HomeMy Public PortalAbout2008 - 2030 Metropolitan Transportation PlanI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The 2030 Metropolitan
Transportation Plan for the
Capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization
The Transportation Plan for the Jefferson City, Missouri Urbanized Area
Adopted -April16, 2008
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
The preparation of this report was financed in part by the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration in
cooperation with the Missouri Department of Transportation. The opinions, findings, and
conclusions expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Transit Administration, or the Missouri Department of Transportation.
MPO Administration is provided by the City of Jefferson, Missouri
Department of Community Development/Planning Division
Room 120 John G. Christy Municipal Building
320 East McCarty Jefferson City, Missouri
Telephone 57~634-6410
www.jeffcitymo.org/campo
Plan Produced by: Alan Morrison, AICP and Sonny Sanders
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO)
Board of Directors
Chairman -Ken Ferguson, Jefferson City Council Member
Vice-Chairman-Larry Benz, P.E., Cole County Director of Public Works
Jefferson City-
Brian Crane -City Council Member
Rich Koon -City Council Member
Jim Penfold -City Council Member
Pat Sullivan, P.E ., Director of Community
Development
Janice McMillan, AICP, Deputy
Director/Planning and Transportation
Cole County -
Small Cities Representative -
Richard Parks, Mayor, City of Holts Summit
Missouri Department of Transportation -
Roger Schwartze, P.E., District 5 Engineer
Ex-Officio Member:
Walter Johannpeter, Missouri Office of
Administration -Facilities Management -
Design and Construction
Michael Forck, County Commissioner, Eastern
District
Steven Billings, Missouri Department. of
Transportation-Multi-Modal Representative
Callaway County -
Donald Kritzer, Associate Commissioner
Technical Committee
Chairman -Janice McMillan, AICP, Deputy Director/Planning and Transportation, City of Jefferson
Vice-Chairman -Larry Benz, P.E., Cole County Director of Public Works
Jefferson City
Matt Morasch, P .E., Deputy Director Public
Works
Missouri Department of Transportation
Michael Dusenberg, P.E ., Transportation
Planning Engineer
Alan Trampe, P.E. Area Engineer Ron Craft Director, Airport Division
Richard Turner Director, Transit Division
Alan Morrison AICP, Senior Transportation
William Robinett, AICP Transportation Planner
Ex-Officio Members:
Planner,
Bill Lockwood Director, Parks, Forestry, &
Recreation
David Bange, P.E., Engineering
Eric Barron, AICP, Senior Planner
Cole County
Larry Benz, P.E., Director of Public Works
Callaway County
Paul Winkelmann, County Highway
Administrator
MPO Staff
Alan Morrison, AICP-Senior Transportation Planner
Sonny Sanders -Transportation Planner
Anne Stratman-Administrative Assistant
Federal Highway Administration: Missouri
Division
Donny Hamilton
Federal Transit Administration: Region VII
Daniel Nguyen
Missouri Department of Transportation:
Eric Bernskoetter
Private Transportation Interest:
TomKolb
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Acknowledgements:
A large number of people took the time and effort to attend public meetings, respond to
questions and surveys, and attend working meetings. Without the dedication and public spirit
shown, the task of developing a reasonable transportation plan would have been impossible.
CAMPO Board, Technical Committee and MPO staff wishes to thank those who
participated in the development of the plan, their comments, and frequently agreed to
participate in future, on-going transportation planning efforts.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization iii
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 1 I
Chapter 1 lntroduction .......................................................................................................................................... 9
Metropolitan Transportation Planning .............................................................................................................. 9
The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ................................................................................ 10 I
The Geographic Region Covered By the P lan ................................................................................................. 10
Chapter 2 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Development .......................................................................... 12 I
Metropolitan Transportation Plan Development Process ............................................................................. 12
The Scope of the Planning Process: The Planning Factors ............................................................................ 14
Public Participation ............................................................................................................................................. 15 I
Environmental Justice and Equality in Transportation Services .................................................................. 15
Chapter 3 Demographics .................................................................................................................................... 24
Population ............................................................................................................................................................ 24 I
MPO Population P r ojection from 2000 to 2030 ............................................................................................... 26
Employment ........................................................................................................................................................ 27 I
Vehicle Availability ............................................................................................................................................ 27
Income .................................................................................................................................................................. 28
Mobility and Disability ...................................................................................................................................... 33 I
Chapter 4 Land Use and Development ............................................................................................................. 38
Housing ................................................................................................................................................................ 38
Infrastructure ....................................................................................................................................................... 39 I
Sanitary Sewers .............................................................................................................................................. 39
Historic Resources .............................................................................................................................................. 40 I
Future Anticipated Development ..................................................................................................................... 42
Possible Future Annexations ............................................................................................................................. 42
Land Use -Zoning .............................................................................................................................................. 44 I
Current and Projected Land U ses by Area ...................................................................................................... 44
Chapter 5 The Existing Transportation System ............................................................................................... 48 I
N ational Highway System ................................................................................................................................. 48
Roadways ............................................................................................................................................................. 48
Major Street and Highway Routes .............................................................................................................. 48 I
Bridges ............................................................................................................................................................ 49
Structurally Deficient or Functionally Obsolete Bridges .............................................................. 5 1
Urban Transit Service , ........................................................................................................................................ 51 I
Fixed Route Service ....................................................................................................................................... 51
Paratransit Service ......................................................................................................................................... 52
Rural Transit Services ......................................................................................................................................... 52 I
Job Access Reverse Commute ....... , ................................................................................................................... 52
Private Transit Services , ..................................................................................................................................... 52
Intercity Transit Services .................................................................................................................................... 53 I
The Aviation System ........................................................................................................................................... 53 I
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization iv
I
River Transportation in the MP A ................................................................................................ , .................... 55
Passenger Rail. ..................................................................................................................................................... 56
Intermodal Systems ................ , ........................................................................................................................... 56
Freight Movement. .............................................................................................................................................. 57 I
Bicycle/Pedestrian Systems ................................................................................................................................ 57
Transportation System Safety ........................................................................................................................... 63
CAMPO Roadway Collision Statistics ........................................................................................................ 63 I
Bicycle and Pedestrian Accidents ............................................................................................................... 66
Support for the 2008 Missouri Highway Safety Plan ............................................................................... 70
Natural Hazards ............................................................................................................................................ 71 I
Natural Hazard Mitigation .......................................................................................................................... 72
Transportation System Security ........................................................................................................................ 72
Environmental Mitigation ................................................................................................................................. 72
Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................................... 73
Chapter 6 Future Development Affecting Transportation ............................................................................. 74
Projected Land Use and Development ....................................................................................................... 74
Redevelopment .............................................................................................................................................. 74
Future Development ..................................................................................................................................... 74 I
Transportation Corridors ............................................................................................................................. 75
Safety/Congestion Trends ............................................................................................................................ 76 I
Chapter 7 Regional Travel Patterns ................................................................................................................... 78
Congestion ........................................................................................................................................................... 78
Area Commuting and Travel Pattems ............................................................................................................. 79
Forecasting Future Travel Demand .................................................................................................................. 80
Chapter 8 Plans Incorporated by Reference in the MTP ................................................................................. 89 I
Chapter 9 The Constrained Metropolitan Transportation Plan Strategies and Capital Investment ........ 94
Operational and Management Strategies ........................................................................................................ 94
Regional Initiatives ............................................................................................................................................. 96 I
Fiscally Constrained Investment Plan 2008 -2030 ......................................................................................... 96
Chapter 10 The Regional Financial Plan ..................................................................................................... 101
Operations & Maintenance-Federal Aid Highways & Streets ............................................................ 101
Local Funding Resources-Non-Transit .................................................................................................. 103
Federal Funding Resources /Options ....................................................................................................... 104 I
Federal Funding Resources ........................................................................................................................ 105
The Public Transit Financial Plan -JEFFTRAN ....................................................................................... ll1
Public Transit Funding ............................................................................................................................... 112 I
Appendix 1 Population and Housing Projections ....................................................................................... 120
Appendix 2 Public Comments and Responses ............................................................................................ 123 I
Workshop Attendee Recommendations to CAMPO ................................................................................... 124
I Comments Received At Large ......................................................................................................................... 128
Appendix 3 Financial Plan-Operations & Maintenance .......................................................................... 132
Appendix 4 2008-2030 Transit Operating Assistance Forecast .................................................................. 134
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization v
I
Public Transit Operating and Capital Revenue Forecast ........................................................... 135
Appendix 5 Projects Eligible Under the 23 U.S.C. Highway Safety Program ......................................... 136
Appendix 6 Transportation Systems Management & Operations: Strategies and Projects Eligible for
Operating Cost Funding ...............................................................................................•....................•..... 137
Appendix 7
Appendix 8
Transportation Corporations and Transportation Development Districts ........................ 139
Terms and Definitions ............................................................................................................... 141
Appendix 9 Report on the 2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Public Participation Efforts and
Comments ................................................................................................................................................. 142
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization vi
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tables
Table 1: Capital Area MPO Population Trend -1990 through 2000 .................................................................. 24
Table 2: 1990-2000 Growth Rates within the MPA ............................................................................................... 24
Table 3:2000 City Populations ................................................................................................................................ 25
Table 4: Year 2000,2005,2010,2020, and Projected 2030 Municipal Population Growth .............................. 26
Table 5: 1990 to 2000 Growth Rate, Extended to 2030 ......................................................................................... 26
Table 6: Employment Density for the Jefferson City Urbanized Area in 2000 ................................................. 27
Table 7: Major Employers in the Jefferson City Area ........................................................................................... 27
Table 8: Households, Families and Income ........................................................................................................... 28 I
Table 9: Poverty Level for the CAMPO MPA for 1990 and 2000 ....................................................................... 28
Table 10: 2007 HHS Poverty Guidelines ................................................................................................................ 33
Table 11: Elderly Population 1990-2000-MPA .................................................................................................. 33 I
Table 12: MPA Disabled Population-Civilian Non-Institutionalized Persons Over 5 .................................. 33
Table 13: Estimated Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) Housing Requirements to Year 2030 ................... 39
Table 14: Land Use Changes 2005-2030 ................................................................................................................. 44 I
Table 15: Airport Traffic Counts for Jefferson City-(ATCT) .............................................................................. 55
Table 16: Bicycle/Pedestrian Routes in Jefferson City .......................................................................................... 60
Table 17: Accidents in the CAMPO Planning Area from Jan. 1, 2003 to Dec. 31, 2006 ................................... 63 I
Table 18: Traffic Accidents in the CAMPO Municipalities from Jan. 1, 2003 to Dec. 31, 2006 ....................... 63
Table 19: Traffic Accidents by Day of the Week from Jan. 1, 2003 to Dec. 31, 2006 ......................................... 64
Table 20: Traffic Accidents in the Jefferson City Metropolitan Area by Time of Day ..................................... 64
Table 21: MPA Traffic Fatalities by Facility Type ................................................................................................. 64
Table 22: Accidents at MODOT Controlled Intersections ................................................................................... 65
Table 23: Intersections with the 10 Next Highest Accident Rates ...................................................................... 65
Table 24 : City Streets with the Highest Accident Rates ....................................................................................... 66
Table 25: Bicycle/Pedestrian Accidents from 2003 to 2006 .................................................................................. 67
Table 26: Bicycle/Pedestrian Accidents from 2003 to 2006 by Facility Type ..................................................... 67
Table 27: Roads with 2 or More Bicycle and Pedestrian Accidents ................................................................... 67
Table 28: County Commuting Destinations .......................................................................................................... 79
Table 29: Cole and Callaway Commute trips ....................................................................................................... 79 I
Table 30: Travel Times and Commuting Modes .................................................................................................. 80
Table 31: Intersection Volume to Capacity for years 2007 through 2030 .......................................................... 82
Table 32: Regional Initiatives .................................................................................................................................. 96
Table 33: Fiscally Constrained Investment Plan 2008-2030-Non-Transit. .................................................... 98 I
Table 34: Fiscally Constrained Investment Plan 2008-2030 Airport and Transit Projects ............................ 99
Table 35: Estimated State Roadway Maintenance & Operation Costs through 2030 .................................... 102
Table 36: FY 2007 State Highway User Receipts by Jurisdiction ...................................................................... 103 I
Table 37: Five year funding for Missouri ............................................................................................................ 105
Table 38: FY 2008-2030 Transit Operating Costs and Revenue Forecast ......................................................... 111
Table 39: FY 2008-2030 Transit Capital Expenses and Revenue Forecast ....................................................... 111
Table 40: lllustrative Needs/projects-Region-wide Streets and Roadways .................................................. l15
Table 41: lllustrative Needs/projects-Roadway Major Investments and Studies ........................................ 116
Table 42: Illustrative Needs/Projects-General Priorities .................................................................................. 116 I
Table 43: Airport/Aviation Illustrative Needs/Projects ..................................................................................... 116
I Table 44: Transit Illustrative Needs/Projects ....................................................................................................... 117
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization vii
I
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Map of CAMPO MPA and Surrounding Area ..................................................................................... 11
Figure 2: Average Household Income Map .......................................................................................................... 29
Figure 3: Average Family Income Map ................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 4: Vehicle Availability Map ......................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 5: Elderly Population by Census Block Group ......................................................................................... 34
Figure 6: Low Income Population Map ................................................................................................................. 35
Figure 7: Minority Population Map ....................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 8: Disabled Population Map ....................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 9: Public Sanitary Sewers Map ................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 10: Current Annexation Map ...................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 11: Current Land Use Map .......................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 12: Future Land Use Map ............................................................................................................................ 47
Figure 13: Federal Roadway Functional Classification Map .............................................................................. 50
Figure 14: Multi-Modal Transportation System ................................................................................................... 54
Figure 15: Commercial Traffic as a Percentage of Total Traffic .......................................................................... 58
Figure 16: Commercial Traffic Volume .................................................................................................................. 59
Figure 17: Public Sidewalks ..................................................................................................................................... 61
Figure 18: Jefferson City Greenways Plan Map .................................................................................................... 62
Figure 19: Intersection Accidents: Yearly Average 2003 -2006 .......................................................................... 68
Figure 20: Vehicular Accidents Involving Bicycles and Pedestrians 2003-2006 ............................................ 69
Figure 21: Current and 2030 Forecasted Traffic Volume Map ............................................................................ 83
Figure 22: Current and 2030 Forecasted Traffic Volume Map-Inset ............................................................... 84
Figure 23: Intersection Volume to Capacity .......................................................................................................... 85
Figure 24: CAMPO Traffic Analysis Zone Map ................................................................................................... 86
Figure 25: 2015 Intersection Traffic Volume to Capacity (V/C) Map ................................................................. 87
Figure 26:2030 Intersection Traffic Volume to Capacity (V/C) Map ................................................................. 88
Figure 27: 2007 Jefferson City Greenways Plan Map ........................................................................................... 90
Figure 28: Missouri State Penitentiary Redevelopment-Master Plan Proposed Districts ............................ 92
Figure 29: M S P Redevelopment-Master Plan Proposed Roadways and Parking Areas ........................... 93
Figure 30: 2008 -2030 Fiscally Constrained Project Map .................................................................................. 100
Figure 31: Innovative Financing Districts ............................................................................................................ 110
Figure 32: lllustrative Needs Map-All Modes Other Than Transit ................................................................ 118
Figure 33: Unconstrained recommendations from Public meetings ............................................................... 130
Figure 34: Recommendations from Safety and Security Focus Group ............................................................ 131
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization viii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
I
RESOLUTION 2008-5
CAPITAL AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE
2030 METRO POUT AN TRANSPORTATION PLAN
FOR THE CAPITAL AREA METRO PO LIT AN
PLANNING ORGANIZATION
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization (CAMPO) is the Executive Body of the metropolitan planning organization
designated by the Governor of the State of Missouri for the Jefferson City Urbanized
Area, and responsible for carrying out the provisions of Section 134 Title 23 U.S. Code
and Section 5303 Title 49 U.S. Code; and
WHEREAS, the federal regulations for Metropolitan Transportation Planning
and Programming, as specified in 23 CFR Part 450.308, requires that CAMPO develop a
Long Range Transportation Plan as part of the continuing, cooperative, and
comprehensive transportation planning process; and
WHEREAS, a Long Range Transportation Plan for the metropolitan area covers a
planning horizon of at least 20 years that fosters (1) mobility and access for people and
goods, (2) efficient system performance and preservation, and (3) quality of life; and
WHEREAS, the 2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan has been developed in
accordance with requirements of the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal
Transit Administration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization hereby approves and adopts the 2030
Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization.
Adopted this 16th day of April, 2008.
Kenneth Ferguson,
Attest: ~~
Anne Stratman, Administrative Assistant
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ix
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Executive Summary
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
The 2030 long range Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) presents a plan for the
development of transportation programs and projects within the Capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization (CAMPO) Metropolitan Planning Area (MP A) which may occur over the
next 20+ years. This represents the first long rang plan for the CAMPO region.
Study Area
As shown, the CAMPO MPA
includes portions of northern Cole
County, southern Callaway
County, the City of Jefferson, the
City of St. Martins, the City of Holts
Summit, and the Village of Lake
Mykee. It covers 193.8 sq. miles,
with 82.54 square miles in Callaway
County, and 111.24 square miles
within Cole County.
Planning Factors
The current transportation act requires the consideration of eight planning factors in the
metropolitan transportation planning process and development of the MTP.
• Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global
competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency.
• Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users.
• Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized
users.
• Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for freight.
• 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.
• Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and
between modes, for people and freight.
• Promote efficient system management and operation.
• Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Plan Goals
The following MTP goals, objectives and strategies were developed from input from many
sources, including specific topic focus group activities with bicycle/pedestrian, law
enforcement/first responders, environmental/historic, and freight providers, as well as planning
workshops, open houses, interviews, meetings with county and city government staff, other
outreach activities, and review of related previous plans, goals, and objectives.
• Goal 1: Support Economic Vitality: Promote Efficient Transportation Corridors Within
and Through the Area to Connect People to Jobs and Get Materials and Goods to
Markets.
• Goal 2: Support Improvement of Access, Increase of Services and Mobility for All
Transportation Users.
• Goal 3: Support Good Stewardship of the Environment/ Design A Transportation
System to Support Sustainable Growth Patterns.
• Goal 4: Maintain Operation of Current Services and Keep Existing Facilities in Good
Repair.
• GoalS: Improve The Safety Of All Transportation Users.
• Goal6: Improve the Security of Infrastructure and Transportation Users.
• Goal 7: Improve Coordination and Participation in Metropolitan Transportation
Planning.
Population and Growth Trends
The 2000 Census counted a population of 69,760 within CAMPO MP A. The 2030 population
estimates are based on a straight-line growth rate reflecting the 1990 to 2000 historical trend for
the counties and CAMPO area within each county. The population forecast for 2030 indicates
102,663 people will be in the CAMPO MPA, with 20,369 people living in the Callaway County
MPO area and 82,294 in the Cole County MPO area.
Y 2000 2005 2010 2020 d P . t d 2030 M lP If G ear ' ' ' , an roJec e umapa opu axon row th
Annual
City 2000 2005 2010 2020 2030 Rate
Holts Summit 2,950 3,280 3,666 4,580 5,721 2.25%
LakeMykee 326 336 346 367 390 0.60%
St Martins 1,030 1,155 1,303 1,660 2,115 2.45%
Jefferson City 39,448 41 ,687 44,052 49,193 54,935 1.10%
Total 43,754 46,458 49,367 55,800 63,161 1.47%
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Streets and Highways
Federal Roadway Functional Classification System is used to classify the roadways within
CAMPO, and these roadway functional classifications are reviewed periodically. The CAMPO
MPA contains approximately 543 miles of streets and highways. Of these, 49 miles are principal
arterials (9%), 65 miles are minor arterials (21%), 74 miles are collectors (13%) and 355 miles are
local streets or roads (65%).
The major routes into and through the region are US highways 54/50/63, all intersecting at a
point to the south of Callaway County and the Missouri River, near the center of Jefferson City.
This three US Highway, are designated as part of the NHS and function as principle arterials.
In a previous highway transportation act, ISTEA, US 54 and US 63 within the CAMPO MPA
were congressionally designated as 'NHS High Priority Corridors.'
The 2005 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for US 54 near the Holts Summit area in
Callaway County was 25,517 and 27,223 AADT between Stadium Boulevard and Ellis
Boulevard in Jefferson City, while US 63 coming into the CAMPO region from the west, in
Callaway County had 17,736 AADT. The Missouri River Bridge Crossing, connecting Cole and
Callaway Counties has a count of 43,253 AADT. The Rex Whitton Expressway (US 50) at
Jefferson Street in Jefferson City has a count of 33,779 .
Urban Transit Services
JEFFTRAN is the public transportation provider for the City of Jefferson. Operated as a
division in the Department of Community Development of the City of Jefferson, JEFFTRAN
provides fixed route and paratransit services within the city limits of Jefferson City. "Handi-
Wheels" complementary paratransit services are provided by JEFFTRAN, providing curb to
curb service for individuals with disabilities and those unable to use fixed route transportation
systems. Although Handi-Wheels operates only within the city limits, it provides services
beyond the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 through a larger than
required service area.
Rural Transit Service
OATS Inc. is a not-for-profit transportation service available to the general public in the rural
areas of Callaway and Cole Counties with priority service to senior citizens and persons with
disabilities. OATS can provide rural clientele transportation into Jefferson City, but can not
provide transportation within Jefferson City. Anyone living in rural areas whose n eeds can be
met by OATS' service schedules is eligible to ride their local OATS buses. OATS, Inc. receives
Job Access Reverse Commute funding (Section 5316 Program) with matching local funds. One
vehicle provides employment transportation in Jefferson City, 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through
Friday to job training, daycare, and to those entering or have entered the workforce.
Serve Inc. serves the residents of Callaway County through CALTRAN a public transportation
program based in Fulton.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 3
Aviation
Jefferson City Memorial Airport is a general aviation facility with no commercial airline
passenger services. The facility is located north of the Capital in the Missouri River floodplain
and is occasionally affected by flooding. The airport facility was constructed in 1948, covers 238
acres, and consists of a Airport Terminal Building, Air Traffic Control Tower, a 6,000 feet long
runway, and a crosswind runway 3,400 feet long. There are currently 70 aircraft based at the
Jefferson City Memorial Airport. In 2006 the aviation traffic count was 30,391.
Bicycle and Pedestrian System
Jefferson City recently adopted sidewalk ordinances and a 2007 Greenways Master Plan. There
are approximately 11 miles of greenway trails throughout Jefferson City and a total of about 48
miles of Pedestrian/Bikeways in CAMPO planning area.
Transportation Safety
In the four years from January, 2003 through December of 2006, 6,273 accidents were reported
on roadways in the CAMPO area. Of the reported accidents 71% were classified as "property
damage only", 26% were classified as "minor injury" and 3% were classified as "disabling
injuries", while 6/10 of 1% of the accidents reported resulted in fatalities. This level of fatal
accidents is nearly the same as the statewide fatality level, while the level of disabling accidents
are less than 1% lower than the statewide level. In the four year period from 2003-2006 there
were 50 bicycle and pedestrian accidents.
A "d . th CAMPOPl ca entsm e anrung A fr J 1 2003 t D 31 2006 rea om an. I 0 ec. I
Accident Severity Number of Accidents Percent
Property Damage Only 4,429 71
Minor Injury 1,622 26
Disabling Injury 187 3
Fatalities 35 <0.6
Total 6,273 100
Congestion
Generally, intersections are the congestion points in the roadways. Intersections generate
conflicts with turning movements, differences in vehicle speeds, and cross traffic requirements
for stoplights. Intersections that have reached their maximum ability to move traffic through
that intersection are said to have reached 100% of their capacity. The result is traffic backup,
delays, and possible "gridlock" during peak hours in the morning and evening. The 2015 and
2030 V/C forecasts assume conditions if no significant improvements are made. The following
intersections have been identified as having short-term or peak hour congestion.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Intersections eac in_g 100 o o ume to Capacity or years 2007 througl 2030 R h Of< v 1 f h
Intersection 2007 Modeled 2015 Modeled 2030 Modeled
Capacity Capacity Capacity
E. Capitol Ave. & Cherry St. 9% 22% 115%
E. High St. & Chestnut St. 32% 45% 111%
W. Truman Boulevard & Scott Station Road 90% 92% 107%
E. Capitol Ave. & Chestnut St 12% 27% 101%
W. Truman & Country Club Rd. 94% 95% 100%
Operational and Management Strategies
This plan included detailed Goals, Objectives and Strategies which will support the overall
improvement of performance of the transportation system for relieving traffic congestion and
maximizing the safety and mobility of people and goods. Operational and Management
Strategies expands on these strategies to improve the performance of the existing transportation
facilities and maximize safety and mobility of people and goods. Strategies include:
• Specialized Transportation-Human Services Transportation Strategy
• Access Management Strategy
• Corridor Preservation Strategy
• Transportation Safety
• Congestion
• Public Involvement
• Environmental Stewardship
• Improve Security of the Transportation System for Motorized and Non-motorized Users
• The Transportation Planning Process
Fiscally Constrained Investment Plan 2008 -2030
Capital investment in transportation projects that have been identified to replace or repair
facilities or increase capacity and safety based on regional priorities and needs are listed in this
section. Investment such as this is designed to preserve the existing as well as the projected
future metropolitan transportation infrastructure needs. These capital investment projects and
strategies address areas or corridors where current or projected congestion threatens the
efficient functioning of key elements of the transportation system (table follows on the next
page).
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 5
F U C tr" dl tm t Pl 2008 2030 lSCa Iy ons rune nves en an -
Estimated Cost
Sidewalk Proj ects over $100,000
Safe Routes to School-Holts Summit Sidewalk $196,607
Missouri Blvd Sidewalk (Dunklin to Hwy 179 Multiple Phases) $150,000
Scenic Drive Sidewalk (Eastland to Carl Lane) $200,000
Boonville Road Sidewalk (Wayne Ave to Belair Multiple Phases) $200,000
Ellis Blvd Sidewalk (Schott Hills Woods to Golf Course Multiple Phases) $300,000
Street & Roa d Projects over $500,000
US-54-MORt. H to .4 miles W. of MORt. AA/CXJ Pavement treatment-5P0955 $963,000
US 50/Cityview Drive Grade Sep a r ated Interchange $11,769,000
MORt. 179 Transportation Corp. P ayment $7,266,000
W ildwood Drive Extension $1,874,000
Big Hom Drive Curb and Gutter $1,127,000
Old Stage Road Upgrade $580,000
East McCarty Street (Eastland to New In t erchange) Widening $4,555,000
Stadium & Jefferson Int ersection Improvement-lane addition $740,000
Zion Rd. Upgrade $1,035,000
Militia Drive Extension $1,400,000
New Arterial from Wildwood Dr. east to MORt. 179 $2,675,000
MORt. 00/ Holts Summit, add center tum lane (1540 ft) $892,641
W . Main St. at MO Rt. 179: Reconstruct Main St. to connect MO Rt. 179 north of $750,000 present location
New Arterial & Collectors east of MORt. 179 $5,010,000
South Country Club I Truman Boulevard and Cou n try Club Drive-NB dual left $978,000 tum lanes
E. Miller Street -Construct connection between Vetter Lane and Eastland Drive. $1,540,000
Scott Station Road Curb & Gutter $1,150,000
Rainbow Drive Curb & Gutter $1,100,000
Business 50 West Curb & Gutter $1,950,000
Henwick Lane Curb & Gutter $1,500,000
Rock Ridge Road Curb & Gutter $2,500,000
Redevelopme nt Projects
M issouri State Penitentiary Redevelopment $1,800,000
Central East Side Redevelopment Projects -Lighting, Sidewalks, Alley, Signage $3,075,000
Greenwayffrail Projects
Covington Gardens Trail Connection $190,900
Leslie Blvd. to Ellis Blvd. $540,500
M issouri River Bridge Bike/Pedes trian path $5,575,000
We ars Greenway Trail -Dunklin to McCarty $537,500
Adrian Island Access $2,980,000
Katy Trail Extension -Callaway Cou nty $72,000
Bridge Projects
Walnut Acres over N. Moreau Creek $1,836,000
Ta nner Bridge Road Bridge Rehabilitation $125,000
Liberty Road Bridge Replaceme nt $575,000
Hem street Road Bridge Rehab. $175,000
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capita l Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Fiscally Constrained Investment Plan 2008-2030
trport an dT ransit Pr. OJ eels
Project
Airport
Runway 9-27 1000' Extension and Parallel Taxiway
Transit (Generalized)
JARC-5316 (note: no inflation factor applied)
New Freedom-5317 (note: no inflation factor applied)
Capital Assistance for Elderly Persons & Persons with Disabilities -5310
Transfer Point Relocation
Emergency Generator/Back-up power source
Various Bus Equipment
Various Transit Facility Improvements
Power security entrance gate with card reader for CM{Transit Facility lower entrance
Replacement Service and Support Trucks
(30) rotating information tubes (attached to bus stop sign poles in high traffic areas)
(3) UHF mobile radios
Purchase and install (4) bus stop shelters at various locations in Jefferson City
Electronic fare box additions-ticket readers/issuers, probe, software and computer
Purchase and install an automated route information center
Paratransit Van/mini bus (replacements)
30ft low floor coach (replacements)
12 yr. 35ft low floor coach (replacements)
12 yr. 30ft low floor coach (replacements)
Illustrative Needs/Projects
Illustrative needs/projects are those which may be given future consideration in the event that
additional future funding sources are subsequently defined to be "reasonably available." At
that time illustrative projects can move forward into the Transportation Improvement Program.
Illustrative Needs /Projects are listed in the following tables.
Ill t f N d/ . t R d us ra 1ve ee stproJeC s -oa way M . In tm t a1or ves en san d Stud" 1es
Major Investments & Studies
US Route 54 & S Summit Drive -interchange ramps
New 3 lane arterial & intersection in northwest
US 50/54/63 Tri-Level Interchange
US 50, MORt. 179, Missouri Boulevard Interchange
New Southwest Arterial Corridor
New Southeast Arterial Corridor
MORt. 179 Interchange between MORt. C and W. Edgewood
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 7
Ill ustrahve N d/ ee srpro1ects -R "d Str t eg10n-w1 e ee san dR d oa ways
Illustrative Needs
Added Capacity & Safety Needs
Whitton Expressway Improvements Dix Road to Eastland Drive I Access to MSP Redevelo_E_ment
US Route 50163 -Clark Street
MORt. 179-Country Club Drive to Sue Drive
Scott Station Road -Truman Boulevard to Ten Mile Road
Truman Boulevard -Amazonas to Constitution
Country Club Road -Truman Boulevard to Rainbow
Industrial Drive -Dix Road to McCarty Road
MORt. 179 and Country Club Drive
Missouri Boulevard and MORt. 179
Missouri Boulevard and Commerce (Route 179)
US Route 50163-Missouri Boulevard and Whitton Expressway
South Country Club I Fairgrounds Rd. -Missouri Boulevard to Scruggs Station Road
US 54 Eastbound -Christy Drive Entrance Ramp and Madison St. Exit Ramp
Stadium Road US 54 Interchange to Lafayette Street
County Park Road Curb & Gutter
Ellis Boulevard and Missouri Route C
Jefferson Street and Ellis Boulevard-Jefferson Street
MO Rt. C at Ellis Blvd
Ellis Boulevard -Lorenzo Greene Drive to Green Berry Road
Eastland Drive -Elm Street to Bald Hill Road
Route C-Ellis Boulevard to Rumsey Lane
MORt. B-MORt. 179 to Wardsville/MO Rt. M
Loesch Road Upgrade
Shepard Hills Road Upgrade
Regional Initiatives
The MPO periodically reviews the priorities that are identified as initiatives that extend past the
MPA, into other parts of Missouri but are of common interest to other regional planning
commissions (RPCs) and MPOs. These "Regional Initiatives" are of an extraterritorial nature to
CAMPO and require additional coordination with the affected RPCs.
R llniti . eg10na ahves
Illustrative Need Description
US 50 West of California, to Sedalia Four-lane facility and improvements
US 50 from East of Jefferson City to Linn, to Union Roadway Expansion to four-lane facility
and im_E_rovements
Designation of US 54 as Interstate "1-54_ from Hannibal, Missouri to 1-44
at Lebanon, Missouri
Second Missouri River Bridge crossing New Missouri River Bridge
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 1 Introduction
A Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), also referred to as a Long Range
Transportation Plan, is a requirement for all urbanized areas that have a Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO). This document is the first MTP developed by Capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization (CAMPO).
A Metropolitan Planning Organization is defined in Federal Transportation Legislation (23
USC 134(b) and 49 USC 5303(c)) as the designated local decision-making body that is
responsible for carrying out the metropolitan transportation planning process. An MPO must
be designated for each urban area with a population of more than 50,000 people (i.e., for each
Urbanized Area (UZA) defined in the most recent decennial Census).
A Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations, (23
CFR 450.104) as the geographic area in which the metropolitan transportation planning process
must be carried out. This term is further described in 23 CFR 450.308. The MPA boundary shall,
as a minimum, cover the UZA(s) and the contiguous geographic area(s) likely to become
urbanized within the twenty year forecast period covered by the transportation plan. The
boundary may encompass the entire metropolitan statistical area or consolidated metropolitan
statistical area, as defined by the Census Bureau.
Metropolitan Transportation Planning
When an area reaches a population of 50,000, as identified by the US Department of
Commerce Census Bureau, and designated as such by the Office of Management and Budget, a
multi-jurisdictional transportation planning organization referred to as a Metropolitan Planning
Organization must be formed by agreement of the Governor of the state and "units of general
purpose local governments representing 75% of the affected metropolitan population" to
coordinate metropolitan transportation planning and transportation related investments.1
The MPO is a policy-making organization made up of representatives from local
governments, key transportation entities and transportation authorities and has five "core"
functions:2
• To establish and manage a fair and impartial setting for effective regional decision -
making in the metropolitan area.
• Evaluate transportation alternatives, scaled to the size and complexity of the region, to
the nature of its transportation issues, and to the realistically available options.
1 Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1973
2 The Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process: Key Issues. A Publication of the Metropolitan Capacity Building
Program. http:/ /www.planning.dot.gov/documents/BriefingBook/BBook.htm
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 9
• Develop and update a long-range transportation plan for the metropolitan area
covering a planning horizon of at least 20 years that fosters (1) mobility and access for
people and goods, (2) efficient system performance and preservation, and (3) quality
of life.
• Develop a Transportation Improvement Program based on the long-range
transportation plan and designed to serve the area's goals, using spending, regulating,
operating, management, and financial tools.
• Involve the general public and all the significantly affected sub-groups in the four
essential functions listed above.
The MPO also has a regulatory basis in the Code of Federal Regulations, 23 United States
Code Section 134 and Section 8 of the Federal Transit Act, as amended, which requires that "a
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) be designated for each urbanized area and that the
metropolitan area have a continuing, cooperative, and a comprehensive ("3C") transportation
planning process that results in plans and programs that consider all transportation modes and
supports metropolitan community development and social goals. These plans and programs
shall lead to the development and operation of an integrated, intermodal transportation system
that facilitates the efficient, economic movement of people and goods".
T he Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
CAMPO is the designated MPO for the Jefferson City urbanized area and consists of a
Board of Directors, a Technical Committee, and the planning and administrative staff.
The Board of Directors consists of elected representatives and appointed officials of Holts
Summit, Jefferson City, Callaway County, Cole County, state agencies, and Federal
transportation representatives serving as ex-officio members. The Technical Committee consists
of representatives from the agencies' professional staffs and acts in an advisory capacity.
CAMPO was formally established with the development of membership, bylaws, and the
completion of a Memorandum of Understanding in March of 2003. The MOU was drafted with
cooperation of Lake Mykee, Holts Summit, St. Martins, Jefferson City, Callaway County, and
Cole County, followed by the approval of the Governor of Missouri on May 7, 2003.
The MTP is the first metropolitan transportation plan for CAMPO and considers
transportation options covering a period of 20 years into the future .
G eographic Region Covered By the Plan
The MTP covers the entire MP A. The CAMPO Metropolitan Planning Area, as delineated
by the CAMPO Board of Directors and approved by the Governor, contains the urbanized area
and portions of unincorporated, non-urbanized areas within Cole and Callaway Counties, with
a population of 69,760. It covers 193.8 sq. miles, with 82.54 square miles in Callaway County,
and 111.24 square miles within Cole County.
With the completion of the 2000 Census, The US Census Bureau identified the new
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jefferson City, Missouri Urbanized Area, and published this designation in the Federal Register,
Volume 67, No. 84, on May 1, 2002. This designation includes portions of the northern Cole
County, southern Callaway County, the City of Jefferson, the City of St. Martins, the City of
Holts Summit, and the Village of Lake Mykee.
Figure 1: Map of CAMPO MPA and Surrounding Area
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 2 -Metropolitan Transportation Plan Development
The Metropolitan Transportation Plan Developm ent Process
The purpose of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) is to produce a coherent,
integrated guide for the development of an effective, efficient, multi-modal transportation
system that meets the needs of a geographic region and the people that live within that region,
while linking that region to the larger transportation system.
Developing this plan is a cooperative process that includes planning, technical, and
engineering staffs of CAMPO member counties and cities, the Missouri Department of
Transportation, natural resource agencies, local elected officials, non-profit organizations,
private agencies, citizen committees, and neighborhood residents.
Public participation in the development or update of plans and informational sessions is a
priority for CAMPO. Open meetings and opportunities to address the Technical Committee and
Board of Directors occur at every meeting. Participation in focus groups and ad hoc committees
occur on an "as needed" basis, with information access provided by personal visits to offices of
staff and CAMPO members, online documents and information, documentation made available
at public offices and libraries, and availability of formal policy documents such as the Public
Participation Plan.
For existing transportation plans, the plan must be updated at least every five years (at a
minimum) and must have at least a twenty-year planning horizon, meaning that the plan tries
to anticipate the needs and required resources 20 years into the future. The planning horizon
that CAMPO is using for this MTP is 2030 .
For CAMPO, the metropolitan transportation plan development process began with an
inventory of the current transportation system as an inter-related, multi-modal system,
followed by street and roadway traffic counts for average annual daily traffic (AADT) counts,
and intersection turning movements.
From there, the current population from the 2000 census was used as a base population and
an estimate of future population growth was forecast out to 2030. A simple linear growth rate
based on the 1990-2000 growth rates was used for the forecast. CAMPO staff also inventoried
the current land uses within the Metropolitan Planning Area (MP A) of CAMPO in preparation
for forecasting land uses for the MTP planning horizon out to 2030 through the use of parcel
data from Cole and Callaway Counties.
The next step, based on population growth forecasts, was to develop an estimate of future
development and housing growth for the CAMPO area. Housing was evaluated through 2000
census data and building permits, to help determine a level of existing housing stock, and then
using an average household size to estimate the number of additional housing units needed,
staff used subdivided but undeveloped parcels to identify potential residential building sites.
Undeveloped parcels suitable for residential development were allocated the remaining
estimated unmet housing needs to meet total number of housing units required for 2030.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 12
Known and probable future commercial development locations were identified and
allocated throughout the CAMPO area. For this, studies of development plans, existing land
use and transportation plans for the region were used, in addition to consultation with city,
county and state professional staff. Public input was sought through two transportation
planning workshops and two open houses held in May and July of 2007.
Using estimates of future land use needs allows the modeling of estimated future travel
demand. To accomplish this, CAMPO hired a travel demand modeling consultant to develop
transportation analysis zones (also called traffic analysis zones) and to develop a model
forecasting future travel demand.
Determining the future demand for travel and the strategies for accommodating this
demand, allows determination of a general level and type of infrastructure investment that will
be necessary over the next 20 years, and planning estimates of the cost of new transportation
system infrastructure. Additional information on this subject is contained in Chapter 7.
The Relationship of the Transportation Plan to Other Plans
The Metropolitan Transportation Plan takes into consideration, the local comprehensive
and special purpose plans such as zoning and land use, transit and roadway plans, airport and
aviation plans, water and rail transport, air quality and congestion plans if available.
Transportation plans must consider previous or existing local plans, and there have been
several transportation and transportation/development related studies for areas within the
CAMPO transportation planning area that are taken into consideration.
In addition to this, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan strives to be consistent with local
growth and economic development plans.
Studies and source documents used for identifying information and items to be included in
the Metropolitan Transportation Plan have been identified, and include, but are not limited to
these documents:
• Capital Improvement Programs and Annual Budgets for Jefferson City, St. Martins, Holts
Summit, Callaway County, and Cole County
• Transportation and Major Street Plans for the Jefferson City, and the counties of Cole and
Callaway
• Callaway County, Missouri Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan -2005
• City of Jefferson Transit Development Program Plan -2005
• City of Jefferson Comprehensive Plan -1996
• City of Jefferson Parking Planning Study -1999
• City of Jefferson Wastewater Collection System -2000
• Cole County -Jefferson City Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan
• Cole County -Jefferson City Whitton Expressway Problem Definition Study -2006
• Cole County and Jefferson City County-wide Transportation Study for-2003
• Jefferson City Beautification Plan -2001
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 1 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Jefferson City East Side Neighborhood Plan -2007
• Jefferson City Greenways master plan -2007
• Missouri Highway Safety Plan & Performance Plan -2008
• Missouri State Penitentiary Redevelopment Plan (as of 2008)
• Missouri's Blueprint for Safer Roadways-2004
• MO 179, US 50, and Missouri Boulevard Interchange Improvement Study-2005
• MODOT 2008-2012 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
• MODOT Long Range Transportation Plan -2007
One plan and one study are in progress as this plan is being prepared, 1) the Jefferson City
Memorial Airport Layout Master Plan and 2) the Whitton Expressway Environmental Impact
Study.
Factors and Requirements Considered in the Metropolitan Transportation
Plan
Federal legislation identifies several factors that must be considered to fulfill the SAFETEA-
LU planning process requirements. The following section describes what CAMPO considers in
the development of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan.
The Scope of the Planning Process: SAFETEA-LU Planning Factors
SAFETEA_LU requires the consideration of eight planning factors in the metropolitan
transportation planning process.
• Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global
competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency.
• Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users.
• Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users.
• Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for freight.
• 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.
• Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between
modes, for people and freight.
• Promote efficient system management and operation.
• Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.
Also included in 23 CFR Part 450.306(b ), Federal requirements continue, stating that
"Consideration of the planning factors in Paragraph (a) of this section shall be reflected, as
appropriate, in the metropolitan transportation planning process. The degree of consideration
and analysis of the factors should be based on the scale and complexity of many issues,
including transportation system development, land use, employment, economic development,
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 14
human and natural environment, and housing and community development."
In addition to the eight SAFETEA-LU planning factors, public participation, non-
discrimination, environmental justice, and consultation with other officials and organizations
are other aspects and processes considered in the metropolitan transportation planning process.
Public Participation
CAMPO has a responsibility to coordinate the regional transportation planning process.
Having this responsibility requires that CAMPO actively involve all affected parties in an open,
cooperative, and collaborative process, and provide meaningful opportunities to influence
transportation decisions.
FHW A and FT A have identified several performance standards for effective public
participation, and these standards are supported by CAMP0.3 These standards inclu de:
• Early and continuous involvement
• Reasonable public availability of technical and other information
• Collaborative input on alternatives, evaluation criteria, and mitigation needs
• Open public meetings where matters related to transportation policies, programs, and
projects are being considered, and
• Open access to the decision making process prior to closure
The Metropolitan Planning Organization has a Public Participation Plan in place. It is
available online at www.jeffcitymo.org/cd/CAMPO/publicparticipation.html.
Environmental Justice and Non-Discrimination in Transportation Services
Unhealthy environmental conditions and undesirable development in many areas
historically tended to be disproportionately located in low income and minority communities.
In the 1990s, investigations showed that "racial minority and low-income populations bear a
higher environmental risk burden than the general population" .•
On February 11, 1994, Executive Order 12898 initiated Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income PQPulations. The Executive Order requires
that each Federal agency shall, to the greatest extent allowed by law, administer and implement
its programs, policies, and activities that affect human health or the environment so as to
identify and avoid "disproportionately high and adverse" effects on minority and low-income
populations. According to Federal guidelines, Environmental Justice has the intent of:
3 The Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process: Key Issues. A Publication of the Metropolitan Capacity Building
Program -http://www. planning.dot.gov /documents/BriefingBook/BBook.htrn
• http://www .epa.gov /compliance/basics/ej.htrnl
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• A voiding, minimizing, or mitigating disproportionately high and adverse human health
and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority and low
income populations.
• Ensuring the full and fair participation in the transportation decision-making process by
all potentially affected communities.
• Preventing the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by
minority and low income populations.
Environmental Justice is the fair treatment5 and meaningful involvement of all people without
regard to race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. And,
Meaningful involvement means that:
• Potentially affected community residents have an appropriate opportunity to participate
in decisions about a proposed activity that will affect their environment and/or health;
• The public's contribution can influence the regulatory agency's decision;
• The concerns of all participants involved will be considered in the decision making
process; and,
• Decision makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected.
When transportation projects and investments are considered, one of the concerns of
CAMPO is that Environmental Justice requirements and principles are integrated into the
processes and plans. CAMPO must take into consideration positive and negative impacts of
projects and programs on areas of high minority and/or low income populations to determine
that disproportionate negative impacts are not placed on the populations of these areas.
Title VI Nondiscrimination Policies
CAMPO also certifies that no person will be discriminated against under Title VI and
related nondiscrimination statutes. Specifically, no person is excluded from participation in,
denied the benefit of, or subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving
Federal financial assistance on the basis of race, color, or national origin under Title VI. To
certify compliance and address environmental justice, CAMPO strives to incorporate the
following activities into the planning processes, (MPO requirements as identified by the Federal
Highway Administration), and works to achieve the following:
• Decision Enhance analytical capabilities to ensure that the long-range transportation plan
and the transportation improvement program (TIP) comply with Title VI.
• Identify residential, employment, and transportation patterns of low-income and minority
populations so that their needs can be identified and addressed, and the benefits and
burdens of transportation investments can be fairly distributed.
s Fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental
consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 16
• Evaluate, and where necessary, improve public involvement processes to eliminate
participation barriers and engage minority and low-income populations in transportation
decision-making.
Consultation with Other Officials and Organizations
Metropolitan Planning Organizations are encouraged "to consult with officials responsible
for other types of planning activities that are affected by transportation in the area (including
State and local planned growth, economic development, environmental protection, airport
operations, and freight movements) or to coordinate its planning process, to the maximum
extent practicable, with such planning activities."6
CAMPO consults with each municipality and county within the Metropolitan Planning
Area, the State of Missouri Department of Transportation, the Federal Transit Administration,
and the Federal Highway Administration on a regular basis.
In the development of plans by CAMPO, other agencies have been consulted, such as
human service agencies, human service transportation providers, environmental, natural
resource and conservation agencies, freight interests, and tribal interests.
Social and Economic Measures of the CAMPO Planning Region
The Metropolitan Planning Organization uses population, land use, socio-economic data,
traffic data, accident data, and other information that may affect the transportation system in an
effort to plan not just for five to ten years out, but also for long range planning, extending out to
at least 20 years into the future.
6 H.R.3 -Section 5303. Metropolitan transportation planning
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MTP Goals, Objectives and Strategies
Several methods, processes and tools were used for gathering input into the development
of goals, objectives and strategies for this long range plan including :
• Four public planning workshops, two in Holts Summit and two in Jefferson City.
• Two open houses, one in Holts Summit and one in Jefferson City.
• Outreach activities at senior centers.
• Interview/questionnaires with local specialized transportation providers.
• Online questionnaires for the public.
Specialized topic focus group activities with bicycle/pedestrian, law enforcement/first
responders, environmental/historic, and freight providers were conducted, including meetings
with county and city government staff, and review of related previous plans, goals, and
objectives.
The following Goals and Objectives have specific operational and management strategies
identified which are intended improve the performance of existing transportation facilities to
relieve traffic congestion and maximize the safety and mobility of people and goods.
Goal 1: Support Economic Vitality: Promote Efficient Transportation Corridors
Within and Through the Area to Connect People to Jobs and Get Materials and
Goods to Markets
Objective 1: Identify locations exhibiting congestion and evaluate potential
future congestion
Strategies:
A. Implement traffic count and traffic data program.
B. Expand and improve traffic modeling capabilities.
C. Preserve capacity on existing streets and highways.
Objective 2: Manage congestion on streets and highways
Strategies:
A. Work closely with cities, counties and the state on access management policies.
B. Support efforts by transit agencies and local governments to site and design transit
centers close to economic centers and neighborhoods, including park and ride facilities.
Objective 3: Preserve right of way corridors
Strategies:
A. Identify major corridors for major investments studies.
B. Encourage cities and counties to adopt codes for right-of-way preservation.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 18
Obj ective 4:
significance
Support regional efforts to upgrade highway corridors of national
Strategies:
A. Support and participate in regional efforts to upgrade US Highways 50, 54 and 63.
B. Support efforts to designate an interstate route through the Jefferson City metropolitan
area.
Goal 2: Support Improvement of Access, Increase of Services and Mobility for All
Transportation Users
Objective 1: Promote and encourage walkable communities that connect
residential areas to essential services and other transportation options.
Strategies:
A. Increase investments in pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and explore the concept of
"complete streets" with city, county and state governments.
B. Support Safe Routes to School and similar programs that promote alternative
transportation, improve access to public facilities and promote transportation safety.
C. Encourage a system of interconnected streets, sidewalks, greenways and bikeways that
eliminate circulation barriers and connect neighborhoods with transit stops, schools, and
other activity centers.
Objective 2: Support development of pedestrian and bicycle plans
Strategies:
A. Inventory crosswalks, walkways and bikeways for use by local governments.
B. Develop MPO guidelines for bicycle and sidewalk planning.
C. Encourage local government to adopt requirements to include sidewalks with new
development & redevelopment.
D. Encourage public agencies (state, county, municipal, schools and academic, etc.) to
include sidewalks in facility plans.
E. Promote bicycle routes that connect local jurisdictions together in a comprehensive
manner.
Objective 3: Increase access to transit service
Strategies:
A. Support implementation of the JEFFTRAN Transit Development Plan recommendations.
B. Support Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan activities to
improve job and community access for individuals who are transit dependent.
C. Encourage expansion of public transportation thro ughout the urbanized areas and to
intermodal facilities (airport, train station, commu ter lots, etc.).
D. Encourage expansion of service hours transportation options for job access to
accommodate the incre asing number of non-traditional shift workers and meet other
trans portation needs .
E. Identify dedicated funding sources for transit.
F. Encourage federal, state, and local officials to m ake increased transit funding a priority.
2030 Me tropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
G. Encourage the use of public transportation through land use policies, education and
marketing.
H. Support development of intermodal facilities.
Objective 4:
planning
Integrate freight planning in overall metropolitan transportation
Strategies:
A. Identify freight information and acquire freight related transportation data.
B. Improve freight participation in committees, participation and consultations.
C. Identify improvements needed to transportation infrastructure and services to support
freight movement.
D. Support development of truck-related facilities including fuel, maintenance and truck
stops.
E. Identify areas with design deficiencies that impede freight movement.
F. Identify areas where signage improvements would promote more efficient traffic
movement.
G. Explore the feasibility of an intermodal terminal.
H. Improve the identification/designation of truck routes.
I. Promote highway and street design to accommodate trucks.
J. Promote local government adoption of site design standards that accommodate large
trucks.
Objective 5: Integrate Jefferson City Memorial Airport into overall
metropolitan transportation planning
Strategies:
A. Identify and acquire airport related transportation data related to freight movement and
other functions of the airport.
B. Identify improve~ents needed to airport infrastructure through the Airport Layout Plan
and Master Plan.
C. Explore the feasibility of an intermodal terminal.
Objective 6: Integrate rail into overall metropolitan transportation planning
Strategies:
A. Identify and acquire rail related transportation data.
B. Improve consultations with or participation of railroad representatives.
C. Identify improvements needed to infrastructure and services to support freight
movement and other rail functions .
D. Support development of rail facilities.
E. Identify areas with design deficiencies that impede rail operations.
F. Identify areas of rail/vehicular conflict.
G. Explore feasibility of an intermodal terminal.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 20
Goal 3: Support Good Stewardship of the Environment/ Design A Transportation
System to Support Sustainable Growth Patterns
Objective 1: Encourage the protection and enhancement of natural resources
in transportation planning
Strategies:
A. Encourage early consultation with environmental agencies by project sponsors in regard
to mitigation of environmental impacts.
Objective 2: Promote the wise use and conservation of energy
Strategies:
A. Encourage use of fuel efficient and alternative fuel vehicles.
B. Encourage use of new roadway design that reduces stop and go traffic patterns, e.g.,
roundabouts, smart intersections (vehicle detection).
Objective 3: Design a transportation system to support good growth patterns
that support a full range of transportation options
Strat e gies:
A. Support context sensitive and well-planned redevelopment in central neighborhoods.
B. Encourage coordinated and well-developed land use/zoning policies.
Goal 4: Maintain Operation of Current Services and Keep Existing Facilities in
Good Repair
Objective 1: Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system
and facilities
Strate gies:
A. Develop a sustainable financial plan, providing adequate resou rces to preserve and
improve the transportation system.
B. Implement measures of effectiveness for planning.
C. Promote efficient transportation system management and operation, including the use of
asset management techniques.
D. Encourage local, state and federal governments to budget ade quately for pre serving the
existing transportation system.
E. Do cument the existing system and maintenance efforts
1. Collect data/document the condition of existing systems, including pavement,
bridges, transit vehicles and facilities, airport facilities, pedestrian and bicycle
infrastructure.
2. Document and quantify syste m m aintenance programs within the CAMPO
planning area.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Are a Metropolitan Planning Organization 21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Goal 5: Improve The Safety Of All Transportation Users.
Objective 1: Incorporate emergency, disaster and safety plans into
metropolitan transportation planning
Strategies:
A. Acquire and evaluate accident data for vehicle and non-vehicle traffic accidents.
B. Support state and local accident reduction policies.
C. Review emergency and disaster preparedness plans and identify roles for CAMPO.
D. Support development of evacuation routes and alternatives.
E. Incorporate State Highway Safety Plans into MPO safety planning.
F. Explore use of emergency response signal preemption activities to share with local
jurisdictions.
G . Encourage collaboration between freight haulers, local safety officials and planners.
H. Review policies regarding transportation of hazardous materials through the area.
Objective 2:
planning.
Strategies:
Support the inclusion of safety features in transportation
A. Incorporate pedestrian, bicycle, ADA and other sensitive design into roadway plans.
B. Promote well lit, designed and located bus stops.
C. Encourage law enforcement to include bus stops on patrol routes.
Goal 6: Improve the Security of Infrastructure and Transportation Users
Objective 1: Improve transportation security response planning
Strategies:
A. Review emergency operations plans.
B. Participate in local homeland security activities.
C. Initiate development of e vacuation routes.
D . Initiate review of hazardous materials transport.
Objective 2: Initiate/Explore development of regional Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS) technology to promote coordination between
entities
Strategies:
A. Identify components of a regional ITS policy, including technical requirements,
coordination issues and funding options.
B. Encourage technical and operational improvements for emergency vehicles
communications.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 22
Goal7: Improve Coordination and Participation in Metropolitan Transportation
Planning
Objective 1: Develop MPO policies and programs to encourage cooperative,
coordinated and comprehensive collaboration with and between local
jurisdictions and transportation users.
Strategies:
A. Expand coordination and participation among local governments in land use and
transportation planning through technical assistance and communication.
B. Establish advisory committees by mode or issue, to meet at least annually.
C. Meet at least annually with representatives of local jurisdictions and local economic
development agencies to discuss development trends and infrastructure needs.
D. Establish data sharing/consultation program with local governments regarding
demographics, land use, long range planning, etc.
E. Provide assistance with transportation grant applications to local governments and other
eligible grant recipients.
F. Expand coordination, participation and consultation with economic development
organizations.
Objective 2: Partner with State and Federal agencies and private
transportation interests in transportation planning
Strategies:
A. Participate as a Planning Partner with Missouri Department of Transportation.
B. Partner with the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration.
C. Consult with private transportation interests and providers, including trucking
companies and operators of freight and passenger rail services, and developers of
projects with major transportation components, including TDDs, and innovative
financing methods.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 3 Demographics
Population
Urbanized Area Year 2000 and Projected 2030 Populations
Within the 38.16 square mile Jefferson City Urbanized Area, the 2000 Census counted a
population of 53,714 and had a population density of 1,407 persons per square mile.7 Within
CAMPO planning boundary, the Census data showed 69,760 people.
The 2030 population estimates are based on a straight-line growth rate reflecting the 1990 to
2000 historical trend for the counties and CAMPO area within each county. The 2030 population
in the existing MPO area is estimated to be 102,663 people, with 20,369 people living in the
Callaway County MPO area and 82,294 in the Cole County MPO area.
MPO Population Trend 1990 to 2000
T bl 1 C . I A MPO P I . T d 990 th h2000 a e : aptta rea opu ahon ren -1 rougl
1990 2000 Numeric Change Percent Change
58,810 69,760 10,950 18.6
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Summary Files 3, 1990 and 2000 Decennial Census
Callaway and Cole Counties
The 2000 Census counted 40,766 people in Callaway County and 63,579 people in Cole
County. Of the 104,345 people residing in these two counties, 69,760 are included in the
CAMPO Metropolitan Planning Area (MP A). And, of the population within the CAMPO MP A,
municipalities (including towns and villages) contained 65% of the total MP A population, while
35% of the population lived outside of a municipality.
The following table shows the historic growth rates of the portions of Cole and Callaway
Counties within the CAMPO MPA.
Table 2: 1990-2000 Growth Rates within the MPA
County 1990 2000 Population Ten-Year Population Annual
Census Census Growth Ten Year Growth Rate (%) Rate(%)
Callaway County 7,661 9,782 2,121 27.69 2.47
Cole County 53,165 59,978 6,813 12.82 1.06
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Summary Files 3, 1990 and 2000 Decennial Census
7 http://www .census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua2k.txt
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 24
Municipality Population Growth
Estimates of municipal population growth are an the assumption of municipal expansion
through the annexation of contiguous, developed areas that have become urban in respect to
population density, generally occurring through the subdivision process, along with build out
of undeveloped land already within the municipality.
Table 3· 2000 City Populations
Municipal Percentage of Percentage of Unincorporated Portion
Population Cole County Callaway County Portion of MPO of
Population Population CAMPO
Jefferson City 39,636 56% (unadjusted)
St. Martins 1,023 1%
40,659 60%
Holts Summit 2,935 7%
LakeMykee 326 1%
3,261 5%
Municipal Portion of 43,920 57% 8% 65% CAMPO population
Unincorporated 23,277 35% Portion of MPO
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
Holts Summit
Holts Summit, a municipality in high growth rate Callaway County was estimated to have
a 2.9% annual growth rate from 2000 to 2005.
LakeMykee
Although 2030 population projection shows some growth, Lake Mykee is a residential
development that is fully developed and the population is expected to remain stable.
St. Martins
With St. Martins being in the path of development pressures extending west of Jefferson
City, growth rates could increase. The estimated annual growth rate for St. Martins was 1.1%
from 2000 to 2005.
Jefferson City
For Jefferson City, according to the 2000 Census, the 10-year population growth from 1990
to 2000 was 11 .7%. If the 1990-2000 rate of growth continued, Jefferson City would have
approximately 55,000 people living in the city by 2030.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It is anticipated that strong development pressures and urbanization in areas adjacent to
Jefferson City and the provision of services such as sanitary sewer, police and fire protection
will prompt annexation. From this perspective, development in nearby areas in the county and
annexation may have a greater influence in the City's growth rate than infill or new
development within the existing City limits.
Population Projection from 2000 to 2030
A straight-line population growth rate was extrapolated for the municipalities in CAMPO,
and the entire MPA, based on the 10-year growth rates from 1990 to 2000, as determined by the
U.S. Census.
Table 4: Year 2000, 2005, 2010, 2020, and Projected 2030 MuniciE_al Population Grow th
Annual
City 2000 2005 2010 2020 2030 Rate
Holts Summit 2,950 3,280 3,666 4,580 5,721 2.25%
LakeMykee 326 336 346 367 390 0.60%
St Martins 1,030 1,155 1,303 1,660 2,115 2.45%
Jefferson City 39,448 41,687 44,052 49,193 54,935 1.10%
Total 43,754 46,458 49,367 55,800 63,161
Source: CAMPO
Table 5: 1990 to 2000 Growth Rate, Extended to 2030
10-year increase Projected Total Increase from
Jefferson City Population (%) Population 2000 (%)
1990 35,481 --------
2000 39,448 11.7 ------
2010 ------44,052 11.7%
2020 ------49,193 19.8%
2030 ------54,935 39.3%
Source: CAMPO
Employment
From 2001 to 2006, average industry wages increased in the Jefferson City Metro Area by a
total of 21.6%. From the second quarter of 2001 to the second quarter of 2006, industry wages
have increased in Callaway County, Missouri by a total of 18.6%. This is greater than the
growth in industry wages for the State of Missouri and greater than the growth in average
wages for the US. From 2001 to 2006, average industry wages increased in Cole County,
Missouri by a total of 23.2%. This is also greater than the growth in industry wages for the State
of Missouri and greater than the growth in industry wages for the nation as a whole.8
8 U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW).
Private Sector Employment Only.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 26
Table 6: Employment Density for the Jefferson City Urbanized Area in 2000
Urbanized Area Employment Sq. Miles Employment Density /sq. mile
Jefferson City, MO 26,460
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
Table 7: Major Employers in the Jefferson City Area
Organizations with over 1,000 employees:
Capital Region Medical Center
Jefferson City Public Schools
Missouri State Government
Scholastic, Inc.
St. Mary's Health Center
Organizations with 500-999 employees:
ABB Power T & D Company
Wal-Mart Super Center
RR Donnelley & Sons Co.
UNILEVER Home & Personal Care, USA
Organizations with 250-449 employees:
Central Bank
City of Jefferson
EMBARQ
Gerbes Family Shopping Centers
Jefferson City Medical Group
Lincoln University
Local Catholic Schools
Missouri Farm Bureau
Modine Manufacturing Co.
Source: Je fferson City Area Chamber of Commerce
Vehicle Availability
38.2 693.4
Organizations with 100-249 employees:
Capitol Plaza Hotel & Convention Center
Cole County
Command Web Missouri
DeLong's Inc.
DST Systems, Inc.
Exchange National Bank
Gerbes
Hy-Vee Food Stores, Inc.
JC Penneys
Jefferson Bank of Missouri
Kmart
Lowe's
Midwest Block & Brick
Mike Kehoe Ford, Lincoln, Mercury
Missouri Baptist Convention
Unilever Home & Personal Care
Riley Cadillac, Toyota, Chevrolet
Schnucks
Schulte's
Sears Roebuck & Co.
Truman Hotel & Convention Center
Villa Marie Skilled Nursing
Dillard 's
Data on vehicle availability is collected in the decennial U .S. Census and has direct effects
on the number of trips made in a household, and the choice of transportation mode. It can also
have indirect effects on trip distribution and on household location choices. According to the
Travel Model Improvement Program (TMIP), when controlled for the number of persons,
households with more vehicles generate more person trips.9
Vehicle availability may also be used as a proxy for income. Generally, higher income
households generate more vehicle trips. Trip-making behavior, particularly in households with
no autos available, will differ significantly from households with an available auto or higher
income households, which prefer personal auto trips. (See the Income and Vehicle availability
maps in this section.)
9 Vehicle Availability Modeling, Volume 1. http://tmip.fhwa.dot.gov/clearinghouse/docs/surve ys/va m /
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 27
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Travel models and data show correlations between lower income areas and vehicle
availability to transit dependency, reduced auto trips, and higher than "typical" alternative
transportation modes such as walking or non-motorized vehicles. Lower vehicle availability
areas tend to be, but are not exclusively, minority and lower income areas and areas with higher
concentrations of elderly and disabled populations, older areas with a higher proportion of
rental properties, high population density areas, and in some cases, university areas. This is the
case in Jefferson City, with lower vehicle availability in areas of high elderly and lower income
populations. As a result, sidewalks, transit and paratransit are important to the quality of life in
these areas.
Income
Household income is a common measure of income, as is family income. A household includes the
related family members and all the unrelated people. Household income means that pre-tax income of all
residents over the age of 15, combined for a total household income. The residents of the household do
not have to be related to the householder for their earnings to be considered part of the household's
income.
From 1990 to 2000 Median Household income meaning half of the households had income above $43,053
and half had incomes below $43,053.
Median Income increased 6% over the decade from 1990 to 2000 while Average Income increased 11.4%.
Table 8: Households, Families and Income
Year 2000 1990 Change in Numbers Percent Change
Total Households 25,646 21,540 4,106 19.1
Median Household Income $43,053 $40,615 $2,438 6
Average Household Income $52,458 $47,103 $5,355 11.4
Total Families 16,727 14,830 1,897 12.8
Median Family Income $52,991 $49,592 $3,399 6.9
Average Family Income $62,353 $56,133 $6,220 11.1
Source: MoDOT Demographic Profile. U .S. Bureau of the Census/ OSEDA
T bl 9 P L If th CAMPO MPA f 1990 d 2000 a e overty eve or e or an
Poverty From 1990 to 2000 2000 1990 Change
Number Pet. Number Pet. Number Pet.
Persons for whom poverty status
has been determined 61,520 53,237 8,282 15.6
Poor Persons 5,719 9.3 4,340 8.2 1,378 1.1
Source: MoDOT Demographic Profile. U.S. Bureau of the Census/ OSEDA
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 28
2030 Metropolitan Transp ortation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Plannin g Organization ---------
Average
Household
Income
Legend
Average Household Income
By Census Block Group
-$0.00 -$29,700
$29,700-$45,800
$45,800 -$54,700
$54,700-$59,600
-$59,600 -$71 ,400
-$71 ,400-$86,700
Data Sourte: Census o1 Population
IWld Houelng , 2000. United S!Dtea
Departmen1 of Comm"""'· Bureau
o11he Census.
Cap ital A rea Met ropolitan
Planni ng Organization
320 E. McCarty St.
Jeflaraon City, MO 65101
(573) 634-641 0
For""'"' informstion llisk our Wflbsits:
www.jeffcltymo.otplctVcampolcsmpo.html
Ul. 2007
29 ---
---------
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
--
Average
Family
Income
Legend
Average Family Income
By Census Block Group
-$0.00. $34,400
$34,400 • $48.500
$48,500 . $56,700
$56,700 • $66,700
-$66,700 . $82,200
-$82,200 .$104,200
Data Source: Census of Population
and Housing, 2000 . United Sillies
Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census.
Cap ital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organi zation
320 E. McCarty St
Jefferson City, MO 65101
(573) 634·641 0
For more informaJion visit our webshe :
www.jeffc;tymo .Oip!GO'canpokampo.html
30
2030 Metropolitan Tran sportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolita n PlanningQ!:ganization --1.::::3 ---------
Household
Vehicle
Availability
Legend
Veh icle Not Available
By Census Block Group
-0%-1%
2o/o -4%
5%-7%
8%-13%
-14%-25o/o
-26%-47%
Data SotJn''" Cenaua of ~Ilion
and Housing, 2000. Un~od Stat81
Deportment of Common:e, Bv""'u
of the Census.
Capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization
320 E. McCatty St.
Jefferson City, MO 65 101
(573) 634-&11 0
For more information visit our webslle:
......_jellcitymo.atplc:a.t:amp<>tampo.html
31 ---
I
I
I
I
Title VI and Environmental Justice Demographics
According to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (45 USC, 2000(d)-2000(d)(1)) it is the policy of the
United States that as general principle, no person in the United States shall be excluded from
participation in or otherwise discriminated against on the ground of race, color, or national
origin under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Specifically, Title VI
consists of several sections detailing non-discrimination in federally assisted programs.
Environmental Justice as identified by FHWA states that there are three fundamental
environmental justice principles:
• To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations
and low-income populations.
• To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the
transportation decision-making process. And,
• To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by
minority and low-income populations.
Minority Populations
For purposes of Title VI and Environmental Justice, who is considered to be a "Minority"?
The U.S. DOT Order (5610.2) on Environmental Justice defines "Minority" and provides clear
definitions of the four (4) minority groups addressed by the Executive Order.l0 These groups
are:
• Black (a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa).
• Hispanic (a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other
Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race).
• Asian American (a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East,
Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands).
• American Indian and Alaskan Native (a person having origins in any of the original
people of North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal
affiliation or community recognition).
I For Purposes Of Environmental Justice, What Is Considered "Low-Income"?
I
I
I
FHWA defines "low-income" as "a person whose household income is at or below the
Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines." Here again, under certain
conditions, a State or locality may adopt a higher threshold for low-income. The conditions are
that the higher threshold may not be implemented selectively and the threshold is inclusive of
all persons at or below the HHS poverty guidelines.
tohttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ejustice/facts/index.htm
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 32
The following table shows the 2007 HHS Poverty Guidelines (Health & Human Services)
for a family of four.
T bl 10 2007 HHS P a e : overty G ·d r m e mes
Persons in Family or Household 48 Contiguous States and D.C. Alaska Hawaii
1 $10,210 $12,770 $11,750
2 13,690 17,120 15,750
3 17,170 21,470 19,750
Source: Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 15, January 24, 2007. Pages 3147-3148
Mobility and Disability
Mobility has many definitions depending on context, but for transportation it is defined as
the ability to move about and perform ordinary tasks such as traveling for work, social
interactions, shopping or medical and health care visits.
Disability is defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA) as any individual who
has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's
major life activities, has a record of such impairment, or is regarded as having such an
impairment.
The following 2000 Census data present the extent of the disabled and elderly populations
within the MP A.
Elderly Population
T bl 11 Eld 1 P 1 . 1990 2000 MPA a e : er1y o pu ahon --
Subject 1990 1990 2000 2000 Numeric Percent
Elderly Population Number Percent Number Percent Change Change
65 to 84 6,021 10.2 6,518 9.7 498 -0.5
85 and Over 767 1.3 986 1.5 219 0.2
Source: MoDOT Demographic Profile. Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis-University of Missouri
Disabled Population
T bl 12 MP AD' bl d P 1 f a e 1sa e opu a 10n-C T N lVllan r dP on-nshtutiona 1ze ersons Ov 5 er
Subject: Disability 2000 1990
Numeric Percent
Number Percent Number Percent Change Change
Civilian Non-institutionalized 7,028 6,151 876 14.2 Population 65 Years and Over
Persons 65 Yrs and Over With a 3,732 53.1 2,427 39.5 1,305 13.7 Disability
Civilian Non-institutionalized 40,537 34,578 5,959 17.2 Population 16-64
Persons 16-64 with a Work Disability 6,456 15.9 2,498 7.2 3,958 8.7
Employed Persons 16-64 with a Work 4,093 10.1 786 2.3 3,307 7.8 Disabilty
Source: MoDOT Demographic Profile. Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis-University of Missouri
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 33
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-----
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan P lanning Organization
Elderly
Popula ti on
by
Ce nsus Block
Group
Legend
Elderly Population
-17 -50 persons
51 -95 persons
96 -149 persons
150 -211 persons
212 -315 persons
-316 -397 persons
Data Source: Census of Population
and HOUSing, 2000. Un~ed States
Depanment of Commerce. Bureau
of the Census.
Capital Area Metropolitan
Plann ing Organ ization
320 E. McCarty St.
Jefferson City, MO 65101
(573) 634-6410
For mom information liisit our websffe:
www.jeffcitymo.OfrJiailcampolcampo.html
34
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization -----------
Population
in
Poverty
by
Census Block
Group
Legend
Persons in Poverty
-0-25
-26 -66
67-131
132-196
197-317
-318-499
Data Soua: Census of l'opoJII!ian
and Houalng , 2000. Un~Od Staleo
llopaltmem of Commerte, Bur81W
of 1!18 Censt.e.
Capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization
320 E. M:Carty St.
Jefferson City, t.10 65101
(573) 634-6410
For more lnlomiBiion visit our webde:
www.jellr:itymo.~odlcampolcampo.html
35 -
-------
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Minority
Population
by
Census Block
Group
Legend
Minority Population
-0-35
36 -77
78-181
182 -372
373-819
-820-1394
Data Source: Census a! Population
and Housing , 2000. Unled States
Department of Commerce , Bureau
of the Census .
Capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization
320 E. McCarty St.
Jefferson City, MO 65101
(573) 634-6410
For more intormstion ~sit our website:
www.jellcitymo.OtPfcdltampalcampo.html
36
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ------
Disabled
Population
by
Census Block
Group
Legend
Disabled Pop ulation
-0 -50
51 -115
116 -1 61
162 -247
248 -349
-350 -534
!lola Sourte: Cenout of Populalion
Md Houlllng, 2000. Un~ed Staloa
Dapoltmont of commerce, Bureau
of the Censuo.
Capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization
320 E. McCarty St.
Jefferson City, MO 65101
(573) 634·641 0
For mote information yjsil our website:
www.jeffcilymo.orplcdA::ampolcampo.html
37 --
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 4 Land Use and Development
Housing
In 2000, the CAMPO MPA contained 27,373 housing units, up from 23,203 in 1990. Of the
27,373 housing units, 93.7% or 25,657 were occupied, with 66.3% or 17,017 owner occupied.
This is a 18% increase in total housing units, a 1.4% increase in occupied housing units, and .2%
increase in owner occupied housing units over the decade from 1990-2000.
Housing Unit Basics (CAMPO) Universe: Total Housing Units Metadata: 1990 2000
2000 1990 Change
Subject Number Pet. Number Pet. Number Percent
Total Housing Units 27,373 23,203 4,170 18
Occupied Housing Units 25,657 93.7 21A29 92.4 4,228 1.4
Owner occupied units 17,017 66.3 14,167 66.1 2,850 0.2
Renter occupied units 8,639 33.7 7,261 33.9 1,378 -0.2
Vacant Housing Units 1,717 6.3 t774 7.6 -58 -1.4
Vacant Units for Rent 659 2.4 858 3.7 -199 -1.3
Vacant Units for Sale 379 1.4 253 1.1 126 0.3
Rental Unit Vacancy Rate 7.1 10.6 -3.5 -32.9
Owner Unit Vacancy Rate 2.2 1.8 0.4 24.3
Source: Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis, Univ. of Missouri Outreach & Extension
In the entire Cole County, housing made up 31,423 homes in 2005. The county has
experienced a growth in housing units of 5.9 percent from 2001 to 2005.11 In Callaway County,
the U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division accounted for a total of 17,147 housing units in the
year 2005. This represents a growth in housing units of 656 residential structures since 2001, or
a change of 4 percent.12
In Jefferson City, the U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division accounted for a total of
60,629 homes in 2005. The area has experienced a medium level of growth in the number of
housing units, adding a total of 2,683 housing units since the year 2001, or 4.6 percent.13
Census data for residential housing units and building permits in Holts Summit and
Jefferson City were used to develop estimates of additional housing units that will be required
to meet the population growth through 2030.
For the period 2000 to 2030, using a forecast population of 102,663 and an average
household size of 2.34 persons per household, the estimated number of additional number of
housing units required for CAMPO area in 2030 will be 11,894.
11 http://www .ecanned.com/M0/2006/11/housing-report-for-cole-county .shtml
12 http://www .ecanned.com/M0/2006/11/housing-report-for-callaway-county.shtml
13 http://www .ecanned.com/M0/2006/11/housing-report-for-jefferson-city .shtml
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 38
Table 13: Estimated Metropo itan P annmg rea ousmg eqmrements to A (MPA) H R y 2030 ear
2000 Existing 2030 Projected Future Need•
Callaway 3,011 8,487 5,256
Cole 24,362 34,289 6,638
Total 27,373 42,776 11,894
•Future need is calculated after accounting for building permits, 220 in Callaway and 3,289 in Cole County issued
through 2006.
The allocation of previous housing was distributed for future land use and travel demand
estimates using the previous 10-year growth rate for CAMPO portions of Cole and Callaway
County, and the growth rates of the municipalities.
Future residential housing areas with high development potential were identified based on
local planning department staff discussions, availability of sewer and water infrastructure,
floodplain limitations and environmental constraints, road access, and public involvement
sessions.
Infrastructure
Sanitary Sewers
Current sanitary sewer infrastructure
The City of Jefferson operates a regional sewer system consisting of approximately 420
miles of sanitary sewer and 30+ pump stations throughout connections to the city system,
including Holts Summit in Callaway County and St. Martins in Cole County. Septic systems,
lagoons and privately operated systems are permitted in rural areas and regulated by county
Health Departments, resulting in larger lot size and lower development densities.
Future sanitary sewer infrastructure (See the Public Sanitary Sewers Map)
An agreement permitting future annexation has been required of new developments
wanting to connect to the Jefferson City sanitary sewer system since 2007. Sanitary sewer
service is expected to be extended to the east along Militia Drive southward to Taos, from Algoa
Road to Stertzer Road, and along the Moreau River South to US 50 and westward to Robinson
Road and also along the south side of US 50. Future expansion in also expected to the south
from the Tanner Bridge Road area near MORt. 179, south and westward, shifting northward to
MO Rt. 179 near the Christy Drive area, and, in the southwest area of Jefferson City, an
extension from Frog Hollow Road to Rock Ridge Road
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Org anization 39
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Water
Water in the CAMPO MPA is supplied by public water supply districts and Missouri
American Water in Jefferson City and by private wells in a few areas. Individual development
has the option of providing private wells if possible, or connecting to an existing public water
supply system. Developments at the subdivision level require connection to a water system.
Historic Resources
Of the 37 nationally recognized historic places in Cole County, 33 are in Jefferson City.
Transportation projects should consider historic and archeological sights in their preliminary
and environmental scoping process.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 40
~
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
----------
Public Sanitary
Sewer Systems
Legend
~"" Future Sewer System Expansion
-Existing Public Sewer Utility
Pl.lbfic aanlary MWtf JYifeml primarily • .,.,.
lnc:ot'polllled ar.u wtthln the CAMF'O II'H.. n-are,.._., primoinolgh-
IYI'•n. 1n the araa. but tor,. most pan
.,.,.designed lora opoclflc~cityand
are not expandable. Areas not sef\'.:t by
a .....,. tylhlm arw usually eervecl by onslte
Hpllcaya ......
Source; Holts Summit s.w.r OeparttMnt
Jefl.,.,n CllyW..,OWO!or utility Sar.ricoo.
Capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization
320 E. Mccarty SL
JellersooCity, MO 65101
(573) 634·641 0
For more Information vts/1 our webste:
www.}Bffcltymo.~mpalcampo.html
'''"
---
41
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Future Anticipated Development
Based on previous plans, technical knowledge of city and county staff and public
participation, the areas within CAMPO planning area are expected to exhibit the following
development characteristics. Annexation is an indicator for urbanization trends.
For the Jefferson City, St. Martins, and Holts Summit areas, municipal annexations indicate
urbanization in areas surrounding the municipality. Annexations affect the level of
infrastructure design and development, from sanitary and storm sewers, water supply, street
design and standards, to traffic and travel patterns. Annexation also affects taxation and
transportation funding capacity.
The 1996 City of Jefferson Annexation Plan identified 14 potential annexations. As of July
1, 2007, annexations occurred in the Algoa area east to MO Rt. J, the Frog Hollow area, and
along MORt. 179, extending roughly from Missouri Boulevard to Rock Ridge Road
Possible future annexation:
Conversations with municipal representatives indicate interest in the future annexations for
Jefferson City, since 1996, the city has annexed over 20,000 acres through voter approved and
voluntary annexations. Most recently, the area around the intersection of MORt. 179 and MO
Rt. C is currently in the annexation process as of the spring of 2008. Land use and development
are factors in planning for transportation. However, annexations occur at the direction of the
respective dty Councils and Boards of Aldermen.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Me tropolitan Planning Organiza tion 4 2
2030 Metropolitan Tran sportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ------------
Municipal
Boundaries :
Annexed Areas
Since 1990
Legend
CJ 1990 Mun icipal Limits
•Annexed Areas Since 1990
Changes in m~l boundaries were
provided Ill' HoltS Sunvn~. Joff8!1on City,
St. Martins and United Slaleo Department
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
Capital Area Metropolitan
Pla nning Organization
320 E. McCarty St.
Jeneraon City, MO 65101
(573) 634-6410
For more inlonnsffon visit our website:
www.jeffcitymo.orplcdlcampolcampo.html
43 ----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Land Use and Zoning
All of the municipalities within the CAMPO area have adopted zoning as a means of
regulating growth and development. Zoning is useful for identifying travel demands for
current land use and for forecasting future land uses in so far as the land use conforms to the
zoning. Other uses for the land use information are congestion management, air quality
analyses, socio-economic analyses, and environmental quality evaluations.
During the development of this plan, representatives from the municipalities were
consulted to identify parcel zoning and clarify boundary and zoning categories. (See the
current and future land use maps for the current and forecast land uses.)
Land Uses -Current and Projected Land Uses by Area
Projected population growth and development was allocated to southern Callaway County
and northern Cole County portions of the MP A and the change in the area of land uses
calculated. Area totals do not include transportation right of way or large bodies of water.
For the MP A, agricultural and vacant land is expected to decrease by an equivalent
amount, as 45.5 square miles of primarily residential development occurs along with a small
amount of commercial and institutional development.
T bl 14 L d U Ch a e : an se anges 2005 2030 -
CAMPO Land Use Category Current Land Use Area Year 2030 Forecasted Future Change
as of July, 2007 (Sq. mi.) Land Area (Sq. mi.) (Sq . mi.)
Agriculture 119.3 80.5 -38.8
Commercial 3.4 5.5 2.2
Commercial/Residential 0.0 0.0 0.0
lnd ustrial/Manufacturing 1.9 2.4 0.5
Institutional 3.7 3.9 0.2
Mining-Quarrying 0.8 0.1 -0.8
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0
Parking 0.2 0.2 0.0
Public/Semi-Public 0.3 0.3 0.0
Recreation 4.6 4.4 -0.2
Residential -Duplex 0.3 0.3 0.0
Residential -Mobile Homes 1.4 0.7 -0.8
Residential -Multi Family 1.0 1.5 0.5
Residential -Single Family 28.7 72.0 43.3
Transportation Center 0.8 0.8 0.0
Utility 0.9 0.9 0.0
Vacant 8.8 2.7 -6.2
Total 176.2 176.2 0.0
Source: CAMPO and County Assessor
The Callaway County portion of the MPA is expected to develop in a similar fashion, 13.3
sq. mi. of single family residential development, 0.2 sq. mi. of multi-family development, and
0.2 sq. mi. of commercial development. That is, if boundary of the MP A does not change.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 44
Callaway County Land Use Changes (MP A)
Callaway County Current Year 2030
Land use Area Land use Area Change Land Use Category (Sq. mi.) (Sq. mi.) (Sq. mi.)
Agriculture 57.5 46.4 -11.1
Commercial 0.2 0.4 0.2
Industrial/Manufacturing 1.1 1.1 0.0
Institutional 0.2 0.2 0.0
Mining-Quarrying 0.5 0.5 0.0
Parking 0.0 0.0 0.0
Public/Semi-Public 0.0 0.0 0.0
Recreation 1.2 1.2 0.0
Residential -Duplex 0.0 0.0 0.0
Residential -Mobile Homes 0.4 0.4 0.0
Residential -Multi Family 0.1 0.3 0.2
Residential-Single Family 13.0 26.3 13.3
Transportation Center 0.8 0.8 0.0
Utility 0.1 0.1 0.0
Vacant 2.8 0.2 -2.6
Total 77.8 77.8 0.0
Source: CAMPO and County Assessor
Cole County Land Use Changes (MPA)
Cole County Land use Area Future Land Area Change
(Sq. mi.) (~q. mi.) ~·mi.)
Agriculture 61.8 34.3 -27.5
Commercial 3.2 5.1 2.0
Commercial/Residential 0.0 0.0 0.0
Industrial/Manufacturing 0 .8 0.8 0.0
Institutional 3.6 3.8 0.2
Mining-Quarrying 0.4 0.1 -0.3
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0
Parking 0.1 0.1 0.0
Public/Semi-Public 0.3 0.3 0.0
Recreation 3.4 3.2 -0.2
Residential -Duplex 0.3 0.3 0.0
Residential -Mobile Homes 1.1 0.3 -0.8
Residential -Multi Family 0.9 1.2 0.3
Residential -Single Family 15.7 45.7 29.9
Transportation Center 0.0 0 .0 0.0
Utility 0.8 0.8 0.0
Vacant 6.1 2.4 -3.7
Total 98.3 98.3 0.0
Source: CAMPO and County Assessor
The Cole County portion of the MP A is also expected to see 29.9 sq. mi. of single family
residential development, .3 sq. mi. of multi-family development, .2 sq. mi. of institutional
development and 2 sq. mi. of commercial development, with an equivalent decrease in
agricultural, recreational land use, along with a decline in mobile homes and mining land use.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 45
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
------------
Figure 11 : Current Land Use Map
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
-
Generalized
Existing
Land Use
Legend
-Agricu111Je
-Commercial iZi2 CommerclaVResidential
-lndustria!Manulacturing
-Institutional
Mining .Quarrying
-O!her Parking
-Plblic/Semi-Public
-Recreation
Residential -Duplex
Residential -Mobile Homes
-Residential -Multi Family
Residential -Single Family
Transportallon Center
Utlfity
-Vacant
Land uee was identified from NYeral source~
lncWng tax &IMISrnenl data, 20015 Mrlal
ptodcgl"lphy, lfte WJils and 13 oth• local and
ltaleiOUrCel.
capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization
320 E. McCarty St.
Jellerson City, MO 65101
(573) 634-641 0
For"""" inlonnalfon visit our MJbshe:
-.Jelfcitymo.~mpo.hrml
46
-
Figure 12: Future Land Use Map
Ia «I J'J
2030
Generalized
Future
Land Use
Legend
-Agriculture
-Commercial
r.;ru, Commercial/Residential
-lndustriai/Manufactu~ng
-Institutional
Mining .Quarrying -Other Parking
-Ptblic!Semi-Ptblic
-Recreation
Residential -Duplex
Residential -Mobile Homes
Residential -Munl Family
Residential • Single Family
Transportation Center
Utllny
-Vacant
This map shawl the futura land u ...
lorocutlor tho MPO planning Region .
The tor.: .. Ia balai on population
-h, P<Ojoctod houolng "-· and oxpoc:tod oommordal and lnduatrlal
doYoloptnonl .
Cspltal Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization
320 E. MicCarty St.
Jefferson City, MO 65101
(573) 634-6410
F01 more inlotmllrton trls/1 our webste:
-jellcllymo.orp,ta.tsmpGt:ampo.html
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 4 7
------------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 5 The Existing Transportation System
National Highway System
The National Highway System (NHS) is approximately 163,000 miles of roadway important
to the nations' economy, defense, and mobility. NHS was developed by the Department of
Transportation (DOT) in cooperation with the states, local officials, and MPOs. All three US
Highways, US 50, US 54, and US 63 are designated as part of the NHS and function as principle
arterials. In a previous highway transportation act, ISTEA, portions of US 54 and US 63,
including those within the CAMPO MPA were congressionally designated as 'NHS High
Priority Corridors'.
Roadways
Major Street and Highway Routes
Federal Roadway Functional Classification System is used to classify the roadways within
CAMPO, and these roadway functional classifications are reviewed periodically. (See the
Roadway Functional Classification map). The CAMPO MPA contains approximately 543 miles
of streets and highways. Of these, 49 miles are principal arterials (9%}, 65 miles are minor
arterials (12%), 74 miles are collectors (13%) and 355 miles are local streets or roads (65%).
US Highways: The major routes into and through the region are US highways 54/50/63, all
intersecting at a point to the south of Callaway County and the Missouri River, near the center
of Jefferson City.14
The 2005 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for US 54 near the Holts Summit area in
Callaway County was 25,517 and 27,223 AADT between Stadium Boulevard and Ellis
Boulevard in Jefferson City, while US 63 coming into the CAMPO region from the west, in
Callaway County had 17,736 AADT. The Missouri River Bridge Crossing, connecting Cole and
Callaway Counties has a count of 43,253 vehicles per day (AADT).
For US 50, the east/west route through Jefferson City had a count of 37,880 AADT in 2005,
just west of the "tri-level" (the interchange where these three primary routes meet).
Other Principal Arterials: Other Principal Arterial routes, in and around the City of
Jefferson, including MORt. 179, Missouri Boulevard, Stadium Boulevard, and Ellis Boulevard.
MO Rt. 179 carried 12,741 AADT in 2005, Missouri Boulevard carried 24,124 AADT between
Southwest Boulevard and the US 54 ramps, and Ellis Boulevard carried 15,739 AADT near the
US 54 interchange and MORt. B.
t 4 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep10/nhs/index.html
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 48
Minor Arterials:
MO Rt. C is a significant Minor Arterial. Located in the southwest part of the City of
Jefferson, it carried between 11,000 and 12,000 AADT in 2005 between Ellis Boulevard and MO
Rt. 179. Another significant Minor Arterial is Industrial Drive extending from US 54 to Truman
Drive which continues on to connect to US 50 on the west side of the Jefferson City. Industrial
Drive{fruman Drive carried 10,103 AADT east of MORt. 179 and 14,471 AADT near Scott
Station Road and US 50 West. Remaining Minor Arterials carry substantially less traffic, from
5,000 to 9,000 AADT.
Bridges
According to National Bridge Inventory, from the Federal Highway Administration, there
are 179 bridges in the CAMPO planning area as of 2007.
The Missouri River Bridge, the principal entry point into Jefferson City from the north is a
compression arch suspended-deck bridge, constructed in such a way that a compression arch
rises above the deck, with cables connecting the deck to the arch. There are two separate
bridges, a northbound and southbound bridge. The southbound bridge opened in 1955, with a
total length of 3,093 feet, a deck width of 37.7 feet, and a vertical clearance of 37.7 feet. The
northbound bridge opened in 1991 with a total length of 3,124.2 feet, a vertical clearance of 16.1
feet, with a deck width of 46.9 feet, and has a bicycle lane painted on the east side of the bridge
deck.
This structure has been identified as part of the regional critical transportation
infrastructure with 43,251 vehicles crossing these bridges on an average day. The nearest
alternative Missouri River bridge crossings are at Hermann, Missouri on Missouri Route 19,
approximately 40 miles to the east or between Boone and Cooper Counties on Interstate 70,
approximately 32 miles to the northwest.
Nearby to the south is the "tri-level", a set of bridges and ramps at which the three U.S.
highways, US 50, US 54, and US 63 intersect. This intersection point is also identified as regional
critical infrastructure and a periodic point of traffic congestion.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 49
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
----------
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Federal
Roadway
Functional
Classification
System
Legend
Functional Claalfleatlon
-Freeway/Expressway
--Other Principal Arterial
--Minor Arterial
--Collector
--Ru ral Major Collector
Rural Minor Collector
--Proposed Collector
--Local
Fl..l'ldtonal clasall'lcaUon Is the gro~ of
highways, roads and streets by the c:harader
ot service they are Intended b provite. They
a,. pert of an Interconnected network and
each one pel'forrne a service In moving tratllc
t hroughout t he system. Funclional clau lfleation
detln" the part ttiM •ny particuW route should
play In serAng the flow c1 ~ through a highway ·-·
Capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization
320 E. McCarty St.
Jell"""'" City, MO 651 01
(573) 634-64 1 0
For more Information visit our website:
www.jelfcitymo.Otl)'~.html
so
Structurally Deficient or Functionally Obsolete Bridges
Of the 179 bridges in the MPA, the National Bridge Inventory identifies 12 bridges as being
'Structurally Deficient' and 33 bridges as being 'Functionally Obsolete.' Of the 12 bridges
identified as Structurally Deficient, nine are listed as needing replacement due to inadequate
weight load capacity. Another two bridges have rehabilitation work recommendation due to
structural deterioration.
The term "structurally deficient" does not mean that a bridge is going to collapse, but that a
significant load-carrying element is in poor condition because of deterioration or damage and
needs to be addressed. The other term, functionally obsolete means that a bridge is structurally
sound but to some degree unable to handle the volume of traffic that uses it.
City, County and State transportation agencies do a good job of monitoring the condition of
bridges in MP A, and CAMPO will include bridges in the infrastructure databases and database
development and maintenance program and for the safety element in CAMPO planning
program.
Urban Transit Services
JEFFTRAN is the public transportation provider for the City of Jefferson. Operated as a
division in the Department of Community Development of the City of Jefferson, JEFFTRAN
provides fixed route and paratransit services within the city limits of Jefferson City.15
Fixed Route Service
JEFFTRAN operates seven fixed routes, four commuter/school tripper routes and two
shuttle routes for carrying state employees from more remote lots.
Regular fixed route service operates Monday through Friday from 6:45 AM to 5:45 PM
(except holidays) using a "pulse" system, where all routes except the Capital Mall route
converge on the transfer point at either 30 or 60 minute intervals. Routes operate at 60 minute
intervals except for peak periods, while the Southwest route stays on the 30 minute interval
throughout the day. Overall, results of a running time check as part of the Transit Development
Plan completed in 2005 indicated that buses may run up to 6 minutes late, resulting in up to an
eleven minute late departure.
Ridership counted as part of the Transit Development Plan (TOP) in 2006 resulted in fixed
route service counts of 810 passengers per day, and transfers issued for fixed route services
totaling 172 per day.16
When travel requires changing to a different route to complete a journey, a transfer point
becomes necessary. And, periodically it becomes necessary to change the location of transfer
centers. This transfer center needs to be located where all of the routes converge to operate
15 The FT A classifies urban systems as being those which serve areas having urbanized populations of 50,000 or more.
16 Jefferson City Transit Deve lopment Plan. Transystems Corp., March 2006.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 51
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
effectively. The TOP takes this necessity into consideration in its discussion on changes to
transfer centers. The existing transfer point on High Street and Jefferson is an on-street facility
that shares a busy intersection during the day.
One option of using the former intercity bus terminal located at 620 W. McCarty Street
which is inadequate, and at best a temporary option. The Transfer Center Alternatives
Assessment of the TOP goes into detail on selecting a permanent transfer center for the future,
but immediate needs indicate a temporary location may be necessary. The City of Jefferson will
need to re-locate the transfer point and identify a permanent location, as a priority.
A major investment study to locate and develop a complete transit center with
maintenance, bus storage and possible transfer center is suggested.
Paratransit Services
"Handi-Wheels" complementary paratransit services are provided by JEFFTRAN,
providing curb to curb service for individuals with disabilities and those unable to use fixed
route transportation systems. Although Handi-Wheels operates only within the city limits, it
provides services beyond the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
through a larger than required service area. Within this service area eligible residents may
receive services from 6:45 AM to 5:45 PM Monday through Friday. Handi-Wheels service
utilizes six vehicles that on average transport 200-220 passengers daily and the service is ranked
very high in all performance areas, (per 2006 Transit Development Plan). Funding is provided
through a mix of sources such as passenger fares, local funding, FTA funding and contracts.
Rural Transit Service
OATS Inc. is a not-for-profit transportation service available to the general public in the
rural areas of Callaway and Cole Counties with priority service to senior citizens and persons
with disabilities. Anyone living in rural areas whose needs can be met by OATS' service
schedules is eligible to ride their local OATS buses.
Serve Inc. serves the residents of Callaway County through CAL TRAN a public
transportation program based in Fulton.
Job Access Reverse Commute
OATS, Inc. receives Job Access Reverse Commute funding (Section 5316 Program) with
matching local funds. One vehicle provides employment transportation in Jefferson City, 6 a.m.
to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday to job training, daycare, and to those entering or have
entered the workforce.
Charter Service and Shuttles
Two private charter bus services serve the Jefferson City region, D&K Bus Service, and First
Student Inc., both primarily student transporters, and one shuttle service operator, Tyus
Executive Transportation Service.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 52
Intercity Bus Service
Jefferson Gty does not have a regularly scheduled intercity bus service.
Taxi/limousine
Jefferson Gty region is served by Checker Cab of Jefferson City LLC., and two limousine
services are listed as serving Jefferson City, Capitol City Limousine and Sedan Inc. and Chase
Limousines.
Carpooling
Mid-Missouri Rideshare Program
The Mid-Missouri Rideshare Program is a free service provided by the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources' Energy Center. The program organizes carpools by
matching commuters who live and work in the same vicinity. The Mid-Missouri Rideshare
Program serves the counties of Audrain, Boone, Callaway, Camden, Cole, Cooper, Crawford,
Gasconade, Howard, Maries, Miller, Moniteau, Morgan, Osage, Pettis, Phelps, Pulaski, and
Randolph. The Missouri Ride-Share Program information is below:
The Aviation System
Mid-Missouri Rideshare Program
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Energy Center P .O. Box 176
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102
(573) 522-RIDE
Jefferson City Memorial Airoort
Jefferson Gty Memorial Airport is a general aviation facility with no commercial airline
passenger services. The facility is located north of the Capital in the Missouri River floodplain
and is occasionally affected by flooding. The airport facility was constructed in 1948, covers 238
acres, and consists of a 4,800 square foot Airport Terminal Building, Air Traffic Control Towe r ,
one 6,000 feet long runway, and one crosswind runway 3,400 feet long. Both runways are
equipped with parallel taxiways.
The control tower operates 15 1h hours per day, 365 days a year and 24-hour approach
se rvices are provided. On -site services include car rental and restaurant, flying services and
flight products and a full service fixed base operator (FBO), Jefferson City Flying Service.
There are currently 70 aircraft based at the Jefferson City Memorial Airport. The Missouri
National Guard has a small aviation facility near the Jefferson City Memorial Airport.
The City of Jefferson is in the process of an Airport Master Plan Update for 2008 .
2030 Me tropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area M e tropolitan Planning Org anization 53
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
----------
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metrop olitan Planning Organization
--
'r•~
·} h_ '-<?(
. ..,
l( --)'·, "-
'<..,
.>" 1 .,
, I
;..
-1. · .. '·· i
-
Multi-Modal
Transportation
System
Legend
112 Amtrak Station
D Jefferson City Memorial Airport
1:1 Jefferson City River Terminal Port
ll!l Transit Transfer Center (Proposed)
= Katy Trail Bike/Pedestrian Pathway
~Railroad
-JEFFTRAN Bus Routes
= Existing Bike/Pedestrian Pathway
-Funded Bi ke/Pedestrian Pathway
CJ JEFFTRAN Paratrans~ Service Area
Multi-Modal transportation is the movement
of people ard goodS with connections
using two or more modes. These modes
include air, car, rail, boat, public transit
and non-motorized transportatiOn .
Capital Area MetropoiHan
Plann ing Organization
320 E. McCarty St.
Jeff81110r1City, M065101
(573) 634-6410
For more intormSlion visit our website:
-.jeffcltymo.~ocVcafTJ>O/CIJmpo.html
54
Table 15: Air :)Qrt Traffic Counts for Jefferson City-(A TCT)
Year Air Carrier Air Taxi & Commuter General Aviation Military Total
O_e_erations Airline Operations Operations
1990 .... 00 2,765 34,387 18,725 55,877
1991 00 2,418 38,331 14,864 55,613
1992 00 2,483 37,114 20,392 59,989
1993 .... 00 1,434 24,344 12,696 38,474
1994 00 1,674 33,491 12,218 47,383
1995 .... 00 1,368 29,783 10,595 41,746
1996 00 1,378 33,475 11,541 46,394
1997 2 1,291 36,279 12,405 49,977
1998 00 769 32,815 11,661 45,245
1999 18 489 35,442 11,977 47,926
2000 00 1,538 28,472 8,586 38,596
2001 00 2,339 28,512 5,939 36,790
2002 00 1,792 32,687 7,199 41,678
2003 00 889 31,355 7,304 39,548
2004 00 610 25,564 4,010 30,184
2005 00 523 24,325 7,298 32,146
2006 00 595 24,249 5,547 30,391
Total 20 13,581 362,958 104,062 438,875
.., Indicates a year in which a flood occurred, resulting in temporary airport closure.
Other Aviation Facilities
Two heliports are located at the Missouri National Guard Ike Skelton Training Site. Two
area hospitals have landing capabilities for medical air ambulance services.
The nearest regional airport with commercial service is the Columbia Missouri Regional
Airport near Ashland, Missouri between Jefferson City and Columbia on US 63.
River Transportation in the Metropolitan Planning Area
Two rivers in the MP A are considered to be navigable rivers, the Missouri River, and the
Osage River from river mile 0.0 to mile 81.7 (the confluence with the Missouri River upstream to
the Bagnell Dam in Miller County, Missouri). The Missouri River provides commercial
waterway traffic during an average of 8 months per year, during navigable water levels. In
2006, Missouri River barge traffic carried 200,000 tons of cargo.17
Jefferson City river freight is carried out by a private corporation, the Jefferson City River
Terminal, located at 719 Mokane Road consisting primarily of concrete products.
Representatives of the Jefferson City River Terminal estimate that a six barge tow is equivalent
to approximately 300 truck loads.18 And, according to the Maritime Administration Services,
17 http://www .kansascity .com/mld/kansascity /news/local/16332502.htm
I S http://www .mdn.org/2006/STORIES/BARGE2 .HfM
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"the cost for a truck to move one ton of material per mile is over seven times more than that on
a barge. In terms of fuel consumption, it takes nine times as much fuel to transfer one ton of
material."
For recreational access, the Missouri Department of Conservation provides recreational
access to the river at the Capital View Access 5 miles north of Jefferson City on the west side of
US 63, near Cedar Creek. The Missouri Department of Conservation and Jefferson City Parks
and Recreation Department cooperate to provide recreational access at the Carl R. Noren Access
point, located just west of the US 54/63 Missouri River Bridge.
The Missouri River does not have good access from the downtown area or most of the city,
with rail lines and steep terrain on the south and flood plain to the north. It is generally
considered to be an underutilized resource for recreation and to a lesser degree transportation.
Passenger Rail
Jefferson City is served by AMTRAK, with a station at 101 Jefferson St., Jefferson City, MO
65101. The station is not staffed, other than volunteers during arrival and departure times. It
does have payphones, free short term and long term parking, and vending services. No
ticketing services are available. Station hours are 9:00am -12:00pm and 3:30pm-8:00pm, daily.
There are two trains to St. Louis and two trains to Kansas City daily. Reservations are
required and bicycles are permitted. AMTRAK's St. Louis to Kansas City corridor includes
stops in St. Louis, Kirkwood, Washington, Hermann, Jefferson City, Sedalia, Warrensburg,
Lee's Summit, Independence and Kansas City. Round-trip train tickets between St. Louis and
Kansas City start at $35 and discounts are available for seniors, students, veterans, groups and
AAA members.
Financial support by the Missouri legislature through the Missouri Department of
Transportation enables AMTRAK to provide intercity rail passenger service between St. Louis
and Kansas City. In 2007, it cost $7,020,000 to provide Passenger rail service. For 2008,
$7,400,000 has been appropriated.
In 2003, Jefferson City ridership was 39,981. For 2004, Jefferson City ridership was 40,014.
For 2005 Jefferson City ridership was 40,530.19 The Kansas City to St. Louis route carried 66,813
passengers during the first four months of fiscal year 2006 Ouly -October 2005). For the same
period last year, the route carried 60,473 passengers.20 MODOT reports more than 170,000
passengers in fiscal year 2006.21
Inter-modal Systems
Inter-modal refers to the connections between modes and usually refers to facilities that
provide transfer of passengers or freight between transportation modes such as seaports,
19 http://www .AMTRAK.com/pdf/factsheets/
20 MODOT http://www.MODOT.org/newsandinfo/newsreleases/2005/December/AMTRAKRidershipUp.htm
21 MODOT 2008-2012 STIP
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 56
airports, truck/rail terminals, pipeline/truck terminals and other inter-modal freight
transportation facilities.
Jefferson City has three inter-modal facilities: (1) the AMTRAK station with rail and
roadway connections, (2) the Jefferson City Memorial Airport, with limited general aviation
passenger services, small freight transfers, and car rental services, and (3) a private river
terminal using truck and river transport for bulk commodities.
Freight Movement
Freight movement in the Jefferson City MPO region consists primarily of river transport of
bulk commodities and truck transport.
Rail traffic carrying freight is generally through traffic on the Union Pacific Railroad.
Although a spur line runs from the Missouri Boulevard. and Water Street area to just west of
MORt. 179(fruman Boulevard. A branch also runs from Cole Junction Road and MORt. 179. A
third spur runs eastward to Militia Drive
Truck routing, signage, street and intersection design, along with lack of supporting freight
accommodations such as terminals, depots, stopping areas, and refuel options are items that
need to be improved, according to freight representatives during public participation and
planning sessions.
CAMPO intends to improve traffic and statistical data in future plans, along with greater
cooperation and communication among private and public sectors in freight planning.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Systems -Greenways, Routes and Trails
Non-motorized transportation in the form of bicycle and pedestrian movements are a
common, but limited-range transportation option.
Jefferson City recently adopted sidewalk ordinances and a 2007 Greenways Master Plan.
There are approximately 11 miles of greenway trails throughout Jefferson City and a total of
about 48 miles of Pedestrian/Bikeways in CAMPO planning area.
The State of Missouri Department of Transportation has a bicycle/pedestrian program that
works with local governments and regional planning agencies to improve access for bicycle and
pedestrian transportation modes, while at the same time improving safety. The MODOT
coordinator develops policies and specifications for their portion of the Engineering Policy
Guide and works with district project staff to assist in providing access and compliance with
ADA law.
CAMPO, MODOT and local municipalities participate in expanding opportunities for
bicycle and pedestrian facilities through Transportation Enhancement and Safe Routes to
Schools programs along with state and local funding, and development o f bicycle and
p e d e strian plans. The following table shows the existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in
Jefferson City.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 57
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---------
of Total Traffic
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
--
2006
Truck Traffic
Volume as a
Percentage
of Total
Traffic Volume
Legend
-3%-6%
-s%-9%
-9% -12"/o
12"/o-15%
-15%-18%
Truc:k tratrtc percenfagee were prcwided by
t he Miatourl Department c( Transportat ion.
Cap ital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organizati on
320 E. McCarty St.
Jefferson City, MO 65101
(573) 634-&41 0
For mo<11 inlonnstion visit our 109b<le:
www.feffclymo.~.html
58
~
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
-------------
2006 Daily
Truck Traffic
Volumes
Legend
34 -500 vehicles
-500 -1 000 vehicles
-1000 -2000 vehicles
-2000 -3000 vehicles
3000 -4000 vehicles
4000 -5000 vehicles
• 5000 -6000 vehicles
• 6000 -7000 vehicles
e 1ooo -8000 vehicles
Truett traffic volumes wwe prc-Aded by
the M11101.1r1 ()epartmft o f Traniii)Or1don.
Note thrll dl~klnal couma .,. 6enotld
•• bi-dfredJonal couma.
C8pltal Area Met ropolitan
Planning Organization
320 E. McCany St.
Jefferson City, MO 65101
(573) 634-641 0
For more Information ofsft our website:
-.jaffcflymo.Otptd'calllJ()tampo.html
-
59
T bl 16 B. 1 /P d a e : 1cyc e e estnan R outes m e erson . J ff c 1ty
Pedestrian/Bikeway
Identification -Location Leng th
Greenway-Wears Creek Main Branch
Dunklin Street Trail Head to Southwest Blvd. 1.1 miles
Southwest Blvd. to Stadium Blvd. 1.3 miles
Stadium Blvd. to Edgewood Drive Parking Lot 0.90 miles
Edgewood Drive Parking Lot to Fairgrounds Rd. 2.1 miles
Fairgrounds Rd. To County Park Lake 0.9 miles
East Elm St. to Chestnut 1.0 miles
Total Greenways 7.0 miles
G reenway -Sp urs
Duensing Ballfield to Swifts Highway 0.70 miles
Stadium Blvd. to Satinwood Drive 0.50 miles I
Edgewood Drive to Shermans Hollow 0.50 miles
Ellis-Porter/Riverside Park Greenway Connection 1.30 miles
North Jefferson Cit y Katy Tail Spu r 1.0 miles I
Total Greenway Spu rs 4 miles
Par k/Fi tness Trails I
East Miller Street Neighborh ood Park 0.25 miles
McKay Park 0.60 miles
Memorial Park 1.3 miles
Hibernia Walking Trail 0.75 miles
Mo DNR Katy Trail 20.1 mils
Total Park/Fitness Trails 23miles I
Mountain Bike Trail
Binder Park 12 miles I
Edgewood Drive (ad jacent to Green way) 2.3 miles
Total Mountain Bike Trails 14.3 miles
Total Pedestrian/Bikeways 48.3 miles I
I Funded Fu ture Green way T rail Proj ects
Elm to McCarty 0.21 miles.
Leslie Blvd. to Hough Park (E llis Blvd.) 1.63 miles
Katy Trail Extension to S. Summit Drive in Callaway County 0.21 miles. I
Covington Gardens Residential Subdivision (Scarborough) Way to County Park 0.40 miles
Riverfront/Adrian's Island Access
Bike/Ped Lane across the MO River Bridge I
On Street & Sidewalk Greenway Designa tion from Trailhead Park to HWY. 54 0.63 miles
I Total Funded Future Greenways Trail Projects 3.08 miles
Unfunded Futu r e Greenway T rail Projects
Greenway Trail Connection from Dunklin St. to W. McCarty St. along Wears Creek 0.75 miles
Lincoln University internal route 0.30 miles
I
I
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 60
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization --------------
Public Sidewalks
Along Street
Right of Way
Legend
--Sidewalks
--Bike/Pedestrian Pathway
Sidewalk and blk~lstrian paths
_.. ptOYidod by City o1 Jeferson GIS
818ft, qmtntod outSide !1\edty Umita
by haod8 up dlg~illnQ ll1lm 200618rial
phOtography.
Capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization
320 E. McCarty St.
Jefterson City, MO 65101
(573) 634-6410
For more Information vis it our website :
www.jeffcltyrno."'l)tddcs,.,oA:s"l''.html
---61
--------
Firure 18: Jefferson Ci
• \ \
•
•
JEFFERS~ C1Y GREENYAY TRAILS PLAN
GreerMay Trails
Elastil'l!
FUI~.~e
Kalyliail
~ lm'klrails
• Sctms
c:::::J Oty a JBfErson
Otyim'~
SlJ'rardil'l!im'ks & Sctm ~~ties
0 .?.::%
0 s 1 2 3 Mles '\!,
' J
-
/
f
' " ~'-\
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
'
--
' ' ' '',,
' .... ,,
' ',
'
® BirdEr lm'k
® ()jeOllJ"'tyim'k
(9Wlst~
FB:real ion Area
® Rrge ~ ure ClrtEr
<!> 179 Sax:Er 1M\
I .J
Location
(E) Mmriai!MI
® M:l<ay lm'k
® Wlstirgt on lm'k
(!) Auraa im'k
Q) O!k Hils Golf ChJrse
..... ,,~·-.
® t-athJafErsonaty
FS:real ion Nf!d
<D M:0Lrg l«k
@) Urmln Ltil8sit y
® Mianlslcm
<9 Blis !at Er/R18side ~k
62
Transportation System Safety
Safety is defined as protection of persons or property from unintentional damage or
destruction caused by accidental or natural events.22 CAMPO compiled accident data on
roadway accidents, car/train accidents, and bicycle and pedestrian accidents. CAMPO intends
to increase the amount of accident and safety data collected.
CAMPO Roadway Accident Statistics
In the four years from January, 2003 through December of 2006, 6,273 accidents were
reported on roadways in the CAMPO area. Of the reported accidents 71% were classified as
"property damage only'', 26% were classified as "minor injury" and 3% were classified as
"disabling injuries", while 6/10 of 1% of the accidents reported resulted in fatalities. This level of
fatal accidents is nearly the same as the statewide fatality level, while the level of disabling
accidents are less than 1% lower than the statewide level.
T bl 17 A 'd . h CAMPOPl a e : CCI ents m t e anmng A f J 1 2003 D 31 2006 rea rom an. , to ec. I
Accident Severity Number of Accidents Percent
Property Damage Only 4,429 71
Minor Injury 1,622 26
Disabling Injury 187 3
Fatalities 35 <0 .6
Total 6,273 100
Source: MODOT 2003-2006 Accident Data
T bl 18 T ff A 'd . h CAMPO M . . 1' . f J 1 2003 D 31 2006 a e : ra IC cci ents m t e umcipa Ities rom an. I to ec. I
Accident Severity
Jurisdiction Property Minor Injury Disabling Fatalities Total
(and population) Damage Only Injury
Holts Summit (21935) 103 32 3 0 138
Jefferson City (39,614) 31659 1,317 95 21 51092
St. Martins (1,012) 1 1 2
Unincorporated Callaway 176 87 28 4 295 County (61261)
Unincorporated Cole 490 186 60 10 746 County (181577)
Source: MODOT Acadent Data (2000 Population)
22 NCHRP Report 525
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 63
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T bl 19 T ffi A .d t b D a e : ra c CCI enS )y ayo f th W k fr J 1 2003 t D 31 2006 e ee om an. , 0 ec. I
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
Number 471 929 988 1044 1057 1093 691
Percentage 7.50% 14.80% 15.70% 16.60% 16.80% 17.40% 11.00%
Source: MODOT 2003-2006 Acadent Data
Table 20: Traffic Accidents in the Jefferson City Metropolitan Area by Time of Day
Traffic Crashes by Time of Day
4 year touol • 2003-2006
800 .-------~------------~~~----~----~~--------~
700 +-------------------------------------~------------1
600 +-------------------------------
500 +-------------~----------------
400 +---------------
300 +-------------
200 +-------------
1 00 +=,.-----------
0
.... ~~"'.s>~,.,..s>~~~~.,~~tr~~ ... ~~fr<S'~ c!'~o~~ .... ~~"'~~ ... ~~ ~~ .f'~~~~.,~~tr~~A..~~fr<S'~q,~~o~~ .... ~~"'~~
Source: MODOT 2003-2006 Accident Data 23
T bl 21 MP A T ff F t r . b F T T a e : ra tc a a tbes )y ao tty .ype
Route D esignation Fatalities
US H ighway 20
City Street 4
MO Lettered Route 4
MO Numbered Route 3
County Road 2
Business Loop 1
Outer Road 1
Total 35
Source: MODOT 2003-2006 Accident Data
From 2003 to 2006, the 15 intersections with the highest number of a ccide nts under
Missouri DOT control were between 56 and 150 accidents per year. The intersections with the
highest accident rates are listed in the following table:
23 An Analysis of Traffic Crashes in the Jefferson City Metropolitan Area. Eric Barron, 2007.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 64
Table 22· Accidents at MOOOT Controlled Intersections
Number of Accidents IntersectionName Yearly Averase Number
2003-2006 of Accidents
150 Missouri Blvd & Rex Whitton Expressway 37.5
112 US 50 & Dix Road Interchange 28
102 MO 179 & Rex Whitton Expressway 25.5
95 Missouri Blvd & MO 179 23.75
91 Missouri Blvd & Southwest Blvd 22.75
89 Missouri Blvd & Stadium Blvd 22.25
89 Missouri Blvd & Dix Road 22.25
85 Rex Whitton Expressway & Madison 21.25
78 Rex Whitton & Monroe 19.5
73 MORT C (Southwest Blvd) & Jefferson 18.25
68 Truman Blvd & Country Club 17
67 Rex Whitton Expressway & Jefferson 16.75
67 MORT C, Ellis & US 54 16.75
58 MO RT C & Southwest & Southridge 14.5
56 Main St & US 54 14
Source: MODOT 2003-2006 Accident Data
Some Missouri DOT controlled intersections had high accident rates, but did not place in
the top 15. These are shown in Table 23
T bl 23 I t a e n ersec ons w1 e ex 1g1 es ca en a es ti .thth 10N tH" h tA .d tR t
IntersectionName Yearly Average Number of
Accidents
Rex Whitton Expressway & Broadway 12.5
Missouri Blvd & Kansas 12.5
City View & US 50 11.75
Missouri Blvd & Ohio 11.5
Truman Blvd & US 50 11.25
Business 50 E & US 54 E 11
US 50 & South Country Club 10.75
MO 179 & Edgewood 10.75
Missouri Blvd & Dunklin 10.5
MO 179 & Truman/Industrial 10.25
Source: MOOOT 2003-2006 Accident Data
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 65
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Not all intersections are on State facilities. Municipally controlled intersections also may
have significant accident rates. The following table identifies streets located in Jefferson City.
T bl 24 C S "th h H" h A "d R a e : ity treets w1 t e 1g1 est cc1 ent ates
lntersectionName Yearly Average Number of Accidents
Jefferson & Stadium Blvd 12.25
Dix & Industrial 11.5
Stadium & Southwest 8.75
E McCarty & Bolivar 7.25
Dix & William 7
Ellis & Lorenzo Greene 6.5
McCarty & Monroe 6.25
Madison & McCarty 6
Dunklin & Jefferson 5.5
Jefferson & High 5
Ellis & Christy 4.75
Dunklin & Monroe 4.75
Dunklin & Madison 4.75
Jefferson & McCarty 4.25
Broadway & Dunklin 4.25
Truman & Ventura 3.75
Stadium & Jackson 3.75
Fairgrounds & County Park 3.75
Broadway & McMarty 3.75
Stadium & Monroe 3.5
Source: MOOOT 2003-2006 Accident Data
Carffrain Accidents:
Car!frain accidents happen infrequently but they do happen. In 2007, a car train accident
occurred on January 23 at Old Stage Road and on January 20, 2008 at Cole Junction, both in
unincorporated Cole County.
Bicycle and/or Pedestrian Accidents
In the four year period from 2003-2006 there were 50 bicycle and pedestrian accidents. One
accident occurred with the roadway surface condition of snow, two occurred with wet roadway
surface conditions and the rest under dry roadway surface conditions.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 66
I
T bl 25 B. 1 {P d a e 1cyc e e estnan A "d CCI f ents rom 2003 t 2006 0 I
Accident Accidents Involving Accidents Involving Total Number of
Severity Bicyclist Pedestrian Accidents
Fatal 0 1 1 I
Disabling Injury 4 8 12
Minor Injury 6 28 34 I
Property Damage Only 1 2 3
Total 11 39 50 I
Source: MODOT 2003-2006 Accident Data
T bl 6 B" 1 {P d a e2: 1cyc e e estnan A "d f cc1 ents rom 2003 2006 b F T T to 'Y aCltty lype I
Road Designation Number of Accidents
Business Route 4 I
County Road 9
City Street 30
Missouri State Lettered Route 3
US Highways 4
Source: MODOT 2003-2006 Accident Data
Tbl 27R d "th2 M B" a e : oa swt or ore 1cyc e an dP d e estnan A "d cc1 ents I
Road Number of Accidents
Dunklin 7
Business 50 (Missouri Blvd. 4 I
McCarty St. 4
Bagnall Drive 2 I
Capitol Ave. 2
High St. 2
Jefferson St. 2 I
Source: MODOT 2003-2006 Accident Data
I
I
I
I
I
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 67
I
----
'·""-,
' ?'•· . r·1
~j(
t-'1
''·,
1 ~.~~ ! t,!J:;,.(•un BIYJ & R.:x \\'lutt<•n L'.;.rr~--'", . .,,.
1 1: I T 1~; ,, 'S:. Dr•: R,,,1J Interdt.lm:~
~ M'• I 7":, & Re:--\\'hntt•n Expr~~"~~-a~
~·5 I t-.it;.;......_.un Bh·J & £.!• l 17"
1\!J..'Io;l'>Un BJ1·J S: :-ll•lllhw~:-;t p.J, ,I
, f,I..tss• .. un Bhd S: :-aadtum Bh·d
l\1J.s..,.··un Bh·J & Dt" R<•:lt..i
R~ Whtttnn E':Nt:o:c;w;l\· &. td.ldls:,,;--
2030 Metropoli tan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metrop olitan Planning Organization
."1.7"
Intersection
Accidents :
Yearly
Average
2003 -2006
Legend
Average Number of Accidents
" 10 -1 4.9
• 15 -19.9
• 20 -24.9
• 25 -38
Data prOYidad by 1110 Missouri Dapallment
of Tranaportation . Shown is thO yearty
average n1.111ber of accidents at or near
an intersection, aver a bur year perOd
from 2003 -2006.
Cap ital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization
320 E. McCarty St.
Jefferson City, MO 65101
(573) 634-6410
For mom lnlormstlon vtslt our website:
www.jeffclymo.Otg,t:dlcan.,.,A:ariJ>O.hlml
Deoernt.r 14.'l«D
6 8
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
-----------
'"._
.; ~
'1.,,4,'
'r-'
("\ ...
\.,.
-
Vehicular Accidents
Involving Bicycles
and Pedestrians
2003-2006
Legend
• Bicycle Accidents
• Pedestrian Accidents
Data providod by the MloaOuri Dapartment
ofTrartapclftllllon . ShoWniatnototal
number or acddantt invotvlng blcyclsl: 01
padaotriana OYer a lour yoer pariod from
2003.2006.
Capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization
320E .~S!.
Jenerson Clty, MO 65101
(573) 634-6410
For more lnformsffon v/5Wour website :
www.jeffcWymo.orp.td/cB~mpo.hlml
69
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CAMPO Support for the 2008 Missouri Highway Safety PlaD.24
The Highway Safety Act of 1966, 23 USC, Chapter 4(a) requires that "Each State shall have
a highway safety program approved by the Secretary, designed to reduce traffic accidents and
deaths, injuries, and property damage resulting therefrom." This results in what is called
Section 402 Highway Safety Plans.
As recommended in 23 CFR Section 450.322(h), the Metropolitan Transportation Plan is
incorporating the Missouri's Blueprint for Safer Roadways and the 2008 Hi~way Safety Plan &
Performance Plan into the MTP through the summarization of priorities, goals and
countermeasures, or projects for the metropolitan planning area.
In accordance with 23 U.S.C 148, Missouri developed the document Missouri's Blueprint
for Safer Roadways in 2003, the first statewide highway safety plan, followed by the 2008
Hi~way Safety Plan & Performance Plan.
Missouri established ten regional coalitions, and each coalition developed a safety plan.
The 2008 Highway Safety Plan & Performance Plan identifies the goal of the plan to be the
reduction in fatalities by 2008 to be less than 1,000.
According to MODOT, "through extensive data analysis, current research findings, and
best practices, strategies were identified that must be implemented in order to make significant
progress toward reaching the projected goal." These strategies were dubbed the "Essential
Eight". These eight strategies are as follows:
• Pass a primary safety belt law, and maintain and enhance existing traffic safety laws;
• Increase enforcement on targeted crash corridors;
• Increase public education and information traffic safety issues;
• Expand the installation of shoulder, edgeline and centerline rumble strips/rumble stripes;
• Expand, improve and maintain roadways visibility features (markings, signs, lighting);
• Expand installation of median 3-strand guard cable or equivalent barrier;
• Deter, identify, arrest & adjudicate alcohol/other drug-impaired drivers & pedestrians;
• Expand installation and maintenance of roadways shoulder and clear zones.
Missouri's highway safety plan also included four emphasis areas. These are: Serious Crash
Types, Special Vehicles, High Risk Drivers, and Vulnerable Roadway Users. The Highway
Safety Plan contains performance goals, based on the problems identified by the state and
highway safety benchmarks, identifying the standards against which, performance is to be
measured. The Highway Safety Plan also contains countermeasures, actions taken to achieve
24 For more information, go to
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/wha tsup/tea21/GrantMan/HTML/07 Sect402Leg23USC_Chap4.html
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 70
the goals identified for improving highway safety and reduction in accidents, fatalities and
injuries.
CAMPO supports the Highway Safety Plan and the intent of the plan to reduce injuries,
fatalities and property damage. CAMPO does not legislate, enforce, nor design safety projects
and programs.
CAMPO is a multi-jurisdictional planning organization, promoting safety through the
identification and analysis of hazardous locations through accident data. CAMPO plans for
multi-modal projects through CAMPO membership, State agencies and Federal agencies.
Project selection includes safety as one of multiple selection criteria for the sponsoring agency.
Natural Hazards
The Jefferson City Metropolitan Planning Area, including south Callaway and northern
Cole Counties are subject to natural hazards such as flood, tornados, winter storms, hail, high
winds, fire, drought, heat, and earthquakes.
The CAMPO MPA is not in a high risk tornado area, although they do occur. The probable
risk of tornado is however, "highly likely".
Winter storms, especially ice storms pose a threat to central Missouri by creating
disruptions in transportation, electricity, telephone, and other critical infrastructures.
Occasional severe floods are problematic within the MP A especially major flooding on the
Missouri River and flash flooding of its tributaries. Periodic floods disrupt transportation,
damage transportation infrastructure and pose a threat to people's safety. Compounding the
problem is the fact that alternate routes are lacking during severe flooding for the Jefferson City
area with the nearest alternate Missouri River crossings an hour away.
The cities of Holts Summit and Lake Mykee, reportedly do not participate in the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). And, in the Holts Summit case, this is reportedly because no
flood hazard areas have been identified nor mapped at this point.25
The MP A is also located in a serious earthquake impact region, the New Madrid Seismic
Zone. It carries a potential intensity VII (7) earthquake effect for a magnitude 7.6 earthquake.26
This means that considerable damage could result in poorly constructed buildings, slight to
moderate damage in well built buildings, broken windows, and potential minor damage in
transportation structures such as older bridges and cracked pavement.27 Transportation
planning for natural disasters is an activity that includes participants at the most immediately
25 Callaway County, Missouri Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, February, 2005.
26 Cole Countyflefferson City Emergency Operations Plan. January, 2004.
27 lntensity VII -Difficult to stand. Noticed by drivers. Hanging objects quiver. Furniture broken. Damage to
masonry, including cracks. Weak chimneys broken at roof line. Fall of plaster, loose bricks, stones, tiles, cornices,
also unbraced parapets and architectural ornaments. Some cracks in masonry. Waves on ponds, water turbid with
mud. Small slides and caving in along sand or gravel banks. Large bells ring. Concrete irrigation ditches damaged.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 71
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
responsive level of government, the local level, supplemented by State government and
eventually, Federal government.
Natural Hazard Mitigation
Natural hazard mitigation in central Missouri refers to reducing risk associated with floods,
tornadoes, severe winter storms, earthquakes, drought, wildfires, dam failure and heat wave.
The term mitigation in this usage refers to planning and modeling for potential hazards.28
Mitigation activities for areas of the CAMPO MP A are contained in the Jefferson City-Cole
County and Callaway County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plans.
CAMPO advocates improved coordination and planning of emergency and natural hazard
mitigation activities between agencies, related to transportation, and supports the goals of the
Jefferson City-Cole County and Callaway County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plans and also
advocates and supports continued coordination and planning activities related to the Callaway
and Cole County I Jefferson City Emergency Operations Plans for transportation safety and
emergency response.
Transportation System Security
Security is defined as protection of persons or property from intentional damage or
destruction caused by vandalism, criminal activity, or terrorist events. CAMPO can participate
in improving security by identifying possible emergency routes, identifying alternate routes,
encouraging accessibility by emergency vehicles in neighborhood and street design and
through supporting interagency cooperation. Hazardous materials and truck routing
information and data may be an activity CAMPO will explore. CAMPO can also assist state and
local planning efforts through collection and analysis of accident and infrastructure condition
data, and improvements in project selection and investment.
Environmental Mitigation
In the development of this transportation plan, CAMPO consulted with representatives
from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Missouri Department of Conservation, Missouri
Department of Natural Resources, Missouri State Emergency Management Agency, U.S.
Department of Agriculture Forest Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jefferson City Public
Schools, City of Jefferson Public Works, and Jefferson City Housing Authority for the purpose
of discussion on mitigation of environmental impacts from projects in the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan.
Maps and inventories of natural and environmental data were compiled for review and
discussion and to identify additional resources recommended by the attending agency
representatives.
In its simplest form, policy for environmental mitigation consists of avoidance of negative
28 Callaway County Natural H azard Mitigation Plan, February, 2005.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 72
environmental impacts (by far the best solution), minimization of negative impacts, and if
negative impacts are unavoidable, compensation (as for lost habitat).
Some guidelines in the formation of transportation plans and projects have been
developed. These guidelines are strictly recommendations since CAMPO has no authority to
require implementation of these guidelines. However, it is important to note that these
guidelines are suggested as steps to mitigate potentially harmful effects of transportation
projects on the natural environment. Guidelines for the development of plans include:
• Coordinate the long range transportation plans with city and county hazard mitigation
plans, along with natural resource and environmental plans and inventories.
• Regularly collaborate and meet with state and local community officials and other relevant
stakeholders to discuss environmental issues and goals.
• Where impacts are unavoidable, mitigate them to the fullest extent possible.
• Provide regular updates to environmental and natural resource inventories for referencing
any environmentally sensitive resources that may be impacted by projects.
Guidelines for project and design include:
• Coordinate transportation projects with local plans.
• Identify the area of potential impact connected to each transportation project, including the
immediate area as well as related project development areas.
• Incorporate storm water management into design.
Air Qualit y
The CAMPO area is fortunate to have good air quality, and Jefferson City currently meets
State and Federal air quality standards, but not all urbanized areas do. Many major
metropolitan areas with air pollution levels in excess of legal limits for mobile (such as
automobile), stationary (such as industrial and power plant), and area emissions (from the
general area) continuously have to deal with a complex set of air quality issues affecting health
and their economy.
Failure to maintain air quality standards result in a finding of non-attainment, (and higher
regulation, increased costs, and possible limitation on new transportation projects and
programs). Air quality is one of many items that every MPO takes seriously.
The most common problems with air quality are five major air pollutants that are regulated
by the Clean Air Act: ground-level ozone, particle pollution (also known as particulate matter),
carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. For each of these pollutants, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established national air quality standards to
protect public health. According to the EPA, ground-level ozone and airborne particles are the
two pollutants that pose the greatest threat to human health in this country.
By 2030, Jefferson City may begin to experience air quality hot spot issues with heavy
traffic and lengthy idling times at congested intersections. Potential areas include US 50 at MO
Rt. 179, Whitton Expressway, US 54 at Ellis Boulevard, and US 54 at Stadium Boulevard.
2030 Metropolitan Trans portation Plan for the Capital Area Me tropolitan Planning Organization 73
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 6 Future Development Affecting Transportation
Projected Land Use/Development
MPO staff determined current land uses for CAMPO planning area, and where zoning
exists, projected future development to meet the estimated population growth. In areas where
zoning does not exist to provide guidance on future development, surrounding infrastructure
(such as sewers, roadways, and nearby development) was used to forecast future development.
Redevelopment
Extensive redevelopment of the area in and surrounding the former Missouri State
Penitentiary site east of the Central Business District will have the most impact on traffic and
transportation in Jefferson City in the next 15 to 20 years.
Current discussion on redeveloping a conference center on the south side of the Central
Business District, if built, will create additional congestion on the traffic and transportation
system along US 50 and adjoining street network.
Future Development
• MORt. 179-A potentially important development location is the area east and west
of a midpoint on MORt. 179, between MORt. C and W. Edgewood Drive to provide
access to adjacent properties. Development proposals have included proposed
institutional use on the east side of MO Rt. 179, with a hospital and associated medical
services and office buildings, and proposed development on the west side of MORt. 179
with an estimated 80 to 120 acres of retail/commercial land use. West Edgewood is a
rapidly developing commercial corridor from W. Stadium Boulevard to S. Country Club
Road
• East McCarty at US 50 -An increase in retail development is expected with a large
retail center and new interchange currently under construction at the current East
McCarty/City View Drive and US 50 intersection. Additional roadways and sewers are
expected to expand into nearby areas to the south of US 50 .
• Stoneridge Parkway -The Stoneridge Parkway area south of Missouri Boulevard and
west of Stadium Boulevard is currently developing into commercial/retail uses, as will
MORt. 179 at Christy Drive to the south.
• Schott Hill Woods Drive -The Schott Hill Woods Drive extension to the E.
McCarty/City View Drive interchange area will develop into a commercial area.
• Militia Drive at Algoa Road -The Chamber of Commerce industrial Park at Militia,
Algoa and surrounding areas are developing into commercial/industrial uses.
• Wildwood Drive -Residential development is anticipated in the areas west of MO Rt.
179 from MORt. C toW. Edgewood Drive and along Rock Ridge Road after 2010. Other
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 74
••
residential areas will develop as opportunities exist, with probable locations shown on the
future land use map. Wildwood Drive will be extended southward from W . Edgewood to
Rock Ridge Road facilitating future development.
Transportation Corridors
The 2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan introduces future transportation corridors for
long range planning. Transportation corridors already exist in the Jefferson City MP A, along
principal arterial highways, rivers, rail lines, and along greenways. Planning for future major
transportation corridor developments should occur as early as possible. Several conceptual
future transportation corridors are described in this section in the form of arterial roadways,
however, this should not preclude using a multimodal approach to future studies and plans.
In Missouri, transportation corridor planning takes place primarily within the context of a
Major Transportation Investment Analysis (MTIA), and may also be referred to as a Major
Investment Study or MIS. The following corridors have been identified as potential future
development and MTIA candidates. lllustrations of these transportation corridors are contained
in the Illustrative Needs Map-All Modes Other Than Transit, located in Chapter 10.
Northwest Cole County
New residential and commercial development in the areas northwest of the current city
limits. Development and a new elementary school roughly west Jefferson City limits, and north
of Apache Flats, could increase traffic on Henwick Lane, Rainbow Drive, Scott Station Road,
and Schumate Chapel Road possibly developing into minor arterial streets.
The City and County will require arterial intersections and a connecting arterial between
Henwick Lane, Scott Station Road, and Schumate Chapel Road, about a mile northwest of the
current city limits roughly outlined by Truman Boulevard. The arterial should be extended
northward to MO Rt. 179.
Henwick Lane and Rainbow Drive empties onto Country Club Drive, an outer road to US
50 connecting Business 50 to the west and Truman Boulevard at US 50 on the east. It will likely
be under pressure to carry more traffic than intended, increasing congestion at the Truman
Blvd/ S. Country Club Rd, US 50 interchange.
A second arterial connector, a mile northwest of the proposed arterial connector should be
anticipated to link Henwick Lane, Scott Station Road and MORt. 179, near the Elston Road
intersection. Both of these arterials should be included in a corridor preservation plan to assist
in planning for new development and reduce future infrastructure costs.
Big Hom Drive interchange on US 50 remains an underutilized interchange -serving local
traffic only. Utilizing Big Hom Drive for future beltways around Jefferson City, connecting with
MORt. 179 to the north and south, and with US highways 50 and 54 should be included in a
Major Investment Study.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 75
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Southwest Jefferson City/Cole County
Public participation and focus group activities in preparation of the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan indicate public awareness of deficiencies in travel through the center of
Jefferson City along the principal arterials, the highways of US 50, 63, and 54.
Public participation activities also indicate an interest in development of an outer arterial or
beltway to the southwest of Jefferson City from US 50 to US 54.
Southeast .Jefferson City/Cole County
In conjunction with a beltway on the southwest side of Jefferson City is an outer arterial or
beltway to the southeast of Jefferson City, from US 54 to US 50, bypassing the tri-level and
Whitton Expressway for routes that would not cross the Missouri River. Public participation
and focus group activities also indicate an interest in development of an outer arterial or
beltway to the southeast of Jefferson City from US 54 to US 50.
Missouri River Crossing Corridors
Also recommended in public participation and focus group activities is the need for an
additional river crossing to the east or west of the existing bridges. The east crossing, extending
south of the Missouri River east of Jefferson City is more popular with linkage to US 63 in
Osage County. An alternate crossing has also been suggested, extending from US 63 to MORt.
179, landing near the Cole Junction area of MORt. 179.
With the nearest alternate river crossings an hour away, the existing bridges are critical
transportation infrastructure, vulnerable to flooding or structural damage. Combined with the
tri-level and the Whitton Expressway, alternate routes bypassing these choke points need to be
considered through Major Transportation Investment Analysis.
Safety/Congestion Trends
Safety and congestion will become more of an issue as increased development along the
MO Rt. 179 northwest corridor produces increased traffic and delay at the Cole Junction
crossing due to rail traffic.
Additional development along the MORt. 179 corridor from W. Edgewood Drive to the
south will also increase accident and congestion problems, especially at the MORt. 179 US 50
interchange. Rapid development along W. Edgewood and the proposed interchange on a MO
Rt. 179 midpoint between MORt. C and W. Edgewood will also become a major issue.
The accident rates and congestion on the Rex Whitton Expressway from the Tri-level to
Eastland Drive will get worse as the Missouri penitentiary redevelopment program east of the
CBD, along with eastside area redevelopment progresses. MODOT estimates that this traffic
will double within 20 years.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 76
US 50/Whitton Expressway from US 50/63 east to Clark Avenue will require grade
separation from current cross traffic streets and alternative route development along the
corridor. The Missouri River crossing at US 50/54/63 and US 50 corridor will be the choke point
for Jefferson City, with the primary highway corridors of US Highways 50, 54 and 63 all passing
through this point.
The Whitton Expressway Problem Definition Study, the Whitton Expressway
Environmental Impact Statement, and the likely alternatives study is anticipated to indicate the
need to grade separate or close north/south connections and provide unimpeded through traffic
in the area from Missouri Boulevard to Eastland Drive. However, with funding reductions,
significant improvements may be limited in the short term.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital A rea Me trop olitan Planning Organization 77
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 7 Regional Travel Patterns
Congestion
Congestion may be defined as usage nearing the limits of all or part of a transportation
systems capacity. For the purposes of transportation planning The Transportation Research
Board has identified two definitions of congestion, (as it relates to travel time and speed.)
•
•
"Congestion is travel time or delay in excess of that normally incurred under light or
free-flow travel conditions."
"Unacceptable congestion is travel time or delay in excess of an agreed-upon norm. The
agreed-upon norm may vary by type of transportation facility, travel mode, geographic
location, or time of day." 29
In transportation planning, congestion has two distinct forms, recurring and non-recurring.
In the "recurring" form of congestion, the congestion repeats as to a location or time of day such
as a peak hour. While in the "nonrecurring" form of congestion, the congestion is due to an
unusual occurrence such as periodic natural events, a traffic accident, maintenance activities or
some other irregular event.
• Recurring Congestion "The recurring type of congestion is more complex than non
recurring congestion, and usually receives most of the planning and policy activities.
Recurring congestion is primarily a product of transportation demand related to the
activity patterns of society, and tends to be concentrated into short time periods, such as
"rush hours". Recurring congestion is commonly addressed by the use of policy options
such as transit, growth management, traffic operational improvements, and
transportation demand measures."30
• Nonrecurring Congestion A common non-recurring form of congestion is caused by
accidents or vehicle break-downs and focuses on clearing the accident or inoperable
vehicle, and whenever possible, rerouting or redirecting traffic through or around the
activity. This type of congestion management is referred to as "incident management".
Maintenance activities also require the management of congestion, but at a less crisis
oriented time frame. Generally, maintenance occurs in a more organized manner that traffic can
prepare for and adjust to through rerouting or redirection of traffic.
Most nonrecurring congestion strategies include freeway management systems, and
advanced traffic management strategies, using sophisticated technical, communications, and
organizational strategies. The Jefferson City MPO is not required to initiate Congestion
Management Programs within CAMPO planning boundaries. Other extreme non-recurring
congestion can be exemplified by evacuations in natural disasters or other emergency situations
requiring emergency management actions and previously prepared emergency plans.
29Transportation Research Board. Quantifying Congestion User's Guide. Report 398 (Washington D.C., National
cademy Press, 1997). Vol2. 1.
30 East West Gateway Coordinating Council. September 21, 1998
http://www.ewgateway.org/trans/LongRgPlan!TRII/CongesPaper/congespaper1.htm
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 78
Area Commuting and Travel Patterns
Commuters traveling between counties, specifically Boone, Callaway, and Cole counties
account for significantly longer work trips into and out of the CAMPO area. Keep in mind that
commuters make two commute trips. Commuters from Osage, Moniteau, Callaway and Boone
counties accounted for 13,363 trips into Cole County.31 Osage, Moniteau, Cole and Boone county
commuters made an average of 1,220 one-way trips to Callaway County. And, 1,018 Cole
County commuters passed 2,730 Boone County commuters going the opposite direction in an
average daily commute trip either to or from work.
T bl 28 C a e : c ounty ommutmg D estmahons
FROM TO Percentage of Destinations from
Residence County Workplace County Counts Residence to Workplace County
Osage Cole 2,990 46%
Osage Callaw'!Y 116 2%
Moniteau Cole 2,172 33%
Moniteau Callaway 58 1%
Cole Cole 32,470 90%
Cole Callaway 1,046 3%
Cole Boone 1,018 3%
Callaway Callaway 10,015 52%
Callaway Cole 5,384 28%
Callaway Boone 2,730 14%
Cole Boone 1,018 3%
Boone Cole 2,817 4%
Boone Callaway 1,154 2%
T bl 29 C I d C ll C a e : o ean a away ommutetnps
Osage, Moniteau, Callaway, and Boone county commute trips to Cole County 13,363
Osage, Moniteau, Cole, and Boone county commute trips to Callaway County 1,220
Cole commute trips to Boone County 1,018
Callaway commute trips to Boone County 2,730
CAMPO attempts to identify how well t h e transportation network operates and where
problems are expected to develop by using mathematical models to simulate the network. The
method used is referred to as travel demand modeling.
31 2000 Missouri Census Data Center: 2000 County to County Work Flow Reports
2030 Me tropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Are a Me tropolitan Planning Organiza tion 79
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T bl 30 T a e : rave IT' tmes an dC ommuting Md o es
Callaway Cole
Mean travel time to work in minutes 23.1 17.4
Workers age 16+ 19,441 35,879
Workers age 16+ commuting to work alone in a car, truck, or van 15,323 28,616
Workers age 16+ commuting to work in a carpool in a car, truck, or van 2,876 5,177
Workers age 16+ commuting to work using public transportation
(including taxicab) 103 326
Workers age 16+ commuting to work by walking 494 566
Workers age 16+ commuting to work by other means 97 161
Workers age 16+ who worked at home 548 1,033
Source: US Census Bureau-Census Transportation Planning Package
The next section describes the traffic volumes and congestion issues that the region will be
facing over the next 20 years.
Forecasting Future Travel Demand
Purpose
The modeling process is a system-level effort. Although individual links of a highway
network can be analyzed, the results are intended for determination of system-wide impacts. At
the system level, impacts are assessed on a broader scale than the smaller, localized project
level.
Method
Previous modeling for portions of the MP A had been done as part of the 2003 Cole County
Transportation Study using the T-Model software package.
George Butler Associates (GBA) was contracted to develop the traffic analysis zones and
run the travel demand model, based on the traffic counts, land use data, and forecasted
demographics and development provided by CAMPO.
CAMPO required inclusion of portions of Callaway County to be included for travel
modeling and Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) development. Travel demand forecasts
included current travel demand, demand out to year 2015, and a long term planning horizon of
year 2030.
The model used current population and development information, based on census data
and parcel data to determine existing generalized land use, and forecasted future population
and land use development to 2030 as inputs to the travel demand model. The following
methods were used to determine residential and commercial development out to year 2030.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 80
• The functional classification of the road network had been developed earlier, so traffic counts on
roadway links, and turning movements at selected intersections were conducted for calibration
purposes.
• 2000 census population data formed the base population.
• 1990 to 2000 growth rates were developed for CAMPO area, and then growth rates for Callaway and
Cole County portions of CAMPO area were calculated.
• Municipal populations within CAMPO area were calculated, along with the urban and rural
proportions of CAMPO.
• Parcel data for Cole and Callaway Counties, from County Assessor files were used to help determine
an initial land use classification and specific facility size and class of properties.
• Properties were defined using both general land use classification codes and ITE land use
classifications codes.
• Maps developed through the City of Jefferson Geographic Information System were used to evaluate
development potential for currently undeveloped areas within CAMPO. Development constraints,
such as flood plains, steep slopes, and provision of sewers and utilities were used to identify
physical limitations to future development.
• Significant identifiable commercial and residential developments, (within 5-10 years) were included
in the future land use map. Other less identifiable development (15-20 years out) was added to the
future land use map later, but with less detail.
• New roads were added to the network first, as projects that clearly were going on the network such
as interchanges, arterials and corridors for arterial roads.
2030 Me tropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area M etropolitan Planning Organization 81
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Volume to Capacity (V /C)
Generally, intersections are the congestion points in the roadways. Intersections generate
conflicts with turning movements, differences in vehicle speeds, and cross traffic requirements
for stoplights. Intersections that have reached their maximum ability to move traffic through
that intersection are said to have reached 100% of their capacity. The result is traffic backup,
delays, and possible "gridlock" during peak hours in the morning and evening.
Other congestion methods such as Levels of Service or LOS may be used (including
intersection and road segment levels of service) but the modeling software and methodology
used here lends itself more to intersection volume and capacity measurements.
The 2015 and 2030 V/C forecasts assume conditions if no significant improvements are
made. The following intersections have been identified as having short-term or peak hour
congestion.
Table 31: Intersection Volume to Capacity for years 2007 through 2030
Intersection 2007 Modeled 2015 Modeled 2030 Modeled
Capacity Capacity Capacity
E. Capitol Ave. & Cherry St. 9% 22% 115%
E. High St. & Chestnut St. 32% 45% 111%
W . Truman Boulevard & Scott Station Road 90% 92% 107%
E. Capitol Ave. & Chestnut St 12% 27% 101%
W. Truman & Country Club Rd. 94% 95% 100%
E. Capitol & Lafayette St. 15% 42% 97%
Country Club & Rainbow Drive 85% 85% 97%
E. High & Cherry St. 31 % 37% 97%
E. McCarty & Benton St. 74% 75% 95%
Dix Rd. & Industrial Drive 72% 91% 94%
W. Truman & RT 179 80% 81% 93%
US 50 Westbound Off Ramp & MORt. 179 87% 88% 93 %
W. Main St. & Belair Drive 57% 59% 93 %
US 50 Eastbound Off Ramp & MO Rt. 179 90% 90% 92%
E. McCarty & Lincoln St. 73% 75% 92%
E. High & Marshall St. 55% 58% 92%
Stadium Blvd. & Lafayette St. 66% 71% 91%
Stadium Blvd. & Southwest Blvd. 86% 85% 90 %
2030 M e tropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 82
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan tor the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
-------------
2005 -2007
Traffic Counts
and
2030 Forecasted
Average Annual
Daily Traffic
Volumes
Legend
Year of Current Traffic Count
1 2005
•2006
•2007
23,698 = Current Traffic Volume
34 ,987 • Forecasted Traffic Volume
Tra«~ Counto -. colloctod by Callaway
County Roa:l & Br1dgo Departmem, Colo
County Public Works Department, Jetrerson
Clty f'ubjlc Woot<o Departmom and Missouri
Department of Tran.,artatlon between 2005
and 2007. All counts are ~lrlcttonaJ.
Fcnc:ut.:t trllllc YOiumM are deftved from
tt. CAMPO Travel Demand Modo!.
Capital Area Metropolitan
Planni ng Organization
320 E. t.1k:CIWty St.
Jefferson City, MD 65101
(573) 634-6410
For moro lnfatmarlon tilsJr our webs~e:
-.je~ymo.OI'(1IctVCIImpo.tampo.hrml
--
83
-
-----
, ... ,
'Q;;>;::;~>~-
;<'A,<,.
\..
. v
I ' '' ···y _I
,/"·-
l--,,
\
j.~--~
', \~--
•
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan lor the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
---
2005-2007
Traffic Counts
and
2030 Forecasted
Average Annual
Dai ly Traffic
Volu mes
Inset Map
Legend
Year of Current Traffic Count
•2005
•2006
•2007
23,698 =Current Traffic Volume
34,987 = Forecasted Traffic Volume
Trifle Counts ..,. c:ollect.t by C.laway
County Road & BridiJo ~---Colo
County Public 'llbfka Department, Jeflereon
Coly Public W:>rka ~and Mluourl
Department of Tr.-.portarton between 2005
and 2007. All counts are bk:llrte~lonal.
Fcncated traffic 'IOtufT'Iel are derived from
the CAMPO Travel Demand Model .
Capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization
320 E. McCar1)' St.
JeffenlonCI!y,M061i101
(573) 634-6410
F01 more infotmotion 1rlslr our website:
wvrw.}8ffcitymo.~.html
-
84
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
-----------
2007
Intersection
Volume I Capacity
Rating
Legend
Percent of Capacity
• 70%-80%
0 80%-90%
• 90%-100%
An output d the CAMPO Travel Demand
Model !a the forwcared trafUe wolume. The
model COJT1)ares the peak hOur tramc
volume wfth the detNgn capacity ol each
Intersection.
Shown on thil map are lntneetlonl wKh
modeled traftlc volurMt nMr Of excecllng
tho copoclty tor which thoy woro dealgnod .
Capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization
320 E. McCar1y St
Jetlen;on City, MO 65101
(573) 634-6410
For more lnfotmation visit our Wflb5/!e:
www.jetrcllymo.o1pA:D.ts~mpo.ltlml
--
85
-
---
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan lor the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Traffic
Analysis
Zones
2007
Legend
0 TratllcAnalyslslono
Shown oro Tratllc Analysis Zono (TAl)
bcxrdaries for the MPO UMd for lnwel
demand lorocu!~. ~boundaries
were erected by ~ the TAZ botnSaiM
from the 2003 Cole and City ot JefrertOn
County-wtdo Tran-lon so.dy.
Boundarlel went added tor the Catlaway
County portion of the MPO, as well as
odjustod for lho MPO bourd"'Y.
Capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization
320 E. McCany St.
Jefferson City, MO 65101
(573)634-&110
For mom infDnnalion trislt our rtlflbsit8:
www.jelfdymo.~l!l><M=ampo.html
86
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
-------
Forecasted 2015
Intersection
Volume I Capacity
Rating
Legend
Percent of Capacity
• 70%-80%
0 80%-90%
• 90%-100%
An outp~ ol the CAMPO Travel Demand
Mod.l it the foreeutld traffic volume. The
model co"1)1.tel the peak hour traffic
volum. wtl:h the design capacity of each
imtrMCtlon.
Shown on thil map are inlerHdlons ••h
modeled traffic volumee nNr or ucedlng
ttl• c:&pACity for which they were dn9"ed.
C.pltal Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization
320 E. Mc:Cany St.
Jeffer.;on City, MD 65101
(573) 634-6410
For mo111 Information vlsil our '1118bslr9:
www.jeffcllymo.oipA:Gt:BIIJ]Cltsmpo.htmJ
--
87
---------
2030 Modtltd
Capaclly
115%
Tf!%
107%
101%
100%
97%
97%
97%
-
Forecasted 2030
Intersection
Volume I Capacity
Ra t ing
Legend
Percent of Capacity
0 80%-90%
• 90%-100%
• 100%-115%
An oUlpUI of the CAMPO Trawl Demand
Model Is the f~ tnlftlc wlurne. 'T'lM
model eo~res the peak hour traMc
volume wtth the design capacity of each
Intersection.
Shown on thil map are lnteraecUons wll:h
l'nCidNd traffic vofumea near or axceding
t~• eapaehy for whk:h t hey were designed.
Capital Area Met ropolitan
Planning Organization
320 E. McCarty Sl
Jeffl!fSOn City, MO 65101
(573) 634-641 0
For""'"' lnfonnatlon visit our roebsil9:
www.jelfcltymo.~~.ltml
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 8 Plans Incorporated by Reference in the MTP
The MTP should be consistent with locally derived plans and policies.
Within the MTP are references to other plans. These plans are included by reference in the
MTP for the purpose of including potential projects and programs in the planning process.
Future projects, policies and programs will be derived from these plans, since the size of these
documents are substantial; the decision is to include them by reference. These plans include:
• Jefferson City Area Greenway Master Plan -City of Jefferson Planning
Division and Department of Parks and Recreation-2007.
• Jefferson City Transit Development Program Plan -City of Jefferson transit
organization, JEFFTRAN -2005.
• Jefferson City Memorial Airport Layout Master Plan -Being updated, due for
completion in 2008
• Central East Side Neighborhood Plan -City of Jefferson and the Jefferson City
Housing Authority-2007
• Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) Redevelopment Plan -State of Missouri
State Penitentiary Redevelopment Commission, as of 2008
Maps in this chapter include the Jefferson City Area Greenway Master Plan showing
current and proposed trails and conceptual plans for the MSP Redevelopment Plan, which are
for information only.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 89
Figure 27: 2007 Jefferson City Green ways Plan Map
-· I ' ~ \ • , '---.,~~-..... ,
r' ..
--
\ •
' I
i
~
' .., ,,-;.,), ......... .. , \ rt 0---t~-, ' r --\.~
l •
-,i _ ..
~ ... __ _
i
I
• "~/.,I \
I \ .,
\
• J
2007 JEFFERSON CITY GREENWAY TRAILS PLAN
Greenway frail5
E>cittin~ • ~~oo·t c::J c~ of .Jdf~non
f•nbd • • •-• tc.atyTrJ;
~ory I (F~t~N) DewiopU 1"1-t Tn1ilt
~ory 2 (f'ut<~rwl > O•tku line inolutn •~·tt-wt. •ut••
c.u,orya (~NJ -> l>uh•d liN .ndiuret on ·r.rwrt ro~t••
0 .5 I 2 $ Mi~o
Ot;y l".c.-t•
!grrouNii•' l"arh 6.
,~ • ., l'r'llr~
0 .-"":::'-:..
\Zf
.....
) (
\,:/.,
·-(~ --' <:~~
--~ •}. ... ,
~-Jt,.'r.:'' ·~····---....
....,.....,. ""t ..... -.. , •
.~~' .... \I
. ,_' ··. ' -.. ~ ,. , ' ...,., ".. -.. ; , I
... / ) f'l ~· i' \
' f \ l • I r. ~-., .. --I -r---~-~' '-'--J / / \ e
--
0 ~i ..... ,.rt
,G) C$C..antyf'art
Location
(i) •.lmo.U: P•ri< @ Nort.~ j!l'T!:rtor City
I@ Wilt~ ~cwoo41
~ ...... r.on ~.ru
@ R~n'e H•r.~re C••ur
@-r9!;ooo.rl"o-<
@) Mc~P'•rt
G) Watk l•,ton !'art
(!) A11r0r11'1rt
Q Oak 111•• GoH'C..ur.e
~""n:Jt.lor A'W•
(!) McCiu~ P'a"': e l ~col • 1/nW..rty
@ ,.. ... na n l•l•d
@ E'1 t P'orw-tll(ivs•o:k '•rt
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 90 --------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Missouri State Penitentiary Redevelopment Master Plan
The Jefferson City Correctional Center, historically named the Missouri State Penitentiary
(MSP), recently vacated a 142 acre site in Jefferson City in 2004. The Missouri State Penitentiary
Redevelopment Framework Plan is the plan to guide the redevelopment of the facility.
Development oversight is provided by the Missouri State Penitentiary Redevelopment
Commission.
The MSP site is bounded on the north by the Missouri River and the Union Pacific Railroad;
on the east by privately owned land and Riverside Park; on the south by Riverside Drive,
Capitol A venue, Lafayette St. and East State St; and on the west by land owned by the Jefferson
City Housing Authority.
The Master Plan will change over time as development opportunities arise with more
detailed programmatic statements, detailed designs and more extensive site investigations. The
plan established seven primary land use areas that identified the redevelopment potential
within the context of the historical, cultural and functional aspects of the existing MSP site.
These elements have formed the basis of the program statement, identifying five land use
classifications districts.
Master Plan District Proposed/Reuse Area Master Plan Parking
Public Service Campus 225,000 square feet 485 Structured Spaces
MSP Historic Area 310,048 square feet 600 Structured Spaces
Public Assembly Campus 605,500 square feet 1300 Structured Spaces
Office Campus 1,000,000 square feet 450 Structured Spaces
Natural Resources Area NA 15 Surface Spaces
Total 2,105,548 square feet 3,850 Parking Spaces
Portions of the Office Campus have already been constructed. The Department of Natural
Resources Lewis & Clark Building is approximately 120,000 square feet. A second Office
Campus building has also been completed, housing the 80,000 square foot State Health Lab.
Currently, under construction in the Public Service Campus is a new $71 million federal
courthouse to serve the Missouri Western District Court.
The roadway system outlined in the Master Plan, is a combination of new roadways within
the MSP site and utilization of the existing street network. The MSP Parkway extends in an east-
west direction from East State Street at Marshall Street, through the prison site, east to East
Capitol Street near Dawson Street. The Chestnut Street Parkway will connect into the MSP
Parkway as will the Office Campus Loop Road, which will also connect the MSP Parkway to
Riverside Drive.
The MSP Parkway as well as the Chestnut Street Parkway connector will serve as entrance
gateways to the redevelopment project. Signage, plantings and gateway features will be
incorporated into the intersections at East State Street, East Capitol Street and Riverside Drive.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 91
Figure 28: Missouri State Penitentiary Redevelopment -Master Plan Proposed Districts
Public Assembly Campus
.--.......... EoiMllimnmt Ami .I: Landmg As ...
-
:liSP
A The :Master Plan Ih~tncts
The new roadways will converge east of the prison wall at Chestnut Street. Rather than a
four way lighted intersection, The Master Plan proposes a roundabout at the intersection of the
MSP Parkway, Chestnut Street Parkway and the Office Campus Loop Road. The roundabout
will efficiently distribute traffic, provide for traffic calming and create an opportunity for
aesthetic enhancements such as decorative paving, lighting, signage, art work, water features,
monuments, etc.
The Master Plan provides for 3,850 parking spaces within the MSP site. The parking is
distributed throughout the MSP site. Because of the density of the proposed development, the
physical topographic site features and a desire to preserve open space, the Master Plan
recommends the majority of parking to be structured spaces.
The Master Plan provides pedestrian access between the various districts within the MSP
project area as well as to land uses surrounding the MSP site. The campus planning principle
which has guided the development of the Master Plan places great emphasis on consolidated
perimeter parking, direct service/emergency access and extensive pedestrian connections.
Vehicular movements and vehicular/pedestrian conflicts should be minimized with "shuttle
bus" connections to the Capitol Complex, downtown, and other business, entertainment, and
education venues.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 92
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 29: M S P Redevelopment-Master Plan Proposed Roadways and Parking Areas
-
A
Connections to the neighborhood will be reinforced with "wagon gate" openings in the
existing wall that remains, located at Cherry Street and at the intersection of East State Street
and Lafayette Street. In addition there will be open pedestrian access where the wall will be
removed at the extension of Lafayette Street to the MSP Parkway and along the western side of
the Chestnut Street Parkway. Internally, pedestrians will have safe access throughout the site
with designated pedestrian crossings and internal walkways and corridors, free of vehicular
conflicts. The Natural Resource Area will contain an extensive "nature trail" system that will
serve the working population, the neighborhood and the entire community.
This chapter contains regional and local priorities that have been identified by CAMPO and
its member organizations, along with the proposed plans, projects, or programs that MPO
members have identified to meet future transportation system demands.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 93
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9 The Constrained Metropolitan Transportation Plan -
Strategies and Capital Investment
Operational and Management Strategies:
Previously, Chapter 2 of this plan included detailed Goals, Objectives and Strategies which
will support the overall improvement of performance of the transportation system for relieving
traffic congestion and maximizing the safety and mobility of people and goods. The following
section expands on these strategies to improve the performance of the existing transportation
facilities a n d maximize safety and mobility of people and goods.
...
Specialized Transportation -Human Services Transportation Strategy
CAMPO will support increased FTA Section 5310 funding for non-profit agencies
seeking to acquire vehicles for the transportation of elderly and individual with
disabilities.
CAMPO will assist in facilitating Human Services transportation coordination efforts as
provided for in the Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan.
Access Management Strategy
CAMPO will support improvements in access management planning for urbanized
areas of CAMPO, improving traffic flow, reducing conflicts, and congestion. MoDOT
currently has guidelines and the City of Jefferson has an Access Management Plan in
development.
Corridor Preservation Strategy
Jefferson City, Holts Summit and St. Martins have subdivision codes and can preserve
transportation corridors if adopted as part of the local"major street plan". Cole County
has adopted planning authority and has the authority to preserve corridors as adopted
in the county's Master Plan. Callaway County has not adopted planning or zoning
authority at this time .
Missouri also has state legislation that allows MoDOT to file a corridor preservation
plan that identifies priority corridors. MoDOT is notified of all developments sought
along these corridors and the state has 120 days to a pprove the development, negotiate
the project, or buy the property. However, this applies only to counties that have
zoning.32
CAMPO will encourage local jurisdictions with authority to provide for transportation
corridors preservation, minimizing development within an identified future
32 http://www .fhwa.dot.gov /realestate/cp _state .htm#fsp
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Are a Metropolitan Planning Organization 94
transportation corridor by maintaining current thoroughfare plans and will encourage
local jurisdictions lacking the proper planning authority to preserve corridors, to obtain
such authority.
Transportation Safety
CAMPO will cooperate and assist with the public transportation operators, public
service organizations, the State of Missouri and Federal agencies in promoting improved
safety for the transportation system and the users of that system.
Congestion
CAMPO will conduct Travel Demand Modeling activities to help forecast future travel
demand and identify intersections and roadways where congestion will be an issue in
the future in order to make best use of transportation investments.
Public Involvement
CAMPO encourages public participation and will accommodate individuals with a
disability or limited English skills with prior notice of their need.
CAMPO will aggressively seek public participation in its activities, as outlined in the
CAMPO Public Participation Plan. The Public Participation Plan is located online at
http://www.jeffcitymo.org!cd/campo/publicparticipation.html. Other public involvement
pertaining to nondiscrimination actions for individuals that are not proficient in English
are contained in the Limited English Proficiency Plan located online at
http://www.jeffcitymo.org!cd/campo/publicparticipation.html.
Environmental Stewardship
CAMPO will work with private and public agencies and individuals and groups to
protect the environment and support efficient use and conservation of ene rgy.
Improve Security of the Transportation System for Motorized and Non-motorized
Users
CAMPO will work with public transportation operators, public service organizations,
the State of Missouri and Federal agencies in promoting improved security for the
transportation system and the users of that system.
· CAMPO will encourage coordination and participation in security planning in local
agency operations such as the Regional Planning Commission (RPC) and Homeland
Security Committees.
The Transportation Planning Process
CAMPO will strive to adhere to a continuous, cooperative and comprehensive planning
p rocess and provide for consideration and implementation of projects, s trategie s and
20 30 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capita l Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 95
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
services that will address the SAFETEA-LU planning factors.
Regional Initiatives
The MPO periodically reviews the priorities that are identified as initiatives that extend
past the MP A, into other parts of Missouri but are of common interest to other regional
planning commissions (RPCs) and MPOs. These "Regional Initiatives" are of an extraterritorial
nature to CAMPO and require additional coordination with the RPCs and MPOs.
T bl 32 R . I I . . f a e : eg10na mtia tves
Illustrative Need Description
US 50 West of California, to Sedalia Four-lane facility and improvements
US 50 from East of Jefferson City to Linn, to Union Roadway Expansion to four-lane facility
and improvements
Designation of US 54 as Interstate "I-54_ from Hannibal , Missouri to I-44
at Lebanon, Missouri
Second Missouri River Bridge crossing New Missouri River Bridge
Fiscally Constrained Investment Plan 2008 -2030
Capital investment in transportation projects that have been identified to replace or repair
facilities or increase capacity and safety based on regional priorities and needs are listed in this
section. Investment such as this is designed to preserve the existing as well as the projected
future metropolitan transportation infrastructure needs. These capital investment projects and
strategies address areas or corridors where current or projected congestion threatens the
efficient functioning of key elements of the transportation system.
These projects have been segmented into six groups -sidewalk projects, street & road
projects, redevelopment projects, greenway or trail projects, bridge projects and transit.
Sidewalk Projects: Programs for safer movement of pedestrians. These projects
include one Safe Routes to School project in Holts Summit which is a competitive federal grant
funded projects. The other five specific location projects are located within Jefferson City, listed
in the city's Capital Improvement Program and are funded by a local sales tax.
Street & Road Projects: Programs for efficiency, safety and congestion. These cover
a wide range of projects in jurisdictions throughout the MPA, including MODOT. All projects
are at specific locations throughout CAMPO, except one, which is the Jefferson City Emerging
and Contingent Street Project Annual Program.
Redevelopment Projects: Transportation and land use redevelopment for
established areas. There are two major redevelopment projects in the CAMPO area -the
Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) Redevelopment Plan and the Central East Side
Neighborhood Plan. The MSP actually falls within the Central East Side Neighborhood Plan
area. Both of these redevelopment projects have detailed plans.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 96
Greenway and Trail Projects: Ongoing programs of safe bicycle and pedestrian
facilities. Area Greenway I Trail projects are part of the Jefferson City Area Greenway Master
Plan and are designed to create a connected non-motorized vehicle system.
Bridge Projects: Programs for repair and replacement for critical infrastructure. Bridge
Projects in the area cross the Moreau River on the southern boundary of CAMPO planning area.
Transit Projects: Programs for public transportation. These transit projects are also
fiscally constrained. Most of these projects have been identified as recommendations from
various previous transportation studies or plans. A few projects have also been identified or
suggested by the public as a result of the CAMPO public participation process.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Me tropolitan Planning Organization 97
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--------------
............... .., ....... -· -.... -~~ ·---··-~-••-•n • ._.. _.,...,.~ -.... ~ .... ........ .. .... ........ ........ ... ""' .,. •m .,, ..... .,, .,, ... .,, 1011-2030 Agreple l•tlati .. -·--"' ....
Sidewalk Pro"eds
7 HS Safe Routes to School · Holts Summit Sidewalk $196,607
25 JC Missouri Blvd Sidewalk (Dunklin to Hwy 179 Multiple Phases) $150,000
26 JC Scenic Drive $dewalk (Easdand lo Carl Lane) $200.000
27 JC Boonville Road Sidewalk (Wayne Ave to Belair Multiple Phases) $200,000
28 JC Ellis Blvd Sidewalk (SchoH Hills Woods to Golf Course Multiple Phases) $300,000
29 JC Otv Complex $dewalks Phase m ( Local fundino only) $75,000
Stftet & Road Projods
8 JC E. Capital Ave-Olestnut to Lafayette Street Improvements $380,000
9 MODOT U5-54-MO Rt. H to .4 miles W. of MO Rt. AA/00 Pavement treatment 5P0955 $7,000 $956,000
10 MODOT US 50/Cityview Drive Grade Separated lnte.-chanoe $11,769,000
11 MODOT MO Rt. 179 Transportation Corp. Payment $3,360,000 $3,906,000
12 Cole Wildwood Drive Extension $1,874,000
13 JC Stadium&: Lafa~_lntersection Improvement $250.000
14 JC Bolivar&: McCarty Intersection Improvement $150,000
15 Cole Big Horn Drive Curb and Gutter $127.000 $1,000,000
16 Cole Old Staoe Road UPOrade $580,000 $500,000
17 MODOT McCarty St.&. Railroad ·Install Active Warning Device $80,000
19 JC East McCarty Street (Eastland to New Interchange) Widening $2.277,500 $2.277,500
21 JC Stadium &: jefferson Intersection Improvement ·lane addition $740,000
22 JC Tanner Bridge&: Ellis Intersection Improvement $360,000
23 Cole Zion Rd. Upgrade $535,000 $500,000
24 MODOT Industrial Drive&: Railroad-InstaJI Active Waming Device $80,000
30 Cole Militia Drive Extensioo. $150,000 $1,250,000
33 Cole New Arterial from Wildwood Dr. east to MORt. 179 $175,000 $2.500,000
34 HS MO Rt. 00/ Holts Summi~ odd center tum lane (1540 ft) $892,641
35 JC Moreau Drive and leslie Street: Southbound Ri2h:t-Tum Lane: Estimated cost $40,000
36 JC Southwest Boulevard and West Stadium Boulevard: EB and WB Right-Tum Lanes $400,000
37 JC W. Main St. at MORt. 179: Reconstruct Main St. to connect MORt. 179 north of present location $750,000
39 Cole New Arterial & Collectors east of MO Rt.179 $5,010,000
40 JC Scotts Station Road and Truman Boulevard -Signal Installation $158.000
41 JC South CountrvOub /Truman Boulevard and Country Club Drive-NB dual left tum lanes $978,000
42 JC Jefferson Street and West Stadium Boulevard: Eastbound Right-Tum Lane 5391.000
43 JC E. Miller Street-Construct connection between Vetter Lane and Eastland Drive. $1,540,000
44 Cole Scott Station Road Curb & Gutter $100,000 $1,350,000
45 Cole Rainbow Drive Curb & Gutter $100,000 $1,000,000
46 Cole Business 50 West Curb & Gutter $200,000 $1,750,000
47 Cole Henwick Lane Curb & Gutter $1,500,000
48 ColeflC Rock Rid!!" Road Curb &. GuHe' $200,000 $2,300,000
49 Cole Schott Road /Schott Hill Woods Extension $75,000
JC Small M;sc. &. Eme>'oing Street Projects&. Contingent· Locations TBD $50,000 $51,500 $53,045 $54,636 $56,275 $57,964 $59,703 $61,494 $63,339 $1.018,884 $1,178,D!O
Redevelopment Pro"ects
20 JC Missouri State Penitentiary Redevelopment $710,000 $944,000 $146,000
38 JC Central East Side Redevelopment Projects • Ughting. $dewalks. Alley, Signage $3,075,000
Greenw•yffnU Projods
1 JC Covingtoo. Gardens Trail Connection $190,900
2 JC Leslie Blvd. to FJlls Blvd. $540,500
3 JC Missouri River Bridge Bike/Pedestrian path $1,850,000 $2,670,000 $1,055,000
4 JC Wears Greenway Trail -Dunklin to McCarty $268,750 $268,750
5 JC Adrian Island Access $60,000 $1,470,000 $1.450.000
6 JC Katy Trail Extension -CaUawav County $72,000
JC Misc. Emerxing Sidewalks Projects, ADA Improvements & Contingency-Locations TBD $200,000 $206,000 $212,180 $218,545 $225,102 $231,855 $238.810 $245,975 $253,354 $4,075.535 $4.712.()38
Bridse Pro"octs
18 Cole Walnut Acres over N. Moreau Creek $1,836,000
31 Cole Tanner Bridge Road Bridge Rehabilitation $125,000
32 Cole Uberty Road Bridge Replacement $75,000 $500,000
50 Cole Hem street Road Bridge Rehab. $175,000
Total Sl4,301,7S7_ c__S~SA63,250 $6,834,000 $1,911,225 $3,273,182 $2,464,018 $4,664,819 $8,783,.513 $5,749,468 $1,816,693 $5,094,419 $5,890,048
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan lor the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 98
Table 34: Fiscally Constrained Investment Plan 2008-2030 Airport and Transit Projects ...... -.... .... A-.... .... ..., ~ ""' .... l. .... l '"" l ""' l. '"" l. """ ""' l >OU l ,., l '"" l ""'1. -1. -1. -[ ,.,. I ....
Runw• 9-l1P-rt.f Tutw~61000'biiii'Nton "-""'""' .....,....,.
-r---I -I i" i" i" i" i" i"
AlrpertT.W. .. .. .. ,.....,..., .. .......... .. .. .. .. .. .. SO_(_ .. ~ .. ~ .. ~ .. ~ .. ~ .. ~ .. ...(_ .. "'...!-..
Tr•••
)ARC· 5316 (IIIN'; no lnllation factor •pptied} 558,125 008.125 $58.125 $58.125 $.51.125 S51U25 5S8,125 S58,11S $58,125 SSUlS $58.125 $.58,125 .,.,,,. ""'" W.125 $58,125 SS8.12.5 SS8,125 558.125 ""'" $58,125 $58,125 S58,125
~ FINdom • 5317 (no~ no btlbricn fador.1ppllifd) "'-""' "'-000 "'-""' """" $12.000 """" .... ., .. ..., S<l.OOO .. ..., Ml.llOO S<l.OOO S<l.OOO S4l.ll00 S4l.OOO """" S4l.OOO SU,!XIl $44000 $4l.ll00 "'-""' """" """" C.P'tal AaUUro b lld..-ly ,...,. • F'Rnonl with .. s.ooo ""!ISO 137,1.12 ... ~ .. .,._, ......,. 541 .'191 Sf.J,046 ....,., .., .. ., $47,(87 ....... M9,91l21 151,3991 S52,.941 1 154..5291 156.1651 15?.150 I "'·"'I 161.3731 163,214 1 165.no I 567,064
o.ablltta -5310 (now."" 11\fbuon f.:tcw •pplted)
Tmntftr Point Reloaucm ""·"" ~_c.r.tnloi'/!Kk·U~p(IWftiOtll'n ,,...,.
Tnn•M Fldllty lmpi'O'MN'II:t-tWIDVItionl roolll'fl.. $110.1105 wuthnplOOfb\a. pMm .net door Npaln
P-llndf~l'•wMhntd ,_...,.lot ""·"" CM/I'mwit FKW:Ity ~ftftM"'C'f
(l)~trudl -~ """" (lO) ,.,._q irlonnrion ~ (Mtadwd "'~ IID.S110 ltoplipl poles W.NJh nff¥'-)
(3) UHl' mobilr,.... suoo
~uttns.q~.wldSoltwaft Prepllmnents) $10,500
Pu~ .Mirwtd (4) b~.a MOp lhltlaniat various 125,000 locatio~:Win).thrwt~Cty
(lrdronicbrwbo!IMidltJON.(kbtN~ "'·"" probi.IOltw•rwU'dto"'f'ul«
Purtna.lnd lnM&D•n aulomalitd routtt information CftHr ..,...,.
(1) ParatnlWft YWmhti b..-.c.p"-'"" 164.000
(3)30fl.lowlloofcwdl(~)-21:110deliYftY SU1311,tm
fl}Uiwfloofa\irwv•n-....... ..,...,.
($)12-p;.JOftlowftoor~(~)-lmldeMtl'fty S1 .710.000
(2)P..mr.itV.mtni~ Slll,.Oill
rn 12 '1'· :JO rt ._..,.. cwdl tont h ~~nlllldlt~oNI w.-"""""' End""* ard orwl!Dr 11n Alpa I'O\Itlt) • 2011 deMwry
"" .nd$oltw_(2,..._11) $7,011)
(S)P•~VmmtNb~ SllO,IlOO
fi)P....,.,..;tv.wminlb~ ""·"" {1) hrm..it V.n/n~Ud tn.replacftlwnt "'·""' (2)PanitranNtVGV'mirdlmt-c.piM:fomeN $151.000
(S)ParatranlitVaMrttnlb~ $379,000
(S)l2yr.3Sfl.lowlloof<OIIrilf~W~~a-nts)-l017drliWfY $1.945,000
{3)12yr.l5ftlowftoor«<ld\(~)·l01lldt>IIYftJ S1.20MDl
(l)Puatran~~tVMr'!ninl~ S19.tm
(1)P~r8NMV8Mnkltb•~ .......
f2)11YJ.3Dftlowlbxcoach(~)-l02ldellwty Sll16.000
(2) hratrawft Var/lntRitr..-~ ,,, ...
(l)l0ftlowfto«m.h(~)-l022dt-liw.y SJ,no.ooo
(5)PIInlnnaitVIMmnib_.~ WS,ODO
(5) 12-p.)Oft low lbxa.dllr.p._....,..,. mldtiwry S2.40'1.000
fl)P.,.....itV..,Inttt..~ $91.000
fl)P•~IIVcVmlnlbllf"~ T T T ""·"" (5) P•ntnntlt VIIV'mlnlb~a-_1'!1!_~ T """"" (3)12yr.3Sfllowflool"co.dlf~)-2030dlrllwry T T T s t ,640,00>
TnMI:tTot.l fl05,125 "25-'80 St.l79.257 Sl.155.J'10 $469.5 18 Sl0t.700 ,, .. _,., $116,111 S.H5,462 s:z.~.1n $1,Q:Z.162 s1-e,.sn PJ).O:Z' St .t-o.s:t• St,t911.066 Sl.65J.654 $156,Z"' $151,975 SJSi.710 $661,to!ll $16l.Jl!l S16S.l)S S1.f07,117
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan lor the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 99
-------------------
-----
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
---
Filcal con•ralnt r«JJI,..• ttt• rewnue in tranaportltlon
pWlnlng and programming trom Fedenil, State, local Md
private IOUteet for theM Protects have been Identified
and are re-.on~y expected to be available lor project
lr'rlpletnentation . Note: Trll'llit Olwelopnent Plan projects
are mt aha. on the map.
-
Fiscally Constrained
Investment Plan
Legend • Project Type
-Avtatlon-P'eGIBik•-Stt..c
~rldge -sidewalk
---~20111-2012 1 c-.....,..OW...T,..~
I .................. ._,. ' -. ............ ~ ........ ,
=~~---~
..,, ... cao.-r·--~c-,
., Mn ............. ,_,. ..... a..._.,aa-.....
1 l.c.t~~t.r. ... -c--....IL•a.-.-.tt.
I utM -IbM•A---·Itt.A/1100 ....
... utiiiU.CityooiMOt.c;,.,. ....... ~
'' atnt._-c:.._...,..,._
,. ...... Dr.~
11 ...... .....,_....._._.,._
14 ...... 611&CMJI ...........................
1t ......... Or.C..& ...... "0111 .......... .....
11 llld:Mfk& ............ Adhe ....... Dioooa
1t CeltC....,~..._.....,._IIL......_e-tl
11 .. ~.-ho!IIMII .. _UIM_..,
. ____ .......,_,........,....._,
11 ......... ..-..-..._._...~---.. ,_....., ...... ..__..........,__
a a-• ..,......., ...._..Dr ..... ~ .......... .,.,.....,...
-...--....~-ltLT71,.....,.._)
k-*DI',·~IoCiriLII . ......... __ ...... ..,.. .... _
u .. ......._Mi .. -k..-•~•GoMrCeoorM
c.., e.....,. .................
-Dr ............ ,_...._. ............ ~
1a.ty ..... .._. .....___
....................... 111171
Al .. l'l~~..._
~JD1)-201T
-~..._._,.,_....., ... ..._bl'_a._....._
........................... w. ........... ,"
c.on~ ............................. ,.., ... .-...-..e..c-...... .,_,,.
k _ _.... ..... ,_ ..... ....., ..........
a. c:_,~-..,. ac:_.,aw~~ a..
:.::.~~v:.,~.:_'-
k ........... c....a-r
......... o.c:w.a ....
-----·-c..·~ ~·l.-c: ... ao..r
1111•••-.aa.c .... ao ....
k ......... ,~ ...... ~
........... -..w_. .... ---hnl.._ ..........
320 E. McCarty St
Jeflarson City, MO 65101
(573) 634-6410
For more inforrns#on visit our website:
www.jeff<itymo.ol!)'cdlcal71p<>'ca17¥JO.html
"·""'
100
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 10 The Regional Financial Plan
The regional financial plan demonstrates how the adopted transportation plan can be
implemented. The financial plan contains an Operations and Maintenance section that includes
system level estimates of costs and revenue sources that are reasonably expected to be available
to adequately operate and maintain Federal-aid highways.
The financial plan also contains estimates of funds that will be available to support the
MTP implementation, necessary financial resources from public and private sources that are
reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the transportation plan are identified.
The financial plan contains a section on recommendations on any additional funding strategies
to fund projects and programs included in the MTP.
Operations and Maintenance -Federal-Aid Highways/Streets
Infrastructure requires maintenance, roads and streets break down, and local governments
are kept busy providing 24/7 services for the public.
For local entities such as cities and counties, an assortment of revenues from fees, taxes, and
assessments provide the basis for transportation operations and maintenance as well as local
match for capital improvements and programs within the CAMPO area.
For the years 2008 through 2030, the following table shows the estimated total amounts of
system level expenditures and revenue that is reasonably expected to be made available for
Non-State Federal-Aid roadways.
The tables indicate five-year increments from 2008 out to 2017, at which point the
remaining yearly operations & maintenance expenditures and revenue (from 2018 -2030) are
contained in bands that estimate a low range of 3% inflation rates for those years, and a high
band with an estimate of 5% inflation rates for those years. The same procedure applies to the
revenue rates. A further break-down by jurisdiction is in Appendix 3.
Operations & Maintenance estimates are based on current Operations & Maintenance
budgets from the municipalities and counties within CAMPO.
Operations &
Maintenance (est.) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
MPO total Operations &
Maintenance expend. $5,162,605 $5,317,483 $5,477,008 $5,641,318 $5,810,557
MPO available revenue $5,162,605 $5,317,483 $5,477,008 $5,641,318 $5,810,557
Operations & Maintenance (est.) 2013 2014 2015 . ' <. ~ 2016 ~. lf.~ 20~7
MPO total Operations &
Maintenance expend. $5,984,874 $6,164,420 $6,349,353 $6,539,834 $6,736,029
MPO available revenue $5,984,874 $6,164,420 $6,349,353 $6,539,834 $6,736,029
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 101
rations & Maintenance est. Years 2018-2030
MPO total Operations & Maintenance expend.
Low Range (3%)
$108,357,938
High Range (5%)
$125,280,915
MPO available revenue $108,357,938 $125,280,915
Notes on the preceding tables:
Jefferson City Operations & Maintenance includes the overlay program and the streets budget. The
overlay program expenditure is held constant while the streets budget for Operations & Maintenance
includes a 3% inflation factor.
Holts Summit has a 3% inflation factor.
St. Martins Street Operation & Maintenance program contains a 3% inflation Factor (but excludes
lighting).
Cole County includes their overlay program and an Operations & Maintenance budget with 3% inflation
factor and CAMPO road mile proportion of 23%.
Cole County Road & Bridge revenue is based on the county annual budget
Callaway County includes their overlay and paving with Operations & Maintenance, a 3% inflation
factor, and road mile proportion of 12%.
Callaway County Road & Bridge revenue is based on their published annual budget
All expenditures exclude storm water.
Years 2018-2030 columns show expenditures and revenues after the first ten years for a 3% (low) and a
5% (high) inflation factor for those years.
Maintenance & Operation: State Roadways
Maintenance costs include MoDOT's salaries, fringe benefits, materials and equipment needed to
deliver the roadway and bridge maintenance programs. This category includes basic maintenance
activities like minor surface treatments such as: sealing, small concrete repairs and pothole patching;
mowing right of way; snow removal; replacing signs; striping; repairing guardrail; and repairing traffic
signals. Performing these activities requires employees; vehicles and other machinery; facilities to house
equipment and materials such as salt, asphalt and fuel. In fiscal year 2009, MoDOT estimates $472,100,000
of maintenance expenditures.
MoDOT's annual cost to operate and maintain its system is approximately $14,000 per centerline
mile. MoDOT maintains approximately 100-110 miles of federal aid eligible roads in the CAMPO area.
MoDOT and local entities operation and maintenance costs were compounded annually at 4%
inflation through the planning horizon.
Table 35: Estimated State Roadwa
Year 2009 2013 2014
Annual Cost $1,511,580 $1,572,043 $1,700,322 $1,768,335 $1,839,068
Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Annual Cost $1,912,631 $1,989,136 $2,068,702 $2,151,450 $2,237,508 $2,327,008
Year 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Annual Cost $2,420,088 $2,516,892 $2,617,567 $2,722,270 $2,831,161
Year 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Annual Cost $2,944,407 $3,062,184 $3,184,671 $3,312,058 $3,444,540
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 102
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Local Funding Sources: Non-Transit
Local governments have several sources for locally funded projects, that is, receiving no
State or Federal funds, and for local matching funds for capital improvements or operations that
do receive State or Federal funding.
Local sources include State Highway User Revenues, local sales taxes, franchise fees,
license & permit fees, property taxes, and other revenue sources that provide significant
resources for local general fund and specific funding of transportation. Not all taxes and fees go
to transportation, so the local jurisdiction usually will identify a budget specifically for
transportation purposes, such as capital improvements, Road and Bridge funds, transit
operating subsidies, road and street budgets, operations and maintenance budgets, and so forth.
State Highway User Revenues
Cities and counties within CAMPO planning area receive State Highway Revenue each
year. These revenues come from Motor Fuel Tax, Vehicle Sales Tax, and Motor Vehicle Fees.
For Counties, the revenue distribution is based on the ratio of a county's rural road mileage
to the total of county rural road mileage of the state, and the ratio of the County's assessed total
county rural land valuation as portion of the total state rural land valuation.
For cities, a city's share is distributed according to population, based on the ratio of the city
population to the population of all the cities in the state.
An estimated Highway User revenue stream for the life of the Metropolitan Transportation
Plan, (2008 through 2030), with no inflation adjustment, totals $109,742,660. However, these
highway user revenues may be used for any purpose. The following table shows the amount of
user revenue distributed to the cities and counties for the CAMPO area, from FY 2007.
Tabl 36 FY 2007 St t H" h e ae 1g1 way ser ece1p1 s JY uns 1c Ion U R . t b J . d" f
Amount 2008-2030 Estimated Total
Cole County $1,744,203 $40,116,669
Callaway County $1,225,258 $28,180,934
Jefferson City $1,626,194 $37,402,462
Holts Summit $120,418 $2,769,614
LakeMykee $13,375 $307,625
St. Martins $41 ,972 $965,356
Total $4,771,420 $109,742,660
Note: future totals estimate continued 2007 annual amounts for each future year.
Jefferson City -sales tax rates are 2% of taxable sales, which includes 1% for General Fund,
0.5% for Capital Improvement Funds, and 0.5% for the Parks Fund. Property tax rates are 55.53
cents per $100 assessed value, which includes 46 cents for General Fund and 9.53 cents for
Fireman's Pension. In 2007, Jefferson Oty sales taxes generated $18.9million and Property taxes
generated $4.3 million, and in 2008, sales taxes are estimated to be $19.6 million, and $4.5
million in Property Taxes. Their overall sales tax rate is 6.225%, and includes a 4.225% State
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organiza tion 103
Sales Tax rate.
Cole County -The Road & Bridge budget was $6.8 million for 2008. The county has a 1%
sales tax, with .5% going to Capital Improvements, and .5% going to Law Enforcement. Of the
.5% Capital Improvement sales tax, .27% was marked for the Road and Bridge fund. Their
overall sales tax rate is 5.225% and includes a 4.225% State Sales Tax rate.
Callaway County -For 2008, the General Revenue Fund contained $5 :8 million for Roads
& Bridges. Callaway County has a 1.5% sales tax that includes .5% sales tax for the ambulance
district for areas outside municipal boundaries. Their overall sales tax rate is 5.725% and
includes a 4.225% State Sales Tax rate.
Holts Summit -For FY 2007, Holts Summit received $62,240 in Capital Improvement
Taxes, $148,500 in Transportation Sales Tax, $37,000 in Road and Bridge Tax, $12,250 in Motor
vehicle Sales Tax, and $6,700 in Vehicle Fee Increase. Expenditures included $33,400 in street
repairs and maintenance, with a city sales tax of 3%. Their overall sales tax rate is 8.725% {which
includes a 4.225% State Sales Tax rate, a 1% County Sales Tax and a .5% Ambulance District
sales tax.)
St. Martins -City and County sales tax rates are 1% each for a total of 2%. The 1% city sales
tax allows a budget of $68,000 for Highways & Streets. Their overall sales tax rate is 6.225% and
includes a 4.225% State Sales Tax rate.
Revenue and expenditures for Operations and Maintenance are generated from these
revenues as part of their budget process. For Capital Improvements, local revenues originate in
these taxes and fees as well as the General Funds of municipalities, in addition to the
Operations & Maintenance budgets. For cities and counties, large portions of capital
improvements come from Federal funds, roughly 80% Federal and 20% local funds, and some
state funds. However, State funds may vary considerably.
Federal Funding Resources/Options
Major sources and as much as possible, an estimate of the magnitude of the Federal
funding that contributes to the support of the cities and counties are included in this section.
For capital improvements, Federal transportation funding provides a great deal of the funding.
Generally Federal funds provide 80% of a capital improvement while the local entity provides
the 20% local match.
Some Federal programs provide full funding, and other, competitive programs may
prompt local project sponsors to provide more than 20%. The most prominent Federal
programs for transportation for this area are identified in the next section of text, along with
historic funding levels for CAMPO area.
Surface Transportation Program (STP)
The State DOT distributes STP funds to cities with a population of 5,000 to 50,000 {small
urban area and urban clusters). The total amount of STP funds for use within the CAMPO area
is $200,850 per year, for the life of SAFETEA-LU {or through the year 2009).
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 104
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STP small urban funds are provided to Jefferson City, as the eligible city. According the
Missouri Department of Transportation, the funding is provided to CAMPO area, (all cities and
counties within the CAMPO area), at the discretion of Jefferson City.
Transportation Enhancement Funds
Transportation Enhancement funds are distributed by MOOOT District 5, on a competitive
basis, and varies each year. District 5 Transportation Enhancement funds totaled $1,840,000 in
2005, $3,030,000 in 2006, and $2,430,000 in 2007, for a grand total of $7,300,000. For the CAMPO
area, Transportation Enhancement funding awarded for years 2005-2006 totaled $1,938,000. The
maximum federal funding available for a project is $500,000.
Bridge Funds
All bridges over 20 feet in length, located on publicly owned highways and roads
throughout the United States are subject to safety and maintenance regulations formulated and
enforced by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the primary federal funding for
these bridges is the Highway Bridge Program (HBP). Bridge funds are available for on-system
and off-system bridges. Historic data for the CAMPO shows $1,045,600 in Federal funding was
spent on bridges from 2004 to 2007, and $140,000 in local funding.
The Off System bridge program funds the replacement or rehabilitation of deficient bridges
located on roads functionally classified as local or rural minor collectors. Not less than 15
percent of a State's apportionment of Highway Bridge funds could be spent on bridges off of
Federal-aid highways and the estimated annual allocation for the Off-System Bridge
Replacement and Rehabilitation Program in Missouri is $23 million including $1,875,000 in
District 5. The remaining apportionment was to be spent for bridges on Federal-aid highways. 33
The On-System bridge program funds the replacement or rehabilitation of deficient bridges
located on roads functionally classified as urban collectors, rural major collectors and arterials.
The Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission allocated $500,000 of bridge funds
annually for urban clusters (small cities) with a population between 5,000 and 200,000. A
statewide competitive process was used to select projects located in small cities.34
Safe Routes to School
The Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) Program is a Federal-Aid program of the U.S.
Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Created by Section
1404 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
Act (SAFETEA-LU). The SRTS Program is funded at $612 million over five Federal fiscal years
(FY 2005-2009) and is to be administered by State Departments of Transportations. Five year
funding for Missouri is shown in the following table.
Table 37: Five year funding for Missouri
33 http://www .fhwa.dot.gov/federalaid/projects.cfm ?progProj=curr#c29
34 2008-2012 STIP
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 105
Year Funding
2005 $1,000,000
2006 $1,620,703
2007 $2,146,792
2008 $2,646,419
2009 $3,310,009
5 Year Total $10,723,923
The State funding is divided by MODOT District, and requires a local application to
MODOT. Awards to municipalities or school districts in the CAMPO area were $191,539 (full,
100% funding). A Safe Routes to School grant was awarded in 2007 to Holts Summit.
National Recreational Trails Program
The National Recreational Trails Program (RTP) provides funds to the States to develop
and maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both non-motorized and
motorized recreational trail uses. Examples of trail uses include hiking, bicycling, in-line
skating, equestrian use, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, off-road motorcycling, all-terrain
vehicle riding, four-wheel driving, or using other off-road motorized vehicles. Governments in
the CAMPO area used $138,000 in RTP funds from 2004-2007.
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
This program is a set aside program under STP funding and has the intent of achieving a
significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The CAMPO
area received $174,000 in highway safety funding from 2004 to 2007.
Railway-Highway Crossings Program
The program is intended to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries at public highway-
rail grade crossings through the elimination of hazards and/or the installation or upgrade of
protective devices at crossings.
MODOT reports that approximately $5,900,000 of FHW A Surface Transportation Program
Safety funds and approximately $1,200,000 in State Grade Crossing Safety Account funds are
available each year to address safety issues at railroad crossings. Grade Crossing Safety Account
funds originate from a state motor vehicle licensing fee.
CAMPO area spent $14,000 in federal funding on railway crossings from 2004-2007.
National Highway System (NUS)
The NHS program provides funding for improvements to rural and urban roads that are
part of the NHS, including the Interstate System and designated connections to major inter-
modal terminals. Under certain circumstances, NHS funds may also be used to fund transit
improvements in NHS corridors. No recent funding was identified.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 106
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Innovative Finance
FHW A describes Innovative Finance as techniques that supplement traditional highway
financing methods. The Innovative Finance staff of MOOOT administers various department
innovative finance programs. These programs bring money to the project that doesn't have to
be repaid.
Partnership Funding Programs:
• Cost Sharing Program -Projects where MODOT commits a portion of project costs for
projects not on the department's right-of-way and construction program, but that will
benefit the state highway system.
• Economic Development Program -A method of funding projects that will
significantly impact the economic development in a given area.
• Transportation Corporations --specialized, temporary, private, not-for-profit
corporations that can be organized to plan, develop, and finance a particular
transportation project. Transportation Corporations accounted for $10, 528,000 in
funding for MORt. 179 from FY 2005 to 2007.
• Transportation Development Districts -a temporary, local, political subdivision
that can be authorized by a vote of the public or all owners of real property affected by
the district to plan, develop, finance, and levy taxes for a particular transportation
project.
A detailed description of Transportation Corporations and Transportation Development
Districts can be found in Appendix 7. The following is a list of the Transportation Corporations
and Transportation Development Districts within the CAMPO region:
Identity and location
MO. 179 Extension Transportation Corp.
Stone Ridge TDD
US 50/63 and City View TDD
Commons of Hazel Hills TDD
Government
County of Cole
Jefferson City
Jefferson City
Cole County
Purpose
Highway
Highway
Partnership Debt-Financing Programs (These programs make loans to a
project that has to be repaid.)
Missouri Transportation Finance Cor.poration (MTFC)-a non-profit lending corporation
established to assist local transportation projects, and to administer the Statewide Transportation
Assistance Revolving Fund (STAR Fund).
State Transportation Assistance Revolving Fund (STAR Fund) -a fund created by the
Missouri General Assembly to assist in the planning, acquisition, development, and construction of non-
highway transportation facilities.
Other innovative finance techniques identified by MODOT are:
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 107
• Congestion Pricing
• Private Activity Bonds
• Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (11FIA) loan
• Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE)
• State Infrastructure Banks
• Toll Credits
Congestion Pricing
High performance highways involve the application of variable tolls on all lanes of existing
toll ways and toll-free limited-access facilities to manage traffic flow. Tolls vary by level of
demand, either on a fixed schedule by time of day or in real time to reflect changes in
congestion levels, and are charged on congested highway segments to manage traffic flow. The
concept also involves promotion of carpools and vanpools, park-and-ride facilities, and
provision of express bus services, to provide travel alternatives to transportation system users.
Private Activity Bonds (PABs)
P ABs allow the bonds to retain tax-exempt status despite a greater level of private
involvement than is ordinarily allowed for these types of bonds. This allows public-private
partnerships (PPPs) to obtain lower financing rates, eliminating one barrier to private sector
participation in transportation finance.35
The Missouri DOT (MODOT) applied for a $600 million allocation for the "Missouri Safe
and Sound" bridge improvement project. A provisional P AB allocation of up to $600 million
was approved in May 2007. The Missouri Development Finance Board issued an inducement
resolution in March 2007, allowing it to serve as a conduit issuer for the bonds.
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) Loan Process
The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1998 (TIFIA) provides
Federal credit assistance to major transportation investments of critical national importance,
such as: intermodal facilities; border crossing infrastructure; highway trade corridors; and
transit and passenger rail facilities with regional and national benefits. The TIFIA credit
program is designed to fill market gaps and leverage substantial private co-investment by
providing supplemental and subordinate capita1.36
The TIFIA credit program offers three distinct types of financial assistance, designed to
address projects' varying requirements throughout their life cycles:
• Direct Federal loans to project sponsors offer flexible repayment terms and provide
combined construction and permanent financing of capital costs.
• Loan guarantees provide full-faith-and-credit guarantees by the Federal government to
institutional investors such as pension funds which make loans for projects.
35 http://www .fhwa.dot.gov/innovativeFinance/ifqvol13no2.htm
36 http://tifia.fhwa.dot.gov /Fact Sheet: Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 108
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Standby lines of credit represent secondary sources of funding in the form of contingent
Federal loans that may be drawn upon to supplement project revenues, if needed, during
the first 10 years of project operations.
The amount of Federal credit assistance may not exceed 33 percent of total project costs.
Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GAR VEE)
II A GAR VEE is a designation applied to a debt financing instrument that has a pledge of
future Federal-aid for debt service and is authorized for Federal reimbursement of debt service
and related financing costs. This financing mechanism generates up-front capital for major
highway projects that the state may be unable to construct in the near term using traditional
pay-as-you-go funding approaches. The issuer may be a state, political subdivision, or a public
authority."37
State Infrastructure Banks
Missouri Transportation Finance Corporation is the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) for
Missouri. AN SIB does the following:
• Loans (primary and subordinated)
• Standby lines of credit
• Debt service reserve financing
• Bond security
• Limited financial planning assistance
• Grant Anticipation Notes
• Gap financing
• Credit enhancements
Toll Credits
To the extent toll credits are available, a state may use up to 100 percent Federal funds to
construct some projects, while using the state or local funds that would have been required to
match Federal funds to construct other projects with 100 percent state or local funds. In effect,
by using toll credits to substitute for the required non-Federal share on a Federal-aid project, up
to 100 percent Federal funding may be used on a project.
37 http://www.innovativefinance.org/topics/finance mechanisms/bonding/bonds__garvees.asp
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 109
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropoli tan Planning Organization --------------
Innovative
Financing
Districts
Legend
• •
Transportation
Development
District
Transportation
Corporation
A Tranoportation Development Districl (IDD) is
a political St.bjivisk»n of the State of Missour1 ,
d81ignod to facilitate speciflc public transportation
l m~ovements through the rollection of taxes and
borrowing of funds . A Tranoportetion Corporation
can issue bonds for transportation Improvements.
bul not levy taxso. Please note the TDD boundaries
8ft CJPn)Xi matiOns .
Cap ital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization
320 E. McCarty St.
Jefferson City, MO 65101
(573) 634-6410
For mona Jnlormstion visit our website :
.,...,.,,jellcilymo.Oip.tG'cs,.,aA:a,.,a.hlml
110 ---
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Public Transit Financial Plan -JEFFTRAN
Transit sources of revenue include local operating assistance (City of Jefferson
transportation sales tax and General Fund), passenger fares and other revenue from contracts,
state operating grant, and FT A 5307 funding.
Inflation factors for total operating costs and revenues are estimated by CAMPO at 4% per
year from 2008 to 2030. For FTA 5307 funding, an estimated 4% per year inflation factor, based
on the previous year is used. For capital investment projects (5309), a 3% inflation factor is used
by JEFFTRAN for future capital investments. This inflation factor reflects year of expenditure
dollars.38
The State Operating Grant is assumed to continue at the same level, through 2030, and
Passenger fares and other revenues are also held constant. Local operating assistance provides
the remaining variable. Also anticipated funding sources are the FTA 5316 Job Access and
Reverse Comm ute program GARC), the FTA 5317 New Freedom program, and the FTA 5310
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Capital Assistance program, all administered through
MODOT Multimodal Office.
Total planned costs and revenues from 2008 through 2030 for Transit Operation is
$44,331,828, and for Capital Investments, $18,821,305.
T bl 38 FY 2008 2030 T a e : -·o rans1t Jpe ratmg c dR F osts an evenue orecast
Local Operating Passen ger Fares & State Operating Grant Transit Operating
Assistance Total Other Revenue Total Total Costs/Reven ue Total
$33,255,549 $9,708,720 $1,367,559 $44,331,828
JEFFTRAN Anticipated Capital investments through 2030 are $18,821,305. Sources of
revenue include Local Capital Assistance (City of Jefferson transportation sales tax) FTA 5309
funding and local private donations.
T bl 39 FY 2008 2030 T a e : -rans1t ap1ta . C . 1 E xpenses an evenue orecas dR F
Item Federal Share Local Share Total to Year 2030
Capital Investment Plan $15,057,044 $3,764,261 $18,821,305
38 as per 23 CFR 450.322f(10)(iv)
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 111
Pu blic Transit Funding
For the Jefferson City Urbanized area, the public transit provider is JEFFTRAN, providing
public transit and paratransit services within the city limits of Jefferson, Missouri.
JEFFTRAN is an agency of the City of Jefferson Missouri, supported by city taxes, fares and
contract revenues, a state operating assistance grant through the Missouri DOT, and Federal
Transit Administration operating and capital funding.
Public Transit Revenue Sources
Separating operating and capital expenses for both reporting and evaluation purposes is
common in the transit industry. Jefferson City funds operating expenditures and capital
expenditures separately, reflecting the fact that FT A has distinctly different programs and
guidelines for capital and operating grant programs.
Operating Funds39
The primary sources of revenue for JEFFTRAN operations, both fixed route and
paratransit, are local funds from city general revenue and federal funding from the FTA 5307
formula program. Operating expenses for transit are generally funded from the city's General
Fund whereas capital projects are typically funded from the city's Capital Improvement Fund.
The FTA 5307 program includes an apportionment amount based on a formula that takes into
account the population and characteristics of the metropolitan area, as well as other factors.
JEFFTRAN receives operating funding for paratransit services through Medicaid
reimbursements and the Non-Emergency Medical Transportation (NEMT) program that are
used for local match. Payments from the State for the operation of the parking shuttles also
represent a significant source of revenue for JEFFTRAN operations. Fares from passengers
represent a relatively small portion of the total revenue compared with these external funding
programs.
Capital Improvement F unding40
As mentioned previously, capital improvements are typically funded from the city's
Capital Improvement Fund. These funds are used as local match for federal capital grants.
Capital projects, such as bus acquisition and construction, can be funded through the FTA
Section 5309 capital program. The 5309 program is discretionary; Jefferson City must compete
for funding with other areas through a process referred to as congressional earmarking.
Jefferson City has received FTA Section 5309 earmarks in the past and will continue to pursue
this funding in the future.
39 Jefferson City Transit Development Plan. Transys tems Corp., March 2006.
40 Jefferson City Transit Development Plan. Transys tems Corp., Ma rch 2006.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 112
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MODOT Transit Sectionn
Formula Operating Assistance-The FTA provides formula operating assistance to transit
systems in urban areas of more than 50,000 Population. The Multimodal Operations Division
includes the Transit Section that administers this program for urban cities under 200,000
populations.
The programs administered by Multimodal Operation Division include the following:
• MEHTAP
• FTA Section 5310
• FTA Section 5311
• FTA Section 5316
• FTA Section 5317, and
• FTARTAP
MEHTAP Missouri Elderly and Handicapped Transportation Assistance Program
MEHTAP provides state financial assistance for public and nonprofit organizations offering
transportation services to the elderly and disabled at below-cost rates.
FTA Section 5310-Program Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Capital
Assistance Program
The Transit Section purchases approximately 65 vehicles for about 35 grantees each year
using funds allocated to the State through the FTA Section 5310 program. The program is open
to all areas of the State (rural, urbanized and urban) for nonprofit organizations and qualifying
public entities.
FTA Section 5311-Program Serving Non-Urbanized Areas
FTA provides funding for capital, operating and planning expenditures to transit systems
serving non-urban areas. The MoDOT Transit Section receives the funds from FTA and
administers the program for transit providers meeting the qualifying criteria for Section 5311.
FTA Section 5316 Program-Job Access and Reverse Commute Program
The JARC formula program supports the development and maintenance of services
designed to transport welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals to and from jobs
and activities related to their employment. The Federal Transit Administration provides
financial assistance for transportation services planned, designed, and carried out to meet the
transportation needs of eligible low-income individuals, and of reverse commuters regardless of
income.
41 http://www .mptaonline.com/transit.shbnl
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 113
FTA Section 5317 Program-New Freedom Program
The New Freedom formula program provides funding for new public transportation
services, and alternatives to public transportation services, for people with disabilities, beyond
those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).
FT A Rural Transportation Assistance Program
The Transit Section also administers this training and technical assistance program funded
by the FTA. Training courses offered include defensive driving, CPR and first aid, passenger
assistance techniques and emergency procedures. Technical assistance is offered in vehicle
procurement and maintenance.
Future FT A Funding42
With the recent passage of SAFETEA-LU, the level of federal funding available to the city,
through FY2009 is part of the legislation. Although the apportionments do not represent
guaranteed amounts, there is a reasonable certainty that the level of funding will be made
available.
42 Jefferson City Transit Development Plan. Transystems Corp., M arch 2006 .
2030 Me tropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Are a Me tropolitan Planning Organization 114
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Illustrative Needs/Projects
Illustrative needs/projects are those which may be given future consideration in the
event that additional future funding sources are subsequently defined to be "reasonably
available." At that time illustrative projects can move forward into the Transportation
Improvement Program. Illustrative Needs /Projects are listed in the following table.
T bl 40 Ill a e : ustrative N d/ ee stproJects -eg10n-w1 e R . "d s treets an dR d oa ways
Map Illustrative Needs Reference
Added Capacity & Safety Needs
D MORt. 179-Country Club Drive to Sue Drive
E Scott Station Road -Truman Boulevard to Ten Mile Road
F Truman Boulevard-Amazonas to Constitution
G Country Club Road -Truman Boulevard to Rainbow
I Industrial Drive -Dix Road to McCarty Road
J MORt. 179 and Country Club Drive
K Missouri Boulevard and MORt. 179
N Missouri Boulevard and Commerce (Route 179)
0 US Route 50/63 -Missouri Boulevard and Whitton Expressway
Q South Country Club I Fairgrounds Rd. -Missouri Boulevard to Scruggs Station Road
R Whitton Expressway Improvements Dix Road to Eastland Drive
u US 54 Eastbound -Christy Drive Entrance Ramp and Madison St. Exit Ramp
v US Route 50/63 -Clark Street
w Stadium Road US 54 Interchange to Lafayette Street
X County Park Road Curb & Gutter
A1 Ellis Boulevard and Missouri Route C
B1 Jefferson Street and Ellis Boulevard -Jefferson Street
C1 MORt. C at Ellis Blvd
D1 Ellis Boulevard-Lorenzo Greene Drive to Green Berry Road
E1 Eastland Drive -Elm Street to Bald Hill Road
F1 Route C-Ellis Boulevard to Rumsey Lane
H1 MO Rt. B -MO Rt. 179 to W ardsville/MO Rt. M
11 Loesch Road Upgrade
J1 Shepar..,d Hills Road Upgrade
Congested Intersection Needs (Volume to Capacity at or exceeding 100% at 2030)
H West Truman & Country Club Road
p East Capitol A venue & Cherry Street
s East Capitol Avenue & Chestnut Street
T East High Street & Chestnut Street
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 115
Table 41: lllustrative Needs/projects-Roadway Major Investments and Studies
Map Reference Illustrative Needs
Major Investments & Studies
A US Route 54 & S Summit Drive-interchange ramps
B New 3 lane arterial & intersection in northwest
L US 50/54/63 Tri-Level Interchange
M US 50, MORt. 179, Missouri Boulevard Interchange
y New Southwest Arterial Corridor
G1 New Southeast Arterial Corridor
z MORt. 179 Interchange between MORt. C and W. Edgewood
Ongoing planning, scoping and design activities through MoDOT as
Illustrative needs
Improvements to the transportation system that adds vehicle capacity, adds new roads,
increases safety, increases security, and preserves existing roads are also identified as
illustrative needs within the CAMPO MP A. Planning, scoping, and design activities by MoDOT
and local jurisdictions required for these needs are also illustrative needs.
The following tables indicate high priority needs for aviation and transit, as identified by
the City of Jefferson:
Table 42: lllustrative Needs/Projects-General Priorities
Illustrative Need Estimated Costs
Transportation Enhancements-ongoing program Undetermined
Implement Jefferson City Area Greenway Master Plan -Emerging Category I, II & Undetermined III projects
Table 43: Airport/Aviation Illustrative Needs/Projects
Illustrative Need Estimated Costs
New air traffic control tower Undetermined
Airport Terminal building renovation Undetermined
Repair/relocate taxiway Delta Undetermined
Purchase of land Undetermined
Airport storage facility Undetermined
Construction of a fuel containment area Undetermined
Purchase of capital equipment -MU meter, snow removal equipment Undetermined
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 116
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T bl 44 T a e : 'tIll tr f N d /P . t rans1 us a 1ve ee s rO JeC S
Illustrative Need Estimated Cost
Expand service area Undetermined
Establish extended service Undetermined
Increase service frequency Undetermined
I Multipurpose Transit Service Center Undetermined
I
I
I
I
I
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 117
All Modes Other Than Transit
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
-----
IIIOO,..Iw PfO)Ictl may be giYen tutuN conald••llon
In the went thlt lddlllonal fut.l,.lundlng .cure. ...
~I..W'It!y defll'*l to bt "reaonably evalleble." AI.
thlll time tllultratl¥'8 PIOf«'tt can I1"'CJ'M forward Into the
TrantpOttatbn l~tnt Program .
Loc.U0r11 fofTI'IIn.pcwtatlon Enhancemenl protec:ta,
Tra~ Oeve6opmenC PW! PI'Otldl. lnd JC k•
arten..y ~".,Plan PfCittcte ere not thown on the -·
-
-
Illustrative
Needs & Projects
2008-2030
-,.,._.,..,.5~\oc~~r.
4 U8~5'&1 ...... 0r1W-~,.,.
• ,....,._Miflllll~ln,.._.
L UI~TII-lellll ........
UIIO.~fll17'1 .~-.ct .........
.............. MMIICG'IIIIDr
01 .... .,...,. "'*'· Comclol'
I MOIII 171~---MOIII C&~
~~.,...,.,. .....
0 VORI.t1t -CO.W,eutD!WtDS...QM
I SOnlllllllllriRtNid-TIVI'IIftlbi!IWIIdtoTitii .... RNd
,._......._._.....__~
C....tyCI&bltoiiii ·TI\INIIt~IUit ......
I I ...... DI'We~"'--to~"'-'
~ MOM 1711ndc....yCiuO.,...,.
t.tllloutl....,_.lfldi!CIN.I'Tt
....._,..........,llldCCII'I'MI'CI(ftOUII171)
0 U8IIIIUIIIOII3·~~IrCI~~
oa~CIIIIM'....,.IIII:I -WCI!Jrrlldtolkn!OQI.!II*'"IItd
't~~Htot~E.-,~~--•e....oonw
UIMR-OIIIItrDr E'*-~&...,......1!_.. ......
¥ Ulfbai..S-Clllfii81Je111
• ~lt.aU&S4w.t:f\ ..... 10~1511Nt
X CCIIIIIIYP'wt.._CIIIt»&Otlln' e: .. ~...,..._.,._.c .,..._ ......... !111~-......., ......
WOIItl.C•I!IIIallll
!' • ..,...,_._ ~c:-DIWetoQ,_-, """'llto.ld
e...llll'ldt)M -£lltlltMIIItla.d .. IIIMd
..... e.-.~tolitiMINy~
MO-I-MORI.11110~RI.M
11 ~-.ci\.JrO"'dt
.It ............ Uci!JrM
~...__.~rv~• .. ,ootl • ._
N 'NII!oll TI\MM & C:..., C1u0 "-'
II' lflllfc....-"-IC'*'Y ....
bii:CIII*I'A-ae ......... a.-
l,..lofllilo...,.&CM~~nut-.... -c Airport~"'" llpMI "'--
Cap ital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization
320 E. McCarty St
Je"erson City, MO 85101
(573) 634-6410
For more Information llislt our wabsllo :
-.}flllcllymo.~ITl>Q.html
---
118
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendices
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 119
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix 1: Population and Housing Projections
P I ti f opu a on orecas ts J 16 2007 -une I
County 1990Census 2000 Census Ten Year Ten Year Annual
Count Count Growth growth Rate Rate
Callaway 7,661 9,782 2,121 27.69% 2.475% County
Cole County 53,165 59,978 6,813 12.82% 1.060%
P •ctdP I. f rote e opu atlon or years 2000 t 2030 0
Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Callaway 9,782 10,024 10,272 10,526 10,787 11,054
Cole 59,978 60,614 61,256 61,906 62,562 63,225
69,760 70,638 71,528 72,432 73,349 74,279
Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Callaway 11,328 11,608 11,895 12,190 12,491
Cole 63,895 64,572 65,257 65,949 66,648
75,223 76,180 77,152 78,138 79,139
Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Callaway 12,800 13,117 13,442 13,775 14,116
Cole 67,354 68,068 68,790 69,519 70,256
80,155 81,185 82,232 83,293 84,371
Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Callaway 14,465 14,823 15,190 15,566 15,951
Cole 71,000 71,753 72,514 73,282 74,059
85,465 86,576 87,703 88,848 90,010
Year 2021 2022 2023 22034 2025
Callaway 16,346 16,750 17,165 17,590 18,025
Cole 74,844 75,637 76,439 77,249 78,068
91,190 92,388 93,604 94,839 96,093
Year 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Callaway 18,471 18,928 19,397 19,877 20,369
Cole 78,896 79,732 80,577 81,431 82,294
97,367 98,660 99,974 101,308 102,663
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 120
_______ ,., --------------------·-·----· ------------·(') --·----·-------· ---------
2000 1990 Change
Subject Number Pet. Number Pet. Number Pet.
Total Housing Units 27,373 23,203 4,170 18
Occupied Housing Units 25,657 93.7 21,429 92.4 4,228 1.4
Owner occupied units 17,017 66.3 14,167 66 .1 2,850 0.2
Renter occupied units 8,639 33.7 7,261 33.9 1,378 -0.2
Vacant Housing Units 1,717 6.3 1,774 7.6 -58 -1.4
Vacant Units for Rent 659 2.4 858 3.7 -199 -1.3
Vacant Units for Sale 379 1.4 253 1.1 126 0.3
Rental Unit Vacancy Rate 7.1 10.6 -3.5 -32.9
Owner Unit Vacancy Rate 2.2 1.8 0.4 '--
24.3
-----------------
Source: Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis, Univ. of Missouri Outreach & Extension
Proiected H __________ lOUSin Needs to Meet 2030 Pooulati for CAMPO --------------------'1-'------------------·-------
Est. housing needs Undeveloped
Year 2030 2000 Housing Difference lots Building permits 2000-2006
Callaway 8,487 3,880 568 220 Holts Summit
Cole 34,289 24,439 2,249 3,289 Jefferson City
42,776 28,319 14,457 2,817 3,509
27,373
(MODOT)
Undeveloped lots Bldg. Permits
Callaway 568 Holts Summit 220 788
Cole 2,249 Jefferson City 3,289 5,538
Total 2,817 Total 3,509 6,326
I
Housing_ Units 2000 existing 2030 projected Future need
Callaway 3,011 Callaway 8,487 5,256 I
Cole 24,362 Cole 34,289 6,638 1
Total 27,373 Total 42,776 11,894 I
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 121 ------------------
-----------
Buildin2 Permits for Holts Summit --------------
Holts Summit Building Permits Residential Residential
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Total % Yearly Average
Single/Family Residence 14 25 26 25 42 60 192 192 37% 32.0
Duplex 1 5 2 6 2 3 19 19 4% 3.2
Four-plex 1 2 1 2 1 0 7 7 1% 1.2
Six-plex 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 2 0% 0.3 I
Total Permits 57 81 75 90 94 122 519 -~2()__ -.. 46% 39 .7 I --
For the years 2000 through 2006, Cole County issued 3,289 residential building permits and Jefferson City issued t344 residential building
permits.
--------o ------------n--------------------------
Units\ Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total o/o Yearly Avg.
Single-F amilyStructures 465 411 380 340 340 380 208 2524 77% 421
All Multi-Family Structures 68 202 197 94 44 54 106 765 23% 128
2-unit Multi-Family Structures 30 50 10 0 8 2 6 106 3% 18
3-and 4-unit Multi-Family Structures 28 102 131 68 22 15 12 378 11% 63
5+ Unit Multi-Family Structures 10 50 56 26 14 37 88 281 9% 47
Total Units 533 613 577 434 384 434 314 3289 100% 548
------'
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 122
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix 2: Public Comments and Res pon ses
MPO staff used several methods, processes and tools for gathering input from the public, in
addition to meetings and communications with local/state/federal government agencies .
MPO staff used the following public participation venues to meet with members of the
public including:
• Four public planning workshops.
• Two open houses.
• Outreach activities at senior centers.
• Interview/questionnaires with local specialized
transportation providers.
• Online questionnaires for the public.
• Specialized topic focus group activities -bicycle /pedestrian,
law enforcement/first responders, environmental/historic,
and freight providers.
• Meetings with representatives of county and city governing bodies.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organiz ation 123
Workshop Attendee Recommendations to CAMPO
Attendees at the two workshops held on May 30 and 31,2007 returned 15 questionnaires on
their opinions on the state of the transportation system and what they believe to be important
for the future of transportation in CAMPO area. The following tables reflect their views.
Comments from the Jefferson City Workshop
Comments on CAMPO Priority List
• Improve sidewalks everywhere
• Ramps at curb comers
• AMTRAK to run on time
• Map and sign on-street bicycle routes. Plan walkways radiating one mile from all schools.
• (Water) A boat ramp and dock on JC side of river
• For streets/highways, I would move #7 above # 4
• Bicycle/pedestrian section: switch 2 & 3
• Streets/highways: #10 should be #2
• Airport: All money wasted on J.C. airport should go to Columbia to attract a carrier that goes
somewhere
• Streets/Highways: Higher priority for MORt. 179 beltway east. Lower priority for St. Mary's
interchange on M0179
• Bicycle/Pedestrian: no priority for Adrian's Island-Focus on connecting greenway(s) with
Katy Trail.
Congestion: List the top three areas within CAMPO that you feel have the worst congestion problems
• Stop lights on US 50
• The Missouri Boulevard Business!!
•
•
You seem to have a disconnect and not realize that public transit could solve your traffic problems
HWY 50 through downtown
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ellis Blvd at Schulte's
MO River Bridge
US-50-63-expressway in J.C.
Ellis Blvd at Christy and Jefferson St.
Missouri Boulevard
MORt. 179/US 50 intersection/Missouri Boulevard (3 comments)
Ellis Blvd bridge over US 54
Missouri Blvd (2 comments)
HWY94
HWY 50/63 from tri-level to the last light
Missouri Boulevard from Wal-Mart to StMary's
Southwest/Ellis from Rte. C to Lorenzo Greene Drive
Hwy 50 in downtown JC
Rex Whitton Expressway
US 54/Stadium w/ stadiumflefferson/Christy interchanges
HWY50 from Militia to Monroe
HWY 50 from Monroe to MO. Blvd
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 124
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Safety: List the top three areas within CAMPO area that you feel have the worst vehicle safety problems
• Replace expansion with viable public transit
• Missouri Boulevard (4 comments)
• At Grade crossings on 44
• Geometric improvements needed at US 54 at capital region medical
• US-50-63-expressway in J.C.
• Ellis Blvd and Southwest Blvd
• Bypass for HWY 50 around Jefferson City
• Ellis Blvd bridge over US 54
• Hwy94
• Route B to Taos/Meta
• Hwy 50/54 going through JC
• Hwy179&US50
• US 54/Staduim w/ Stadiumflefferson/Christy interchanges
• Rex Whitton Expressway
Looking 20 years out, do you see a need for additional arterial roadways? If so, where? Are these noted
on your table map?
• Yes/no
• Yes, linage from West to East/possible
• Reduction in 50 East intersections/lights
• To improve traffic flow
• No, public transit would solve all that!
• Beltway on US 63 (new bridge) MORt. 179-54
• Hwy 50 bypass!!!!!
• Outer belt for JC from RTE B/ Lorenzo Greene Northeast to HWY 50
• Need Hwy 54 from Kingdom City to Lake of the O zarks improved to interstate standard
• Need Hwy 50 from Columbia to Rolla brought to interstate standard
• Improve the flow of traffic and remove traffic lights on Hwy 50
• HWY 179 to HWY 50
• US 50 four lane across the state
Please comment on other issues you think are important concerning the Metropolitan Transportation
Plan and any other transportation issues
• Refer to comment maps
• Continue to add to pedestrian walk ramps and greenway trails
• Jefftran is short-sighted. Sell ad space to colleges, universities, trade schools, restaurants,
merchants, and TV /radio stations and more!
• Jefftran is too lazy. Picked out fare increase of all r ecommendations and implemented only that.
• I think it's really important to develop downtown JC, historical areas, capital, etc. Commitment to
transit is needed.
• Reroute US 50 to bypass the main population center of Jefferson City
• Transit-
o Missouri Boulevard route n eeds to go to Stadium and come back to town, Ca pital Mall
needs to be a separate route
o Buses need to run more frequently
o Bus destinations should include MO Dept. of Conservation, Hoods, Habitat for
Humanity re-store, New world recycling Center and the fairgrounds
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 125
o Use smaller vehicles on bus routes that run at or near empty
o Jefferson City only phones placed at shuttle destinations for demand service
o Park & ride shuttles should run to events
o Improve marketing
o Provide sidewalks and shelters
o West McCarty transfer center is not big enough for a transfer center
o It costs more to ride the bus from home to Stadium and back, making 4 stops, than it
does to drive, even with $3/gallon gas
• Bike/Pedestrian -
o Map and sign on-road bicycle routes
o Create a connected greenway that allows children to walk or bike to school
o Build bus stop shelters along Missouri Boulevard
o Build sidewalks on both sides of Missouri Boulevard
o Build shoulders or bike lanes on Missouri Boulevard
o Pave shoulders on high volume arterials
o Replace dangerous parallel bar grates on streets with bicycle-friendly grates, priority on
bike routes
o Map existing pedestrian facilities (sidewalks & greenways) to allow gaps to be identified
o Include bike/pedestrian facilities on all new construction
Holts Summit Workshop
CAMPO Priority List Comments:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ramps for Summit & 54
Callaway County projects need to be done for safety, etc
Sidewalks for 00
Increase pipe size for fire hydrants
North side ramps on HWY 54 & S Summit Drive
Move #6 to #1 (Streets/highways)
Move #4 to #2 (Streets/highways)
Widen existing arterial roadways
Side walks
Congestion: List the top three areas within CAMPO that you feel have the worst congestion problems
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Getting onto US 54 from Summit Drive
The ramps at Center St. & HWY 00-AA at HWY 54
The interchange at HWY 54-HWYSO-High St.-McCarty St
00 at Spalding and Greenway St.
54/63 intersection
HWY 50 in Jeff City (connect 179 to 50)
MOBlvd
Around the bridge
Bridge areas
AA/00 overpass
Center St. overpass
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 126
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Safety: List the top three areas within CAMPO area that you feel have the worst vehicle safety problems
• MORt.OO
•
•
•
•
•
Accidents on 54 that can't be reached by emergency vehicles in a timely manner
MO Rt. AA -area of major growth
MORt. 00-AA ramps off HWY54 and Spalding/Greenway St.
Ellis Blvd
MORt. 179 at US 50
Looking 20 years out, do you see a need for additional arterial roadways? If so, where? Are these noted
on your table map?
• MORt. 00
• MORt. AA
• Halifax Road (south to S. Summit Drive)
• Karen Drive
• Connect 179 and 50
• More overpass on 54 to eliminate crossing traffic problems
• Outer roads in the Holts Summit area
• Whitton Expressway could use 4 lanes
• A beltway around Jefferson City
Please comment on other issues you think are important concerning the Metropolitan Transportation
Plan and any other transportation issues:
• There seems to be a bias against less affluent communities that are unable to find matching funds
to get a project moved up the list.
• Workshops of this nature are beneficial to both communities. We need more of them. This way the
current information is shared rather then rumors and misinformation
• Increased population is going to put additional strain on our roads soon. Holts Summit may need
additional traffic control lights at Simon and at the county overpass.
•
•
•
We need side walks for our North School so kids don't have to walk in the streets to get home .
Sidewalks in the Holts Summit area; widen roads and streets in the Holts Summit area;
Pedestrian/bicycle path attached to the outside of the bridge to go between Cole and Callaway
Workshop Map Comments
• Transit-Job Access from Holts Summit & Jefferson City, coordinate with CATSO and M-MTA
• Upgrade US 50 to 4 lanes east of Jefferson City
• Improve the US 63/US 54 interchange
• Provide access to the Katy trail from Holts Summit side
• Improve the US 50/63/50 interchange
• This is the only place in the country with stop lights on its freeway
• Improve US 50 to 4-lanes from Jefferson City to Kansas City
• Maglev from "the lake" to Columbia and I-70
• High speed rail to Columbia with good bus service at either end
• Put sidewalks on 00
• Bike access over the Missouri River bridge and bike expansion in Memorial Park
• Expand transit to Holts Summit with bus stops and frequent connections
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 127
• Better merging at US 54/63 interchange
• Lengthen the time on left tum lane onto Dix Road at Dix Road & Missouri Blvd
• Sight distance problems at Halifax and Major Ave. and at MORt 00 at Greenway Road in Holts
Summit
• Expand MO Rt. 00 to three lanes
• Sight problems at US 54 ramps at MORt. 00
• Tum lane in front of grocery
• Traffic light on US 54 ramps at MO Rt. 00
• Pedestrian crossing over US 54 at MO Rt. 00
• Beltways to the south from US 50 in the west, to US 54, to US 50 in the east
• Add a Missouri River bridge to the east, either connecting the southern beltway at Militia Drive or
connecting to US 63 east of the river, in Osage County
Comments Received At-Large
• Holts Summit-Sidewalks-Connection to the Katy trail, sidewalks in the business district, and
sidewalks needed down Karen Drive
• Holts Summit business district needs four lanes
• US 54 ramps are needed
• Tum lane in front of Mosers
• MORt. 00 exit ramps stop light needed on the east side of the highway
• More sidewalks
• Thank you for coming to Holts Summit and including information from previous workshops and
comments
The following was received via email on June 12, 2007:
Here is an outline of suggestions for potentially possible transportation plans
1. Hwy. 179 Needs to be extended to the Eastern part of Jefferson City.
Some possible points where an extended Hwy. 179 can intersect Hwy. 50 on the east side of town
are: The new interchange that will be constructed as part of the proposed East side Wal-
Mart or the Militia Drive interchange.
2. Construct a Wildwood Drive interchange over hwy. 50 that could extend North to Country
Club Drive Traffic along the portion of Missouri Boulevard immediately west of the Hwy.
179 intersection.
3. A Stadium Boulevard/Hwy. 50 interchange that would not extend to the north of Hwy 50
4. For Hwy. 50 in the downtown area, the best solution would be to construct an elevated
highway.
5. The Tri-Level is not working and is unsafe.
6. Form a transportation port authority with the city of Columbia and other surrounding
communities to designate one airport to serve as the primary commuter airport for the
region.
B. Push for the designated commuter airport to be the Jefferson City airport.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 128
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7. Construct a levee that would protect the surrounding area of the airport and the land
immediately west of Hwy. 54.
8. Seek out Delta airlines to provide air service to Cincinnati, or Atlanta. Both, of these airports
provide numerous non-stop connection to many cities in the nation as well as international
routes.
9. Rename Jefferson City Memorial Airport to Central Missouri National Airport or Mid-Missouri
National Airport
2030 Me tropolitan Transportation Pla n for the Capital A rea M etropolitan P lanning Organization 129
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
---------------
Public Involvement
Workshop and
Bicycle I Pedestrian
Focus G roup
Comments
Legend
Public Workshop Participant Comments
-Congested Mitigation
• • New Roadways
-New Ped/Bikeway Routes
-Safety Improvements
-New Transit S8fVice
Bicycle!Ped. Focus Group Comments
-New Ped/Bikeway Routes
This map shows suggnllons tor improvements
to the area's transportation system that were
made at public lnvolvemenr meetings held on
May 30 & 31 , 2007 and I Blr::ycle I ~etlrtan
Foeuo Glcup ..-ng hold on Nowmbor 'ZT,
2007.
Capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization
320 E. McCarty St.
Jefferson City, MO 65101
(573) 634-&110
For more lnfOnnatlon vtslt OIJ/ W9bslt9:
www}91fcllymo.Oipkz1.tai!JX>tBmpo.html
---
130
-
------------
2030 Metropolitan Transportation P lan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
--
Safety & Security
Focus Group
Comments
Legend
Focus Group Recommendations
-New Road or Improvement Areas
Th is map shows euggtsllons tor Improvements
to the area's traneportatlon eystem thai were
rnada~ loc:allawa-. .......,.,.,.
~enandhomolandoocurty ol!lelal ll
a Safety & Securfty Focua Grt>UP ..-11'4j -
on Noverrber 29, 2007.
Capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization
320 E. McCarty St.
Jefferson City, MO 65101
(573) 634-&110
For mom infonnalion visit our llllfJbsffe:
www.jeffcltymo.~f7¥l(>t:ampo.html
-
131
----------------
APPENDIX 3: Financial Plan -Operations & Maintenance
-r ----------------------------------------------------------
Operations & Maintenance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 I 2013
Jeffe rson City_Opera tions & Maintenance Expend. $3,046,680 $3,138,080 $3,232,223 $3,329,189 $3,429,065 $3,531,937
Revenue $3,046,680 $3,138,080 $3,232,223 $3,329,189 $3,429,065 $3,531,937
Holts Summit Operations & Maintenance Expend.
-Local R&B tax or Trans. Tax $30,720 $31,642 $32,591 $33,569 $34,576 $35,613
Revenu e $30,720 $31,642 $32,591 $33,569 $34,576 $35,613
ST. Martins Operations & Maintenance Expen d. $64,000 $65,920 $67,898 $69,935 $72,033 $74,194
Revenue $64,000 $65,920 $67,898 $69,935 $72,033 $74,194
I
Cole County Road & Bridge Expen d . $6,887,152 $7,093,767 $7,306,580 $7,525,777 $7,751,550 $7,984,097 !
Revenue $6,886,978 $7,093,587 $7,306,395 $7,5 25,587 $7,751,354 $7,983,895
MPO proportional expen d. $1,584,045 $1,631,566 $1,680,513 $1,730,929 $1,782,857 $1,836,342
MPO proportional revenue
Callaway County Road & Br idge Ex p end. $3,643,000 $3,752,290 $3,864,859 $3,980,804 $4,100,229 $4,223,235
Callaway Coun ty_ revenue $5,831,232 $6,006,169 $6,186,354 $6,37 1,945 $6,563,1 03 $6,759,99 6
MPO prop ortion al ex p end. $437,160 $450,275 $463,783 $477,697 $492,027 $506,788
MPO p ro p ortion al revenue
MPO total o p erati ons & m ainten ance exp end. $5,162,605 $5,317,483 $5,477,008 $5,641,318 $5,810,557 $5,9 84,874
MPO propo rtion al reve!'ue __ $5,162,605 $5,317,483 $5,477,008 $5,64 1,31 8 $5 ,8 10,557 $5 ,984,874
Jefferson City Operations & Maintenance includes the overlay program and the streets budget. The overlay program expenditure is held constant while the streets
budget (O&M) includes a 3% inflation factor, Holts Summit has a 3% inflation factor, and St Martins Street Operation & Maintenan ce contains a 3% inflation
Factor (but excludes lighting).
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 132
-
-
-----_r -----------------------------------------
Operations & Maintenance 2014 201 5 2016 2017 2018-2030
Low Range (3%)
Jefferson City Operations & Maintenance
Ex pend. $3,637,895 $3,747,032 $3,859,443 $3,975,226
Revenue $3,637,895 $3,747,032 $3,859,443 $3,975,226
Holts Summit Operations & Maintenance
Expend.
-Local R&B tax or Trans. Tax $36,68 1 $37,782 $38,915 $40,083
Revenue $36,681 $37,782 $38,915 $40,083
ST. Martins Operations & Maintenance Expend. $76,419 $78,712 $81,073 $83,505
Revenue $76,419 $78,712 $81,073 $83,505
Cole County Road & Bridge Expend. $8,223,620 $8,470,328 $8,724,438 $8,986,171
Revenue $8,223,412 $8,470,114 $8,724,218 $8,985,944
MPO prop ortion al expend . $1,891,433 $1,948,175 $2,006,621 $2,066,819
MPO p ropor tion al revenue
Callaway Co unty Road & Brid ge Expend. $4,349,933 $4,480,430 $4,614,843 $4,753,289
Callaway Coun ty revenue $6,962,796 $7,171,680 $7,386,830 $7,608,435
MPO p ro p ortion al ex p end . $521,992 $537,652 $553,781 $570,395
1 MPO prop ortional revenue
MPO total ope rati ons & maintenance expend. $6,164,42 0 $6,349,353 $6,539,834 $6,736,029
MPO proportion al revenue $6,164,420 $6,349,353 $6,539,834 $6,736,029
Cole County includes their overlay program and an O&M budget with 3% inflation factor and MPO road portion of 23 %
Cole County Road & Bridge revenue is based on the County annual budget
Callaway County includes their overlay and paving with O&M, a 3% inflation factor, and road proportion of 12%
Callaway county Road & Bridge revenue is based on their published annual budget
All expenditures exclude storm water
$63,946,780
$63,946,780
$644,782
$644,782
$1,343,296
$1,343,296
$144,554,464
$144,550,811
$33,247,527
$76,462,943
$122,391,754
$9,175,553
$108,357,938
$1 0 8,357,938
Years 2018-2020 columns show expenditures and revenues after the first ten years for a 3% and a 5% inflation factor for those yea rs.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization --------------
2018-2030
High Range (5%)
$73,933,772
$73,933,772
$745,482
$745,482
$1,553,088
$1 ,553,088
$167,130,492
$167,126,269
$38,440,013
$88,404,667
$141,506,485
$10,608,560
$125 ,280,91 5
$125,280,915
133 ----
---------------
Appendix 4: 2008-2030 Transit Local Operating Assistance Forecast
Fiscal Year FY 2007• FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 2011 2012
%Change 29.3% 19.4% 6.7% 6.5% 6.3% 6.2%
Local Operating $699,859 $835,295 $890,858 $948,645 $1,008,744 $1,071,246 Assistance
Fiscal Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
%Chan ge 6.1% 5.9% 5.8% 5.7"/o 5.6% 5.6%
Local Operating $1,136,248 $1,203,851 $1,274,157 $1,347,276 $1,423,320 $1,502,405 Assistance
Fiscal Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
%Chan ge 5.5% 5.4% 5.3% 5.3% 5.2% 5.1%
Local Operatin g $1,584,654 $1,670,193 $1,759,153 $1,851,672 $1,947,891 $2,047,959 Assistance
Fiscal Year 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
%Change 5.1% 5.0% 5.0% 4.9% 4.9% 4.8%
Local Operating $2,152,030 $2,260,264 $2,372,827 $2,489,893 $2,611,641 $2,738,259 Assistance
--------·-··--
.. 2007 is included for reference only
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 134
F" . I PI FY 2008-2030 Transit 0 _________________ J_peratmgan d Caoital R F
Funding Sources FY 2007• FY 2008 FY2009 FY 2010 2011 2012
Local Local operating assistance $699,859 $835,295 $890,858 $948,645 $1,008,744 $1,071,246
Local Passenger fares & other revenue $485,436 $485,436 $485,436 $485,436 $485,436 $485,436
State State Operating Grant $68,377 $68,377 $68,378 $68,378 $68,378 $68,378
Federal FTA 5307 $615,037 $638,654 $664,200 $690,768 $718,399 $747,135
Total $1,868,709 $2,027,762 $2,108,872 $2,193,227 $2,280,956 $2,372,195
Funding Sources 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Local Local o perating assistance $1,136,248 $1,203,851 $1,274,157 $1,347,276 $1,423,320 $1,502,405
Local Passenger fares & other revenue $485,436 $485,436 $485,436 $485,436 $485,436 $485,436
State State Operating Grant $68,378 $68,378 $68,378 $68,378 $68,378 $68,378
Federal FTA5307 $777,020 $808,101 $840,425 $874,042 $909,004 $945,364
Total $2,467,083 $2,565,766 $2,668,396 $2,775,132 $2,886,138 $3,001,583
Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Local Local o perating assistance $1,584,654 $1,670,193 $1,759,153 $1,851,672 $1,947,891 $2,047,959
Local Passenger fares & other revenue $485,436 $485,436 $485,436 $485,436 $485,436 $485,436
State State Operating Grant $68,378 $68,378 $68,378 $68,378 $68,378 $68,378
Federal FTA5307 $983,178 $1,022,506 $1,063,406 $1,105,942 $1,150,180 $1,196,187
Total $3,121,646 $3,246,512 $3,376,373 $3,511,428 $3,651,885 $3,797,960
Funding Sources 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Local Local operating assistance $2,152,030 $2,260,264 $2,372,827 $2,489,893 $2,611,641 $2,738,259
Local Passenger fares & other revenue $485,436 $485,436 $485,436 $485,436 $485,436 $485,436
State State Operating Grant $68,378 $68,378 $68,378 $68,378 $68,378 $68,378
Federal FTA5307 $1,244,034 $1,293,796 $1,345,548 $1,399,370 $1,455,344 $1,513,558
Total $3,949,879 $4,107,874 $4,272,189 $4,443,076 $4,620,799 $4,805,631
.. 2007 is included for reference only
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 135
-------------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix 5: Projects Eligible Under 23 U.S .C . Highway Safety
Program
The term "highway safety improvement project" includes a project for one or more of the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Intersection safety improvement.
Pavement and shoulder widening (including addition of a passing lane to remedy an
unsafe condition).
Installation of rumble strips or another warning device, if the rumble strips or other
warning devices do not adversely affect the safety or mobility of bicyclists, pedestrians,
and the disabled.
Installation of a skid-resistant surface at an intersection or other location with a high
frequency of accidents.
An improvement for pedestrian or bicyclist safety or safety of the disabled .
Construction of any project for the elimination of hazards at a railway highway crossing
that is eligible for funding under section 130, including the separation or protection of
grades at railway highway crossings.
Construction of a railway-highway crossing safety feature, including installation of
protective devices.
The conduct of a model traffic enforcement activity at a railway-highway crossing .
Construction of a traffic calming feature .
Elimination of a roadside obstacle .
Improvement of highway signage and pavement markings .
Installation of a priority control system for emergency vehicles at signalized
intersections.
Installation of a traffic control or other warning device at a location with high accident
potential.
Safety-conscious planning .
Improvement in the collection and analysis of crash data .
Planning, integrated interoperable emergency communications equipment, operational
activities, or traffic enforcement activities (including police assistance) relating to work
zone safety. •
Installation of guardrails, barriers (including barriers between construction work zones
and traffic lanes for the safety of motorists and workers), and crash attenuators.
The addition or retrofitting of structures or other measures to eliminate or reduce
accidents involving vehicles and wildlife.
Installation and maintenance of signs (including fluorescent, yellow-green signs) at
pedestrian-bicycle crossings and in school zones.
Construction and yellow-green signs at pedestrian-bicycle crossings and in school zones .
Construction and operational improvements on high risk rural roads .
The te rm "safety project under any other section" means a project carried out for the
purpose of safety under any other section of Title 23, USC.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area M e tropolitan Planning Organization 136
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix 6: Transportation Systems Management & Operations:
Strategies and Projects Eligible for Operating Cost Funding under
the Federal-Aid Highway Program43
FHW A encourages the adoption of policies that promote efficient management and
operation of surface transportation. This includes a greater shift toward applying technology to
addressing transportation needs. CAMPO is including this information for the benefit of
CAMPO membership and to assist the membership in better understanding the opportunities
available. Some of the types of Federal-aid projects that may be funded include the installation
and integration of the Intelligent Transportation Systems Infrastructure such as:
• Planning for regional Management and Operations programs
• Traffic Signal Control Systems
• Freeway Management Systems
• Incident Management Systems
• Multimodal Traveler Information Systems
• Transit Management Systems
• Electronic Toll Collection Systems
• Electronic Fare Payment Systems
• Railroad Grade Crossing Systems
• Emergency Services
•
•
Implementation of the National ITS Architecture for metropolitan and rural areas
Development of regional ITS Architecture
Examples of typical Federal-aid capital improvement projects that may include eligible
operating costs include:
• System Integration
• Telecommunications
• Reconstruction of Buildings or Structures that house system components
• Control I Management Center (Construction) and System Hardware and Software for the projects
• Infrastructure-based Intelligent Transportation System capital improvements to link systems to
improve transportation and public safety services
• Dynamic I Variable message signs
• Traffic Signals
Examples of typical eligible operating cost and expenses for traffic monitoring,
management, and control include:
c Source: http:/ /ops.fhwa.dot.gov /travelinfo/resources/ops_guide .htm#int
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 137
• Labor Costs
• Administrative costs
• Costs of Utilities and Rent
• Other costs associated with the continuous operation of the above-mentioned facilities and
systems
• System Maintenance (activities to assure peak performance)
• Replacement of defective or damaged computer components and other traffic management
system hardware (including street-side hardware).
• Computer hardware and software upgrades to remedy Year 2000 (Y2K) problems.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 138
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix 7: Transportation Corporations and Transportation
Development Districts
Transportation Corporations
A Transportation Corporation (TC) is a not-for-profit entity formed with the purpose of
developing and promoting a major transportation project. The TC acts in promoting the
transportation project and promotes economic development in the state and will not act as the
agent of any private interests. A TC is formed to facilitate the funding, promotion, planning,
design, construction, maintenance and operation of a transportation project. The TC is a
nonmember, non-stock corporation.
A TC is formed by at least three registered Missouri voters, each of whom is at least twenty
one year old, filing an Alternative Funding application with the Missouri Department of
Transportation (MODOT). The application must include a proposed financial plan, preliminary
plans and specification for a project and request that the Missouri Highways and
Transportation Commission (MHTC) authorize the creation of a TC to act within a certain
designated area.
A TC is governed by a board of directors, which can consist of any number of directors but
not less than six, is established through appointment by the MHTC, for a term no longer than
six years. The terms will be staggered in length, so that not more than one-third of the terms
will expire in a given year. No person who owns land adjacent to the project shall serve on the
board. The Commission will appoint one or more advisors to the board, who have no vote but
have the authority to participate in all board meetings and discussions, either open or closed,
and have access to all records of the corporation and its board of directors.
A TC may help fund a project by using any lawful funding method for a project, including
imposing fees for services provided, charging and collecting tolls, issue tax-exempt bonds, and
notes. However they are not authorized to collect taxes. The TC carries with it, a property tax
abatement.
Transportation Development Districts and Transportation Corporations have many
differences. A TDD is formed as a political subdivision, while a TC is a not-for-profit entity with
no stockholders. Both a TDD and a TC can issue bonds but only a TDD can levy taxes in order
to repay the bonds. While a TC is formed through a vote by the MHTC following a public
hearing, a TDD is formed by qualified voter approval after petitioning the circuit court.
Transportation Development Districts
A Transportation Development D istrict (TOO) is a transportation project development
tool, governed by state statute, which is available for use by registered voters, local
communities and property owners throughout Missouri. A TDD is a political subdivision of the
State of Missouri, designed to facilitate specific public transportation improvements through the
collection of taxes and the borrowing of funds. A TDD has geographical jurisdiction and is
created by vote of "qualified voters"; the vote is then approved by the circuit court. The revenue
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area M etropolitan Planning Organization 139
of a TDD (most frequently sales tax) can only be used for public transportation and
transportation-related improvements.
A TDD can be formed by any one four groups: registered voters, a local transportation
authority, a multi-jurisdictional transportation authority, and property owners. If registered
voters seek to form a TDD, at least 50 registered voters from each county the TDD is being
formed in must petition the court. If a local transportation authority or multi-jurisdictional
transportation authorities seek to form the TDD, a governing body of the transportation
authorities involved, within any county in which the proposed project may be located, may file
the petition. If property owners request formation of a TDD all "real property" owners within
the proposed district may file the petition to form the TDD.
A TDD is formed in order to facilitate specific transportation related projects in the state of
Missouri. The approval of a TDD allows for the creation of a political subdivision with the
ability to generate funding for certain projects. The TDD is allowed to generate money by
issuing debt and levying taxes in order to repay the debt incurred by the district. The TDD may
condemn land for a project in the name of the state Missouri, upon prior approval of the
Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission. People choose to form a TDD when they
are looking to levy taxes in order to pay for a transportation project.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Ar ea Metropolitan Planning Organization 140
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix 8: Terms and Definitions
Metropolitan Planning Area (MP A)
A Metropolitan Planning Area is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations, (23 CFR
450.104) as the geographic area in which the metropolitan transportation planning process
must be carried out. This term is further described in 23 CFR 450.308.
The MPA boundary shall, as a minimum, cover the UZA(s) and the contiguous
geographic area(s) likely to become urbanized within the twenty year forecast period
covered by the transportation plan. The boundary may encompass the entire metropolitan
statistical area or consolidated metropolitan statistical area, as defined by the Census
Bureau.
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
A Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is defined in Federal Transportation
Legislation (23 USC 134(b) and 49 USC 5303(c)) as the designated local decision-making
body that is responsible for carrying out the metropolitan transportation planning process.
An MPO must be designated for each urban area with a population of more than 50,000
people (i.e., for each Urbanized Area (UZA) defined in the most recent decennial Census).
Transportation Management Area (TMA)
A Transportation Management Area (TMA) is an area designated by the Secretary of
Transportation, having an urbanized area population of over 200,000, or upon special
request from the Governor and CAMPO designated for the area.
Urban Area
The term Urban Area has been ascribed two slightly different definitions by two different
federal agencies. The Department of Commerce's Census Bureau uses the term Urban Area (UA) to
refer collectively to the Urbanized Areas (UZA) and Urban Clusters (UC) designated by the Census
Bureau for the 2000 decennial Census.
On the other hand, Federal transportation legislation (23 USC 101(a)(36)-(37) and 49 USC
5302(a)(16)-(17)) allows responsible state and local officials in cooperation with each other, and
subject to approval by the Secretary of Transportation, to adjust the Census boundaries outward, as
long as they encompass, at a minimum, the entire Census designated area.
The FHW A uses the term Federal-Aid Urban Area (FA U A) to distinguish the adjusted urban
area boundaries, allowed for transportation purposes, from the Urbanized Areas designated by the
Census Bureau.
Urbanized Area (UZA)
An Urbanized Area is a statistical geographic entity designated by the Census Bureau, consisting
of a central core and adjacent densely settled territory that together contain at least 50,000 people,
generally with an overall population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile. Within the
transportation planning community Urbanized Areas are typically referred to as the UZA.
Urban Cluster (UC)
An Urban Cluster is a new statistical geographic entity designated by the Census Bureau for the
2000 Census, consisting of a central core and adjacent densely settled territory that together contains
between 2,500 and 49,999 people. Typically, the overall population density is at least 1,000 people per
square mile. Urban Clusters are based on Census block and block group density and do not coincide
with official municipal boundaries.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 141
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix 9: Report on the 2030 Metropolitan Transportation
Plan Public Participation Efforts and Comments
In conclusion of the development of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, included in this
report is documentation of the public outreach efforts and comments received from March 19,
2008 to the adoption of the plan on April 16, 2008.
Public Outreach Efforts
March 16, 2008
The MTP Open House display ad and the legal notice regarding the MTP public comment
period was published in the Jefferson City Sunday News Tribune.
March 18, 2008
An MTP Open House display ad was published in the Tuesday and Wednesday (March 18-
19, 2008) Fulton Sun, a newspaper of general circulation for Callaway County.
March 19, 2008
The CAMPO Board of Directors opened the MTP public comment period at this regularly
scheduled meeting.
March 20, 2008
Copies of the Draft 2030 MTP, comment forms, and notices were sent to the Missouri River
Regional Library, County Clerk offices in Cole and Callaway counties, and City Oerk offices in
St. Martins, Holts Summit, City of Jefferson and the Board of Trustees for Lake Mykee. These
same documents were placed on the CAMPO website at www.jeffcitymo.org/campo. In addition
to this, the announcements page, home page, and plans/publications web pages were updated
with information regarding how and where to view the plan, comment on the plan and attend
an open house. A "web page link" regarding the plan's public meeting was placed on Jefferson
City's home page under the 'Current Events' section of the City website.
March 20,2008
Persons on the MPO 'Interested Parties' list were contacted via regular U.S. mail (103
persons) and email (160 persons) regarding the public hearing and plan open houses.
March 26, 2008
Press Releases were provided to the following media:
Local newspapers-News Tribune and Fulton Sun
Local radio stations-KLIK, KWOS, KFAL, KATI, KJLU, KZWZ, KPLA, KJMO, KZJF and
KMFC
Local television stations-KRCG, KMIZ and KOMU
March 31,2008
A second MTP Open House display ad was published in the Monday Jefferson City News
Tribune.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 142
Aprill, 2008
A second MfP Open House display ad was published in Tuesday and Wednesday (April1-
2, 2008) Fulton Sun.
April 2, 2008
The open house #1 was held at the Mid-America Bank in Holts Summit during the
advertised hours.
April 3, 2008
The open house #2 was held in the Council Chambers of City Hall in Jefferson City during
the advertised hours.
April16, 2008
A public hearing was held at the CAMPO Board of Directors meeting to receive comments
and recommendations.
Public Comments Received.
•
•
During the public comment period of the draft MTP, no substantive written or recorded
comments were received. A total of 1 written comment from the public was received from
March 18, 2008 to the adoption of the MTP, complimenting the MPO on proactive public
participation efforts.
The Missouri DOT provided a section to be included in the MTP, on state road maintenance
& operations and provided an estimated financial plan for the planning period covered by
theMTP.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 143
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Exhibit 1: Public Hearing Notice -City Clerk Office
CAMPO Public Comment-Public Hearing
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Public comments are invited on the proposed 2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Public
comments will be accepted until the close of the public hearing on Wednesday, April16, 2008 at
12:15 p.m. in Room #200, John G. Christy Municipal Building, 320 E. McCarty Street, Jefferson
City, MO 65101. At the hearing interested persons will have an opportunity to comment. If no
substantive changes are made this will be the final notice and the proposed plan will be
adopted. The Board of Directors may adopt this plan at their meeting on April 16, 2008 as
currently printed or amended, following the public hearing. Persons wishing to comment on
the proposed plan may appear at the public hearing or provide comments in advance. All
comments received prior to or during the public hearing, including oral recordings, will be
transcribed for inclusion in the adopted plan. Oral comments may be recorded prior to the
public hearing by contacting the Planning Division prior to the public hearing. Copies of the
Draft Plan are available for inspection at the Missouri River Regional Library, County Clerk
offices in Cole and Callaway counties, and City Clerk offices in St. Martins, Holts Summit, Lake
Mykee and City of Jefferson; and on the CAMPO website at www.jeffcityrno.org/campo.
Comments and inquiries should be directed to the CAMPO office located in the Department of
Community Development-Planning Division, Room 120, John G. Christy Municipal Building,
320 East McCarty Street, Jefferson City, Missouri; telephone 573.634.6475; fax 573-634-6457 or
email jcplanning@jeffcitymo.org during regular office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday
~ough Friday, except holidays. CAMPO is administered by the City of Jefferson. Individuals
requesting special accommodations to attend the public hearing should contact the Planning
Division seven (7) working days in advance.
Phyllis Powell, City Clerk, City of Jefferson, Missouri
PT Sunday March 16, 2008
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 144
Exhibit 2: Cover Memo to Jurisdictions for Display in Government Offices
Memorandum
320 East McCarty Streer • jefferson Clry, Missouri 651 01 • P : 573.63-4.6410 • F: 5?3 .634.6457 • \NWW.jetJcttyma.org/cd
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Clerk, City of Jefferson
County Clerk, County of Cole
County Clerk, County of Callaway
City Clerk, City of Holts Summit
City Clerk, City of St. Martins
Village of Lake Mykee
Missouri River Regional Library
Cole County Publi c Works
Anne Stratman, Administrative Assistant
Planning & Transportation Services
March 19, 2008
Draft 2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Please find attached a draft 2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. The CAMPO Board of
Directors initiated the public comment period at their March 19, 2008 meeting.
Please post the attached plan and provide the attached public comment forms until April 16,
2008.
If you have questions or require additional information, please contact me at 573-634-6475.
Enclosures
"building a better community"
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 145
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Exhibit 3: Public Notice Postcard to Interested Parties
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Open House
Holts Summit: Wednesday, Aprlll, 2008; 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Mid America Bank Meeting Room, 580 Karen Drive, Holts Summit
Jefferson City: Thursday, April3, 2008; 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Council Chamber, John G. Christy Municipal Bldg., 320 E McCarty St.
You are invited to view and comment on the draft 2030 Metropolitan
Transportation Plan for the Jefferson City Urbanized Area. The plan is a guide
for the development of transportation programs and projects within the Jefferson
City Planning Area, covering southern Callaway and northern Cole counties
Visit the CAMPO website at wwwjeffcitymo.orglcampo to view the plan online
and find out how to comment
Individuals requiring special accommodation should contact the Jefferson City
Planning Division by phone at 573 .634.6475 or by email at
jcplanning@j effcitymo .org
--------------------~~~~~~~~--~~~~~==~~---146 2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Exhibit 3: News Release for Open House
NEWS RELEASE
Department of Community Development 320 Ea~t McCarty Street Jefferson City, MO 65101
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Open House
Wednesday, April2, 2008 4:00p.m. to 7:00p.m.
Mid America Bank Meeting Room
580 Karen Dr, Holts Summit
Thursday, April 3, 2008 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
John G. Christy Municipal Building, 320 East McCarty Street
Jefferson City, Missouri-Wednesday, March 26, 2008. The public is invited to review and
comment on the draft 2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Jefferson City Urbanized
Area. The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), the official
transportation planning organization for the Jefferson City Urbanized Area, is required to
develop and update a long-range transportation plan for the metropolitan area covering a
planning horizon of at least 20 years that fosters (1) mobility and access for people and goods,
(2) efficient system performance and preservation, and (3) quality of life.
Copies of the Draft Plan are available for inspection at the Missouri River Regional Library,
County Clerk offices in Cole and Callaway counties, and City Clerk offices in St. Martins, Holts
Summit, Lake Mykee and City of Jefferson; and on the CAMPO website at
www.jeffcityrno.org/carnpo.
For more information contact Janice McMillan by phone at 573.634.6475 or by email at
jcplanning@jeffcityrno.org.
The CAMPO Planning Area includes the cities of Jefferson, St. Martins, Holts Summit, and the
town of Lake Mykee, and portions of unincorporated Cole County and Callaway County.
CAMPO is administered by the City of Jefferson. CAMPO Offices are located at the Department
of Community Development-Planning Division, Room 120, John G. Christy Municipal Building,
320 East McCarty Street, Jefferson City, Missouri; phone 573.634.6475. Regular office hours are
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays.
2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 147
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Exhibit 4: Newspaper Advertisement for Open House
2030 Metro Transportation Plan Open House
Holts Summit: Wednesday, April 2, 2008; 4:00p.m. to 7:00p.m.
Mid America Bank Meeting Room, 580 Karen Drive, Holts Summit
Jefferson City: Thursday, April 3, 2008; 4:00p.m. to 7:00p.m.
Council Chamber, John G. Christy Municipal Building, 320 E McCarty Street
You are invited to view and comment on the draft 2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for
the Jefferson City Urbanized Area. Individuals requiring special accommodation should contact
the Jefferson City Planning Division by phone at 573.634.6475 or by email at
jcplanning@jeffcitymo.org. Visit the CAMPO website at www.jeffcitymo.org/campo
Exhibit 5: CAMPO Webpage-Announcements
""""""· ,, r 'LNM..., s.,.. ""4
"'
HHtOIIMAII..-cN,__..T._..t.._...
-~ ................ -..........
._._,T......,.... ......... r * ---City-Ceneetlpe ........... _.._
--12r00 PM atw"C.-:ti.,_ ...............
12130PM P'IIIIk....,.~
12130PM =-.. ~·---------....-......
2030 Metro politan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 148