Long-running Safe Routes project in Chesapeake Beach faces choice: finish SHA design or pursue town alternatives

Chesapeake Beach councilors spent the bulk of their March 10 work session on a long-running Safe Routes to School/Transportation Alternatives project intended to connect Chesapeake Village to Beach Elementary. Staff presented project history, current grant constraints and three broad options: seek a grant increase and finish the SHA-backed design, close out the grant and pursue another corridor, or complete design while planning a town-funded alternative in parallel.

Silia, the staff lead on the item, summarized the background: the town received an initial Safe Routes award in 2017 for alignment planning and a 2022 Transportation Alternatives grant to complete 100% designs. "The original concept focused on connecting neighborhoods to Beach Elementary School…at some point SHA agreed to participate only in the portion along Maryland Route 261 and that shifted the focus of the project," she said.

Procurement and cost pressures have complicated progress. The 100% design procurement required a different procurement approach after the initial RFP drew too few bidders; the consultant cost estimate for finishing 100% design exceeded the grant award's upset limit by more than 10%, which prevents SHA from executing the contract without additional action. Wayne (staff) confirmed that the town had not asked SHA for a grant increase and the council previously indicated it did not want to seek one.

Councilors repeatedly weighed the trade-offs. Some emphasized the difficulty and bureaucracy of administering an SHA/Federal program and questioned the long timeline (the grant requires five years to finish design and construction to begin within 10 years of the grant). Others called attention to the value of an 80% SHA match and urged caution about abandoning a project that could be largely state‑funded. One councilor described the choice bluntly: "Why are we throwing away millions of dollars in grant money?" while others said persistent SHA hurdles justify pursuing town alternatives to get residents connected sooner.

Staff also presented four town‑owned alternate alignments that largely use town roads and property and avoid a lengthy stretch of MD‑261. Those alternatives would avoid the highway but include boardwalk and stair elements and could not achieve full ADA slope standards on the steep hillside (the best option reached approximately 5.8% slope vs. an ADA preference of <5%), meaning some segments would require stairs or ramps with handrails.

Cost estimates diverged: staff presented rough orders of magnitude showing town alternatives in the $3–5 million range (one option near $4.5 million), while an escalated estimate for the SHA 261 alignment rose from a 2019 $3.162 million baseline to a projected $6–7 million in current dollars. Staff said they will ask SHA whether reshaping the grant to support a town alternative or piecemeal funding options is possible, but cautioned that changing alignment would likely require returning to the 30% SHA design step and reapplying for construction funds.

Next steps: staff scheduled a Thursday meeting with SHA to clarify options under the current agreement. The staff recommendation on the table is to complete the 100% design under the existing grant so the town retains access to potential construction funding while simultaneously developing a town-funded alternative in parallel to compare costs and timelines before any construction decision. Council did not take a final vote that night and asked staff to report back after the SHA meeting.

The debate underscored a familiar local tension: accepting a higher-cost state plan with substantial match versus building a cheaper, self-directed route sooner but with local funding responsibility and potential accessibility trade-offs.