Caroline County committee narrows TAP pre-application to south‑side sidewalk and Flying J crossing

The Caroline County Transportation Committee on July 2 directed staff to revise and down‑scale a Transportation Alternatives Program pre-application for pedestrian improvements at the Route 1/Route 207 corridor, concentrating on a south‑side sidewalk from Route 1 to the Flying J entrance and a pedestrian crossing from Flying J to Welcome Way, with sidewalk connections toward Prospect/Partnership Boulevard.

Committee members were responding to a VDOT cost estimate for the full set of intersection and multi‑leg pedestrian improvements that the presenter said was far higher than the TAP program maximums. The presenter explained that the TAP award ceiling discussed in the meeting was $2,500,000 and that a county match is required (TAP typically requires a local match), and committee members calculated that a reduced project with a total around $3.125 million would be the most feasible configuration to secure the maximum TAP award and keep the county match nearer $625,000.

During discussion, staff and members raised several constraints that drove the decision to narrow the scope: the TAP program funds pedestrian, bicycle and trail elements (not turn lanes), the full‑scope engineer estimate returned from VDOT was reported in the $9–11 million range, and expanding the project to touch Route 1 could trigger extensive Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) signal upgrades (audible push‑buttons, new ramps and associated infrastructure) and expensive median/culvert bridging. Members also debated seeking right‑of‑way dedications from private property owners to reduce acquisition costs; staff cautioned that donated property still requires appraisal and can complicate the project’s viability if owners expect compensation.

The motion — moved by Becky Golden and seconded by Jim Long — asked staff to "value‑engineer" the pre‑application to the narrower scope (south‑side sidewalk from Route 1 to the Flying J entrance and the crossing from Flying J over to Welcome Way), request revised cost estimates from VDOT for that scope, and report back on owner/acquisition costs. The motion passed unanimously.

The committee and staff emphasized the value of a phased approach: members said a shorter, well‑defined terminus (for example, at the hotels, business park access, or the existing private drive connections) would be more fundable and still serve pedestrian demand from hotels and restaurants. Staff noted that some elements originally in the full scope — such as turn lanes — would not qualify under the TAP program and that a reduced scope should focus on multimodal elements that stand alone as a TAP application.

Next steps: staff will ask VDOT for revised cost estimates for the narrowed scope, provide a breakdown of estimated acquisition costs for major parcels, and return to the committee with updated figures so the board can decide whether to commit local match funding or pursue alternative/phased funding sources.