furthermore, more than 77 percent of the total growth forecasted in transportation real output is expected to occur in the following three industries: general freight trucking, warehousing and storage, and specialized freight trucking. Unlike seven counties in the State that are projected to have declining real output in the transportation sector between 2000 and 2030, Wicomico County is expected to increase its transportation real output by $22 million during the same period.

Mining

Firms in the mining sector primarily engage in “mining, mine site development, and beneficiating (i.e., preparing) metallic minerals and nonmetallic minerals, including coal. The term ‘mining’ is used in the broad sense to include ore extraction, quarrying, and

17 U.S. Census Bureau. 18 For this analysis, several industries identified by the U.S. Census as being part of the transportation sector were excluded because they were not directly related to freight movement. These excluded industries are related to transit, sightseeing, pipelines, taxi service, and postal service. Air transportation was also excluded because at the four-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) level, approximately 85 percent of employment and revenue is generated by air passenger service and not air freight service. The passenger and freight segments are broken out only at the five-digit NAICS level.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 6-25

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

beneficiating (e.g., crushing, screening, washing, sizing, concentrating, and flotation), customarily done at the mine site.”19

Mining is a relatively small sector in the State in terms of real output. It is less than one percent the size of either the manufacturing or the merchant wholesaling sectors. How- ever, the mining remains a significant sector in Maryland due to its particularly freight- intensive nature and the projection that it will grow to more than seven times its current size by 2030.20 As of 2000, eight counties in Maryland had no mining activity at all. Wicomico County was one of seven counties that operated at very low levels (less than $10 million in annual real output), with a mining real output of $1.0 million. However, Wicomico County is expected to realize an increase in mining real output of $4.0 million by 2030.

Electric Power Generation

The electric power generation industry is represented by its own four-digit NAICS code and is part of the utilities sector as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. It is the only utility included in this section because electric power generation consumes large quantities of coal that must be shipped over Maryland’s transportation network.

Electric power generation output in Maryland is clustered in Baltimore City, producing nearly half of the total state output in 2000 and is expected to produce more than 90 percent of the State’s expanding real output in this sector. With the exception of Baltimore City, Frederick County, and Queen Anne’s County, every other county in the Maryland is projected to experience declining real output (or zero output) in this industry, including Wicomico County.

Wicomico County Goods Movement Overview

The State handles a huge amount of freight – more than 661 million tons in 2003. About 661 million tons of freight was transported into, out of, within, and through Maryland in 2003, accounting for approximately $431.8 billion in combined truck and rail value. By 2030, the overall tonnage is estimated to increase by about 75 percent, comprising about 1.2 billion total tons and $959.2 billion of value (an increase of 122 percent over 2003 value).

Maryland is decidedly a “through” state. More than half of its tonnage in 2003 and in 2030 is comprised of through movements, which do not originate nor terminate in any of its 24 counties. Freight moves in different directions and for different purposes. Inbound and outbound tonnage supports economic activity between Maryland and other regional, national, and international markets. Intrastate tonnage supports Maryland’s internal

19 U.S. Census Bureau. 20 Real output growth statewide is forecast at 736.9 percent.

6-26 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan economic activity. The through tonnage takes up space on Maryland’s scarce transportation infrastructure.

Total Freight-Intensive Industries

By combining all of the data from the manufacturing, merchant wholesaling, transportation, mining, and electric power generating sectors, composite trends within freight- intensive industries become apparent. Of the 24 jurisdictions in the State of Maryland,21 the top 10 account for nearly 90 percent of all freight generating activity22 in the State, including Wicomico County. In fact, Wicomico County is projected to realize a real output increase of $4.7 billion.

In 2000, these top 10 counties accounted for 87.8 percent of the total freight generating output and, by 2030, this proportion is projected to increase slightly to 89.6 percent of the State’s total. Three jurisdictions among the top 10, including Wicomico County, are expected to grow significantly faster than the other seven in terms of Maryland freight generating output. Wicomico County is forecast to grow at a rate higher than other jurisdictions, with forecast showing a 36 percent increase in the proportion of Wicomico County’s share of total state output.

Transportation Impacts

Statewide real output of Maryland’s freight-intensive industries is expected to grow from $103 billion in 2000 to $226 billion by 2030, a 119 percent increase. Growth, however, is uneven across the State. Freight generating industry real output for much of the Eastern Shore is expected to grow at a slower rate than it is for Maryland as a whole. However, Wicomico County is the only county on the Eastern Shore that is expected to experience significant freight related growth. This will likely increase the truck traffic on U.S. Route 50 between Salisbury and the western shore and on U.S. Route 13 north and south of Salisbury.

Conclusion

The S/WMPO area is well served by several multimodal transportation options that provide its residents and businesses with flexibility in travel choice and meet the mobility, recreational, and economic needs of the community. Transit services in the Tri-County area are extensive and last year (FY 2005) carried more than one million one-way passengers. The MPO area also is host to numerous walking and biking facilities and water trails also have been designated for use by kayak and canoe enthusiasts. The County’s trail network should expand as the population grows and demand for facilities increases.

21 Includes 23 counties and one independent city (Baltimore). 22 In terms of real output.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 6-27

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Freight transportation by land, sea, and air is integral to Wicomico County’s economic vitality and the S/WMPO area in general. Trucking is the dominant mode of freight transportation in Wicomico County and the share of total tonnage carried by trucks is projected to increase from 82 percent in 2003 to 85 percent in 2030. Railroad and waterborne trade also support the area’s economy, but are expected to lose market share to trucks over the coming decades. In the future, the MPO should promote strategies that increase the share of tonnage carried by water and rail modes to counter the forecast. Support for intermodal freight movement is one way in which the MPO can promote a more balanced freight transportation system. Intermodal connections and availability of multimodal freight transportation options in the S/WMPO study area are key to providing a comprehensive transportation system, especially one that seeks to minimize some of the negative impacts of truck freight transportation. For example, moving goods on a rail car or barge as opposed to a truck translates into less congestion on the roadway network and less pollution.23

Multimodal transportation is an important component of the S/WMPO goals and objectives. The S/WMPO encourages a transportation system that is complementary of other modes and provides alternatives to traditional modes of travel, principally the personal automobile. The S/WMPO continues to promote a multimodal transportation system that both preserves the existing system and embraces alternative modes of travel for both people and goods.

23 Railway and waterborne commerce expel less pollutants than trucks on a ton-mile basis.

6-28 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

7.0 Transportation Operations

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

7.0 Transportation Operations

Transportation operations improvements are intended to draw more capacity and better performance out of existing facilities as an alternative to constructing new capacity. Federal legislation known as Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations to examine transportation operations activities through their Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) processes. This section briefly describes some of the transportation activities and strategies employed in the Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Planning Organization (S/WMPO) area.

7.1 Maryland State Highway Administration

Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) has a number of congestion management projects currently in progress or slated for future work. These projects are being conducted to provide traffic control, monitoring, and management on state facilities (specifically U.S. Route 50), access management, signing, lighting, marking, signals and signal systems, dynamic messaging, camera detection, design/engineering, and utility relocation.

SHA has outlined a number of projects for the Salisbury/Wicomico area. Included in the list are signalization projects Naylor Mill Road at Ocean Gateway (SHA) and Crooked Oak Lane at Nanticoke Road. Furthermore, a roundabout project at Cedar Lane and North Division Street in Fruitland is expected to be completed in FY 2007. The need for this construction is the result of new residential and commercial construction in Fruitland.

According to SHA,1 there currently are two projects in the Maryland Highway Needs Inventory in the Salisbury/Wicomico area that address transportation operations. While the need for these projects has been flagged, no work has begun. Overpasses are slated to be built over U.S. Route 50 at Hobbs and Walston Switch Roads to improve traffic flow and eliminate the need for signals at those intersections. A dualization project also is planned for Rockawalkin Road between Maryland 349 and U.S. Route 50.

1 Conversation with District Engineer, State Highway Administration District 1, August 22, 2006.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 7-1

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

7.2 Wicomico County

Wicomico County has identified several projects that can be characterized as congestion management or traffic flow improvement projects. One such project is the West Side Collector (Ocean Gateway at Naylor Mill Road to Crooked Oak Lane at Nanticoke Road Corridor). According to SHA,2 the project will eventually be extended to connect to Maryland 349. Furthermore, a signalization project is planned for the intersection of Kelly and Zion Roads. Listed in the Wicomico County Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is the Naylor Mill Road/Jersey Road project, which will provide improvements and a traffic signal.

Intelligent transportation systems (ITS) are an important part of any transportation program. The Intelligent Transportation Society of Maryland (ITS Maryland) is a state chapter of ITS America, an organization of public agencies, private companies, and academic institutions. Stakeholders from many of the cities, towns, counties, and private companies are members of ITS Maryland. ITS Maryland has identified the Wicomico County 911 Center, Department of Public Works, Emergency Management Center, and the Sheriff’s Office as stakeholders in the Maryland ITS program. Elements contained in the Wicomico ITS Plan include: arterial traffic management centers (TMC), arterial TMC field equipment, arterial TMC kiosks, emergency vehicles, and public safety centers.3

7.3 City of Salisbury

The City of Salisbury’s 2007 to 2011 Public Works Capital Improvement Program lists one major operations programs known as the Traffic Control Devices program. Table 7.1 details projects designed to improve operations and the flow of traffic under the City’s Traffic Control Devices program:

2 Conversation with District Engineer, State Highway Administration District 1, August 22, 2006. 3 http://www.itsmd.org/.

7-2 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Table 7.1 Planned Traffic Control Devices in the City of Salisbury

Project Title Project Description East Main Street/Division Street Upgrade Upgrade traffic signal (mast arm mount, traffic actuated, pedestrian phasing) Church Street/Truitt Street Upgrade Upgrade traffic signal to NEMA standards Parson Street/Pemberton Drive West College Avenue/Camden Upgrade Upgrade span mount, make geometric improvements to intersection, provide pedestrian phasing Camden Avenue/South Boulevard Upgrade Upgrade span mount, make geometric improvements to intersection, make traffic actuated Waverly Boulevard/South Boulevard Upgrade Upgrade span mount, make geometric improvements to intersection, make traffic actuated East Main Street/Davis Street Signal Upgrade span mount, make geometric improvements to intersection, make traffic actuated Northwood Drive/Naylor Mill Road Install new traffic signal

Source: City of Salisbury, Capital Improvement Program (FY 2006 to 2011).

The City of Salisbury’s current Traffic Control Device Program includes eight different traffic control devices; six of which currently are in place at the intersections represented in Figure 7.1. As noted in Table 7.1, these six intersections are scheduled for several types of upgrades, including new mast arm mount signals, geometric improvements to the intersection, and pedestrian phasing.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 7-3

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Figure 7.1 Location of Existing Traffic Signals with Planning Improvements, City of Salisbury

Legend: a East Main Street at Division c West College Avenue at Camden Avenue e Waverly Boulevard at South Boulevard b Church Street at Truitt Street d Camden Avenue at South Boulevard f East Main Street at Davis Street

Other devices are in various stages of planning. A device is planned for the Parson Street/Pemberton Drive intersection; however, funding has not been identified for this project. A new traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Naylor Mill Road and Northwood Drive in FY 2008. Other future signalization projects that have been identified by the City of Salisbury for signalization include the following intersections:

• Jersey Road at Naylor Mill Road; • College Avenue at Bennett High School; • Onley Road at Bateman/South Division Street;

7-4 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

• Johnson Road at Robins Avenue/Snow Hill Road; and • Dykes Road at South Division Street.4 A capital expansion project, which is listed in the City of Salisbury CIP under the Traffic Control Devices program, is a roundabout for the intersections of Riverside Drive, Mill Street, Carroll Street, and Camden Avenue. The project is purported to eliminate the need for a traffic signal at the location, would promote energy conservation and improve air quality, and reduce the number of accidents at the location.

7.4 City of Fruitland

The City of Fruitland has numerous road construction projects either planned or in progress. Information provided by City Hall includes 12 new subdivisions with up to four new streets each and new or upgraded frontage roads to handle increased traffic. Among these projects is the development of Cedar Commons (between Cedar Lane and St. Luke’s Roads), in which the paved portion of Brown Street will be extended from St. Luke’s Road to Cedar Lane (Maryland 513).

South Division Street between East Main and U.S. Route 13 currently is being recon- structed. Plans for improvements to Hayward Avenue between U.S. Route 13 and Camden Avenue are included in the City of Fruitland FY 2007 budget.

7.5 Town of Delmar

The Town of Delmar’s primary traffic flow problems are centered on the high volume of truck traffic using minor regional highways to travel between U.S. Route 50 and U.S. Route 13. The Town’s Comprehensive Plan (2005) proposes new road construction, improvements to existing roads, and intersection improvements as the primary methods of improving traffic flow in Delmar.5

Other recommendations in the Town’s Comprehensive Plan include the improvement and extension of Delaware 502 from its intersection at Bi-State Boulevard eastward to U.S. Route 13, ultimately creating a northern bypass around Delmar that would handle through truck traffic and local trucking. Another suggestion is to improve Connely Mill Road to provide an outlet for industrial traffic south of Delmar to reach U.S. Route 13 because of safety concerns and traffic conflicts with a local school and park.6

4 Conversation with Ray Birch, City of Salisbury, August 15, 2006. 5 Town of Delmar Comprehensive Plan (2005). 6 Ibid.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 7-5

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

7.6 Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Planning Organization

The S/WMPO has identified several corridors that reflect areas of concern due to development pressures. The corridors were selected by the S/WMPO’s Technical Advisory Committee and recommended to the S/WMPO Council for detailed analysis. The Council, composed of various representatives from the S/WMPO’s member jurisdictions, endorsed the corridors and authorized the studies. The information developed as a result of the proposed studies will be used as a basis to guide future actions to adequately address capacity and safety issues resulting from future development. The four proposed corridor studies are represented in Figures 7.2 through 7.5.

Figure 7.2 South Division Street at College Avenue/Beaglin Park Drive/ Snow Hill Road Area

7-6 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Figure 7.3 Pemberton Drive Area

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 7-7

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Figure 7.4 Mill Street/Carroll Street/Riverside Drive/Camden Avenue Intersection

7-8 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Figure 7.5 U.S. Route 13 North/Foskey Lane/Bi-State Boulevard Area

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 7-9

Appendix A

Existing and Forecast Traffic Projections

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Table A.1 Salisbury/Wicomico County Transportation Plan Projected ADTs

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization A-1

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Table A.1 Salisbury/Wicomico County Transportation Plan Projected ADTs (continued)

A-2 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Figure A.1 Salisbury/Wicomico County Existing ADTs

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization A-3

Appendix B

Trip Generation Projections

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Table B.1 Trip Generation for Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Area

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization B-1

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Table B.1 Trip Generation for Salisbury/Wicomico Metropolitan Area (continued)

B-2 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Appendix C

Maryland State Highway Administration Annual Average Daily Traffic – 2000-2004

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Table C.1 Annual Average Daily Traffic – 2000 to 2004

Year Percent Change 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2000 to 2004 U.S. Route 50 at: Naylor Mill Road 0 0 0 16,475 17,050 0 Hobbs Road 26,875 27,750 33,975 32,375 32,750 21.9 U.S. Route 50 Business at: Queen Avenue 22,025 22,700 28,475 15,975 16,150 (26.7) West of Isabella Street 29,125 30,000 28,275 18,475 18,750 (35.6) East of Isabella Street 42,825 44,500 35,075 22,675 22,950 (46.4) Baptist Street 26,850 27,925 26,175 25,075 25,350 (5.6) Ward Street 30,225 31,400 26,575 19,075 19,350 (36.0) Naylor Street 22,525 23,400 30,875 17,975 18,250 (19.0) Tilghman Road 22,000 22,900 0 0 0 0 Glendale Avenue 0 0 24,775 16,375 16,550 0 U.S. Route 13 at: Chestnut Street (Delmar) 0 0 8,175 8,250 8,325 0 Connelly Mill Road 25,275 26,050 27,125 27,275 27,550 9.0 Dagsboro Road 36,141 36,632 37,834 36,675 31,450 (13.0) North of Parker Road 19,175 19,850 20,625 20,175 20,450 6.6 North of Snow Hill Road 17,575 18,150 18,925 21,575 21,850 24.3 South of Snow Hill Road 15,775 16,250 16,925 19,175 19,450 23.3 Meadowbridge Road 12,975 13,450 14,025 14,175 14,350 10.6 U.S. Route 13 Business at: Camden Avenue Extended 12,675 13,250 13,625 12,875 13,050 3.0 Cedar Lane 20,375 21,050 21,725 17,875 18,150 (10.9) Carroll Street 22,975 23,960 24,725 24,775 25,050 9.0 Main Street 24,875 25,950 26,725 27,000 30,375 22.1 Elizabeth Street 27,875 29,050 29,925 26,175 26,450 (5.1) Zion Road 27,875 29,050 29,925 28,075 28,450 2.1 Maryland 349 at: Whitehaven Road 3,250 3,325 1,775 1,850 1,925 (40.8) Levin Dashiell Road 10,650 11,025 12,575 16,875 17,050 60.1 Pemberton Drive 16,200 16,800 16,475 13,875 14,050 (13.3) Maryland 675 at: South of Foskey Lane 6,275 6,550 6,825 5,275 5,350 (14.7) Maryland 12 at: Worcester County Line 4,025 4,100 3,675 3,750 3,925 (2.5) Nassawango Creek Road 3,950 4,125 3,975 4,050 4,225 7.0 Johnson Road 8,800 9,200 8,275 8,450 8,525 (3.1) Vine Street 11,125 11,600 9,475 9,650 9,725 (12.6) Maryland 54 at: East of Mardela 1,700 1,800 2,475 2,550 2,625 54.4 Delmar 8,200 8,400 0 0 0 0 Maryland 346 at: Salisbury City Limits 4,950 4,675 4,850 4,925 5,175 4.5 Parker Road 7,600 6,675 5,750 5,825 6,875 (9.5) Maryland 350 at: West of Sixty Foot Road 1,975 2,050 2,125 1,875 1,950 (1.3) Maryland 670 at: West of U.S. Route 50 2,575 2,750 2,925 2,775 2,950 14.6 Maryland 347 at: North of Hebron 1,675 1,750 2,075 2,150 2,225 32.8 Church Street 2,375 2,450 2,675 2,750 2,825 18.9 Giles Lane 1,100 1,100 775 850 925 (15.9)

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization C-1

Appendix D

Constrained and Unfunded Transportation Projects – 2007-2030

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Table D.1 Constrained and Unfunded Capacity Expansion Transportation Projects 2007 to 2030

Available Cost Capital Funds Project Agency Facility/System Location Length Description (Thousands $) (Thousands $) Funding Source Source

Capacity Expansion - Highway

Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Route 13 – South Fruitland Boulevard Somerset County line to U.S. Route 13 Business 0.6 miles Divided highway reconstruct $6,700 $6,700 SHA 1 Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Route 13 – North Salisbury Boulevard/Ocean Salisbury Bypass to Delaware state line 4.0 miles Divided highway reconstruct with access control improvements $50,800 $50,800 SHA 1 Highway Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Route 50 – Ocean Gateway Vienna Bypass (MD 731A) to White Lowe Road 9.7 miles Access control improvements $64,800 $64,800 SHA 1 Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Route 50 – Ocean Gateway Hobbs Road/Walston Switch Road 1.8 miles Interchange construct $31,300 $31,300 SHA Maryland State Highway Administration Maryland 12 – Snow Hill Road North of U.S. Route 13 Bypass to City limits at 1.8 miles Multilane urban reconstruct $17,900 $16,338 SHA 1 Vine Street Maryland State Highway Administration Maryland 12 – Snow Hill Road Worcester County line to South of U.S. Route 13 4.3 miles Two-lane reconstruct $15,300 1 Bypass Maryland State Highway Administration Maryland 349 – Nanticoke Road Crooked Oak Lane to U.S. Route 50 2.5 miles Multilane reconstruct $25,100 $25,100 SHA 1 Maryland State Highway Administration Maryland 350 – Mt. Hermon Road Beaglin Park Drive to Airport Road 2.4 miles Two-lane reconstruct $8,800 1 Maryland State Highway Administration Maryland 346 – Northeast Collector Road Phase II Maryland 346 to U.S. Route 50 3,642 linear feet Bike path $225 $225 SHA 2 SHA Total Identified Projects $220,925 SHA Constrained $195,263 SHA Unfunded ($25,662) Wicomico County Westside Collector Wicomico County Phase I – III construction $5,360 $5,360 Wicomico County 4 Wicomico County Johnson Road Wicomico County Street widening, right-of-way, and construction $700 $700 Wicomico County 4 Wicomico County Total Identified Projects $6,060 Wicomico County Constrained $6,060 Wicomico County Unfunded $0 City of Salisbury Pemberton Drive Widening Parsons Road to Crooked Oak Lane 1.65 mile Street widening including bike path $3,830 $3,830 City of Salisbury 5 City of Salisbury South Division Street Widening College Avenue to Coulbourn Mill Road 1.25 mile Street widening $1,720 $1,720 City of Salisbury 5 City of Salisbury Riverside Drive Roundabout Intersection of: Riverside Drive, Mill Street, Construct roundabout $6,500 $6,500 City of Salisbury 5 Carroll Street and Camden Avenue City of Salisbury Northeast Collector Phase III College Avenue and Beaglin Park Drive/Kelly Construction transportation corridor $2,990 $2,990 City of Salisbury 5 Road and Zion Road City of Salisbury Beam Street Extension Beam Street and West Gordy Road/ Beam Street extension $1,050 $1,050 City of Salisbury 5 Street extension and Emerson Avenue City of Salisbury Culver Road Nanticoke Road to Pemberton Drive Capacity expansion $786 $786 City of Salisbury 5 City of Salisbury Total Identified Projects $16,876 City of Salisbury Constrained $16,876 City of Salisbury Unfunded $0 City of Fruitland East Main Street From City Line to South Brown Street widening 6 City of Fruitland Total Identified Projects $0 City of Fruitland Constrained $0 City of Fruitland Unfunded $0

Capacity Expansion - Transit

Tri-County Council for the Lower Eastern Shore Shore Transit – Capital Costs Wicomico County Capital assistance for vehicles and equipment purchase, including $12,544 $12,544 Federal/State/Local c 3 administrative facility c Federal 80 percent; state 10 percent; and local 10 percent.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization D-1

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Table D.2 Constrained and Unfunded System Preservation Transportation Projects 2007 to 2030

Available Cost Capital Funds Project Agency Facility/System Location Length Description (Thousands $) (Thousands $) Funding Source Source System Preservation - Highway

Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Route 13 – Salisbury Bypass To mile marker 31.0 Resurface northbound roadway $,1331 $,1331 SHA 2

Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Route 13 Business – Salisbury Boulevarda Main Street to College Avenue Resurface $382 $382 SHA 2 Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Route 50 Business – Salisbury Parkway Boundary Street to East Main Street Resurface $1,120 $1,120 SHA 2 Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Route 50 Business – West Salisbury Boulevard U.S. Route 50 Bypass to Boundary Street Resurface eastbound roadway $329 $329 SHA 2 Maryland State Highway Administration Maryland 675B – Bi-State Boulevard U.S. Route 13 to Maryland 54 Resurface $382 $382 SHA 2

Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Route 50 Business – Salisbury Parkwaya Norfolk Southern Railroad bridge 22027 Bridge rehabilitation $377 $377 SHA 2 Maryland State Highway Administration Maryland 991 – Main Street Bridge 22009 over the Wicomico River Bridge upgrade electrical systems; structural and mechanical repairs $2,401 $2,401 SHA 2 Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Route 13 Business – Salisbury Boulevard U.S. Route 50 to London Avenue, William Drainage improvement $1,265 $1,265 SHA 2 Street, Park Avenue, and Isabella Street

Maryland State Highway Administration Maryland 513 – East Cedar Laneb Division street Construct roundabout (funded for preliminary engineering only) $141 $141 SHA 2

Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Route 50 – Ocean Gateway Vienna Bypass to Naylor Mill Road Right-of-way for access controls $240 $240 SHA 2

Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Route 13 Business – South Salisbury Boulevard Bateman Street to Milford Street 1,500 linear feet Retrofit sidewalk $200 $200 SHA 2 SHA Total Identified Projects $6,837 SHA Constrained $6,837 SHA Unfunded $0 Wicomico County Morris Mill Road Wicomico County Phase II $874 $874 Wicomico County 4 Wicomico County Sherwood Manor Wicomico County Drainage improvements, utilities relocation, construction $912 $912 Wicomico County 4 Wicomico County Leonard Mill Pond Bridge Wicomico County Phase I: Engineering, topographic, survey $2,400 $2,400 Wicomico County 4 Phase II: Right-of-way acquisition, Phase III: Construction Wicomico County Mt. Hermon Church Road Wicomico County Reconstruction $196 $196 Wicomico County 4 Wicomico County Jersey Road Wicomico County Reconstruction $184 $184 Wicomico County 4 Wicomico County Fire Tower Road Wicomico County Reconstruction $438 $438 Wicomico County 4 Wicomico County Levin Dashiell Road Wicomico County Reconstruction $372 $372 Wicomico County 4 Wicomico County Total Identified Projects $5,376 Wicomico County Constrained $5,376 Wicomico County Unfunded $0 City of Salisbury East Main Street (Downtown Plaza) City of Salisbury Reconstruct and beatification $520 $520 City of Salisbury 5 City of Salisbury Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Patching City of Salisbury Sidewalk replacement and ADA compliance $450 $450 City of Salisbury 5 City of Salisbury Street Reconstruction City of Salisbury Reconstruct $2,865 $2,865 City of Salisbury 5 City of Salisbury Beaverdam Drive Bridge Repairs City of Salisbury Replace deteriorated timber decking, sidewalk and railings and $395 $395 City of Salisbury 5 miscellaneous minor cosmetic improvements City of Salisbury Circle Avenue Bridge Repairs City of Salisbury Guardrails, load posting signs, repairs to concrete cracking and spalling $95 $95 City of Salisbury 5 City of Salisbury Memorial Plaza Bridge Repairs City of Salisbury Guardrails and minor cosmetic improvements $35 $35 City of Salisbury 5 City of Salisbury South Division Street Bridge Repairs City of Salisbury Guardrails, repair sidewalks and settlement and milling, roadway overlay, $80 $80 City of Salisbury 5 cleaning and painting structural steel City of Salisbury Isabella Street Shoreline Protection City of Salisbury Placement of steel sheet piling, replace deteriorated bulkhead $1,880 $1,880 City of Salisbury 5 City of Salisbury Naylor Mill Road Bridge Repairs City of Salisbury Guardrails and minor cosmetic improvements $45 $45 City of Salisbury 5

a Project under construction. b Preliminary engineering underway.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization D-2

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Table D.2 Constrained and Unfunded System Preservation Transportation Projects (continued) 2007 to 2030

Available Cost Capital Funds Project Agency Facility/System Location Length Description (Thousands $) (Thousands $) Funding Source Source City of Salisbury Camden Street Pedestrian Bridge Camden Street to Mill Street and Carroll Street Construct pedestrian bridge $165 $165 City of Salisbury 5 intersection

City of Salisbury Mill Street Bridge Repairs City of Salisbury Replace bulkheading $310 $310 City of Salisbury 5 City of Salisbury Total Identified Projects $6,840 City of Salisbury Constrained $6,840 City of Salisbury Unfunded $0 City of Fruitland Hayward Avenue City of Fruitland Reconstruction $1,000 $1,000 City of Fruitland 6 City of Fruitland Irl Lane and Graydon Lane City of Fruitland Reconstruction 6 City of Fruitland Clyde Avenue From Camden Avenue to North Fruitland Reconstruction 6 Boulevard City of Fruitland Selected Overlay Projects City of Fruitland Street overlay 6 City of Fruitland Total Identified Projects $1,000 City of Fruitland Constrained $1,000 City of Fruitland Unfunded $0 Town of Delmar Pennsylvania Avenue Streetscape Between State Street and Foskey Lane Sidewalk, curb, and gutter streetscape $350 $350 Town of Delmar 7 Town of Delmar Street Preservation Between Maryland Avenue to Memorial Drive Town-wide street patches on streets showing signs of decay $100 $100 Town of Delmar 7 Town of Delmar West East Street Between Maryland Avenue to Memorial Drive Restoration of severely deteriorated streets $150 $150 Town of Delmar 7

Town of Delmar Sidewalks Town of Delmar Sidewalks to accommodate individuals with physical challenges $100 $100 Town of Delmar 7 Town of Delmar State Street Park Walkway State Street Park Walkway to accommodate individuals with physical challenges $100 $100 Town of Delmar 7 Town of Delmar Walnut Street Town of Delmar Restoration of severely deteriorated streets 7 Town of Delmar Total Identified Projects $800 Town of Delmar Constrained $800 Town of Delmar Unfunded $0

System Preservation/Operating – Transit

Tri-County Council for the Lower Eastern Shore Shore Transit – Operating Costs Wicomico County Operating and maintenance costs $87,593 $87,593 Federal/State/Local d

Project Identification Sources (Codes): 1 = Maryland SHA Highway Needs Inventory – Wicomico County 2006 Revised 2 = Consolidated Transportation Program (FY 2006 to 2011) 3 = Tri-County Council for the Lower Eastern Shore 4 = Wicomico County CIP (FY 2007 to 2011) 5 = City of Salisbury CIP (FY 2007 to 2011) 6 = City of Fruitland CIP (FY 2006 to 2011) 7 = Town of Delmar CIP (FY 2007 to 2008) d Passenger Fares and Revenue 26.4 percent; Federal/State Operating Assistance 37.4 percent; and Local Operating Assistance 36.2 percent.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization D-3

Appendix E

Wicomico County Department of Recreation, Parks, and Tourism 2005 Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreation Plan Maps

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Figure E.1 Land Conditions for Development

Figure E.2 Preserved Land

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization E-1

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Figure E.3 Green Infrastructure Hubs

Figure E.4 Preserved Land and Green Infrastructure Hubs

E-2 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Figure E.5 Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreation Plan North

Figure E.6 Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreation Plan Central

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization E-3

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Figure E.7 Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreation Plan South

E-4 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Appendix F

Air Quality Conformance Determination Sussex County, Delaware Federal Highway U.S. Department Federal Transit of Transportation Administration Administration 1760 Market Street 300 South New Street Suite 500 Room 2101 Philadelphia PA 19103 Dover DE 19904

Mr. Ralph Reeb,Director JUL 1 1 alii Division of Planning DelawareDepartment of Transportation P.O.Box 778 Dover,Delaware 19903 Air Quality Confonnity Detennination- SussexCounty portion of the Re: DelDOT FY 2006-2011Capital Transportation Program

Dear Mr. Reeb: The FederalHighway Administration (FHWA) and the FederalTransit Administration (FTA) havecompleted our review of the air quality confonnity documentationfor the SussexCounty portion of the DelDOT FY 2006-2011Capital TransportationProgram (CTP), of which the first threeyears is designatedthe StatewideTransportation Improvement Program for Federal-Aid purposes.The out yearsreflect a short-rangetransportation plan. Basedon the infonnation provided with Mr. Reeb's transmittal letters,and in concurrencewith the EnvironmentalProtection Agency and the DelawareDepartment of Natural Resourcesand EnvironmentalControl, FHWA andFT A have detenninedthat the Confonnity Detenninations for the FY 2006-2011CTP for the SussexCounty, Delawarenon-attainment area adequately addressand meet the requirementsas specified in the November 1993Federal Conformity Rule andits subsequentamendments. This action rescindsthe conformity lapsedated June 15,2005.

Any questionsconcerning this approvalshould be directedto Paul Lang, FHWA Delaware pivision, 302-734-2835,or Anthony Tarone,FT A Region ill, 215-656-7061.

Sincerely,

!.A!.It~::=.~~' SusanBoriosky RegionalAdministrator FederalTransit Administration Page2 cc: via e-mail: CarolannWicks, Chief Engineer,DelDOT Ralph Reeb,Director, DelDOT Planning StevenKingsberry, Acting Director, DelawareTransit Corporation,DelDOT SusanBorinsky, RegionalAdministrator, Region 3, FTA RaymondJ. McCormick, Division Administrator, FHWA Kathy English, Director, DelDOT Finance Earle Timpson,DelDOT Finance RobertCarver, DelDOT Finance

InteragencyAir Quality ConsultationProcess Work Group: Tigist Zegeye,Executive Director, WllMAPCO JuanitaWieczoreck, Executive Director, Dover/Kent County MPO Larry Budney,EPA Regionill Martin Kotsch, EPA Regionill Tony Tarone,FTA Regionill Paul Lang, DE Division, FHWA Joe Cantalupo,DelDOT Planning Mark Glaze,DelDOT Planning Scott Clapper,DelDOT DMV RayMalenfant,DNREC Phil Wheeler,DNREC JamesWilkinson, MDE Tammy Popov-Ford,TMA of Delaware

Appendix G

Maryland Atlas of Greenways, Water Trails, and Green Infrastructure (2000 Edition)

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Greenways and Water Trails in Wicomico County

1. Lower Wicomico River Greenway

Ecological Greenway

The Wicomico River Greenway is an existing wildlife corridor along the Wicomico River. Tidal wetlands surround much of the river, although a large stretch (White Haven to Salisbury) has been heavily developed in past years. The river still serves as a major waterfowl corridor, and nearly 3,000 acres of land are protected at Pemberton Historical Park at the eastern end and by Ellis Bay Wildlife Management Area at the southwest end of the corridor.

1a. Ellis Bay Water Trail

Water Trail

The Ellis Bay Water Trail is a potential water trail route through the Ellis Bay Wildlife Management Area. Ellis Bay is 3,000 acres of mostly marsh and forested wetland. Access sites currently are being considered by the county greenways board. Paddlers can access and explore the Wicomico River, Monie Bay, and Tangier Sound.

2. Nanticoke River Greenway

Ecological Greenway

The Nanticoke River Greenway is a partially established stream valley greenway. The river was studied by the Maryland Scenic and Wild Rivers Program and was found to possess nationally significant natural, recreational, and cultural values. Several thousand acres are protected in Wicomico and Dorchester Counties by the Nanticoke River and Fishing Bay wildlife management areas. Significant acreage also is protected by several natural heritage sites along the river in both Dorchester and Wicomico Counties. Much of

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization G-1

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

the land along the river corridor is undeveloped and privately owned. Most of the surrounding land is marshland, wooded swamp, or upland forest. As such, this greenway corridor is ideal for wildlife. Bass fishing, boating, and canoeing are activities currently enjoyed on the river. Portions of private land are protected by non-profit organizations such as The Nature Conservancy and the Boy Scouts of America. The Nature Conservancy is protecting a core area of the Nanticoke River at its confluence with the Marshyhope River, as well as other areas along the river in Maryland and Delaware.

2a. Nanticoke River Water Trail

Water Trail

The Nanticoke River Water Trail is a potential system of water trails along the Nanticoke River and its tributaries in western Wicomico County. The Nanticoke River serves as the spine of the system. Other potential water trail routes in the system include Barren Creek, Rewastico Creek, Quantico Creek, and Qetipquin Creek. The Nanticoke River Water Trail could eventually tie into the routes of other water trails originating in Dorchester County, including Marshyhope Creek and Fishing Bay.

3. Nassawango Creek Preserve

Ecological Greenway

The Nassawango Creek Preserve is a partially established greenway along the Nassawango Creek. The Nature Conservancy owns about 3,636 acres along the Nassawango in Wicomico and Worcester Counties. In Wicomico County, the Wicomico State Forest provides additional preserved land along the creek. This corridor serves environmental protection purposes by providing habitat for plants and animals and also protects water quality in the creek, which is home to some of the northernmost bald cypress forests in the country. The preserve also harbors at least 14 species of orchids and more than 14 species of warblers, including the striking prothonotary, which raise their young in the dense swamp. Seaside alder (Alnus maritima), although abundant locally, is rare nationally. An on-site visitor center is now open and will soon house permanent exhibits highlighting Nassawango Creek’s natural significance. The preserve’s two easy hiking trails, the Paul Leifer and Nassawango Joe trails, traverse upland woods, bald cypress swamps, and a canal dug in the 1800s. Nassawango Creek also can be experienced via canoe from a put-in at Red House Road.

G-2 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

4. Pocomoke River Regional Greenway

Ecological Greenway

The Pocomoke River Regional Greenway is a potential multicounty greenway along the Pocomoke Scenic River in Wicomico, Worcester, and Somerset Counties. Although the land along this corridor in Wicomico County is privately owned, it is protected by critical area regulation and local zoning. Paths for a tax ditch association are maintained by the local government. This area is not suitable for public access but is an excellent wildlife corridor. There are significant public lands along the river in Worcester County.

4a. Pocomoke River Water Trail

Water Trail

The Pocomoke River Water Trail is a potential water trail route on the Pocomoke River in western Wicomico County. The water trail will tie into the emerging water trail system in Worcester County, which includes the Bogiron Water Trail along Nassawango Creek and the lower Pocomoke River.

5. Salisbury-Hebron Rail Trail

Ecological Greenway

The Salisbury-Hebron Rail Trail is a potential rail trail that runs between Salisbury and Hebron. The rail line currently is owned by the State but could be transferred to the County for trail development. An extension to Vienna also may be possible. A utility corridor that branches off the rail line at Mardela Springs and heads northwest to the County’s San Domingo Park and on into Delaware is managed as a wildlife corridor.

6. Salisbury/Pocomoke River Greenway

Connector

The Salisbury/Pocomoke River Greenway is a potential on-road bikeway connector that would provide a route across the eastern section of the County and link the greenway

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization G-3

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

network in Salisbury to proposed corridors along Nassawango Creek and the Pocomoke River. Local parks along the corridor provide areas for public access.

7. Salisbury Urban Greenway

Ecological and Recreational Greenway

The Salisbury Urban Park Greenway is an existing greenway extending in two directions from the City of Salisbury. The corridor begins at River Walk Park in the heart of Salisbury and moves north towards the Wicomico River and Johnson’s Lake. The corridor includes the Port of Salisbury, North Lake Park, Deers Head State Hospital, Northwood Industrial Park, Naylor Mill Park, and Wicomico County Athletic Complex, and ends at Leonards Mill Park. To the southeast, the greenway corridor extends along the Wicomico River and Beaverdam Creek. Beginning at River Walk Park, this branch of the greenway includes Municipal Park and the Salisbury Zoological Park, and ends at Schumaker Park. A proposed bicycle route could link local school properties, Salisbury State University, and the YMCA to this system and to the potential Salisbury-Hebron Rail Trail. This urban greenway provides links to the Wicomico Youth and Civic Center, Wicomico Senior High School, and the Elks Lodge and golf course. The greenway has paths for walking and bicycling, and there are paddleboat facilities on the river. It also has the potential to be expanded to connect to other greenway corridors.

7a. Wicomico River Water Trail

Water Trail

The Wicomico River Water Trail, which currently is in the planning stage, is a potential water trail along the north prong of the Wicomico River in the City of Salisbury.

8. Winterplace Park and Rail-Trail

Recreational Greenway

Winterplace Park has a partially established rail-trail with areas that allow equestrian activity through large parcels of wet and forested open space east of Salisbury.

G-4 Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Appendix H

Level of Service Criteria

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Long-Range Transportation Plan

Table H.1 Level of Service Criteria

Salisbury Bypass Sections All Other Sections

LOS Maximum v/c Ratio LOS Maximum v/c Ratio Free Flow Speed=70 mph Free Flow Speed=60 mph A 0.29 A 0.33 B 0.47 B 0.55 C 0.68 C 0.75 D 0.85 D 0.89 E 1.00 E 1.00 F N/A F N/A Free Flow Speed=65 mph Free Flow Speed=55 mph A 0.28 A 0.31 B 0.44 B 0.52 C 0.66 C 0.72 D 0.84 D 0.86 E 1.00 E 1.00 F N/A F N/A Free Flow Speed=60 mph Free Flow Speed=50 mph A 0.26 A 0.30 B 0.42 B 0.50 C 0.63 C 0.70 D 0.81 D 0.84 E 1.00 E 1.00 F N/A F N/A Free Flow Speed=55 mph Free Flow Speed=45 mph A 0.24 A 0.28 B 0.39 B 0.47 C 0.59 C 0.66 D 0.75 D 0.79 E 1.00 E 1.00 F N/A F N/A

Source: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Highway Capacity Manual (Chapter 7, page 8; Chapter 11, page 9), 1994.

Salisbury/Wicomico Area Metropolitan Planning Organization H-1