Scio Township - The Greenway Collaborative · Phase 3 – Design Refinement, Funding Strategies & Public Education As noted above this report represents Phase 1 of the initiative

S c i o T o w n s h i p N o n - m o t o r i z e d T r a n s p o r t a t i o n F a c i l i t i e s :

SHARED-USE PATHWAYS

F i n a l R e p o r t

S c i o T o w n s h i p M i c h i g a n

August 31, 2010

Non-motorized Transportation Facilities Final Report Page i

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S Scio Township Non-motorized Paths Study Group Armstrong, Dea, Land Preservation Commission Arscott, Allison, Planning Commission Baird, Anne Louise Bishop, Allison, Village of Dexter Brintnall, Chad Henkemeyer, Toni, Dexter Parks and Recreation Jerome, Alec, Land Preservation Commission and Parks and Recreation Board Kangas, Gerry, Planning Commission Mayo, Marty, DDA Read, David, Board of Trustees Roller, Norm Vogel, Jane Lewan, Doug, Carlisle/Wortman Associates Assisted by: Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc.

Non-motorized Transportation Facilities Final Report Page iii

C O N T E N T S Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... v Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 Types of Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

1. Sidewalks ............................................................................................................................ 3 2. Shared Roadways............................................................................................................... 4 3. Paved Shoulders................................................................................................................. 4 4. Bicycle Lanes...................................................................................................................... 5 5. Shared-use Pathways.........................................................................................................6

Scio Township Priority Shared-use Path Routes

Study Group Input ................................................................................................................... 7 Evaluation of Potential Routes ................................................................................................ 9 Preliminary Cost Estimates ................................................................................................... 11

Future Considerations ............................................................................................................... 13 Recommendations and Conclusions ........................................................................................ 15 Funding Sources........................................................................................................................ 17 References ................................................................................................................................. 21 Appendix A: Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities.............................................................. 23 Appendix B: Related Planning Efforts

2004 Scio Pathway Plan ....................................................................................................... 31 2006 Southeast Michigan Greenways Vision........................................................................ 32 Washtenaw County Parks..................................................................................................... 34 2006 Washtenaw County Non-Motorized Plan ..................................................................... 35 2009 Scio Township Master Land Use Plan ......................................................................... 37 Adjacent Communities .......................................................................................................... 38

Appendix C: Scio Non-motorized Paths Study Group Meeting Minutes

Meeting of 1-14-10................................................................................................................ 41 Meeting of 2-11-10................................................................................................................ 44 Meeting of 3-11-10................................................................................................................ 46 Meeting of 4-8-10.................................................................................................................. 49 Meeting of 5-13-10................................................................................................................ 51 Meeting of 6-17-10................................................................................................................ 54 Meeting of 7-08-10................................................................................................................ 56

Non-motorized Transportation Facilities Final Report Page iv

Appendix D: Join us now – New Planning Initiative – Non-motorized Paths, 2009 Fall Scio Newsletter .. 61 Non-motorized Paths Planning Initiative – A Work Plan Proposal ........................................ 62 Memo to Scio Non-motorized Paths Study Group, December 8, 2009................................. 63 Summary of Meeting with Washtenaw County Road Commission, March 25, 2010 ............ 64

List of Figures

Figure 1. Shared Roadways and Sidewalks ...................................................................... 4 Figure 2. Paved Shoulders ................................................................................................ 4 Figure 3. Bicycle Lanes ..................................................................................................... 5 Figure 4. Shared-use Pathways ........................................................................................ 6 Figure 5. Segment Locations and R.O.W. Information ...................................................... 8 Figure 6. City of Ann Arbor-Scio Township Potential Pathway Segment ........................ 14 Figure 7. Recommendation Diagram............................................................................... 17 Figure 8. Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ........................................................ 27 Figure 9. Scio Township Pathway Vision......................................................................... 31 Figure 10. Regional Greenways Vision ............................................................................. 33 Figure 11. Huron River Greenway – Border to Border Trail .............................................. 34 Figure 12. WATS Future Bike and Pedestrian Improvements........................................... 35 Figure 13. Scio Township Trails, Pathways, and Greenways............................................ 37 Figure 14. Ann Arbor Non-motorized Transportation Plan ................................................ 38

List of Tables

Table 1. Original Route Segment Voting Exercise ........................................................... 7 Table 2. Route Segment Rating Matrix .......................................................................... 10 Table 3. Route Segment Cost Estimate ......................................................................... 11 Table 4. WATS Future Bike and Pedestrian Improvements for Scio Township ............. 35

Non-motorized Transportation Facilities Final Report Page v

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y Purpose and Goals This report represents the first phase of a three phase process with the primary goal of developing (constructing) of a non-motorized shared use pathway within Scio Township. The first phase of this process concentrates on the identification and prioritization of a number of potential pathway segments as well as types of non-motorized facilities. To help facilitate this prioritization the “Non-motorized Paths Study Group” was formed. The group completed the following tasks:

• Review of previous studies regarding non-motorized paths and transportation. • Review of existing non-motorized facilities in Scio Township and their potential linkages. • Presentations by the Washtenaw County Road Commission, Washtenaw County Parks,

and the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) with regard to current non-motorized initiatives within the region.

• Participation in a “preferencing” exercise to identify critical non-motorized segments and connections within the Township.

• Evaluation and refinement of Township priority shared-use segments with the goal of developing a “short list” of non-motorized shared-use pathways. The short-list will then be brought to Phase 2 of this process.

Study Phases The Non-motorized Planning Initiative has three phases as outlined in the work plan proposal of September 14, 2009:

Phase 1 – Fact Finding and Concept Formation Phase 2 – Priority Refinement, Schematic Design & Cost Estimating Phase 3 – Design Refinement, Funding Strategies & Public Education

As noted above this report represents Phase 1 of the initiative. Phase 2 will begin with the development of a request for proposal to take the results of Phase 1 and provide a more comprehensive analysis on design and costs of the priority segments identified in Phase 1.

Previous Studies Non-motorized transportation was identified as a priority in the 2007 Survey of Residents completed by Scio Township. When asked “should Scio develop a network of bike trails for travel around the Township” 67% of all respondents indicated yes. This survey, as well as the following planning efforts over the years, demonstrates the Township’s commitment to non-motorized pathways (for additional detail see Appendix B):

• 2004 Scio Pathway Plan • 2006 Southeast Michigan Greenways Vision • Washtenaw County Parks Plan • 2009 Scio Township Master Land Use Plan

Recommendations With regard to Phase 1 of this initiative and based on the steps taken by the Scio Township Non-Motorized Paths Study Group, the following segments are considered as the top priorities for the development of non-motorized shared use paths within the Township:

Non-motorized Transportation Facilities Final Report Page vi

• North Zeeb Road from in front of the Washtenaw County Road Commission building north to Huron River Drive.

• Dexter-Ann Arbor Road, between the Village of Dexter and Zeeb Road. • Liberty Road from Zeeb Road to the Ann Arbor City Limits.

The North Zeeb Road segment ranked high as it connects the existing sidewalk along Zeeb Road to the Washtenaw County Border-to-Border Trail, planned to be constructed by the Washtenaw County Parks. It would also provide an important linkage to some of the newer high density developments located on South Zeeb Road and draw users along the Jackson Road corridor by way of existing sidewalk and bike lanes. This would allow the first truly north-south non-motorized linkage from Jackson Road to Huron River Drive.

While the focus of the study group is the development of the priority routes “short list” for the development of a shared-use pathway it also became apparent during the development of this report that other forms of non-motorized transportation should also be promoted through the development of a “complete streets” strategy. Complete streets include the following facilities: sidewalks, shared roadways, paved shoulders, bicycle lanes, and shared-use pathways. The Township should work closely with the Washtenaw County Road Commission during the maintenance and construction of roads within the Township to provide for a complete transportation solution that includes non-motorized forms of transportation as well as motorized forms.

Non-motorized Transportation Facilities Final Report Page 1

I N T R O D U C T I O N Over the years, the Scio Township Planning Commission and Board of Trustees have planned for and discussed non-motorized transportation options for Scio Township. While good pedestrian and bicycle networks are found within both the Village of Dexter and the City of Ann Arbor, there are limited pedestrian or bicycle facilities in Scio Township with limited connectivity to the neighboring communities’ networks. The Jackson Road corridor is the exception to this with both bicycle lanes and separate sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. As part of the Township Master Land Use Plan update approved in May of 2009, the development of non-motorized pathways for Scio was recognized as a priority for Township residents. A Scio Township Non-motorized Paths Study Group was formed in January 2010 with the goal to move forward the realization of non-motorized shared-use pathways for Scio Township. The Study Group embarked on an initiative that consists of three phases:

Phase 1 – Fact Finding and Concept Formation Phase 2 – Priority Refinement, Schematic Design & Cost Estimating Phase 3 – Design Refinement, Funding Strategies & Public Education

The current effort summarized in this report represents the first phase in this process and focuses on the identification of Township routes and corridors suitable for construction of off-the-road, shared-use pathways in the near future. The Study Group met from January to July 2010, once a month, in an open public meeting format. Minutes of the meetings are included in Appendix C. At the first meeting, background information was presented by Carlisle/Wortman. At the next meeting a path preferencing workshop was conducted, and in following meetings presentations to the Study Group were given by Ryan Buck from the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study, Coy Vaughn and Tom Freeman, from Washtenaw County Parks, on the County’s Border-to-Border trail project, and Roy Townsend from the Washtenaw County Road Commission (See summary in Appendix D). The Study Group recognizes that there are many forms of non-motorized facilities and that a “complete streets” policy would be desirable for Scio Township to guide the development of future roadways. Complete streets promote all forms of non-motorized transportation including sidewalks, paved shoulders, bicycle lanes, and shared-use pathways (described on the following pages). At the same time, it is recognized that most existing roadway improvements in the Township are under the jurisdiction of the Washtenaw County Road Commission and that facilities such as paved shoulders and bicycle lanes would be coordinated with the Road Commission at the time of road improvements, maintenance, or new road construction. Because of this, it was clear from the onset of this study that the focus of the current effort would be placed on shared-use pathways. Shared-use pathways, while found within road rights-of-way, are built separately from the roadway and can accommodate the greatest number of users, i.e., pedestrians, bicyclists, people using strollers, wheelchairs, and more. While providing the greatest benefit to multiple user groups, shared-use pathways also require the greatest commitment from the Township in both effort and resources.


T Y P E S O F B I C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N F A C I L I T I E S The primary references for establishing the standards for non-motorized facility development are the Guide for the development of Bicycle Facilities (AASHTO, 1999) and the Michigan Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD) (MDOT, 2005). There are five types of facilities that are appropriate for Scio Township:

1. Sidewalks for pedestrian use, 2. Shared roadways for bicycle use, 3. Paved shoulders for bicycle use, 4. Bicycle lanes for bicycle use, and 5. Shared-use pathways for both pedestrians and bicyclists.

Each of the five types of facilities has its place in Scio Township as a part of an overall “complete streets” strategy. While this report has an overall focus on the selection and ultimate construction of a shared-use pathway, the other types of facilities should be considered in accordance with the 2009 Master Plan (Figure 13) during the site plan review process, when existing county roads are approved, and as part of on-going Township Committee activities and oversight. The following is a description of each type of non-motorized transportation facilities: 1. Sidewalks Sidewalks are typically for the exclusive use of pedestrians and are located within road rights-of way. They usually consist of concrete pavement and are separated from the roadway by a landscaped area. In Scio, most existing sidewalks are five feet wide and located within the DDA District along Zeeb and Jackson roads. Any new sidewalk construction must comply with current ADA standards, be at least five feet wide, and include appropriate ramps at roadways. New sidewalks are a required element for all new development in the Township that requires site plan approval.


2. Shared Roadways Shared roadways include roads upon which a bicycle may be legally used and marked as a bike route. According to the Federal Highway Administration (1994), shared roadways are appropriate on local roads having low car daily volumes or speeds of less than thirty mph. Most local roads within subdivisions in Scio are currently suitable for shared roadway bicycling with no additional improvements necessary. Figure 1. Shared Roadways and Sidewalks

3. Paved Shoulders Adding or improving paved shoulders along roadways often is the best way to accommodate bicyclists in rural areas such as Scio Township. Paved shoulders are usually used along rural roadways without curb and gutters. Paved shoulders intended for bicyclist use should be at least four feet wide and the pavement should be smooth. When motorist speeds exceed thirty-five mph, additional width is recommended. As a part of our “complete streets” strategy the Township should work cooperatively with the Washtenaw County Road Commission to provide paved shoulders on all new road improvement projects within the Township. Figure 2. Paved Shoulders


4. Bicycle Lanes Bicycle lanes include designated lanes on roadways that incorporate striping, signing, and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. Usually used in urban situations where roadways have curb and gutters, bicycle lanes are delineated by pavement markings and are one-way, in the same direction as adjacent car traffic. AASHTO recommends a minimum width of five feet to the face of the curb for bike lanes. According to the Federal Highway Administration (1994), bicycle lanes are appropriate on roadways having daily volumes that exceed 10,000 vehicles or car speeds that exceed thirty mph. While there are limited circumstances where roadways with curb and gutter is found in the Township, i.e., paved shoulders the Township should work with the County Road Commission to provide this facility where appropriate. Figure 3. Bicycle Lanes


5. Shared-use Pathways Shared-use off-road pathways are physically separated from motor vehicular traffic by an open space. The path may be within the road right-of-way or within a park or easement. Paths are normally two-way facilities. The AASHTO (1999) recommended pavement width is ten feet, but eight feet may be considered where path usage is low, where space is limited, or where pathways are located on both sides of a roadway. Similarly, twelve feet may be considered a better-suited width where path usage is expected to be high, such as in an urban situation. A minimum of a two-foot clear zone needs to be maintained along both sides of a pathway, with an eight-foot vertical clearance. Figure 4 illustrates examples of shared-use pathways within two different road right-of-way widths. The identification of a shared-use pathway segment and/or segments is the focus of this report. The following pages describe the process taken in the prioritization of the shared-use pathway segments that will be taken into Phase II of this study. Figure 4. Shared-use Pathways


S C I O T O W N S H I P P R I O R I T Y S H A R E D - U S E R O U T E S The essential task of the Study Group was is to determine Scio Township’s potential shared-use routes and to prioritize segments for implementation in the near future. To assess the routes, consideration was given to a variety of factors such as right-of-way width, connectivity with Scio’s destinations, impact on natural features as well as the views expressed by the Study Group. Previous studies (see Appendix B) were also taken into consideration as a part of the decision making process. Study Group Input A workshop with the Study Group took place in February, 2010. The group was first asked about opportunities and threats associated with a Scio Township non-motorized transportation network. The statements were recorded as follows:

Opportunities: Parks funds available through Proposal J Strong statement of needs by Scio residents Large blocks of land (HCMA) Liability ordinance Build on healthy lifestyle – Scio

Multi-user groups would be interested Connectivity MDOT Green momentum Border-to-Border trail

Threats: Physical constraints Need – is it a good idea? MDOT

Long-term maintenance Competing projects – resources, funds Liability ordinance

Following this exercise, the Group was divided into two teams. Each team identified priority segments and selected their top choices for implementation along the Township’s road corridors. The segments identified were further refined during the course of three meetings with the Study Group. Table 1 presents the results of the original exercise and Figure 5 illustrates the final location of the priority segments following a series of refinements. Table 1. Study Group Original Voting Exercise

Segment Description Type of Facilities Original Votes

A Dexter Village and Baker Road Shared-use Pathway 3

B Dexter-Ann Arbor Road Shared-use Pathway 3

C Zeeb Road North Shared-use Pathway 6

D West Delhi Shared-use Pathway 3

E Wagner Road Bicycle Lanes 9

F ITC Utility Corridor North of Jackson Road Shared-use Pathway 3

H Liberty Road Shared-use Pathway 3

K Miller Road (near Ann Arbor) Shared-use Pathway 4

P-1 Baker Road-I-94 Bridge Crossing Shared-use Pathway 2

P-2 Zeeb Road-I-94 Bridge Crossing Shared-use Pathway 10

P-3 Wagner Road-I-94 Bridge Crossing Shared-use Pathway 4

P-4 ITC Utility Corridor-I-94 Crossing Shared-use Pathway 0


Figure 5. Segment Locations and R.O.W. Information


Evaluation of Potential Routes In addition to considering the Study Group’s preference, a variety of factors including the road right-of-way width, the impact on natural features, adjacent property land use, potential connectivity to existing or proposed non-motorized transportation facility, and potential connectivity to the Township’s major destinations were considered using a “goals achievement matrix.” Using the goals achievement matrix, a scoring system was developed as follows: Existing road right-of-way:

• 3 points for 120’ R.O.W., • 2 points for 86’ R.O.W., • 1 point for 66’ R.O.W., • 2 points for variable R.O.W., • 0 point for no R.O.W.

Impact on natural features: Features are identified as Steep Slopes, Wetlands, Flood Plain, and Woodlands. Fewer natural features impacted will result in an ease of construction and thus a higher score.

• 3 points for impacts to 1 feature, • 2 points for impacts to 2 features, • 1 point for impacts to 3 or more features.

Adjacent property land use: Adjacent property that has lower density zoning will result in the need to acquire less R.O.W. and/or generally impact fewer properties, and thus ease the construction of the segment, resulting in a higher score.

• 3 points for segments adjacent to Agriculturally Zoned property, • 1 point for all other Zoning Districts. .

Potential connectivity to existing or proposed non-motorized transportation facility:

• 3 points for connection to an existing or proposed joint use facility, pedestrian sidewalk, or trail head,

• 2 points for connection to an existing or proposed bicycle only facility (including paved shoulder),

• 1 point for no proposed or existing connection. Connectivity to destinations: Known destinations include the following: parks/preserves, schools, shopping, civic buildings, and City and Village Limits.

• 3 points for connection to three or more known destinations, • 2 points for connection to two known destinations, • 1 point for connection to one or fewer known destinations.

The matrix is set up to evaluate a number of criteria with a ranking system from one to three points. The higher the overall points for each segment, the higher the priority for actual construction.


Table 2 presents the results of this evaluation. The original number of votes are also repeated for comparison purposes.

Table 2. Segment Goals Achievement Matrix

Segment Existing R.O.W.

Natural Feature Impacts

Adjacent Property Land Use

Connectivity to Non-

motorized Facilities

Connectivity to

Destinations

Total Points

Original Votes

A Baker Rd 1 2 1 3 1 8 3

B Dexter-Ann Arbor Rd

2 3 3 3 2 13 3

C-1 Zeeb Rd 1 1 3 3 1 9

C-2 Zeeb Rd 2 3 1 3 3 12

6

D-1 W. Delhi Rd 1 1 1 3 2 8

D-2 Miller Rd 1 2 3 1 1 8

6

E-1 Wagner Rd 2 1 1 3 1 8

E-2 Wagner Rd 1 1 1 2 1 6

9

F ITC Utility Corridor

0 1 1 3 1 6 3

H Liberty Rd 2 2 1 3 2 10 3

K Miller Rd 2 2 1 1 2 8 4

Note: Crossing improvements have been removed from this analysis. These improvements, while vital to the overall non-motorized effort in Scio Township, are bridge crossings and thus have different criteria than a typical non-motorized pathway. Cost estimates for the suggested crossings are provided on the following page.

Using the segments identified by the Study Group and further refining them through the matrix, the following segments achieved highest priority:

1. Segment B: Dexter-Ann Arbor Road, 13 points 2. Segment C-2: Zeeb Road, 12 points 3. Segment H: Liberty Road, 10 points 4. Segment C-1: Zeeb Road, 9 points

It should be recognized that the matrix and scoring system are only one tool used in the evaluation and prioritization of each segment. While some segments scored higher than others, no segment identified by the Committee is precluded from consideration. During the next phase of the study, actual cost estimates for the feasibility and construction of these segments will undoubtedly have an effect on the overall prioritization. That being said, special attention should be given to those highest scoring segments as the Township goes further into the feasibility of constructing these non-motorized segments.


Preliminary Costs Estimates Table 3 provides an estimated cost for the development of the various segments identified on Figure 5 (Page 8). The cost for a shared-use pathway was estimated at approximately $250,000 per mile for a ten-foot wide shared-use pathway on one side of the road by Washtenaw Area Transportation Study in the 2006 Washtenaw County Non-Motorized Plan. The Washtenaw County Road Commission now estimates that figure to be $350,000 per mile. The total estimated cost for each segment is preliminary and subject to great variation. Costs are presented for comparison purposes only. As outlined in our Rating Matrix, other factors will affect cost such as R.O.W. acquisition, earthwork due to existing severe slopes, and other factors. During Phase 2 of this process, a more detailed estimate of costs will be provided taking into consideration the specific characteristics of each segment. Table 3. Cost Estimates

Segment Length of Segment Total Estimated Cost Based on $350,000/mile

A Baker Rd 1.75 Miles $612,500

B Dexter-Ann Arbor Rd

2.25 Miles $787,500

C-1 Zeeb Rd 1.11 Miles $388,500

C-2 Zeeb Rd 0.81 Miles $283,500

D-1 W. Delhi Rd 1.94 Miles $679,000

D-2 Miller Rd 1.04 Miles $364,000

E-1 Wagner Rd 1.05 Miles $367,500

E-2 Wagner Rd 1.02 Miles $357,000

F ITC Utility Corridor

.77 Miles $269,500

H Liberty Rd 2.97 Miles $1,039,500

K Miller Rd 0.63 Miles $220,500

In addition, based on costs provided by the Washtenaw County Road Commission, the costs associated with building separate non-motorized bridges over I-94 are estimated at:

• P-1: Baker Road Crossing: $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 • P-2: Zeeb Road Crossing: $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 (including the addition of a

pedestrian refuge island between the two ramps) • P-3: Wagner Road Crossing: $3,000,000 • P-4: Utility Corridor Crossing: $1,000,000 to $2,000,000


F U T U R E C O N S I D E R A T I O N S This report focuses on the prioritization and ultimate construction of a non-motorized shared-use pathway within Scio Township. As noted throughout the report, this is only Phase 1 of this process. Path Planning – Next Steps Phase 2 will concentrate on further development of the findings of this report. A Paths Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC) will be formed to select one of the path segments for construction and, then, to develop preliminary design and cost estimates for that segment. To accomplish the task, the committee will require the assistance of professional engineers/landscape architects and will need to write and issue a request for a proposal (RFP) for these services. Funds for these services will have to be identified and procured. Phase 3 leads to the ultimate construction of a non-motorized shared-use pathway. Major steps in this phase will include the identification of funding and the final engineering design and construction for the segment that is selected. Complete Streets Other forms of non-motorized transportation must also be considered as the Township moves forward. In addition to shared-use paths, a strategy for complete streets should be developed by the Township. “Complete streets” is a design principle that promotes a safe network of access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists of all ages and abilities. It is the recommendation of this report that the Paths Study Group be renamed as Scio Complete Streets Advisory Committee and take on the task of oversight and advocacy for Complete Streets policies in Scio Township, working with the Scio Road Committee, WATS, WCRC, Washtenaw County Parks, and others. Other Segments There are other non-motorized segments that while not identified as a priority at this time should be considered. One such segment is shown in Figure 6 on the next page. Although not a priority segment at this time, a potential trail has been identified by the Study Group from Scio Ridge and the Oak Valley Parkway to Jackson Road through Ann Arbor Public School and City of Ann Arbor properties. The path connection would start across from the existing sidewalks along Scio Ridge Road, north of Liberty Road, and link to Lakewood Elementary School Nature Area, Woods, and Honey Creek Pond and meander around the Second and First Sister lakes in Dolph Nature Area. This link provides an opportunity to develop a pedestrian segment with multi-jurisdictional implications. The Township, City of Ann Arbor, and the Washtenaw County Road Commission would all have a role in the development of this segment. The paths study group identified the ITC utility corridor (Link F, shown on Figure 5) as a potential shared-use pathway. While not one of the highest-priority pathways, this link as well as other utility corridors throughout the Township offers unique opportunities for pedestrian access and recreation. Consideration should be given to utilizing existing utility corridors for shared use pathways as the opportunities arise and when in keeping with the overall vision of this report.


Figure 6. Scio Ridge to Jackson Road Potential Connection


R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S A N D C O N C L U S I O N Recommendations Based on the preceding evaluation of potential shared-use path route segments in Scio Township, the North Zeeb Road corridor should be considered as a top priority for construction in the near future. This segment connects the existing sidewalk along Zeeb Road to the Washtenaw County Border–to-Border Trail, planned to be constructed. It would also provide the greatest impact on Scio Township residents connecting to some of the newer high density developments located on South Zeeb Road and would draw users along the Jackson Road corridor by way of existing sidewalks and bike lanes. This route also utilizes one of the two signalized pedestrian crossings of Jackson Road in the Township. The combined Jackson Road and I-94 crossings afford pedestrians and bicyclists the only potential crossing from the north and south sides of the Township, albeit improvements to the crossings need urgent attention, including the potential of a pedestrian refuge island at the I-94 crossing. Jackson Road and I-94 effectively divide the Township in half, creating a difficult north/south crossing for pedestrians and bicyclists. Emphasis in this planning process was placed on shared used pathways because the Township recognizes that the road improvements are under the control of the Washtenaw County Road Commission. However, Scio Township recommends that a “complete streets” policy be adopted by the Washtenaw County Road Commission in any future road improvement work. Complete streets are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users: pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities. Instituting a complete streets policy ensures that transportation agencies routinely design and operate the entire right-of-way to enable safe access for all users. Typical ingredients that may be found on a complete street include sidewalks, bike lanes or paved shoulders, crossing opportunities, median islands, accessible pedestrian signals, and more (See Figures 8 through 11). While road improvement projects are outside of the jurisdiction of the Township, this report should serve as a planning tool for not only the Township officials, but also the County Road Commission regarding the Township’s desire for complete streets ideas and concept. Conclusion It is interesting to note the common threads found in each of the planning studies done since 2004. First and foremost, each recognizes the need for non-motorized transportation for the residents of Scio Township and the connections therein to adjacent communities. The following is a summary of those “common threads.” Scio Township Open Space and Greenways Plan – 2004

• Need for crossings of I-94 and Jackson Road to link the north and south sides of the Township

• Potential R.O.W. paths on most major roads SE Michigan Greenways Vision – 2006

• Roadway based corridors – most major roads • Indicating Border-to-Border Trail as major link (planned) • Shows regional hubs to connect to

Washtenaw County Parks – On-going

• Border-to-Border Trail – major link to other potential paths


Scio Township Master Plan – 2009 • Recognizes planned Border-to-Border Trail • Jackson Road as mostly completed • Planned and potential linkages along most primary roadways

As seen above, each of the reports proposes pedestrian paths along most of the major roadways of the Township. All of the studies recognize the importance of both Jackson Road and the Huron River Drive route in one form or another. This report is no different from previous reports in that the use and connection of Jackson Road for bicycle and pedestrian access is critical. Jackson Road and its associated pedestrian and bike facilities provide an existing major east-west link within the Township. The Township recognizes the potential of the Huron River Border-to-Border Trail to form a second critical east-west link within Scio Township. The Border-to-Border Trail and the Jackson Road pedestrian and bike facilities can be viewed as the two “outside rails” of a ladder. What’s missing are the “rungs.” This report identifies Zeeb Road and Dexter–Ann Arbor roads as the possible first two of those rungs to connect the rails and help connect the north and south sides of the Township. Figure 7. Recommendation Diagram

These connections will provide the first part of a widespread connected pedestrian and bicycle friendly non-motorized system within Scio Township. A system discussed, envisioned, and planned by the residents and officials of this community for many years.


R E F E R E N C E S American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 1999. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. Washington, D.C.: AASHTO. Flink, Charles A., Olka, Kristine, and Searns, Robert M. Ed. 2001. Trails for the Twenty-First Century: Planning, Design, and Management Manual for Multi-Use Trails, Second Edition. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Michigan Department of Transportation. 2005. Michigan Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Michigan Government Printing Office. Michigan Department of Transportation. 2007. State Long-Range Transportation Plan 2005-2030: Non Motorized Technical Report. Scio Township. 2004. Open Space and Greenway Plan. Scio Township. 2008. Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Scio Township. 2009. Future Land Use Plan. U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (U.S. Access Board). 1999. Recommendations for Accessibility Guidelines: Outdoor Developed Areas. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 1994. Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles. Report No. FHWA-RD-92-073. Washtenaw Area Transportation Study. 2006. Non-Motorized Plan for Washtenaw County.


Appendix A: Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities


E X I S T I N G P E D E S T R I A N A N D B I C Y C L E F A C I L I T I E S The existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities for Scio Township currently include three types of existing facilities: paved shoulders, sidewalks, and shared use pathways. Paved shoulders are roads that have paved shoulders at least three feet wide as identified in the 2006 Washtenaw County Non-motorized Plan. Although not up to AASHTO standards (which is four feet wide), they provide limited bicycle access between the Village of Dexter and the City of Ann Arbor, and between the Village of Dexter and Jackson Road across I-94. Paved shoulders are not suitable for pedestrian use. According to the 2006 Washtenaw County Non-motorized Plan, the following Scio Township roads have such shoulders: • Ann-Arbor Dexter Road • Zeeb Road (from Liberty

to Ann Arbor-Dexter • Jackson Road (from

Wagner to west township limits)

• Baker Road (from Jackson Road to the Village of Dexter)

Sidewalks are five foot wide concrete pathways for the use of pedestrians. Sidewalks are limited to Jackson Road in association with the boulevard project and Zeeb Road, both north and south of Jackson Road. Internal subdivision sidewalks are also found in a few locations within the Township.

Ann Arbor Dexter Road Paved Shoulder

Sidewalk along Zeeb Road


Shared-use pathways are pathways that are wider than sidewalks, eight to ten feet wide for the use of both pedestrians and bicyclists. A shared-use pathway can be found in only one location in Scio, providing access to the large nature area found east of the Hometown Village Subdivision. This pathway is located in the southeast corner of the Township. While this is an example of a shared-use pathway, it is not a “public” pathway and is available only to the adjoining residential development residents. Figure 6, on the following page, depicts the location of the existing various types of non-motorized transportation pathways in Scio Township.

Typical Shared-use Pathway


Figure 8. Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities


Appendix B: Related Planning Efforts


R E L A T E D P L A N N I N G E F F O R T S Several significant planning, design, and development efforts have taken place at the regional and local levels which have relevance to a non-motorized transportation facility network for Scio Township. They are presented in this section in a chronological order. 2004 Scio Township Pathway Plan In 2004, Scio adopted an Open Space and Greenway Plan which articulated a vision for a township-wide interconnected network of open spaces and greenways. A preliminary pathway vision, shown on Figure 9, was developed as part of this effort. Off-the-road multi-use pathways or on-the-road bike lanes were envisioned along most of the Township’s major roadways. Figure 9. Scio Township Pathway Vision

Source: Scio Township Open Space and Greenway Plan, 2004


2006 Southeast Michigan Greenways Vision In 2006, the seven-county region of southeast Michigan developed a Southeast Michigan Greenways Vision, which reflects the desired non-motorized transportation connections in the region. This initiative was facilitated by the Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan. Counties worked together with local municipalities and community interest groups to develop a long-term vision for a connected system of greenways and non-motorized transportation facilities. The vision for trails and greenways in Washtenaw County resulted from input gathered at several workshops. Figure 10 depicts the vision for the Scio Township area which presents a regional non-motorized transportation framework and provides connections to adjacent communities. Scio Township’s major greenway corridors include both on-the-road and off-the-road links along the following roadways and greenways:

• Scio Church Road, • Jackson Road, • Dexter/Chelsea Road, • Huron River (Border-to-Border Trail), • Tubbs and Stein Road, • Parker Road, • Zeeb Road, and • Wagner Road


Figure 10. Regional Greenways Vision

Source: Greenways Collaborative, 2006


Washtenaw County Parks The Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission (WCPRC) has made significant progress toward developing non-motorized transportation facilities in Washtenaw County. Their efforts have focused on connection from the Village of Dexter to Hudson Mills and Dexter Huron Metroparks as well as the development of the Border-to-Border Trail along the Huron River connecting Dexter and the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti (Figure 11). The WCPRC also cooperated with the Washtenaw County Road Commission to provide three foot paved shoulders on rural roadways to accommodate non-motorized travel. As discussed earlier, Dexter-Ann Arbor Road, Baker Road, Zeeb Road, and Jackson Road have benefited from this program. Recently, the WCPRC endorsed a new initiative, “Connecting Communities,” which will provide funds to assist local communities in constructing non-motorized trails. Figure 11. Huron River Greenway - Border-to-Border Trail

Source: Washtenaw County Park


2006 Washtenaw County Non-Motorized Plan The Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) developed a county-wide non-motorized transportation plan for Washtenaw County in 2006. The plan includes an inventory of existing walking and bicycling facilities and identifies non-motorized transportation deficiencies across the County. WATS identified one hundred seventy-three miles of roads that lacked pedestrian facilities or sidewalks in Scio. Similarly, they identified forty-eight miles of roadways that warranted and lacked bicycle facilities. The deficiencies were identified for only the major transportation corridors using the National Functional Classification (NFC) System as well as a set of policy guidelines. In response to these deficiencies, WATS established a list of potential future non-motorized improvements. Figure 12 depicts the location of the proposed improvements for Scio, and Table 4 provides details on the proposed improvements including the scope of work and length. Figure 12. WATS Future Bike and Pedestrian Improvements

Source: Washtenaw County Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, 2006 Table 4. WATS Future Bike and Pedestrian Improvements for Scio Township Roadway Segment Scope of Work Length miles Baker Road Jackson to Marshall Stripe bike lanes 0.78

Delhi Road Huron River Drive to Miller Stripe bike lanes 1.75

Jackson Road Zeeb to Parker Stripe bike lanes 3.10

Liberty Road W. of Zeeb to Parker Stripe bike lanes 2.4

Marshall Road Zeeb to Parker Add wide shoulders 3

Parker Road Stripe bike lanes 5


Roadway Segment Scope of Work Length miles Scio Church to Shield Scio Church Road I-94 to Wagner Stripe bike lanes 1.2

Scio Church Road Wagner to Parker Stripe bike lanes 5

Stein Road Tubbs to Joy Add wide shoulders 0.7

Tubbs Road Huron River Drive to Stein Add wide shoulders 1.25

W. Delhi Road Delhi to Miller Stripe bike lanes 1.9

Zeeb Road Pratt to Huron River Drive Stripe bike lanes 2

Zeeb Road Scio Church to Liberty Stripe bike lanes 1

Dexter-Ann Arbor Road Baker to Morrison

Add pedestrian path & bike lane 1.55

Jackson Road Zeeb to Jackson Industrial Add pedestrian path 0.3

Liberty Road Seely to West of Maple Add pedestrian path 0.53

Shield Road Baker to Parker

Add pedestrian path & bike lane 0.65

Zeeb Road Cedar Ridge to Park Add pedestrian path 0.12

Baker Road Marshall to Dexter Village Add multi-use paths 1.5

Dexter-Ann Arbor Wagner to Dexter Village Add multi-use paths 4.5

Huron River Drive Dexter Village to N. Maple Add multi-use paths 6.25

Jackson Road Wagner to Zeeb Add multi-use paths 2

Liberty Road Scio Ridge to .5 miles west of Zeeb Add multi-use paths 2.05

Miller Road Ann Arbor City limits to Zeeb Add multi-use paths 2.95

Pratt Road Dexter-Ann Arbor to Zeeb Add multi-use paths 0.60

Border-to-Border Trail Segment D2 Dexter-Huron to Delhi Metroparks

Non-motorized path county connector 2.9

Border-to-Border Trail Segment E Delhi Metropark to Tubbs Road

Non-motorized path county connector 1

Border-to-Border Trail Segment F Tubbs Road to Maple Road


Border-to-Border Trail Segment G Maple Road to Barton Pond


Wagner Road Scio Church to Huron River Drive Add multi-use paths 4.4

Source: Washtenaw County Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, 2006


2009 Scio Township Master Land Use Plan In 2007-2009, Scio Township updated its future land use plan update and incorporated updated information regarding trails, pathways, and greenways. Figure 13 illustrates some of the existing trails and pathways as well as the potential future links as described by the 2004 Scio Township Pathway Plan, the 2006 Regional Trails and Greenways Vision for Washtenaw County, and the 2006 Non-Motorized Plan for Washtenaw County. Figure 13. Scio Township Trails, Pathways, and Greenways

Source: Scio Township Master Plan Use Plan, 2009


Adjacent Communities The City of Ann Arbor has an extensive system of non-motorized facilities which are contiguous to Scio on the east as shown on Figure 14. A network of trails and sidewalks are located from Liberty Road to Saginaw Forest through Burr Oak Park, Lakewood, and Dolph Nature Area. Sidewalks are also present in the Village of Dexter. Figure 14. Ann Arbor Non-motorized Transportation Plan (partial view)

Source: Ann Arbor Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, 2006


Appendix C: Non-Motorized Paths Study Group Meeting Minutes


S C I O N O N - M O T O R I Z E D P A T H S S T U D Y G R O U P M E E T I N G M I N U T E S


















Appendix D: Non-Motorized Paths Study Group Memos and Correspondence


2009 Fall Scio Newsletter Copy from Planning Commission - Arscott JOIN UP NOW - NEW PLANNING INITIATIVE – NON-MOTORIZED PATHS In our continuing effort to implement the newly adopted Master Land Use Plan and to respond to the priorities we heard expressed by Scio residents during that process, a new planning initiative is taking shape – Non-Motorized Paths Planning. A number of events and conditions that have developed recently lay the foundation and provide the means for moving this initiative forward. In the April 2007 Township of Scio Survey of Residents, 67% of those responding indicated strong support for developing “a network of bike trails in the township.” Then participants in the Planning Fair held in August 2007 listed development of non-motorized pathways in the township fifth in overall importance behind maintaining rural character, continued control of future growth, preservation of open space and natural features, and preservation of farmland. In February 2008, the Scio Township Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan was adopted and established a set of goals, one of which is “to establish an interconnected, multi-modal, easily accessible, and safe trail system.” In May 2009, the Scio Township Master Land Use Plan was adopted and calls for “development of an interconnected system of trails along major roads connecting existing parks, neighborhoods, township facilities, Mill Creek, the Huron River and adjacent communities.” The Village of Dexter and City of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County among others already have adopted non-motorized transportation plans. Early this summer, the Planning Commission developed a small budget for planning activities including non-motorized path planning and the Board of Trustees voted its approval. Since then a work plan has been drafted and is envisioned as a three- phase planning effort to take place over the next one-and-a-half to two years. The content of the 3 phases (each about 6 month duration) includes 1) Fact Finding and Concept Formation, 2) Priority Setting, Schematic Design and Cost Estimating, and 3) Design Refinement, Funding Strategies and Public Education. The structure of the initiative is seen to be shaped by the creation of a study group with representation from the Board of Trustees, Planning Commission, Land Preservation Commission, Parks Advisory Committee, Village of Dexter Planning Commission, Downtown Development Authority and one citizen representative from each of our 5 Master Plan planning areas, i.e., the four quadrants of the township plus the Jackson Road area and with Carlisle-Wortman Associates as the planners. Early-bird (7:30-9:30am) monthly meetings would be held every 2nd Thursday of each month. Phase 1 content is tentatively outlined as: Meeting 1-Purpose/Goals/Review of Study Materials; Meeting 2-Visioning; Meeting 3-Visioning Results and Priority Setting, Meeting 4-Draft Concepts; Meeting 5-Funding and Costs; Meeting 6-Public Presentation We are anxious to hear your comments, especially if this initiative is precisely the kind of project you have been looking for. Please email me ([email protected]) your interest in serving on the study group and include any experiences/skills you have that make this a great fit for you and us.


NON-MOTORIZED PATH PLANNING INITIATIVE - A Work Plan Proposal – Sept. 14, 2009 Draft BY: Allison Arscott, Chair, Scio Planning Commission WHEREAS, 67% of respondents in the Township of Scio Survey of Residents in April 2007 indicated strong support for developing a network of bike trails in the township; WHEREAS, participants in the Planning Fair held in August 2007 in conjunction with the Master Plan update listed development of non-motorized pathways in the township fifth in overall importance behind maintaining rural character, continued control of future growth, preservation of open space and natural features and preservation of farmland; WHEREAS, the Scio Township Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan (February 2008) sets forth the objective “to establish an interconnected, multi-modal, easily accessible, and safe trail system”; WHEREAS, the Scio Township Master Land Use Plan (May 2009) calls for development of an interconnected system of trails along major roads connecting existing parks, neighborhoods, Township facilities Mill Creek, the Huron River and adjacent communities; WHEREAS, the Village of Dexter, City of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County all have adopted Non-Motorized Transportation Plans; WHEREAS, the Scio Township Planning Commission has established a budget for non-motorized transportation planning; The Planning Commission proposes the following initiative – NON-MOTORIZED PATH PLANNING – to be undertaken as a phased planning effort: Phase 1 – Fact Finding and Concept Formation Phase 2 – Priority Setting, Schematic Design & Cost Estimating Phase 3 – Design Refinement, Funding Strategies & Public Education STRUCTURE: Creation of a Study Group with representation from BOT, PC, DDA, LPC, Parks Advisory Committee, Village of Dexter, City of Ann Arbor, Wash. Cty Parks, WCRC, HCMA and 1 citizen rep from each of our 5 planning areas. Meetings to be held once a month, early bird 7:30am-9:30am the 2nd Thursday of each month. Planning Commission Chair to Chair the initial Phase with CWA as planners. PHASE 1 CONTENT: Meeting 1 – Purpose/Goals/Review of Study Materials Meeting 2 – Visioning – Q & A Meeting 3 – Visioning Results and Priority establishment Meeting 4 – Draft Concepts Meeting 5 – Funding and Costs Meeting 6 – Public Presentation


MEMORANDUM DATE: December 8, 2009 TO: Scio Non-motorized Paths Study Group FROM: Allison Arscott, Scio Township Planning Commission Chair RE: Welcome GOAL Welcome to the Study Group and thank you for joining this new initiative. The task at hand is to move forward the realization of non-motorized paths for Scio Township - to actually get some segment of a high priority path constructed and operational for the citizens of Scio in the next couple of years. The task has some urgency and that is to take advantage of grants and other funds that are currently available even in this economy. There is money out there to assist units of government in the development of alternative transportation and much of it requires that actual construction plans have been generated and bid out. So this is the goal – to arrive at consensus on a non-motorized path project and generate construction documents for bidding and for using to apply to agencies for funding assistance. WORK PLAN This is the FIRST PHASE of the initiative. The study group will meet the 2nd Thursday morning (7:30am – 9:30am) of the next 6 months. This commitment to Phase 1 is all that is asked at this time. Commitment to additional meetings in phases 2 and 3 will be open for your consideration as we approach those phases. PHASE 1 January 14 Fact Finding and Background Information February 11 Visioning Workshop March 11 Visioning Results and Goal Setting April 8 Formulation and Prioritization of Path Options May 13 Cost of Paths and Funding Options June 10 Review of Summary Report July Presentation to Public PHASE 2 Option Selection, Design Development, Cost Estimates and Public Meeting PHASE 3 Design Refinement, Funding Strategies and Grant Writing


MEMORANDUM Summary of Meeting with Washtenaw County Road Commission (WCRC) DATE: March 25, 2010 RE: Scio Non-Motorized Path Initiative PARTICIPANTS: Roy Townsend and Mark McCulloch, WCRC

Gerry Kangas and Allison Arscott, Scio Paths Initiative SUMMARY:

1. Existing rights‐of‐way : Zeeb – I‐94 to Huron River Drive; W. Delhi – Miller to Huron River Drive; Wagner – Jackson to Huron River Drive. WCRC to look up and forward that information to us.

2. Bolland ROW: WCRC to look up and send info. This is a ROW acquired by Bolland for a railroad back in the 1930’s or thereabouts. It is along the south side of Dexter between Zeeb and the Village. It is not complete and would require title searches to verify, but WCRC will forward whatever they have on it.

3. Fitting a 10 ft. wide off road path in a 33’ Row: WCRC opinion – From centerline of road, need 12’ car travel lane, 4’ shoulder, 10’ for ditch, which adds to 26’ leaving 7’ for the 10’ path which will also need drainage. So would need additional easement or acquired ROW of at least 10’ or expansion of 33’ to 43’.

4. Paved Shoulders: WCRC opinion that paving a shoulder without recapping the whole road surface results in a seam between two surfaces which allows water to seep into pavement base causing pavement to fail.

5. Costs: a. Paved Shoulder With Cap: assuming 3‐4’ of shoulder already exists: $100,000 per mile b. Paved Shoulder With Cap: assuming should would have to be built: $300,000 per mile c. Shared Use Pathways: assume 10’ width with average topo: $300,000 per mile

(Does not include acquiring easements or additional ROW) 6. Freeway Crossings:

a. Zeeb at I‐94: $1‐2 million b. Wagner at I’94 and M14: $3 million c. West Delhi: $1‐2 million


Appendix E: Funding Sources


F U N D I N G S O U R C E S The following programs are publicly funded by federal, state, and county agencies. The type of projects allowed depend on the program, however, the categories range from planning and construction of non-motorized facilities to design of public spaces, to educational programs, research, and studies of methods for reducing air pollution. Transportation Enhancement Funds At the federal level, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) funds Transportation Enhancement (TE) activities for community-based projects that expand travel choices and enhance the transportation experience by improving the cultural, historic, aesthetic, and environmental aspects of the transportation infrastructure. To be eligible, a project must fall into one of the 12 TE activities and relate to surface transportation. A rolling application procedure allows applicants to submit projects at any time and awards are made up to three times per year. A minimum 20 percent local match is required for proposed projects and applications are accepted online. Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) This funding is provided to areas that are not in compliance with air quality standards or are in a maintenance area for air quality nonattainment issues. Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) projects are awarded competitively and jointly between MDOT and the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). Applicants must demonstrate that they reduce emissions in order to be considered eligible for funding as determined by the Federal Highway Administration. Washtenaw County CMAQ projects are prioritized by Washtenaw Area Transportation Study Committees. This funding also requires a minimum of 20 percent match. Southeast Michigan which includes Washtenaw County is a designated non-attainment area. Approximately $8 million are available in the Southeast Michigan region for local non-transit improvements. In addition, SEMCOG’s Regional Transportation Plan, Direction 2035, directs about $2.8 billion annually as follows:

• 0.8 percent non-motorized transportation, • 17.9 percent congestion relief, • 0.6 percent safety, and • 4 percent bridges.

Safe Routes to School The Safe Routes to School (SR2S) program is a national movement to make it safe, convenient, and fun for children to bicycle and walk to school. With the passage of the federal transportation legislation in 2005, Michigan’s SR2S program will make schools eligible for transportation enhancement funds, providing for infrastructure improvements and education campaigns. The program authorizes $612 million over the five fiscal years that began in 2005. The Michigan Department of Transportation estimates that Michigan’s total apportionment over the five years will be roughly $19 million. Schools must be registered, attend a day-long training session, and develop a Walking Audit in order to be eligible to apply. SR2S funding is 100 percent federal; no match is required. Seventy percent of the funding must be used for infrastructure projects, 10 percent for non infrastructure projects, and 20 percent for either.


Michigan Transportation Fund (Act 51) Revenues from the Michigan Transportation fund are generated from state gas and value taxes. The funding is divided among the MDOT, road commissions, cities, and villages. Each Act 51 agency is required by law to spend at a minimum one percent of their Act 51 dollars on non-motorized improvements for 10 fiscal years subsequent to Act 51 award. This funding may be used to provide the match for federal funds. Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Pilot (TCSP) This is a comprehensive initiative managed by the federal government for research and grants investigating the relationships between transportation, community, system preservation, and private sector-based initiatives. The discretionary grants are awarded to projects that:

• Plan and implement strategies which improve the efficiency of the transportation system, • Reduce environmental impacts of transportation, • Reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure investments, • Ensure efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade, and • Examine private sector developments patterns and investments that support these goals.

TCSP grants are awarded based on a competitive application process. All states, metropolitan planning organizations, and local governments are eligible to apply for planning and implementation grants. Grants are awarded based on meeting several program criteria including past performance and future potential. State and Community Highway Safety (Highway Safety Project Grant) Grants are available from the Office of Highway Safety Planning to provide a coordinated national highway safety program to reduce traffic crashes, deaths, injuries, and property damage. Grants are awarded to projects that demonstrate commitment to one of the nine national priority program areas including: alcohol and other drug countermeasures, police traffic services, occupant protection, traffic records, emergency medical services, motorcycle safety, pedestrian/bicycle safety, speed control, and roadway safety. Eligible applicants include states while eligible beneficiaries include political subdivisions, through the State Highway Safety Agencies. Highway Safety Plans must be submitted by September 1 each year. Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Advisory services and counseling are available nationally as part of a technical resource program to increase the number of rivers and lands protected and to expand the number of trails established nationwide. Applicants eligible for this service include local government agencies. Applicants need to complete and submit proposals by July and must contact the program leader for Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance in the appropriate National Park Service Regional Office. Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund Grants are available to local units of government for acquisition and development of land and facilities for outdoor recreation including trails as well as the protection of Michigan’s significant natural resources. The Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) provides funding for the purchase and development of land for natural resource based preservation and recreation. Goals of the program are to:

• Protect natural resources and provide for their access, public use and enjoyment,


• Provide public access to Michigan’s waters, particularly the Great Lakes and facilitate their recreation use,

• Meet regional, county, and community needs for outdoor recreation opportunities, • Improve the opportunities for outdoor recreation in urban areas, and • Stimulate Michigan’s economy through recreation related to tourism and community

revitalization. Grant proposals must include a local match of at least 25 percent of the total project cost. There is no minimum or maximum for acquisition projects. For development projects, the minimum funding request is $15,000 and the maximum is $500,000. Applications are due in April and August for acquisition projects and April (only) for development projects. Land and Water Conservation Fund The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a federal appropriation to the National Park Service, who distributes funds to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources for development of outdoor recreation facilities. The focus of the program has recently been on trailway systems and other community recreation needs such as playgrounds, picnic areas, athletic fields, and walking paths. Minimum grant requests are $30,000 and maximum grant requests are $75,000. The match percentage must be 50 percent of the total project cost. Applications are typically due in March or April. Connecting Communities Initiative Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission has initiated a program to support local trail projects by making available up to $600,000 each year for the next five years. Projects applicable to Scio that may be considered eligible include:

• Important links between communities, parks, or other points of interest such as all of the proposed non-motorized transportation Plan,

• Highway, river, railroad, and other barrier crossings such as I-94 crossings, • Trails adjacent to waterways such as the proposed trail along Mill Creek and along the Huron

River, • Key property acquisitions, • Major multi-jurisdictional project, and • Locally cost prohibited project of regional or county wide significance.

Surface Transportation Program Urban Funds Washtenaw County is allocated approximately $3.5 million in Urban Surface Transportation Program (STPU) funds. This money does not carry over and therefore must be spent each year. A 20 percent match is required. WATS has an adopted policy of allocating 4 percent of the County’s STPU funds to non-motorized projects over time. This amounts to approximately $150,000 each year. In recent years, few non-motorized improvements have been submitted by agencies during the call for improvements. The Scio Non-motorized Transportation plan will serve as a resource for possible improvements that can be submitted for STPU funding consideration. Other Small Grants There are also a variety of smaller grant programs available for the establishment of pathways or pathway-related facilities such as Bikes Belong Coalition and Kodak American Greenways awards.


The Bikes Belong Coalition is sponsored by members of the American Bicycle Industry. Their mission is to put more people on bikes more often. The program funds projects in three categories: facility, education, and capacity building. Requests for funding can be up to $10,000 for projects such as bike paths, trails, lanes, parking, transit, and safe routes to school. Applications are reviewed on a quarterly basis. Kodak, the Conservation Fund, and the National Geographic Society provide small grants to stimulate the planning and design of greenways. The grant program was instituted in response to the President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors recommendation to establish a national network of greenways. The application period typically runs from March 1st through June 1st. Program goals are to develop new, action-oriented greenways projects, assist grassroots greenway organizations, leverage additional money for conservation and greenway development, and recognize and encourage greenway proponents and organizations. While the maximum grant amount is $2,500, most grants range from $500 to $1,500. Local Support Additional funds may be available through local economic development funds (DDA). Public support for pathway development will be crucial in determining the success of non-motorized transportation development for Scio. A specific millage over a limited period could be considered in the future for particular pathway development projects. Scio Township should investigate additional sources of funding. Seeking donations, attracting sponsors, holding fund-raising events, and seeking out other revenue sources are methods that should be pursued aggressively to raise funding for non-motorized facility development.

Documents

Scio Township - The Greenway Collaborative · Phase 3 – Design Refinement, Funding Strategies & Public Education As noted above this report represents Phase 1 of the initiative