HomeMy Public PortalAbout2017-04-19 packet
Individuals should contact the ADA Coordinator at (573) 634-6570 to request accommodations or alternative formats
as required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please allow three business days to process the request.
Please call (573) 634-6410 with questions regarding agenda items.
Board of Directors
Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 12:15 p.m.
Meeting Location: Boone/Bancroft Room # 200, John G. Christy Municipal Building
320 E. McCarty, Jefferson City, MO 65101 - Enter through Main Lobby
Tentative Agenda
1. Call to order, roll call, and determination of a quorum
2. Public comment
3. Adoption of the agenda as printed or amended
4. Approval of the minutes from the meeting of February 15, 2017
5. Communications received
6. New Business
A. FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program Development
Action Requested: Discussion and initiate 7 day public comment period.
Staff Report: The Technical Committee recommends approval of FY2018 Unified Planning Work
Program and commencement of the 7 day public comment period to the Board of Directors. Changes
include priorities for 2018, major tasks completed in 2017, updates of tasks to be completed for each of the
five work tasks, and financial data.
B. Project Selection for Surface Transportation Program (STP) Funds
Action Requested: Discussion and approval of usage of remaining STP balance.
Staff Report: Review, discussion, and approval of the project application for the remaining unobligated
STP funds.
C. 2018-2022 Transportation Improvement Program Development
Action Requested: Discussion and initiate 25 day public comment period.
Staff Report: Changes include the introduction of performance measures, a section on environmental
justice, and clarification of the responsibilities of the Technical Committee and the Board of Directors.
Projects and fiscal constraint tables have been updated, please verify these are correct. MoDOT and OATS
projects have been added.
D. Metropolitan Transportation Plan Amendment – TIP Incorporation
Action Requested: Discussion and initiate 25 day public comment period.
Staff Report: As was done in 2015 and 2016, staff would like to incorporate the 2018–2022 Transportation
Improvement Program into the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) as the first 5 years of the regional
financial plan. The first 10 years of the MTP’s regional financial plan is required to be fiscally constrained.
Projects programmed in the TIP are to be derived from the MTP.
E. Proposed Amendment to the 2017-2021 Transportation Improvement Program: Purchase of two paratransit
vehicles
Action Requested: Conclude public comment period and vote on the amendment.
Staff Report: JEFFTRAN is to purchase two E450 Elkhart Coach II, Floor Plan CC Handi-Wheels buses
equipped with Apollo 5 camera systems. They will be using Federal Transit Administration Section 5310
funds to make this purchase. This project was listed in the Program of Projects in the Transportation
Improvement Program.
7. Other Business
A. Status of current work tasks
Capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization
Room 120 320 E. McCarty, Jefferson City, MO 65101 Phone 573.634.6410 Fax 573.634.6457
Agenda/Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Page 2
Board of Directors
Individuals should contact the ADA Coordinator at (573) 634-6570 to request accommodations or alternative formats
as required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please allow three business days to process the request.
Please call (573) 634-6410 with questions regarding agenda items.
8. Next Meeting Date – Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 12:15 p.m. in the Boone/Bancroft Room #200
9. Adjournment
NOTES
Box lunches will be ordered from the Old Brick House Deli at a cost of $6.25 per person. If you wish to order a box
lunch, please contact Anne Stratman by 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 14, 2017. Box lunches include a sandwich
and chips. Mayonnaise and mustard packets are included. Sandwich options: ham on French baguette; Italian hero
on French baguette; smoked turkey & bacon on whole grain wheat. Deluxe house salad: $6.25; Cobb Salad: $6.25
MINUTES
Board of Directors
CAPITAL AREA M ETROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
February 15, 2017
12:15 p.m.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Roger Fischer, Callaway County
Larry Benz, P.E., Cole County
Jeff Hoelscher, Chairman, Cole County
Britt Smith, Designee for Larry Henry, Vice Chairman, Jefferson City
David Bange, Designee for Ken Hussey, Jefferson City
Mark Mehmert, Jefferson City
Alex Rotenberry, Designee for Sonny Sanders, Jefferson City
Mark Schreiber, Jefferson City
Erin Wiseman, Jefferson City
Doug Reece, St. Martins, Small Cities Representative
Steve Engelbrecht, Designee for David Silvester, MoDOT
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Matt Morasch, Jefferson City
Rick Hess, Holts Summit
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT (Non-Voting)
Enos Han, FHWA
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS ABSENT (Non-Voting)
Michael Henderson, MoDOT
CAMPO STAFF PRESENT (Non-Voting)
Katrina Williams, Transportation Planner
Anne Stratman, Administrative Assistant
GUESTS PRESENT
Kelly Wilson, MoDOT
1. Call to order, roll call, and determination of a quorum.
Chairman Hoelscher called the meeting to order at 12:18 p.m. and asked Ms. Stratman to call
roll. A quorum was present with 11 of 13 members or their designee present.
2. Public Comment
No comments were received.
3. Adoption of the agenda as printed or amended
Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Benz seconded to adopt the agenda as printed. The motion passed
unanimously.
4. Approval of the minutes from the meeting of December 14, 2016
Mr. Benz moved and Mr. Smith seconded to approve the minutes from the Regular Meeting of
December 14, 2016 as printed. The motion passed unanimously.
5. Communications received.
There were no communications received.
Minutes/Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Board of Directors
February 15, 2017 Page 2
6. New Business
A. Proposed Amendment to the 2017-2021 Transportation Improvement Program: Missouri
Boulevard Sidewalks
Mr. Rotenberry explained that the City of Jefferson was recently awarded a Transportation
Alternatives Program Grant for the construction of sidewalks along the north side of Missouri
Boulevard from Beck Street to Waverly Street. He stated that the project will also include
improvements to four bus stop locations including bus shelters and bike racks. Mr. Rotenberry
explained that a final element is the installation of a pedestrian signal and crosswalk at Southwest
Boulevard. He stated that the total project cost is approximately $348,205.
Mr. Bange explained that the sidewalks will now be continuous on both sides of Missouri
Boulevard.
Mr. Mehmert commented that Missouri Boulevard is the largest transit route. He stated that the
proposed sidewalks will be a benefit for transit patrons.
Chairman Hoelscher opened the public hearing at 12:25 p.m. With no comments received, Mr.
Benz moved and Ms. Wiseman seconded to close the public hearing at 12:26 p.m. The motion
passed unanimously.
Mr. Benz moved and Mr. Reece seconded to approve the proposed amendment to the 2017-
2021 Transportation Improvement Program for sidewalks on the north side of Missouri Boulevard.
The motion passed unanimously.
B. Draft 2017 Title VI Program Update
Ms. Williams explained that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding recipients are
required to update their Title VI Program once every three years. She stated that the current plan
expires in February 2017.
Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Benz seconded to adopt the 2017 Title VIS Program by Resolution
RS2017-03. The motion passed unanimously.
7. Other Business
A. Status of current work tasks. Mr. Sanders gave an overview of the following current work
tasks:
• Visioning and Travel Demand Model update
• Work continues on the update of the current land use to support the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan development and travel demand modeling
• JEFFTRAN System-Wide Assessment – Lochmueller Group was selected as Consultant
• CAMPO Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan update – community outreach continues.
B. Surface Transportation Program (STP) small urban sub-allocation funds.
Mr. Rotenberry explained that the remaining unobligated STP funds balance is in the amount of
$93,658.26. He stated that the Technical Committee has begun the process of recommending to the
Board a strategy for using the remaining STP funds. Mr. Rotenberry explained that once these funds
are obligated no additional funds will be allocated.
8. Next Meeting Date – Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 12:15 p.m. in the Boone/Bancroft Room
#200
9. Adjournment
Mr. Benz moved and Mr. Smith seconded to adjourn the meeting at 12:32 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Anne Stratman, Administrative Assistant
Individuals should contact the ADA Coordinator at (573) 634-6570
to request accommodations or alternative formats as required under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Please allow three business days to process the request.
Capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization
Room 120, 320 E. McCarty St., Jefferson City, MO 65101 Phone: 573.634.6410 Fax: 573.634.6457
Memorandum
TO: CAMPO Board of Directors
FROM: Alex Rotenberry, Transportation Planner
DATE: April 14, 2017
SUBJECT: FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program
The FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) is CAMPO’s annual statement of work
and budget identifying the planning priorities and activities to be carried out for the year. The
UPWP contains many ongoing activities required to perform the essential functions of CAMPO,
as well as periodic and one-time activities.
Changes include priorities for 2018, major tasks completed in 2017, updates of tasks to be
completed, and updated financial data. The Visioning and Travel Demand Model update,
identified in the FY2017 UPWP, is due to commence shortly and work will continue into
FY2018. The total cost for these activities is not increasing over the two year period, funds are
being reapportioned into FY2018 to cover the expense.
The Technical Committee has overseen and reviewed the Draft FY2018 UPWP, and is
recommending the Board of Directors initiate the seven day public comment period.
If you have questions or require additional information, please contact Alex Rotenberry at 573-
634-6525 or by email at arotenberry@jeffcitymo.org.
Agenda Item 6A
Unified Planning Work Program
FY 2018
November 1, 2017 to October 31, 2018
Adopted
XXXXXXXXXXX
Highlights indicate information to be changed
Underlines indicate changes made
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.
Individuals should contact the ADA Coordinator at (573) 634-6570 to request accommodations or alternative formats as
required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please allow three business days to process the request.
CAMPO Title VI Nondiscrimination Policy
The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization is committed to the policy that no person shall be excluded
from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or
activity on the grounds of race, color, sex, age, disability or national origin, in accordance with Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (P.L. 100.259).
Administration of the Capital Area MPO is provided by the City of Jefferson
Department of Planning and Protective Services
Room 120 John G. Christy Municipal Building
320 East McCarty St., Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
Phone: (573) 634-6410 Fax: (573) 634-6457
http://www.jeffersoncitymo.gov/campo
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1
Challenges and Priorities .............................................................................................................................. 1
Transportation Planning Factors ................................................................................................................... 2
Financial Support for CAMPO ..................................................................................................................... 2
Major Tasks Completed in FY 2017 ............................................................................................................. 3
Tasks Carried Over from FY 2017 ............................................................................................................... 3
Public Participation ....................................................................................................................................... 3
UPWP Development ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Work Element 1 - Program Support & Administration ................................................................................ 4
Work Element 2 - General Development and Comprehensive Planning Coordination ................................ 5
Work Element 3 - Long Range Transportation Planning .............................................................................. 6
Work Element 4 - Short Range Transportation Planning & Programming .................................................. 7
Work Element 5 - Public Transportation Planning ....................................................................................... 8
Appendix A – Financial Summary................................................................................................................ 9
Section 1 – Anticipated Expenditures ....................................................................................................... 9
Section 2 – Anticipated Revenue ............................................................................................................ 10
Appendix B – MPO Boundary Map ........................................................................................................... 11
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program 1
Introduction
The Fiscal Year 2018 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) has been prepared to define the tasks and
anticipate funding requirements as part for the work program for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization (CAMPO). This document serves to define activities for all public officials and agencies
that contribute resources to the transportation planning process. The Unified Planning Work Program
(UPWP) covers one fiscal year, a period from November 1 to October 31 of each year, and outlines the
program of transportation planning activities to be funded through the Consolidated Planning Grant and
local funds. It also serves as a management tool for scheduling, budgeting, and monitoring the planning
activities of the participating agencies and governments and serves as the basis for funding agreements
with the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT).
CAMPO is the official Federal and State recognized Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) of the
Jefferson City urbanized area and the surrounding planning area. The CAMPO planning area includes a
southern portion of Callaway County, northeastern portion of Cole County, cities of Holts Summit,
Jefferson City, Lake Mykee, St. Martins, Taos, and Wardsville. CAMPO is responsible for transportation
planning and transportation projects in a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive manner. CAMPO
Staff, unless otherwise identified, performs all work.
CAMPO is comprised of a Board of Directors composed of elected and appointed officials from local
jurisdictions, selected state agencies, and Federal transportation representatives serving as ex-officio
members; and a Technical Committee that consists of representatives from member agencies’
professional staffs and acts in an advisory capacity. A memorandum of understanding between members
identifies the City of Jefferson as the administrator of CAMPO, and as such, provides staffing for
CAMPO. For FY 2018, the City of Jefferson will provide staff consisting of three full time transportation
planners. The City also provides part time support from the Director of Planning and Protective Services
and an Administrative Assistant.
Challenges and Priorities
The biggest challenge facing state and local transportation agencies responsible for the surface
transportation system and public transit systems is finding sufficient and reliable sources of funding
operations, maintaining existing systems, and implementing projects of new capacity. More fuel efficient
cars and fewer vehicle miles travelled, combined with the federal fuel tax not being raised since 1997, has
caused the Federal Highway Trust Fund to become insolvent and require support from general revenue
fund infusions to cover shortfalls. Similar challenges are occurring at the state level. Missouri has the
46th lowest state gas tax, at $0.173 per gallon1 in the nation and was last raised in 1996. According to the
Missouri Public Transit Association, Missouri ranks 44 of 50 in public transportation funding, with 9
cents per capita being spent to fund public transportation.
Another challenge in the CAMPO region is the ability to provide transportation alternatives to private
vehicle ownership. Many low income or disabled citizens aren’t able to drive private vehicles and rely on
public transportation, walking, or biking as their primary mode of transportation.
1 American Petroleum Institute, State Motor Fuel Taxes, November, 2016.
http://cdn.api.org/pdf/state-taxes/missouri.pdf
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program 2
Staff priorities and areas of emphasis for FY 2018 include:
• Increase and improve transit planning support to local transit providers.
• Begin implementation of FAST Act performance measures and targets.
• Continue Metropolitan Transportation Plan update activities including continuing public
participation – visioning, goals, and objectives; incorporation of performance measures; and
travel demand model update activities.
Transportation Planning Factors
The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), passed into law in 2015, identifies the
following planning factors required for consideration in any MPO planning activities, including in the
development of the UPWP, Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP):
(A) support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global
competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency;
(B) increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users;
(C) increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users;
(D) increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight;
(E) 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;
(F) enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between
modes, for people and freight;
(G) promote efficient system management and operation;
(H) emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system;
(I) improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or mitigate
stormwater impacts of surface transportation; and
(J) enhance travel and tourism.
Financial Support for CAMPO
Designation as an MPO allows CAMPO to be the recipient of metropolitan planning funds from the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) of the US
Department of Transportation (DOT) through the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT).
Financial support to CAMPO consists of 80% federal funding through the Consolidated Planning Grant
(CPG) (consisting of FHWA Planning (PL) funds in the amount of $171,447 and FTA 5303 funds in the
amount of $35,116), federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds in the amount of $96,000, and
20% in local funding provided by the City of Jefferson and Cole County. Total federal funding is
302,563 and total local funding is $75,641. The CAMPO total budget for FY2018 is $378,204. This
budget includes $120,000 appropriated from the FY2017 budget due to delays initiating professional
services contracts.
Appendix A provides more details financial details.
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program 3
Major Tasks Completed in FY 2017
There were a number of projects completed by staff, consultants, or both during FY 2017.
• The JEFFTRAN system-wide assessment was completed by a consultant with assistance from
JEFFTRAN, City of Jefferson Public Works, and CAMPO staff.
• While the Capital Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan was completed in 2016, CAMPO staff worked
in 2017 with regional jurisdictions to customize implementation strategies and adopt the plan.
• The Title VI Program was updated and adopted.
• A periodic review of the Public Participation Plan was completed.
• CAMPO collaborated with the Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission to update the
Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan.
Tasks Carried Over from FY 2017
The Long Range Transportation Goals and Vision and the Travel Demand Model / List of Recommended
Improvements have been combined into one professional services contract which began mid-2017 and
may be reappropriated into 2018.
Developing performance measures and targets, from Work Element 3 - Long Range Transportation
Planning, is anticipated to commence in FY2018 due to the final statewide and metropolitan planning
final rules not being published until May 2016. MoDOT has 18 months from the publishing of the
FHWA finals rules to have their measures in place and CAMPO has an additionial 6 months from then.
Public Participation
Federal law requires CAMPO to develop a public involvement program to involve the community early
and continuously in the transportation planning process. A proactive public program which provides
information, timely public notice, and public access to key decisions is included in the Public
Participation Plan. During the development of the 2018 UPWP, the UPWP is scheduled to be discussed
at monthly Board of Directors and Technical Committee meetings from February to June, and concludes
with a public comment period. Draft copies of the UPWP as part of the meeting agendas and meeting
minutes regarding UPWP development are available to view on the CAMPO website.
UPWP Development
This UPWP was developed following the guidelines found Chapter II Metropolitan Transportation
Planning, Appendix A, and Appendix B of FTA C 8100.1C, 9/1/2008. CAMPO staff reviewed previous
years’ time required for activities to determine time allocations for this UPWP. CAMPO is administered
by the City of Jefferson Planning and Protective Services Department. Because of this fact, CAMPO
accommodates the city’s budgeting process/schedule and execution of the CPG and must begin the
development of the UPWP several months prior to the fiscal year for which the UPWP covers and present
a draft to the Board of Directors a few months prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. This early start
presents difficulties in assuming future tasks which may surface after adoption of the UPWP and in
documenting activities occurring in the previous year. The UPWP can be modified two ways; through a
modification in the ‘scope of work’ which allows for changes in tasks to be performed, or through an
amendment process, which also allows for a change in tasks, but with changes in the total amount of
reimbursement agreed upon between the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission and
CAMPO.
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program 4
Work Element 1 - Program Support & Administration
Purpose
The Program Support & Administration task covers the activities necessary to carry out the daily
activities of CAMPO in support of the transportation planning process. These include meeting
preparation, UPWP development, public outreach activities, reporting, and professional development
activities.
Accomplishments during Previous Work Program Period
Board of Directors and Technical Committee monthly meetings were held, with a few cancellations in FY
2017. The UPWP, quarterly progress reports, Annual Listing of Obligated Projects, DBE Commitments
Semi-Annual reports. and other required reporting documents were produced in a timely manner. Staff
participated in various professional development activities, including MoDOT sponsored events,
webinars, and other training opportunities. Additionally, the Title VI program was updated in accordance
with FTA rules. Staff evaluated the effectiveness of the public participation process.
Objectives / Activities
• Manage CAMPO activities in order to comply with Federal and State administrative
requirements and guidance. Support the operations of the Board of Directors and Technical
Committee, communicate and coordinate with Federal and State agencies on MPO activities,
and support day to day operations.
• Develop the annual budget and Unified Planning Work Program along with the preparation
and submittal of UPWP quarterly progress reports, billings, and invoices. Modify UPWP as
needed and approval from the necessary authority.
• Conduct public participation such as public meetings, hearings and workshops, as needed and
in accordance with the Public Participation Plan. Provide access to CAMPO activities
through maintenance and updating of the CAMPO website.
• Fulfill reporting requirements related to Title VI, Disadvantage Business Enterprise
requirements, project obligation, and other topics as required.
• Professional Development activities, including attendance at relevant training sessions,
educational seminars, meetings, and conferences.
Products for FY 2018
• Board of Directors and Technical Committee meetings.
• Meeting agendas, minutes, presentations, reports, and other support material.
• FY 2019 UPWP.
• End of year report, quarterly progress reports, billings, and invoices.
• Annual List of Obligated Projects from the previous program year.
• DBE Commitments Semi -Annual reports.
• Participation in professional development activities.
Responsible Parties
• CAMPO staff.
Funding Sources
• Local Match Funds $11,258 (20%), Federal CPG Funds $45,031 (80%).
Planning Factors Addressed
• A - J.
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program 5
Work Element 2 - General Development and Comprehensive Planning
Coordination
Purpose
Not all of the CAMPO member organizations have planning staff or current comprehensive planning
documents in place. In order to facilitate transportation planning by incorporating the vision and goals for
the member organizations and the public, CAMPO will provide assistance in the crafting of the
transportation component of local comprehensive planning documents, as practical. This task may
include the development and maintenance of related spatial and non-spatial data collection and analysis;
examples include land use, demographic data, housing, human services, environmental/natural resources,
recreation/open space, and public facilities.
Accomplishments during Previous Work Program Period
Provided technical assistance in various grant application processes for transportation related projects
with in the CAMPO area. CAMPO staff also provided pro bono publico services such as: participation in
the development of local comprehensive plans of member organizations, provided GIS analysis/data
(elevations, demographic, sidewalk, bicycle facilities, street ROW, etc.) to support development, and
grant application activities. In preparation of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, staff has created
community profiles for the jurisdictions in the CAMPO region. Staff has updated the current land use
GIS database for Cole and Callaway Counties.
Objectives / Activities
• Provide technical planning assistance to CAMPO members in the development of the
transportation component of comprehensive and other planning documents, including GIS
support and databases.
• Assist jurisdictions in the acquisition and use of GIS and other data for use in plans,
transportation grant applications, measuring performance, and forecasting provided by the US
Census, MoDOT and others.
Products for FY 2018
• Various inputs for comprehensive planning documents - ongoing for multiple years.
• Various GIS databases.
• Continue providing technical assistance for the transportation component of local planning
documents.
Responsible Parties
• CAMPO staff supports local jurisdictions in the development of their plans, but the local
jurisdictions have ultimate responsibility for the development and publishing of their
planning documents.
Funding Sources
• Local Match Funds $8,782 (20%), Federal STP Funds $35,127 (80%)
Planning Factors Addressed
• A-G, I-J.
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program 6
Work Element 3 - Long Range Transportation Planning
Purpose
This work provides for long range transportation planning activities, studies, and plans supporting the
transportation planning process out to a minimum of 20 years, for the CAMPO metropolitan planning
area, and may include both system level planning activities and project level activities.
Accomplishments during Previous Work Program Period
Staff conducted public participation activities involving key stakeholder, business community, advocacy
groups, environmental organizations, and the public in long range transportation planning activities to
achieve the community's long-term transportation goals and vision for the Metropolitan Transportation
Plan. Staff commenced the travel demand model project. Staff and a consultant began visioning and
updating the travel demand model and list of recommended improvements. Staff, working with MoDOT,
began setting federal performance measures for the TIP and MTP.
Objectives / Activities
• Keep the MTP current by maintaining and amending components of the plan such as major
land use changes, major road changes, process improvements, funding, or new regulations
and legislation; and any projects to be included into the TIP that are not already listed in the
MTP.
• Involve key stakeholders, business community and advocacy groups, environmental
organizations, and the public in long range transportation planning activities to achieve the
long-term transportation goals and vision of the MTP.
• Report MPO performance targets in relation to performance measures for the MTP and TIP.
• Continue the update process of visioning, as well as the Travel Demand Model and
subsequent transportation study to identify areas with a low level of service and provide
recommended improvements to these areas.
Products for FY 2018
• Vision, goals and perhaps strategies derived from a regional stakeholder and public
involvement exercise.
• Amendments to the MTP as necessary.
• Report MTP and TIP performance measures and targets.
• Complete work on the visioning and Travel Demand Model and List of Recommended
improvements.
Responsible Parties
• CAMPO staff.
• Visioning/goals and Travel Demand Model/Study - Consultant
Funding Sources
• Local Match Funds $13,259 (20%), Federal CPG Funds $53,037 (80%) (staff)
• Local Match Funds$24,000 (20%), Federal STP Funds $96,000 (80%) (consultant)
Planning Factors Addressed
• A - J.
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program 7
Work Element 4 - Short Range Transportation Planning & Programming
Purpose
To identify and address immediate or short term transportation needs which may include non-motorized
planning activities, freight planning, bicycle/pedestrian planning transportation, safety planning,
operations and management planning, transportation security planning, or wayfinding activities.
Accomplishments during Previous Work Program Period
Participated in activities, meetings and conferences including Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety –
Central Region and STIP project review/discussions. Completed Program Year 2018 – 2022
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
Objectives / Activities
• Provide support for short range transportation planning by CAMPO and its members.
• Participate in regional activities regarding freight, safety, security, bicycle/pedestrian, non-
motorized, and other related planning activities.
• Maintain the current TIP through the Amendment and Administrative Modifications process
that meets statutory requirements, maintain fiscal constrain, and support changing sponsor
priorities and project scope.
• Develop the new Program Year 2019 – 2023 TIP.
Products for FY 2018
• TIP amendments and administrative modifications as necessary.
• Program Year 2019 – 2023 TIP.
Responsible Parties
• CAMPO staff.
Funding Sources
• Local Match Funds $7,750 (20%), Federal CPG Funds $31,000 (80%) (CAMPO Staff).
Planning Factors Addressed
• A - J.
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program 8
Work Element 5 - Public Transportation Planning
Purpose
To assist public transportation and transit providers in fulfilling State, Local, and Federal requirements for
coordination and cooperative transportation planning through assistance with plan development, technical
assistance, mapping, data, and GIS functions.
Accomplishments during Previous Work Program Period
Staff provided assistance with the JEFFTRAN Title VI plan and updated the JEFFTRAN Route and
Schedule Guide. Staff assisted the consultant led system-wide assessment of JEFFTRAN. Staff updated
the Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan. Staff participated in the
JEFFTRAN Automatic Vehicle Location, Automatic Voice Annunciation, and Automatic Passenger
Counting System vendor selection process. Staff supported JEFFTRAN staff during their triennual
review.
Objectives / Activities
• Continue to assist JEFFTRAN with the maintaining the Route and Schedule Guide,
individual route maps and other tools to serve JEFFTRAN patrons.
• Provide JEFFTRAN mapping, demographic, GIS, planning and other technical assistance in
support of reporting requirements and evaluating possible changes in types of transit services
offered.
• Participate in Mid-Missouri Transportation Coordination Council and mobility management
activities.
Products for FY 2017
• Update Route and Schedule Guide.
• Maps, demographics, and GIS analytics.
• Improved service to patrons of JEFFTRAN.
Responsible Parties
• CAMPO staff.
Funding Sources
• Local Match Funds $10,592 (20%), Federal CPG Funds $42,368 (80%).
Planning Factors Addressed
• B - J.
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program 9
Appendix A – Financial Summary
Section 1 – Anticipated Expenditures
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program 10
Section 2 – Anticipated Revenue
Work Element Funding Summary - Consolidated Planning Grant and Local Funds
2018 Local Match by Jurisdiction
CAMPO Staff
Sonny Sanders, Senior Transportation Planner (1.0 FTE)
Katrina Williams, Transportation Planner (1.0 FTE)
Alex Rotenberry, Transportation Planner (1.0 FTE)
1 - Program Support & Administration 80%20%$45,031 $0 $11,258 $56,289 14.9%
2 - General Development and Comprehensive Planning 80%20%$35,127 $0 $8,782 $43,909 11.6%
3 - Long Range Transportation Planning
CAMPO Staff 80%20%$53,037 $0 $13,259 $66,296 17.5%
Contractual Professional Service 80%20%$0 $96,000 $24,000 $120,000 31.7%
4 - Short Range Transportation Planning & Programming 80%20%$31,000 $0 $7,750 $38,750 10.2%
5 - Public Transportation Planning 80%20%$42,368 $0 $10,592 $52,960 14.0%
Total $206,563 $96,000 $75,641 $378,204 100%
*Numbers have been rounded to the nearest whole number.
Percent of
Work
Program
Work Element Federal Local TotalFederal
CPG Funds
Local
MatchFederal
STP Funds
Total Local
Match
City of Jefferson Share 75.0%$38,731 75.0%$18,000 $56,731
Cole County Share 25.0%$12,910 25.0%$6,000 $18,910
2016 UPWP Local Match $51,641 $24,000 $75,641
Planning Funds
Local Match
Surface Transportation Funds
Local Match
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program 11
Appendix B – MPO Boundary Map
Individuals should contact the ADA Coordinator at (573) 634-6570
to request accommodations or alternative formats as required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please
allow three business days to process the request.
Capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization
Room 120, 320 E. McCarty St., Jefferson City, MO 65101 Phone: 573.634.6410 Fax: 573.634.6457
Memorandum
TO: CAMPO Board of Directors
FROM: Katrina Williams, Transportation Planner
DATE: April 14, 2017
SUBJECT: Surface Transportation Program Balance
At the March 2, 2017 Technical Committee meeting, staff discussed the remaining Surface
Transportation Program (STP) fund balance:
Current Unobligated Available Balance $93,658.26
The Technical Committee directed staff to send out a call for projects to all CAMPO jurisdictions.
The City of Jefferson submitted a project application for a traffic study at Clark Avenue and
Highway 50/63 and Dunkin Street. Attached is the project application, including the scoring by
staff.
The Technical Committee recommends that the Board of Directors approve the project
application with funding not to exceed $93,658.26.
If you have questions or require additional information, I can be reached at 573-634-6536 or by email
at kawilliams@jeffcitymo.org.
Agenda Item 6B
Capital Area MPO Project Application 1
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Project Application
Instructions
Complete the following information for projects to be selected for inclusion in the Transportation Improvement Program and
return to the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization offices, fax to 573.634.6457 or email to ssanders@jeffcitymo.org
Use a separate form for each project.
1. CAMPO staff shall rate each project on each of the criteria listed and be reviewed by the Technical Committee,
prior to going to the Board of Directors.
2. Projects that contain program criteria shall use that program's criteria - Example: Transportation Alternatives
Projects and Safe Routes to School projects will use the program's criteria
Minimum Project Requirements
3. Local jurisdictions must provide the required local match.
4. Design and engineering costs must be borne by the sponsoring jurisdiction.
5. Projects must be an eligible project under the funding program identified in the cost section.
6. Public participation. Describe the public participation activities that have taken place in development of the
project.
7. Complete Part 1 - General Project Information
8. Complete Part 2 - Categorical Information
Project Categories
9. Select the project categories that apply to the project. Check all that apply.
_x_ Roads and Intersections
___ Bridges
___ Non-Motorized Transportation
___ Regional Plans and Studies
___ Transit
_x_ Other (Traffic Study and Conceptual Layout)
10. Go to Part 2 and complete the Categorical Information sheet. Provide information and data for the appropriate
categories. Attach extra pages if necessary:
Capital Area MPO Project Application 2
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Project Application
Part 1 General Project Information
1. Sponsor Contact Information (governmental body sponsoring the proposed project)
Contact Person: David Bange Title: City Engineer
Mailing/Street Address 320 E. McCarty Street
City: Jefferson City State Missouri
County: Cole Zip Code 65101
Organization Name: City of Jefferson Fax: (573) 634-6552
Telephone: (573) 634-6433 E-mail dbange@jeffcitymo.org
2. Sponsor’s Signature and Title
Signature indicates that the sponsoring municipality/agency agrees with the project scope and associated cost estimates, and
attests that the information presented within the proposal is true and accurate, to the best of its knowledge. The sponsor also
certifies that the governing body has approved the project, and sources of the matching funds have been identified and are
committed to the project.
Print Your Name Here: David Bange Sign Here:
Title: City Engineer Date this form was completed: March 7,2017 _______
Project information
3. Type of Project: Check all that apply
___ Transit _x__ Plans/Studies
___ Roadway – Expansion _x__ Intersection Improvements
___ Roadway – Preservation ___ ITS
_x__ Bicycle/Pedestrian ___ Bridge Replacement/Rehab
___ Transportation Enhancements ___ Railway
___ Airport/Aviation Improvements ___ Other
4. Starting and Ending Points: (if this is a roadway project) –
From – __E. Atchison Street_________________________________________________
To - ___E. McCarty Street_______________________________________________
5. Project description/ justification: A traffic study and conceptual layout to address congestion and safety issues at the
Intersection of Clark Avenue with
Highway 50/63 and Dunklin Street
6. Expected starting date: _August 2017___________ Expected completion date: __March 2018____
Project Name: Clark Avenue and Highway 50/63 Interchange
Capital Area MPO Project Application 3
7. Is this a multiple year project? No _x__ Yes ____ (one fiscal year two different calendar years)
8. Source of operating/maintenance funds for 10 years after completion: This is a traffic study and conceptual layout
so there will be no need for maintenance funds.
9. Attach a project location map. Map attached? No ____ Yes _x___
10. If any agency other than the sponsoring agency is responsible for carrying out any phase of the project, please
indicate responsible agency and phase.
Agency _________________________________________________ Phase ___________________________
Agency _________________________________________________ Phase ___________________________
11. Total Overall Project Cost $ 112,000_____________
12. Sponsoring agency project number: (If one is assigned)
Phase Funding
agency Program FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Local Traffic
Study
City of
Jefferson CIP $19,000
$ $ $ $
State STP $93,000 $ $ $ $
Federal $ $ $ $ $
Other $ $ $ $ $
Total $ $ $ $ $
Capital Area MPO Project Application 4
Project Categories for Part 2
CAMPO staff shall rate each project on each of the criteria listed and be reviewed by the Technical Committee, prior to
going to the Board of Directors.
Roadway and Intersection Project Description and Scoring Criteria
1. Describe the existing condition; including road cross section, crash history (the last three years) and reasons the
project is being brought forward.
Clark Avenue is a two lane section with left turn pockets at the intersections. The intersection of the ramp terminals
from Highway 50/63 and both Elm Street and Miller Street which are immediately adjacent to the ramps are controlled
by stop signs and Clark Avenue does not have any control. Given the traffic volume during the peak hours the close
spacing of the ramps and side streets there is considerable congestion and safety concerns. A review of the accident
data in the area reveals that from 2012 through 2014 (the last three years of data that we have available) there have
been 7 accidents at the Dunklin intersection, 3 at Elm Street, 2 at the southern side ramps, 2 at the northern ramps, 5 at
the Miller Street intersection and 8 at the intersection of Clark with McCarty. This intersection was studied as part of
the Rex Whitton Expressway EIS study and recommendations for improvements were made including the construction
of roundabouts that would incorporate the ramp terminals and the adjacent side streets.
2. Does the project provide benefits to neighborhoods with low income and minority populations?
Yes __x__ No ____ Explain. This project location is in the vicinity of two elementary schools and is the
walking path for children living on the southern side of the highway.
3. Does the project improve the safety and/or the security of the transportation system?
Yes _x___ No ____ Explain. The traffic study and conceptual design will look to address the issues of
congestion and safety.
4. Describe the proposed design improvement; including project limits, typical road cross section, multimodal
components, and other improvements. Attach traffic study and conceptual project layout or preliminary design.
As indicated above what is being sought is funding for a specific traffic study and a contextually specific
conceptual design. The limits are assumed to be E. Atchison Street to the South and E. McCarty Street to the
North. It is assumed that the study will indicated that improvements be made to the intersections of Dunklin, Elm,
the ramp terminals and Miller Street. These improvements may or may not correspond to the recommendations
from the Whitton Expressway EIS study which recommended roundabouts that both ends of the overpass that
would accommodate the ramp terminals as well as Miller and Elm Streets.
5. Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT vehicles/day):
Clark – 10,800
Dunklin – 3100
Elm – 4193
Miller – 1141
Eastbound off ramp – 3012
Eastbound on ramp – 1626
Westbound off ramp – 1559
Westbound on ramp - 3157
6. The roadway’s Federal Functional Classification: Urban Minor Arterial
7. Roadway speed limit: 30
8. Is the project identified in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan?
Capital Area MPO Project Application 5
Yes __x__ No ____ What is its name? Clark and Highway 50
9. Explain how the project meets the goals and objectives of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP).
(B) increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users
We are aware of the need for this project to accommodate non-motorized users the two most notable
groups are children looking to access the elementary schools on the northern side of the highway and
Lincoln University Students accessing the retail establishments at the Dunkin Street Intersection. This area
is also part of what is known as the Jefferson City Bike Loop and the project will nook to address these
needs.
(D) increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight
The goal of the study will be to address the congestion and safety concerns along this corridor. A reduction
in congestion will lead to increased accessibility. Accommodations such as improved sidewalks and
crosswalks will create a better environment for pedestrians and other non-motorized users.
(E) Protect and enhance environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote
consistency between transportation improvements…
Congestion reduction relates directly to fuel savings which has both environmental and energy
conservation benefits. Providing improved non-motorized enhancements provides for mode choice and
provides the opportunity for improved quality of life.
(H) emphasize the preservation of the existing system
The project will look to maintain the access that currently exists to ensure that the existing street network
can continue to play its role in the community.
10. Describe any needs for additional land acquisition, right of way or easements, particularly noting all total property
takings or relocations. List the number of parcels affected.
It is unknown what land acquisition may be necessary, although it is anticipated that there will be some right of
way needs.
11. Are there any known environmental concerns?
Yes ____ No __x__ Explain. This area was studied as part of the Expressway EIS.
12. Is this a multi jurisdictional project?
Yes __x__ No ____ Explain. This project is located on both MoDOT and City Right of Way
13. Please provide any other information that supports or affects the project.
This interchange has been determined to serve as a secondary connection to the MSP area. While
development has not yet taken off the City currently has retained a consultant who is working to develop
plans for the extension of a new street into the MSP site and a bill is being considered by the legislature to
transfer 39 acres of property at MSP to the City which would then lead to the potential of private
development in the area. This interchange also received much attention and public debate in conjunction with
the request by Lincoln University to close Chestnut Street to allow for a more pedestrian orientated campus.
In the view of the public this closure would direct more traffic to Clark Avenue exacerbating was already
perceived as unsafe area during peak traffic times.
14. Please describe how the project takes into account the requirements and recommendations of the CAMPO Livable
Streets Policy. (The policy can be found on the CAMPO website)
In the conceptual layout phase of the this project alternative mode of travel particularly pedestrian and bicycle
will be considered and included in the conceptual design. As stated earlier the City is aware to this area being
used as a connection across the highway for both of these groups and would look to provide accommodations
for them.
Individuals should contact the ADA Coordinator at (573) 634-6570
to request accommodations or alternative formats as required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please
allow three business days to process the request.
Capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization
Room 120, 320 E. McCarty St., Jefferson City, MO 65101 Phone: 573.634.6410 Fax: 573.634.6457
Memorandum
TO: CAMPO Board of Directors
FROM: Alex Rotenberry, Transportation Planner
DATE: April 14, 2017
SUBJECT: 2018-2022 Transportation Improvement Program
The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a 5-year financial program of transportation
projects to be implemented within the Metropolitan Planning Area, funded by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), or are deemed regionally
significant as defined in the TIP. The TIP is updated annually by CAMPO in cooperation with the
Missouri Department of Transportation, local jurisdictions, and public transportation operators.
Major changes that occurred during the development of the 2018 -2022 TIP:
• A new section on environmental justice. Page 4
• A new section on federal performance measures. Page 4-5
• Update of various Tables. Pages 6,7,9
• List of Fiscally Constrained Projects. Page 11–17
• Program of projects – OATS & JEFFTRAN. Page 18-19
• Clarification on roles of the Technical Committee and the Board of Directors. Page 22
• A new definition of project sponsor. Page 28
Items to be addressed or reviewed:
• Fiscally Constrained Projects. Please review your projects.
The Technical Committee has reviewed the Draft 2018-2022 Transportation Improvement Program
and is recommending the Board of Directors commence a 25 public comment period at their April
19, 2016 meeting, with the ability to add projects and components to the multi-modal section as staff
deems appropriate.
If you have questions or require additional information, I can be reached at 573-634-6525 or by email
at arotenberry@jeffcitymo.org.
Agenda Item 6C
Transportation Improvement Program
Program Years 2018 - 2022
July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2022
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 High way Administration, Federal Transit Administration, or the Missouri Department of
Transportation.
Individuals should contact the ADA Coordinator at (573) 634-6570 to request accommodations or alternative formats as required under the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Please allow three business days to process the request.
CAMPO Title VI Nondiscrimination Policy
The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization is committed to the policy that no person shall be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity on the
grounds of race, color, sex, age, disability or national origin, in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the
Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (P.L. 100.259).
Administration of the Capital Area MPO is provided by the City of Jefferson
Department of Planning and Protective Services
Room 120 John G. Christy Municipal Building
320 East McCarty St., Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
Phone: (573) 634-6410 Fax: (573) 634-6457
http://www.jeffersoncitymo.gov/campo
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1
Public Participation ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Project Selection ........................................................................................................................................... 2
TIP Development .......................................................................................................................................... 3
TIP Amendments and Administrative Modifications ................................................................................... 3
Annual Listing of Obligated Projects ............................................................................................................ 3
Air Quality Designation ................................................................................................................................ 4
Environmental Justice ................................................................................................................................... 4
Federal Performance Measures ..................................................................................................................... 4
Financial Plan................................................................................................................................................ 5
Forecast Revenue Available for Transportation Funding ......................................................................... 5
Operations and Maintenance – MoDOT ................................................................................................... 8
Operations and Maintenance - Local Government ................................................................................... 8
Financial Constraint ................................................................................................................................ 10
Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects ............................................................................................. 11
Map of Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects ................................................................................. 17
Program of Projects - OATS ....................................................................................................................... 18
Program of Projects - JEFFTRAN .............................................................................................................. 19
Multimodal Projects .................................................................................................................................... 19
Appendix A – Amendments and Administrative Modifications ................................................................. 20
Appendix B – Federal Funding Sources ..................................................................................................... 21
Appendix C – Policies and Procedures ....................................................................................................... 22
Appendix D – Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process Certification .............................................. 26
Appendix E – Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 27
i
(Resolution approving TIP goes here)
ii
(CAMPO Board, TC, and staff listing goes here)
1
Introduction
The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) is the designated metropolitan planning
organization for the Jefferson City, Missouri Urbanized Area whose purpose is to carry out a continuing,
cooperative, and comprehensive long range transportation planning process. As part of this process, in
2016, CAMPO updated the 2013-2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, a long range transportation
plan addressing the current and future transportation needs for the Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA).
The MPA includes a southern portion of Callaway County, northeastern portion of Cole County, cities of
Holts Summit, Jefferson City, Lake Mykee, St. Martins, Taos, and Wardsville.
The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a 5-year financial program of transportation projects
to be implemented within the MPA, which are funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), or are deemed ‘regionally significant.’ Each project or project
phase included in the TIP is to be derived from the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and is part of the
process of applying for funds from the FHWA and FTA. Certain capital and non-capital transportation
2
projects using funding under 23 U.S.C. and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 or regionally significant projects
requiring action by the FHWA or the FTA are required to be included in the TIP. The TIP is updated
annually by CAMPO in cooperation with the Missouri Department of Transportation and local public
transportation operators.
Public Participation
CAMPO seeks active and meaningful involvement of the public and interested parties in the development
and update of transportation plans and programs, including the TIP. All meetings of the CAMPO
Technical Committee and Board of Directors are open to the public. All meeting agendas and minutes are
available on the internet or upon request. CAMPO provides all interested parties and the public with a
reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed TIP as required by federal law. Reasonable
opportunity to comment and participate on the proposed TIP is made following the policies in the
CAMPO Public Participation Plan located on the CAMPO website at
http://www.jeffersoncitymo.gov/government/long_range_transportation_plan/public_participation.php.
The approved TIP is available for review several locations throughout the CAMPO planning area as
outlined in the Public Participation Plan.
JEFFTRAN is the public transit provider for the City of Jefferson and OATS, Inc. is a not-for-profit
501(c)3 corporation providing specialized transportation for senior citizens, people with disabilities and
the rural general public in 87 Missouri counties. Federal Transit Administration recipients of certain
categories of funds, JEFFTRAN and OATS, Inc. must follow a public participation plan. The FTA
allows a grantee, e.g. JEFFTRAN and OATS, Inc., to rely on locally adopted public participation plans
for the submittal of their projects in lieu of a separate “Program of Projects” (POP) if the grantee has
coordinated with CAMPO and ensured that the public is aware that the CAMPO’s plan is being used to
satisfy the POP public participation requirements. Both JEFFTRAN and OATS, Inc. meet this
coordination and public awareness criteria CAMPO’s Public Participation Plan satisfies the Federal
Transit Administration’s requirement of public participation for their “Program of Projects.”
Project Selection
Transportation projects, funded by direct allocation of Federal funds to a project sponsor, award of
Federal funds via competitive grant, or wholly funded by the sponsor, are selected by the agency having
jurisdiction over the project using their own criteria and submitted to the CAMPO Board of Directors for
inclusion in the TIP. Transportation projects included within the TIP should be consistent with
investment strategies discussed in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan.
Transportation projects, funded by sub-allocated Federal funds directly to CAMPO or otherwise made
available for programming at the discretion of CAMPO, are selected based on competitive process
approved by the CAMPO Board of Directors. This process involves a call for projects, ranking based on
CAMPO priorities by staff, and review by the CAMPO Technical Committee, prior to being forwarded to
the CAMPO Board of Directors for a vote of approval. The ranking process has unique evaluation
3
criteria for different categories of projects – roadway/intersection, bridge, non-motorized, transit, and
‘other.’
TIP Development
The TIP is updated every year and covers a 5 year period starting July 1, 2017. TIP development begins
with a verification of status of projects in the current TIP, solicitation of new projects, and request for
budget information from local jurisdictions. Local transit providers are also requested to provide
information needed to develop their “Program of Projects” for inclusion into the TIP. CAMPO staff, with
support from the Technical Committee, MoDOT, FHWA, and FTA, develop the financial plan, project
listings, maintenance and operations, and other components of the TIP.
Once the draft TIP is developed, it is presented to the Technical Committee for review and
recommendation to the Board of Directors. A 25 day public comment period and public hearing are held
prior to the Board of Directors approval of the TIP. The Board then requests approval of the TIP by the
Governor. More information about public involvement activities can be found in the CAMPO Public
Participation Plan.
TIP Amendments and Administrative Modifications
Between TIP updates, if projects need to be added, removed or changed, the TIP can be changed either by
amendment or administrative modifications. Definitions of an amendment or an administrative
modification, and information about public participation, notifications, and other procedures regarding
amendments and administrative modifications, can be found in Appendix C – Policies and Procedures of
this document. Appendix A contains a listing of amendments and administrative modifications that have
occurred to this document.
Previous Projects
The TIP will include a listing of major projects from the previous TIP that were implemented and identify
any significant delays in the planned implementation of major projects. Major projects are defined as
transportation improvement projects receiving Federal financial assistance with an estimated total cost of
$500 million or more or that have been identified by the FHWA as being a major project. No major
projects were implemented, and no significant delays or projects from the previous TIP have been
identified.
Annual Listing of Obligated Projects
The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) requires that CAMPO publish an annual
listing of federally obligated projects. The Annual Listing of Projects is an index of projects which used
4
Federal funds that were obligated in the preceding TIP program year. Obligated projects are consistent
with the funding categories identified in the TIP.
An obligation is the Federal government’s legal commitment to pay the Federal share of a project’s cost.
An obligated project is one that has been authorized and funds have been obligated by a Federal agency.
Obligated projects are not necessarily initiated or completed in the program year, and the amount of the
obligation will not necessarily equal the total cost of the project. For Federal Transit Administration
projects, obligation occurs when the FTA grant is awarded. For Federal Highway Administration projects,
obligation occurs when a project agreement is executed and the State/grantee requests that the funds be
obligated.
CAMPO publishes the Annual Listing of Obligated Projects yearly within 90 days of the previous TIP’s
program year. The Annual Listing of Obligated Projects is posted on the CAMPO website at
http://www.jeffersoncitymo.gov/government/long_range_transportation_plan/campo_plans_and_publicati
ons.php.
Air Quality Designation
The United States Environmental Protection Agency has designated the CAMPO Metropolitan Planning
Area as being in attainment for Ozone, Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Small
Particulate Matter (PM-2.5) Lead, and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2).
Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898 requires agencies receiving federal funding to meaningfully address low-income
and minority populations in their plans, programs, policies, and activities. CAMPO staff expects project
sponsors to identify and mitigate any disproportionately high and adverse effects of federal transportation
programs.
Federal Performance Measures
In the passage of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), and continuing into
the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, Congress established a performance- and outcome-
based program. The purpose of this new program is for states and metropolitan planning organizations
utilizing federal dollars to invest resources in projects that collectively work towards the achievement of
the national goals. The legislation requires the U.S. Department of Transportation, after a lengthy and
robust exchange with states, MPOs, and other public and private stakeholders, to establish performance
measures in these areas including safety, congestion reduction, MPO coordination, and transit/highway
asset management.
5
The TIP and other plans, such as the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, are required to include
information regarding these performance measures. However, the regulations and guidance regarding the
establishment and use of these performance measures have not yet been completely developed and
implemented; therefore, they are not included in the 2018–2022 TIP. Future versions of the TIP will
address these requirements, as rules are finalized and targets are required to be reported.
Financial Plan
The TIP includes a financial plan that demonstrates how the approved TIP can be implemented, and
indicates resources from public and private sources that are reasonably expected to be made available to
carry out the TIP. CAMPO, MoDOT, and public transportation operators cooperatively develop
estimates of funds that are reasonably expected to be available to support TIP implementation. Only
projects for which construction or operating funds can reasonably be expected to be available may be
included. In developing the financial plan, CAMPO takes into account all projects and strategies funded
under title 23 U.S.C., title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, and other Federal funds, and regionally significant
projects that are not federally funded. For purposes of transportation operations and maintenance, the
financial plan shall contain system-level estimates of costs and revenue sources that are reasonably
expected to be available to adequately operate and maintain Federal-aid highways (as defined by 23
U.S.C. 101(a)(5)) and public transportation (as defined by title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53).
Forecast Revenue Available for Transportation Funding
Federal funding forecasts, provided by MoDOT based on published notices in the Federal Register,
estimate fiscal year authorization levels by the FHWA and FTA under the current highway act. Appendix
B briefly describes most of the Federal transportation programs which could fund projects in the CAMPO
planning area.
For Federally-funded projects, the TIP must identify the appropriate “matching funds” by source. The
matching funds are usually provided by state and local governments. State revenue forecasts are also
provided by MoDOT based on historical data of the State Fuel Tax, State Vehicle Sales and Use Tax and
General Revenue.
Local revenue forecast from the County Aid Road Trust (State Fuel Tax and State Vehicle Sales and Use
Tax) for each jurisdiction are based on past distributions and are assumed to continue a trend of a 2
percent inflation rate. The City of Jefferson has a ½ cent sales tax to support its Capital Improvement
Program and a ½ cent sales tax for Parks and Recreation, which supports greenways and other non-
motorized transportation activities. The City of Jefferson has provided its own future revenue projections
from these sources. Cole County has a ½ cent sales tax to support its Capital Improvement Program and a
real property tax levy of $0.27 earmarked for Road & Bridges. All small cities get $100,000 every five
years from Cole County, which comes from the aforementioned sales tax. Callaway County has a real
property tax levy of $0.2466 earmarked for Road & Bridges.
6
Outlined in Table 1 are local forecasts of revenue sources for over the life of the TIP available for
transportation projects, operations and maintenance.
Table 1 – Forecast Revenue for Transportation projects, Operations and Maintenance.
In the past, local governments have used general revenue and other sources of revenue, as they deemed
appropriate to match transportation grants awarded. It is not uncommon, nor difficult, for local
jurisdictions to transfer funds from one account to another at their discretion.
Table 2 shows the total programmed project funds and available project funds by source. The project
costs have inflation factored in by each project sponsor. The instructions on the form used to submit a
project for inclusion in the TIP reminds the project sponsor to take inflation into account when estimating
the project’s cost. Since the last iteration of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, the inflation factor for
the TIP has been set as 3 percent.
Callaway County 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
County Aid Road Trust - State Fuel Tax 1,791,734$ 1,827,569$ 1,864,120$ 1,901,403$ 1,939,431$ 9,324,258$
Property Tax - Road & Bridge ($0.2466 levy)1,900,000$ 1,900,000$ 1,900,000$ 1,900,000$ 1,900,000$ 9,500,000$
Transfer from general revenue 300,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 1,500,000$
Cole County -$
County Aid Road Trust - State Fuel Tax 1,224,143$ 1,248,625$ 1,273,598$ 1,299,070$ 1,325,051$ 6,370,487$
Sales Tax 5,030,870$ 5,030,870$ 5,030,870$ 5,030,870$ 5,030,870$ 25,154,350$
Property Tax - Road & Bridge ($0.27 levy)3,770,847$ 3,770,847$ 3,770,847$ 3,770,847$ 3,770,847$ 18,854,235$
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax 331,268$ 331,268$ 331,268$ 331,268$ 331,268$ 1,656,340$
Holts Summit -$
County Aid Road Trust - State Fuel Tax 132,961$ 135,620$ 138,332$ 141,099$ 143,921$ 691,933$
Transportation Sales Tax 312,000$ 312,000$ 312,000$ 312,000$ 312,000$ 1,560,000$
Sales Tax 25,750$ 26,523$ 27,318$ 28,138$ 28,982$ 136,710$
Cap Imp Street Revenue 40,170$ 41,375$ 42,616$ 43,895$ 45,212$ 213,268$
Interest 8,400$ 8,400$ 8,400$ 8,400$ 8,400$ 42,000$
NID Deposits 7,000$ 7,000$ 7,000$ 7,000$ 7,000$ 35,000$
City of Jefferson -$
County Aid Road Trust - State Fuel Tax 1,764,033$ 1,799,314$ 1,835,300$ 1,872,006$ 1,909,446$ 9,180,099$
Sales Tax - 1/2% Parks Sales Tax 4,951,878$ 4,951,878$ 4,951,878$ 4,951,878$ 4,951,878$ 24,759,390$
Sales Tax - 1/2% Capital Improvement (Expires March 2022)1,720,000$ 1,720,000$ 1,720,000$ 1,720,000$ 1,720,000$ 8,600,000$
City of Jefferson - JEFFTRAN -$
Passenger Fares & Misc. 229,889$ 236,785$ 243,889$ 251,205$ 251,205$ 1,212,973$
Sales Tax - 1/2% Capital Improvement (Expires March 2022)80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 400,000$
Lake Mykee -$
County Aid Road Trust - State Fuel Tax 14,332$ 14,619$ 14,911$ 15,209$ 15,513$ 74,584$
St. Martins -$
County Aid Road Trust - State Fuel Tax 46,682$ 47,615$ 48,568$ 49,539$ 50,530$ 242,933$
General Revenue Funds 209,733$ 211,830$ 213,948$ 216,087$ 216,087$ 1,067,685$
Sales Tax - 1/2% Capital Improvement*20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 100,000$
Taos -$
County Aid Road Trust - State Fuel Tax 35,953$ 36,672$ 37,405$ 38,154$ 38,917$ 187,101$
Sales Tax - 1/2% Capital Improvement* 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 100,000$
Wardsville -$
County Aid Road Trust - State Fuel Tax 61,669$ 62,902$ 64,160$ 65,443$ 66,752$ 320,927$
Sales Tax - 1/2% Capital Improvement* 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 100,000$
OATS -$
Passenger Fares, Misc.6,000$ 6,000$ 6,000$ 6,000$ 6,000$ 30,000$
Section 5310 6,000$ 6,000$ 6,000$ 6,000$ 6,000$ 30,000$
Medicaid Transportation 36,000$ 36,000$ 36,000$ 36,000$ 36,000$ 180,000$
121,624,273$
Note: County Aid Road Trust includes State Fuel Tax, Vehicle Sales/Use Tax and Licensing Fees.
Please see more on CART funds here: http://dor.mo.gov/publicreports/index.php#motorfuel
* This is distributed from Cole County
Available Local Transportation Funds
Total Local Funds
CART Funds based on 2016 numbers from MoDOT. There is a conservative two (2)
percent increase per year, based on historical numbers.
7
Table 2 – Programmed and Available Funds by Source.
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
FHWA NHPP $31,200 $4,107,200 $1,730,400 $0 $0 $5,868,800 $31,200 $4,107,200 $1,730,400 $0 $0 $5,868,800
FHWA HSIP $239,400 $78,300 $0 $1,977,300 $2,033,100 $4,328,100 $239,400 $78,300 $0 $1,977,300 $2,033,100 $4,328,100
FHWA STP $267,170 $11,200 $11,200 $1,132,000 $1,163,200 $2,584,770 $267,170 $11,200 $11,200 $1,132,000 $1,163,200 $2,584,770
FHWA TAP $278,564 $0 $0 $0 $0 $278,564 $278,564 $0 $0 $0 $0 $278,564
FHWA SHRP2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
FHWA RTP $71,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $71,000 $71,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $71,000
FTA 5307 $775,236 $798,493 $822,448 $847,121 $872,535 $4,115,833 $775,236 $798,493 $822,448 $847,121 $872,535 $4,115,833
FTA 5310 $251,519 $60,000 $70,000 $70,000 $75,000 $526,519 $251,519 $60,000 $70,000 $70,000 $75,000 $526,519
FTA 5311 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
FTA 5316 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
FTA 5329 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
FTA 5339 $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $40,000 $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $40,000
MoDOT MPEN $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
MoDOT Safety $4,100 $3,700 $0 $219,700 $225,900 $453,400 $4,100 $3,700 $0 $219,700 $225,900 $453,400
MoDOT State Operating $7,725 $7,957 $8,195 $8,441 $8,694 $41,012 $7,725 $7,957 $8,195 $8,441 $8,694 $41,012
MoDOT SWIMB $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
MoDOT TCOS $4,807,800 $7,457,350 $3,866,150 $296,750 $304,550 $16,732,600 $4,807,800 $7,457,350 $3,866,150 $296,750 $304,550 $16,732,600
Jefferson City $2,148,262 $1,285,332 $1,323,892 $1,363,609 $1,404,517 $7,525,612 $2,148,262 $1,285,332 $1,323,892 $1,363,609 $1,404,517 $7,525,612
Cole County $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Oats $60,000 $62,000 $70,000 $70,000 $75,000 $337,000 $60,000 $62,000 $70,000 $70,000 $75,000 $337,000
Holts Summit $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
St. Martins $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $251,923 $243,215 $242,122 $249,335 $256,662 $1,243,257 $251,923 $243,215 $242,122 $249,335 $256,662 $1,243,257
$9,193,899 $14,154,747 $8,144,407 $6,234,256 $6,419,158 $9,193,899 $14,154,747 $8,144,407 $6,234,256 $6,419,158
$44,146,467 $44,146,467
Programmed Funds Available Funds
Total Available Funds
Federal
State
Local
Yearly Totals
Total Programmed Total
8
Operations and Maintenance – MoDOT
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. Maintenance operations expenditures are expected
to increase 1% annually.
This makes MoDOT’s cost, $6,682 per lane mile.
Calculations are $516,985,000 / 77,366 lane miles.
Assumptions:
Maintenance Operations $467,168,000 *
Fleet Investments $ 22,617,000 *
Facility Investments $ 7,200,000 *
IS Investments $ 20,000,000 *
Total $516,985,000
Lane miles 77,366 **
*Source: FY 2017 Budget Request
** Source: Official 2015 State System Mileage
Operations and Maintenance - Local Government
Local revenue sources for operations and maintenance include state fuel tax, state vehicles sales/use tax,
local sales taxes, franchise fees, license and 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, or operations and maintenance budgets.
The operations and maintenance costs for local governments include salaries, fringe benefits, materials,
and equipment needed to deliver the street and bridge maintenance programs. This category includes
basic maintenance activities like minor surface treatments such as sealing, small concrete repairs, pothole
patching, mowing, snow removal, replacing signs, striping, and repairing traffic signals. These activities
may be performed in-house or outsourced.
Local government operations and maintenance on federal aid roads calculated for the system wide
average of operations & maintenance per centerline mile is $12,433 and $6,136 per lane mile plus 3
percent per year out to FY 2021, as determined by consultation with engineering and technical staff of the
9
local jurisdictions. Table 3 shows the various roadway types in CAMPO’s MPA and the governing body
that is responsible for maintenance.
Table 3 - Federal Aid Road Mileage by Jurisdiction.
Source: CAMPO Functional Classification GIS Database.
In addition to the local government operations and maintenance previously discussed, JEFFTRAN
expenses also cover fleet repair/maintenance, repairing/replacing bus shelters, bus washing, bus
maintenance facilities, public restrooms, and fuel. Table 4 shows the estimated expenditures for transit
operations and maintenance.
Table 4 - JEFFTRAN Estimated Expenditures for Operations & Maintenance.
Operations and Maintenance revenue and expenditures are based on the most recently available budgets
and apply the inflation factor of 3 percent for FTA and City of Jefferson funding sources.
Table 5 – OATS Estimated Expenditures for Operations & Maintenance.
Urban
Other
Freeway
Express
way
Urban
Other
Principal
Arterial
Urban
Minor
Arterial
Urban
Collector
Rural
Other
Principal
Arterial
Rural
Minor
Arterial
Rural
Major
Collector
Total Percent of
Total
(Jurisdiction)
Callaway County 2.3 2.9 0.9 6.1 2.89%
Cole County 3.6 5.9 4.6 14.1 6.63%
Holts Summit 3.1 4.1 0.5 7.6 3.61%
City of Jefferson*4.3 37.4 23.6 65.3 30.83%
MoDOT 34.6 8.7 18.2 11.9 5.4 5.3 32.7 116.8 55.13%
Lake Mykee 0.0 0.00%
St. Martins 1.5 0.5 1.9 0.91%
Taos 0.0 0.00%
Wardsville 0.0 0.00%
Total (Functional Class)34.6 13.0 66.1 48.8 5.4 6.3 37.8 211.9 100.00%
Percent (Functional Class)16.3%6.1%31.2%23.0%2.5%3.0%17.8%
*Includes Parks & Rec.
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
FTA-Section 5307 752,656$ 752,656$ 752,656$ 752,656$ 752,656$
City of Jefferson-Local Operating Assistance 1,247,895$ 1,285,332$ 1,323,892$ 1,363,609$ 1,404,517$
MoDOT State Operating Assistance 7,500$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 7,500$
Passenger fares and misc 223,510$ 230,215$ 237,122$ 244,235$ 251,562$
Capital funds 100,000$ 300,000$ 50,000$ 170,000$ 50,000$
Total 2,331,561$ 2,575,703$ 2,371,170$ 2,538,000$ 2,466,235$
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
FTA-Section 5316 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
FTA-Section 5310 60,000$ 60,000$ 70,000$ 70,000$ 75,000$
Fares 4,900$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,100$ 5,100$
Local Contracts 60,000$ 60,000$ 70,000$ 70,000$ 75,000$
10
Financial Constraint
To exhibit financial constraint, a financial plan should address three questions:
1) What will the needs for transportation in the CAMPO planning area cost?
The needs are identified by project in the following section and costs are summarized by funding
source in Table 1.
2) What revenues are available that can be applied to the needs?
Specific revenues available to meet the needs are identified in Table 1 - Forecast Revenue for
Transportation projects, Operations and Maintenance, by jurisdiction and source.
3) Are the revenues sufficient to cover the costs?
As shown in Table 2 – Programmed and Available Funds by Source, programmed fund amounts
equal anticipated fund amounts. For many jurisdictions as shown in Table 1, available funds
exceed the amounts of revenues required to fund programmed projects.
11
Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA NHPP $21,000 $4,000 $54,400 $79,400
MoDOT TCOS $6,000 $1,000 $13,600 $20,600
TIP #2013-05 Local $0
MoDOT#5P3015 Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA NHPP $757,600 $757,600
MoDOT TCOS $189,400 $189,400
Local $0
Other $0
Total $27,000 $5,000 $1,015,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,047,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA STP $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $48,000
MoDOT TCOS $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $12,000
TIP #2015-03 Local $0
MoDOT#Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
Total $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $60,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA STP $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $12,000
MoDOT TCOS $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $3,000
TIP #2014-04 Local $0
MoDOT#Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
Total $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $0 $15,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA NHPP $19,200 $20,000 $266,400 $305,600
MoDOT TCOS $4,800 $5,000 $66,600 $76,400
TIP #2018-01 Local $0
MoDOT#5S3261 Other $0
FHWA NHPP $8,000 $8,000
MoDOT TCOS $2,000 $2,000
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA NHPP $1,464,000 $1,464,000
MoDOT TCOS $366,000 $366,000
Local $0
Other $0
Total $0 $24,000 $35,000 $2,163,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,222,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA $0
MoDOT TCOS $200 $18,800 $19,000
TIP #2017-03 Local $0
MoDOT#5P3200 MoDOT TCOS (AC)$800 $75,200 $76,000
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT TCOS $237,800 $237,800
Local $0
MoDOT TCOS (AC)$951,200 $951,200
Total $1,000 $1,283,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,284,000
Prior
Funding
C
O
N
S
T
Description & Location: Non-State System
Bridge Inspection Program for off-system
bridges at various locations throughout the
MPO.
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Comments:
Total Project Cost: $15,000
Total Project Cost: $1,284,000
MoDOT
Comments: Pavement improvements. Award date 2018.
Anticipated federal reimbursement from STP.
MoDOT Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:Non-State System Bridge Inspection E
N
G
Funding Prior
Funding
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:US 50 Outer Road Improvements E
N
G
Description & Location: Includes ramps at
Route 50 and Truman Blvd. Includes a portion
of Missouri Blvd., a portion of Truman Blvd.,
and a portion of Big Horn Dr.
R
O
W
Bridge Projects
MoDOT Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:State System Bridge Inspection E
N
G
Total Project Cost: $1,047,000
Description & Location: Bridge improvements to
the Dix Road bridge over US 50.R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: Involves bridge number A1187.
Award date 2019.
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30MoDOT Funding
Project
Name:Dix Road Bridge Improvements E
N
G
Description & Location: State Bridge Inspection
Program for on-system bridges at various
locations throughout the MPO.
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Comments:
Total Project Cost: $60,000
Prior
Funding
Prior
Funding
Roadway Projects
Total Project Cost: $2,222,000
MoDOT Funding Prior
Funding
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:Bridge Improvements over Route 54 E
N
G
Description & Location: Includes bridge
improvements on Route 94 over Little Tavern
Creek in Callaway County and West Main over
Route 54/63 in Cole County
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: Project involves bridges A3451,
A4265, and A4662. Award date 2020.
12
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA $0
MoDOT TCOS $12,000 $43,000 $55,000
TIP #2017-04 Local $0
MoDOT#5P3118 MoDOT TCOS (AC)$8,000 $172,000 $180,000
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT TCOS $519,400 $519,400
Local $0
MoDOT TCOS (AC)$2,077,600 $2,077,600
Total $20,000 $2,812,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,832,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA NHPP $8,000 $8,000 $227,200 $243,200
MoDOT TCOS $27,000 $2,000 $56,800 $85,800
TIP #2017-05 Local $0
MoDOT#5P3121 Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA NHPP $3,040,000 $3,040,000
MoDOT TCOS $760,000 $760,000
Local $0
Other $0
Total $35,000 $10,000 $4,084,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,129,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA STP $289,360 $289,360
MoDOT $0
TIP #2013-15 Local 1/2% Sales Tax $72,340 $72,340
MoDOT#Local $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local 1/2% Sales Tax $100,000 $100,000
Local 1/2% Sales Tax $100,000 $100,000
FHWA STP $249,170 $249,170 $498,340
MoDOT $0
Local 1/2% Sales Tax $360,165 $360,165 $720,330
Local 1/2% Sales Tax $360,165 $360,165 $720,330
Total $1,531,200 $969,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500,700
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA STP $67,200 $67,200
MoDOT TCOS $16,800 $16,800
TIP #2017-12 Local $0
MoDOT#0S3021F Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA STP $1,053,600 $1,053,600
MoDOT TCOS $263,400 $263,400
Local $0
Other $0
Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,401,000 $0 $0 $1,401,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA STP $67,200 $67,200
MoDOT TCOS $16,800 $16,800
TIP #2018-05 Local $0
MoDOT#0S3022F Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA STP $1,084,800 $1,084,800
MoDOT TCOS $271,200 $271,200
Local $0
Other $0
Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,440,000 $0 $1,440,000
MoDOT Funding Prior
Funding
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:
Enhancement Projects in Central
District E
N
G
Description & Location: ADA Transition Plan
improvements at various locations in the
Central District
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Comments:$1.2 million statewide transportation
alternatives funds. Award Date 2022.
Total Project Cost: $4,129,000
Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:US 54 Pavement Improvements E
N
G
E
N
G
MoDOT
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: Award date 2018. Anticipated
federal reimbursement from STP.
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Description & Location: Pavement
improvements on the eastbound and
westbound lanes of US 54 from Route E (near
Brazito) to near Stadium Blvd. in Jefferson City.
Prior
Funding
Prior
Funding
Prior
Funding
Prior
Funding
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30MoDOT
MoDOT
Project
Name:US 54 Pavement Improvements E
N
G
Description & Location: Pavement, bridge, and
guardrail improvements from just west of Stadium Blvd.
in Jefferson City to west of the Missouri River bridge.
Project involves bridges A1307 and A1672.
Stadium & US 54 Intersection
Improvements
Comments: Length: Award Date 2019
R
O
W
Total Project Cost: $2,832,000
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Enhancement Projects in Central
District E
N
G
Description & Location: ADA Transition Plan
improvements at various locations in the
Central District
R
O
W
City of Jefferson Funding
Total Project Cost: $1,440,000
Total Project Cost: $1,401,000
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: $1.2 million statewide transportation
alternatives funds. Award Date 2021.
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: Local funding is from 1/2% Jefferson City
Capital Improvement sales tax and Cole County 1/2%
sales tax
Total Project Cost: $2,500,700
Project
Name:
Funding
Project
Name:
Description & Location: Highway
54/Jefferson/Stadium Boulevard,
Stadium/Monroe & US 54/Christy Dr. Access,
Capacity, and Safety Improvements.
13
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA HSIP $40,500 $4,500 $900 $45,900
MoDOT Safety $4,500 $500 $100 $5,100
TIP #2013-16 Local $0
MoDOT#5S2234 Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
Total $45,000 $5,000 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $51,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA HSIP $118,800 $118,800
MoDOT Safety $13,200 $13,200
TIP #2017-16 Local $0
MoDOT#0P3021F Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA HSIP $1,858,500 $1,858,500
MoDOT Safety $206,500 $206,500
Local $0
Other $0
Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,197,000 $0 $0 $2,197,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA HSIP $118,800 $118,800
MoDOT Safety $13,200 $13,200
TIP #2018-04 Local $0
MoDOT#0P3022F Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA HSIP $1,914,300 $1,914,300
MoDOT Safety $212,700 $212,700
Local $0
Other $0
Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,259,000 $0 $2,259,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA $0
MoDOT TCOS $7,600 $7,600
TIP #2018-06 Local $0
MoDOT#5P3274 MoDOT TCOS (AC)$30,400 $30,400
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT TCOS $102,000 $102,000
Local $0
MoDOT TCOS (AC)$408,000 $408,000
Total $0 $548,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $548,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA STP $23,200 $4,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $31,200
MoDOT TCOS $5,800 $1,000 $250 $250 $250 $250 $7,800
TIP #2017-22 Local $0
MoDOT#5P3044 Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
Total $29,000 $5,000 $1,250 $1,250 $1,250 $1,250 $0 $39,000
Scoping for Pavement Improvements
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:Safety Projects in Central District E
N
G
Description & Location: Safety projects at
various locations in the Central District.R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: $1.89 million from Open Container
funds. Award Date 2022. 90/10 Grant/match.
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: $1.89 million from Open Container
funds. Award Date 2021. 90/10 Grant/match.
Total Project Cost: $2,197,000
MoDOT Funding Prior
Funding
Comments: Anticipated federal funding category: STP.
Future construction cost $15 million - $25 million.
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
E
N
G
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Other Projects
E
N
G
Description & Location: Safety projects at
various locations in the Central District.
MoDOT
MoDOT
Description & Location: Job order contracting
for guard cables and guardrail repair on
various routes in the northern portion of the
Central District.
R
O
W
Total Project Cost: $51,000
R
O
W
MoDOT
C
O
N
S
T
Project
Name:Safety Projects in Central District
Total Project Cost: $39,000
Project
Name:
Description & Location: Scoping for pavement
improvements on various routes in the Central
District.
R
O
W
Total Project Cost: $2,259,000
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:Scoping Routes M, B & W E
N
G
Description & Location: Scoping for safety
improvements at the intersection of Route M
and Route W in Wardsville.
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: Anticipated federal funding category:
Safety. Future construction costs: $301,000 to
$1,000,000.
Prior
Funding
Funding
Prior
Funding
Funding Prior
Funding
Funding Prior
Funding
Project
Name:
Guard Cable & Guardrail Repair in
Northern Central District E
N
G
MoDOT
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: Award Date Spring 2018.
Anticipated federal reimbursement from STP.
Total Project Cost: $548,000
Funding
14
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA STP $48,000 $4,000 $200 $200 $200 $200 $52,800
MoDOT TCOS $12,000 $1,000 $50 $50 $50 $50 $13,200
TIP #2015-07 Local $0
MoDOT#5S3081 Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
Total $60,000 $5,000 $250 $250 $250 $250 $0 $66,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA HSIP $900 $900
MoDOT Safety $100 $100
TIP #2017-21 Local $0
MoDOT#5P3217 Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA HSIP $31,500 $31,500
MoDOT Safety $3,500 $3,500
Local $0
Other $0
Total $0 $36,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $36,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA HSIP $900 $900
MoDOT Safety $100 $100
TIP #2018-07 Local $0
MoDOT#5P3224 Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA HSIP $31,500 $31,500
MoDOT Safety $3,500 $3,500
Local $0
Other $0
Total $0 $0 $36,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $36,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA HSIP $45,000 $202,500 $45,000 $292,500
MoDOT TCOS $5,000 $22,500 $5,000 $32,500
TIP #2017-25 Local $0
MoDOT#5P3222 MoDOT $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
MoDOT $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
MoDOT $0
Total $50,000 $225,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $325,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA $0
MoDOT TCOS $50,000 $25,000 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $105,000
TIP #2018-08 Local $0
MoDOT#5P3179 MoDOT $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
MoDOT $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
MoDOT $0
Total $50,000 $25,000 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $0 $105,000
Funding Prior
Funding
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: 90/10 match, using federal and
MoDOT safety funds.
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:
Scoping for Safety Improvements for
U.S. 54 in Cole, Miller, and Camden E
N
G
Description & Location: Scoping for safety
improvements along US 54 in Cole, Miller, and
Camden counties. From West of Stadium
Boulevard in Jefferson City to Cecil Street in
Camdenton.
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name: E
N
G
MoDOT Funding Prior
Funding
MoDOT Funding Prior
Funding
Funding Prior
Funding
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:Surveying
Total Project Cost: $36,000
Project
Name:
Comments: Anticipated future cost is between
$5 and $10 million.
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
E
N
G
MoDOT
Total Project Cost: $325,000
MoDOT
Funding Prior
Funding
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:On-call Work Zone Enforcement E
N
G
Description & Location: On-call work zone
enforcement at various locations in the Central
District.
On-call Work Zone Enforcement E
N
G
Description & Location: On-call work zone
enforcement at various locations in the Central
District.
Total Project Cost: $66,000
Slide Repair Scoping
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: Anticipated Federal Funding Category -
STP. Future construction cost $2 million - 5 million.
Description & Location: Scoping for slide
repairs in the northern portion of the Cental
District at various locations.
MoDOT
Description & Location: Surveying to sell
excess right of way parcels in the Central
District.
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
R
O
W
Total Project Cost: $105,000
Comments: No federal funds used for this
project.
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: 90/10 match, using federal and
MoDOT safety funds.
Total Project Cost: $36,000
15
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA STP $0
MoDOT TCOS $8,000 $8,000 $113,200 $129,200
TIP #2018-02 Local $0
MoDOT#5S3230 MoDOT TCOS (AC)$32,000 $32,000 $452,800 $516,800
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
MoDOT $0
FHWA STP $0
MoDOT TCOS $570,200 $570,200
Local $0
MoDOT TCOS (AC)$2,280,800 $2,280,800
Total $0 $40,000 $40,000 $3,417,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,497,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA $0
MoDOT TCOS $8,000 $99,400 $107,400
TIP #2018-03 Local $0
MoDOT#5S3259 MoDOT TCOS (AC)$32,000 $397,600 $429,600
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT TCOS $1,174,400 $1,174,400
Local $0
MoDOT TCOS (AC)$4,697,600 $4,697,600
Total $0 $40,000 $6,369,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,409,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA $0
MoDOT TCOS $5,000 $1,250 $1,250 $1,250 $1,250 $10,000
TIP #2018-09 Local $0
MoDOT#5P3254 MoDOT TCOS (AC)$20,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $40,000
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
Total $0 $25,000 $6,250 $6,250 $6,250 $6,250 $0 $50,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA RTP $8,000 $8,000
MoDOT $0
TIP #2017-24 Local $0
MoDOT#Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA RTP $71,000 $71,000 $142,000
MoDOT $0
Local Parks Tax $70,000 $70,000 $140,000
Other Private Don.$19,000 $19,000
Total $168,000 $141,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $309,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA TAP $0
MoDOT $0
TIP #2017-27 Local Sales Tax $0
MoDOT#MoDOT $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
MoDOT $0
FHWA TAP $278,564 $278,564
MoDOT $0
Local Sales Tax $69,641 $69,641
MoDOT $0
Total $0 $348,205 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $348,205
Comments: The Jefferson City Cultural Arts
Foundation, Central Bank and Ameren Missouri have
pledged donations to help fund the project .
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: Award date Fall 2018.
Total Project Cost: $3,497,000
MoDOT Funding Prior
Funding
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:
Pavement and shoulder improvements
on Route M E
N
G
Project
Name:Community Park Greenway Trailhead
R
O
W
Description & Location: Pavement and shoulder
improvements from Rte. B to Rte. 50. Includes
pavements and shoulder improvements on Rte. E from
Rte. 54 to Rte. B. Project also includes pavement
improvements on Rte. W, Rte. Y and Rte. J.
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Funding Prior
Funding
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Prior
Funding
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30Funding
Funding Prior
Funding
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
City of Jefferson Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:
Missouri Boulevard Sidewalk, Beck to
Waverly E
N
G
Description & Location: Construct a 5’ wide
sidewalk along the northern side of Missouri
Boulevard from Beck Street to Waverly Street.
Includes Bicycle/Pedestrian/Transit facilities.
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: TAP Grant awardee.
Total Project Cost: $348,205
City of Jefferson
Pedestrian & Bicycle Projects
Total Project Cost: $309,000
Prior
Funding
Description & Location: Development of a
greenway trailhead at Community Park – a restroom,
spray ground, misting station, water fountain, bike rack,
additional parking, benches, landscaping, and lighting.
Paid for by Local Parks Sales Tax.
Comments: Potential ADA improvements in
Taos. Award date 2020. Anticipated Federal
Funds: STP.
Total Project Cost: $50,000
MoDOT
Project
Name:
Scoping for ADA Improvements in
Various Locations E
N
G
Description & Location:Scoping for ADA
improvements at various locations in
Waynesville, Chamois, Frankenstein, Taos,
Wardsville, and Vienna.
E
N
G
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: Anticipated Federal Category - STP.
Total Project Cost: $6,409,000
MoDOT
Project
Name:
Pavement and shoulder improvements
on Route C E
N
G
Description & Location: Pavement and shoulder
improvements from Route 52 near Versailles to
Jefferson City.
16
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
Other Pass. Fares $598,000 $223,510 $230,215 $237,122 $244,235 $251,562 $1,784,644
MoDOT State Operating $17,500 $7,725 $7,957 $8,195 $8,441 $8,694 $58,512
TIP #2011-04 Local $2,287,506 $1,247,895 $1,285,332 $1,323,892 $1,363,609 $1,404,517 $8,912,751
MoDOT#FTA 5307 $1,595,207 $775,236 $798,493 $822,448 $847,121 $872,535 $5,711,040
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
Total $4,498,213 $2,254,366 $2,321,997 $2,391,657 $2,463,406 $2,537,308 $0 $16,466,947
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
TIP #2017-28 Local CIP $40,396 $40,396
MoDOT#FTA 5310 $97,466 $97,466
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
Total $0 $137,862 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $137,862
Paratransit Bus PurchaseProject
Name:
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:Operating Assistance
Public Transportation Projects
Funding Prior
FundingCity of Jefferson - JEFFTRAN
City of Jefferson - JEFFTRAN Funding
Comments: Will replace 2 2010 model year
buses.
C
O
N
S
T
O
P
E
R
Description & Location: Operating Assistance
for JEFFTRAN service w ithin city limits of
Jefferson City (A 3% annual inflation factor
applied.)
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
E
N
G
Comments:
Total Project Cost: $137,862
Total Project Cost: $16,466,947
Prior
Funding
Description & Location: Purchase 2 E450
Elkhart Coach II, Floor Plan CC handi-Wheel
buses with Apollo 5 camera systems.
R
O
W
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
17
Map of Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects
18
Program of Projects - OATS
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FTA 5339 $40,000 $40,000
MoDOT $0
TIP #2015-01 Local $2,000 $2,000
MoDOT#OATS $8,000 $8,000
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
Total $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA 5310 $94,053 $94,053
MoDOT $0
TIP #2018-10 Local $0
MoDOT#Other $23,513 $23,513
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
Total $0 $117,566 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $117,566
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA 5310 $60,000 $60,000 $70,000 $70,000 $75,000 $335,000
MoDOT $0
TIP #2018-11 Local $60,000 $60,000 $70,000 $70,000 $75,000 $335,000
MoDOT#Other $4,900 $5,000 $5,000 $5,100 $5,100 $25,100
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
Total $0 $124,900 $125,000 $145,000 $145,100 $155,100 $0 $695,100
Description & Location: Requested two (2)
vehicles to provide service in Jefferson City
and surrounding area
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: Other Funding - OATS, Inc.
Total Project Cost: $117,566
OATS Funding Prior
Funding
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:Capital Funding - Vehicles C
A
P
I
T
Prior
Funding
Total Project Cost: $50,000
OATS Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:Capital Funding - Vehicles C
A
P
I
T
Description & Location: Replacement of lift
equipped vehicles throughout service region.R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: Previous TIP Number 2011-03
Total Project Cost: $695,100
OATS Funding Prior
Funding
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:Operating Assistance O
P
E
R
Description & Location: Within the Jefferson
City MPO Region-Section 5310 Program for
Elderly and Handicapped
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: Other Funding - OATS, Inc.
19
Program of Projects - JEFFTRAN
Multimodal Projects
In 2015, CAMPO met with federal and state planning partners in a formal planning process review.
Within two recommendations made, CAMPO was urged to include more multi-modal projects into the
TIP. CAMPO staff sent out written requests and reminders at CAMPO meetings for projects, including
those not using federal dollars. As of the writing of this document, no projects have been submitted.
However, there are a number of factors why these projects are limited. These types of projects are usually
incorporated into new road projects. Many of these types of projects are highly dependent on grants,
which may or may not be annually awarded. Projects are usually decided each budget year. There are
several bicycle or pedestrian projects in the MTP illustrative list, but projects are not constrained and
funds are not obligated.
Item #Description Total FTA Local
1 Replace Obsolete Lighting in Bus Barn with Energy Efficient Lighting 10,000$ -$ 10,000$
2
Update Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) equipment, purchase Automatic Passenger
Counter (APC) equipment and purchase Automatic Voice Annunciation (AVA) equipment 275,000$ 220,000$ 55,000$
3 Replacement of paratransit widebody cutaway buses (each)70,000$ 50,000$ 20,000$
4 Upgrade/replace electronic fare card system 300,000$ 240,000$ 60,000$
5 Design work for New Transit Passenger Transfer and Admin Facility 150,000$ -$ 150,000$
6 Replace outdated bus video systems 60,000$ 48,000$ 12,000$
7 Purchase new phone system 10,000$ -$ 10,000$
8 Replace low-floor minivan support vehicle 40,000$ -$ 40,000$
9 Transit facility improvements--roof and gutter replacement for CM, bus barn, wash facility 200,000$ 160,000$ 40,000$
10 Transit facility improvements--overhead doors for CM and Bus Barn 95,000$ 76,000$ 19,000$
11 Repair Transfer Facility Roof & Defective Windows (Bus Shelter)12,000$ -$ 12,000$
12 Security camera upgrades 20,000$ 16,000$ 4,000$
13 Public restroom upgrades 7,500$ -$ 7,500$
14 Purchase and install 4-6 bus shelters at various locations in Jefferson City 60,000$ 48,000$ 12,000$
15 Purchase emergency back-up generator & switches 100,000$ 80,000$ 20,000$
16 Replace current low-floor route buses with 30 ft. low floor buses for 2020 delivery (2)1,200,000$ 960,000$ 240,000$
17 Replace current low-floor route buses with 30 ft. low floor buses for 2021 delivery (3)1,800,000$ 1,440,000$ 360,000$
18 Purchase Paratransit software package 25,000$ 20,000$ 5,000$
19 Construct new passenger transfer and administrative facility 6,000,000$ 4,800,000$ 1,200,000$
20 Transit admin facility rehab 50,000$ 40,000$ 10,000$
21 JEFFTRAN lighted signs 15,000$ 12,000$ 3,000$
22 Transit Traveler Kiosks (each)15,000$ 12,000$ 3,000$
23 Bike racks at passenger transfer facilities and selected bus stops 20,000$ 16,000$ 4,000$
24 Security gates for transit storage, maintenance and fueling facilities 20,000$ 16,000$ 4,000$
25 Inductive charging system for buses 100,000$ 80,000$ 20,000$
26 Add crosswalks to various locations around the city 100,000$ -$ 100,000$
JEFFTRAN Program of Projects
Illustrative Projects
20
Appendix A – Amendments and Administrative Modifications
Amendments
TIP No. Project Description Project Sponsor Project Cost Board
Approval
OneDOT
Approval
TIP Amendment 1
Administrative Modifications
TIP No. Project Description Project Sponsor Project Cost Date
21
Appendix B – Federal Funding Sources
Federal transportation programs which could fund projects in the CAMPO planning area.
FHWA Program Eligible Activities
National Highway Performance Program (NHPP)
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/nhpp.cfm
The NHPP provides support for the condition and performance of
the National Highway System (NHS), for the construction of new
facilities on the NHS, and to ensure that investments of Federal-aid
funds in highway construction are directed to support progress
toward the achievement of performance targets established in a
State's asset management plan for the NHS.
Surface Transportation Program (STP)
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/stp.cfm
The Surface Transportation Program (STP) provides flexible funding
that may be used by States and localities for projects to preserve and
improve the conditions and performance on any Federal-aid
highway, bridge and tunnel projects on any public road, pedestrian
and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects, including
intercity bus terminals.
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is to support a
significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all
public roads, including non-State-owned public roads and roads on
tribal lands
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/tap.cfm
Funds most activities funded under the Transportation
Enhancements, Recreational Trails, and Safe Routes to School
programs under SAFETEA-LU.
Railway-Highway Crossings (set-aside from HSIP)
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/rhc.cfm
This program funds safety improvements to reduce the number of
fatalities, injuries, and crashes at public grade crossings.
FTA Programs Eligible Activities
Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grants
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP-
21_Fact_Sheet_-
_Urbanized_Area_Formula_Grants.pdf
This program provides grants to Urbanized Areas (UZA) for public
transportation capital, planning, job access and reverse commute
projects, as well as operating expenses in certain circumstances.
Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and
Individuals with Disabilities
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP-
21_Fact_Sheet_-
_Enhanced_Mobility_of_Seniors_and_Individuals_wit
h_Disabilities.pdf
This program is intended to enhance mobility for seniors and persons
with disabilities by providing funds for programs to serve the special
needs of transit-dependent populations beyond traditional public
transportation services and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
complementary paratransit services.
Section 5311 Formula Grants for Rural Areas
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP-
21_Fact_Sheet_-
_Formula_Grants_for_Rural_Areas.pdf
This program provides capital, planning, and operating assistance to
states to support public transportation in rural areas with populations
less than 50,000, where many residents often rely on public transit to
reach their destinations.
Section 5329 Transit Safety & Oversight
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP-
21_Fact_Sheet_-_Transit_Safety_and_Oversight.pdf
MAP-21 grants FTA the authority to establish and enforce a new
comprehensive framework to oversee the safety of public
transportation throughout the United States as it pertains to heavy
rail, light rail, buses, ferries, and streetcars.
Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP-
21_Fact_Sheet_-_Bus_and_Bus_Facilities.pdf
Provides capital funding to replace, rehabilitate and purchase buses
and related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities.
22
Appendix C – Policies and Procedures
Amendments
An amendment involves a major change to a project and requires approval by the Board of Directors and
Governor. An amendment is a revision that requires public review, allowance of comment, possible re-
demonstration of fiscal constraint, and includes at least one of the following:
• Addition or deletion of a project using FHWA or FTA funds (except as allowed as an administrative
modification),
• Major changes affecting project cost from FHWA or FTA sources (changes exceeding 20% of
FHWA or FTA sources of the existing project cost or changes over $2,000,000),
• Major changes in a project phase initiation date (greater than 12 months), or
• Major changes in design concept or design scope, such as changing project termini (more than 1/2
mile or 10% of the total length of the project, whichever is greater) or changing the number of
through traffic lanes that also includes a substantial increase in Federal cost.
Amendments will be initiated by the project sponsor. Amendments to delete a project can simply be
made via written correspondence identifying the project and why it is to be removed from the TIP.
Amendments to include a new project can be made on the TIP Project Form for the current TIP with a
cover letter or remark in the comment section requesting inclusion in the TIP as an amendment.
Amendments for existing projects can be made on the TIP Project Form for the current TIP with a cover
letter or remark in the comment section highlighting the change in the project and providing the CAMPO
TIP Number.
After an Amendment has been requested the process as follows:
• Staff will review the amendment for accuracy and to verify if an amendment is required or if the
change qualifies as an administrative modification. Staff may consult with MoDOT and FHWA if
necessary.
• The amendment will be placed on the next Technical Committee (TC) meeting agenda for review.
• The Technical Committee is an advisory board to the board of directors. Regardless of whether the
Technical Committee recommends approval of a project, does not recommend approval of a project,
or is unable to make a recommendation, the project shall still proceed to the Board of Directors to
make a final decision.
• If approval is recommended by the TC to the Board of Directors, staff will post the amendment notice
on the website, initiating a minimum 7 calendar day public comment period, send notices to the
appropriate parties, and place the amendment on the next Board of Directors meeting agenda.
• At the Board of Directors Meeting, a public hearing will close the public comment period and a vote
for approval will be held.
If the project sponsor indicates an emergency situation upon submitting the amendment, staff will initiate
the public comment period, staff will post the amendment notice on the website, initiating a minimum 7
calendar day public comment period, send notices to the appropriate parties, and place the amendment on
the next Board of Directors meeting agenda. A public hearing will close the public comment period at the
next Board of Directors Meeting and hold a vote for approval. If this is not adequate to meet the
23
emergency situation, a special Board of Directors meeting may be called and proceed as outlined in the
Public Participation Plan.
Administrative Modifications
Revisions to the TIP and TIP projects that do not meet the criteria of an Amendment will be considered
administrative modifications including: minor changes to project/project phase costs, minor changes to
funding sources of previously-included projects, and minor changes to project/project phase initiation
dates. An administrative modification is a revision that neither requires committee action, public review
and comment, nor redemonstrates fiscal constraint.
An administrative modification will be initiated by the project sponsor by written communication to
CAMPO staff describing the change (phase cost, funding sources, or phase initiation date) warranting the
modification. Staff will review the administrative modification for accuracy and to verify qualification as
an administrative modification. Staff may consult with MoDOT and FHWA if necessary.
Upon CAMPO staff confirmation of the administrative modification requirements being met, staff will
modify the TIP appropriately, including noting the administrative modification in Appendix A of the TIP
and making changes to the project listing in the body of the TIP; notify the Board of Directors, Technical
Committee, MoDOT, FTA, and FHWA via email; draft a staff memo for the next Board of Directors and
Technical Committee meeting; and post the modified TIP notice on the CAMPO website for a minimum
of 7 calendar days.
Combining or Splitting Projects
Splitting a project into two or more projects or combining two or more projects can provide benefits to
project scheduling, cost, and logistics. A split or combination can be made via an administrative
modification to the TIP, if the project does not trigger a major change to the project as described in the
amendment section and the overall scope of work does not change.
When combining two or more projects, the financial and description information will be rolled up into the
project which was in the TIP originally and use the previous MPO TIP number. When splitting a project
into two or more projects, the financial and descriptive information will be separated appropriately into
several (two or more) projects using the same MPO TIP number, but the additional projects will include
alphabetic suffixes. The process for splitting or combining projects will follow the procedures of either
an amendment or administrative modification.
Compliance with Metropolitan Transportation Plan
For a project to be eligible for the TIP, it first must be included in the adopted Metropolitan
Transportation Plan. Large capital projects, roadway capacity, and/or general purpose roadway projects
must be individually listed or clearly part of a larger project included in the fiscally‐constrained
component of the plan. Certain projects seeking to improve safety, increase multi‐modal opportunities, or
enhance the existing transportation system may be programmed in the TIP without individual
identification in the regional plan, so long as they are consistent with the established goals and objectives
of the plan.
24
Project Delay Policy
The goal of the Project Delay Policy for the Transportation Improvement Program is to maximize the
federal funding obligated each fiscal year and to enable the MPO to redirect funds to different projects if
any are inactive or otherwise limited from making progress. The Delay Policy applies to projects funded
through the programs for which CAMPO has oversight of project selection.
The intent of the Delay Policy is to provide an incentive for local agency sponsors to develop their
projects according to a detailed schedule and, thereby, to obligate the federal funds assigned to each
project within the timeframes initially shown in the TIP. The Delay Policy is primarily focused on
projects that involve construction or provide transportation improvements that are handled through
purchasing procedures.
In the context of this Delay Policy, a “delay” occurs when a construction-related project phase does not
get advertised within six months of the TIP program year in which its construction phase funding was
originally programmed, or changed with an amendment, in the TIP. For non-construction projects and
programs, a “delay” occurs when the “Notice to Proceed” is not issued within two months of the TIP
program year in which its implementation was originally funded in the TIP. The consequence of a delay
may be the withdrawal of its Federal funds from the TIP or other action by the Board.
Project Funding Information
When a new project is submitted for inclusion to the TIP, either during the initial development of the TIP
or as an amendment, the project sponsor is required to provide information regarding the local funding
sources in order to show fiscal constraint. The specific source of revenue, anticipated future, and any
other financial information needed to show fiscal constraint will be required.
Project Selection
The CAMPO Board of Directors adopted (Resolution 2010-04) a project prioritization and selection
process. This process involves a call for projects, ranking based on CAMPO priorities by staff and
reviewed by the CAMPO Technical Committee, prior to being forwarded to the CAMPO Board of
Directors for a vote of approval. The Board of Directors may modify the project selection it deems
necessary.
Project Sponsor Commitment to Projects
Project sponsors hold ultimate responsibility for ensuring that project information contained in the TIP is
correct, that it accurately represents the scope of work being performed, and that the amount of funding
being requested is correct. The sponsor is responsible for providing CAMPO with an honest accounting
of project details including: costs, implementation schedules, and local matching fund sources, at the time
of the application for federal funds and anytime such details change. The project sponsor is also
responsible for reviewing the TIP after a project is included or modified to ensure correctness.
Scriveners’ Error
Errors made the in the ministerial functions of creating and maintaining the TIP, such as cartography,
typographical, spelling, minor word omissions, mathematical, and other error’s which do not alter the
25
intent of the TIP and have little or no impact can be performed by staff and shall not be considered a
revision to the TIP.
26
Appendix D – Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process Certification
27
Appendix E – Definitions
Attainment area means any geographic area in which levels of a given criteria air
pollutant (e.g., ozone, carbon monoxide, PM10, PM2.5, and nitrogen dioxide) meet
the health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for that
pollutant. An area may be an attainment area for one pollutant and a nonattainment
area for others. A maintenance area (see definition below) is not considered an
attainment area for transportation planning purposes.
Available funds means funds derived from an existing source dedicated to or
historically used for transportation purposes. For Federal funds, authorized and/or
appropriated funds and the extrapolation of formula and discretionary funds at
historic rates of increase are considered available. A similar approach may be used
for State and local funds that are dedicated to or historically used for transportation
purposes.
Conformity means a Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) requirement that ensures that
Federal funding and approval are given to transportation plans, programs and
projects that are consistent with the air quality goals established by a State
Implementation Plan (SIP). Conformity, to the purpose of the SIP, means that
transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. The transportation
conformity rule (40 CFR part 93) sets forth policy, criteria, and procedures for
demonstrating and assuring conformity of transportation activities.
Cooperation means that the parties involved in carrying out the transportation
planning and programming processes work together to achieve a common goal or
objective.
Coordination means the cooperative development of plans, programs, and schedules
among agencies and entities with legal standing and adjustment of such plans,
programs, and schedules to achieve general consistency, as appropriate.
Design concept means the type of facility identified for a transportation improvement
project (e.g., freeway, expressway, arterial highway, grade separated highway, toll
road, reserved right-of-way rail transit, mixed-traffic rail transit, or busway).
Design scope means the aspects that will affect the proposed facility’s impact on the
region, usually as they relate to vehicle or person carrying capacity and control
(e.g., number of lanes or tracks to be constructed or added, length of project,
signalization, safety features, access control including approximate number and
location of interchanges, or preferential treatment for high occupancy vehicles).
Financial Plan means documentation required to be included with a metropolitan
transportation plan and TIP (and optional for the long-range statewide
transportation plan and STIP) that demonstrates the consistency between
reasonably available and projected sources of Federal, State, local, and private
revenues and the costs of implementing proposed transportation system
improvements.
Financially Constrained or Fiscal Constraint means that the metropolitan
transportation plan, TIP, and STIP includes sufficient financial information for
demonstrating that projects in the metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, and STIP
can be implemented using committed, available, or reasonably available revenue
sources, with reasonable assurance that the federally supported transportation
system is being adequately operated and maintained. For the TIP and the STIP,
financial constraint/fiscal constraint applies to each program year. Additionally,
projects in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas can be included in the
first two years of the TIP and STIP only if funds are available or committed.
Illustrative Project means an additional transportation project that may (but is not
required to) be included in a financial plan for a metropolitan transportation plan,
TIP, or STIP if reasonable additional resources were to become available.
Maintenance Area means any geographic region of the United States that the EPA
previously designated as a nonattainment area for one or more pollutants pursuant
to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and subsequently redesignated as an
attainment area subject to the requirement to develop a maintenance plan under
section 175A of the Clean Air Act, as amended.
Major Projects - These transportation improvements are defined as projects receiving
Federal financial assistance 1) with an estimated total cost of $500 million or more
or 2) that have been identified by the FHWA as being a Major Project. The
designated projects may include those: 1) that require a substantial amount of a
State Transportation Agency's program resources, 2) that have a high level of
public or congressional attention, or 3) that have extraordinary implications for the
national transportation system.
Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) means the geographic area determined by
agreement between the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the area and
the Governor, in which the metropolitan transportation planning process is carried
out.
Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) means the official multimodal
transportation plan addressing no less than a 20-year planning horizon that is
developed, adopted, and updated by CAMPO through the metropolitan
transportation planning process.
Nonattainment area means any geographic region of the United States that has been
designated by the EPA as a nonattainment area under section 107 of the Clean Air
Act for any pollutants for which an NAAQS exists.
Obligated projects means strategies and projects funded under title 23 U.S.C. and
title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 for which the supporting Federal funds were authorized
and committed by the State or designated recipient in the preceding program year,
and authorized by the FHWA or awarded as a grant by the FTA.
Program of Projects (POP) is a list of projects to be funded in a grant application
submitted to FTA by a designated recipient. The POP lists the subrecipients and
indicates whether they are private non-profit agencies, governmental authorities, or
private providers of transportation service, designates the areas served (including
rural areas), and identifies any tribal entities. In addition, the POP includes a brief
description of the projects, total project cost, and Federal share for each project.
Project selection means the procedures followed by MPOs, States, and public
transportation operators to advance projects from the first four years of an approved
TIP and/or STIP to implementation, in accordance with agreed upon procedures.
Project sponsor must be a city, county, state, or other transportation related
government agency eligible to receive federal funding from the Federal Highway
or Federal Transit Administrations. All other entities must partner with a city,
county, or state agency to apply for and/or administer a transportation project.
Public transportation operator means the public entity which participates in the
continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process in
accordance with 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 and 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304, and is the
designated recipient of Federal funds under title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 for
transportation by a conveyance that provides regular and continuing general or
special transportation to the public, but does not include school bus, charter, or
intercity bus transportation or intercity passenger rail transportation provided by
Amtrak.
Regionally significant project means a transportation project (other than projects that
may be grouped in the TIP and/or STIP or exempt projects as defined in EPA’s
transportation conformity regulation (40 CFR part 93)) that is on a facility which
serves regional transportation needs (such as access to and from the area outside
the region; major activity centers in the region; major planned developments such
as new retail malls, sports complexes, or employment centers; or transportation
terminals) and would normally be included in the modeling of the metropolitan
area’s transportation network. At a minimum, this includes all principal arterial
highways and all fixed guideway transit facilities that offer a significant alternative
to regional highway travel.
Statewide transportation improvement program (STIP) means a statewide
prioritized listing/program of transportation projects covering a period of four years
that is consistent with the long-range statewide transportation plan, metropolitan
transportation plans, and TIPs, and required for projects to be eligible for funding
under title 23 U.S.C. and title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a document prepared by a
metropolitan planning organization that lists projects to be funded with
FHWA/FTA funds for the at least next one- to three-year period.
Unified Planning Work Plan (UPWP) is the management plan for the (metropolitan)
planning program. Its purpose is to coordinate the planning activities of all
participants in the planning process.
2015-2035 Metropolitan
Transportation Plan
For the Jefferson City, Missouri Urbanized Area
Approved and adopted
June 15, 2016
Capital Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan
Added October 19, 2016
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
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.
Acknowledgement:
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.
Plan Produced by: Alan Morrison, AICP, Sonny Sanders, AICP, PTP, GISP, Katrina Williams, GISP, and Alex
Rotenberry, AICP
MPO Administration is provided by the City of Jefferson, Missouri
Department of Planning and Protective Services/ Planning Division
Room 120 John G. Christy Municipal Building
320 East McCarty Jefferson City, Missouri
Telephone 573-634-6410
http://www.jeffersoncitymo.gov/campo
Date this document was last reviewed: May 17, 2013 and updated April, 2017.
CAMPO Staff
Sonny Sanders, AICP, GISP, PTP – Director, Planning & Protective Services
Katrina Williams, GISP – Transportation Planner
Alex Rotenberry - Transportation Planner
Anne Stratman – Administrative Assistant
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Board of Directors
Chairman – Jeff Hoelscher, Eastern District Commissioner, Cole County
Vice-Chairman – Larry Henry, City Council Member, City of Jefferson
City of Jefferson
Ken Hussey, City Council Member
Mark Schreiber, City Council Member
Erin Wiseman, City Council Member
Sonny Sanders, AICP, GISP, PTP, Director,
Planning & Protective Services
Matt Morasch, PE, Director, Public Works
Mark Mehmert, Director, Transit Division
Cole County
Larry Benz, PE, Director, Public Works
Doug Reece, City Administrator, St. Martins
Callaway County
Roger Fischer, Western District Commissioner
Holts Summit
Rick Hess, City Administrator, City of Holts
Summit
Missouri Department of Transportation
David Silvester, PE, District Engineer
Ex-Officio Members
Randall Allen, Jefferson City Area Chamber of
Commerce
Jeremiah Shuler, Federal Transit Administration,
Region VII
Dion Knipp, Missouri Department of
Transportation, Transit Section
Cathy Brown, Office of Administration, Facilities
Management, Design and Construction
Michael Henderson, AICP, Missouri Department
of Transportation, Transportation Planning
Enos Han, Federal Highway Administration,
Missouri Division
Bruce Hackmann, Callaway County Economic
Development
Technical Committee
Chairman – Sonny Sanders, AICP, GISP, PTP, Director, Planning and Protective Services, City of Jefferson
Vice-Chairman – David Bange, PE, Engineering Supervisor, Dept. of Public Works, City of Jefferson
City of Jefferson
Todd Spalding, Director, Parks, Recreation &
Forestry
Matt Morasch, PE, Director of Public Works
Mark Mehmert, Director, Transit Division
Alex Rotenberry, AICP, Transportation Planner
Britt Smith, PE, Operations & Maintenance
Cole County
Larry Benz, PE, Director of Public Works
Eric Landwehr, PE, County Engineer
Callaway County
Paul Winkelmann, PE, County Highway
Administrator
Small City Representative - Callaway
Mark Tate, Streets Department, City of Holts
Summit
Small City Representative - Cole
David Elliot, Alderman, Wardsville
Missouri Department of Transportation
Steve Engelbrecht, PE, District Planning Manager
Michael Henderson, AICP, Transportation
Planning Specialist
Bob Lynch, PE, Area Engineer
Private Transportation Interest
Joe Scheppers, N.H. Scheppers Distributing
Company.
Pedestrian or Biking Interest
Cary Maloney
Ex-Officio Members:
Jeremiah Shuler, Federal Transit Administration,
Region VII
Enos Han, Federal Highway Administration:
Missouri Division
2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization i
New Resolution Goes Here.
2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ii
Table of Contents
Prologue: National Directives, Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................ 1
National Policy Statement –Metropolitan Planning ............................................................................. 1
National Objectives: Metropolitan Transportation Planning .............................................................. 1
The Scope of the Planning Process: The Eight Planning Factors ........................................................ 2
General Federal Requirements of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan ......................................... 3
Section 1:The Metropolitan Transportation Plan ................................................................................................... 4
Metropolitan Transportation Planning Concepts ................................................................................. 4
The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ....................................................................... 5
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Demographics Update ...................................... 6
MTP Development .................................................................................................................................... 8
Public Participation ................................................................................................................................. 10
Environmental Justice and Non-discrimination in Transportation Services................................... 10
Title VI Nondiscrimination Policies ...................................................................................................... 11
Mobility and Disability ........................................................................................................................... 12
Consultation With Other Officials and Organizations ....................................................................... 13
Section 2: The Existing and Proposed Transportation System ........................................................................... 15
Roadways ................................................................................................................................................. 15
Major Street and Highway Routes .................................................................................................. 15
Bridges ................................................................................................................................................. 18
Structurally Deficient or Functionally Obsolete Bridges ........................................................ 18
Urban Transit Service .............................................................................................................................. 19
Rural Transit Services ............................................................................................................................. 20
The Aviation System ............................................................................................................................... 21
Freight ....................................................................................................................................................... 22
River Transportation ............................................................................................................................... 23
Rail Roads: Passenger ............................................................................................................................. 23
Rail Roads: Freight .................................................................................................................................. 24
Intermodal Systems ................................................................................................................................. 24
Bicycle/Pedestrian Systems .................................................................................................................... 25
Transportation System Safety ................................................................................................................ 29
CAMPO Roadway Collision Statistics ............................................................................................ 29
Bicycle and Pedestrian Accidents .................................................................................................... 30
Strategic Highway Safety Plan and Emergency Relief / Disaster Preparedness ....................... 31
Natural Hazards ................................................................................................................................ 32
Natural Hazard Mitigation ............................................................................................................... 33
Transportation System Security ............................................................................................................ 33
Environmental Consultation and Mitigation ....................................................................................... 33
Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................ 35
Section 3: Future Development Affecting Transportation .................................................................................. 36
Current Land Use .............................................................................................................................. 37
Projected Land Use, Development, and Redevelopment ............................................................. 39
Redevelopment .................................................................................................................................. 39
Transportation Corridor Development ........................................................................................... 43
Continuing Safety and Congestion Issues ...................................................................................... 45
Section 4: Congestion and Travel forecasting ....................................................................................................... 46
Area Commuting and Travel Patterns.................................................................................................. 46
Congestion ................................................................................................................................................ 48
Forecasting Future Travel Demand ...................................................................................................... 48
2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization iii
Section 5: Strategies and Capital Investment ........................................................................................................ 53
Regional Initiatives ..................................................................................................................................... 56
Section 6: The Regional Financial Plan .................................................................................................................. 58
Fiscally Constrained Investment Plan 2013 – 2035 ............................................................................. 58
Operations & Maintenance – Federal Aid Highways & Streets .................................................. 71
The Public Transit Financial Plan - JEFFTRAN ............................................................................. 74
Public Transit Funding ...................................................................................................................... 75
Local Funding Resources – Non-Transit ........................................................................................ 76
Federal Funding Resources /Options .............................................................................................. 77
State Funding Options ...................................................................................................................... 79
Appendix 1: Demographic and Area Characteristics .......................................................................................... 81
Appendix 2: MPA Illustrative Needs List ............................................................................................................. 92
Appendix 3: National Environmental Policy Act Impact on Transportation Planning ................................ 102
Appendix 4: Summary of Federal Transportation Acts .................................................................................... 104
Appendix 5: Other National Goals in MAP 21 Programs ................................................................................. 105
Appendix 6: 2016 Capital Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan ............................................................................... 106
Appendix 7: Updates and Revisions .................................................................................................................... 107
1
Prologue: National Directives, Goals and Objectives
The Long Range Transportation Plan or as it’s come to be known, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan is
mandated by the federal government through a series of federal statutes accompanied by a host of
regulations. This first section identifies the national objectives of metropolitan transportation planning,
and directs the reader to additional reading in Appendix 5 to review the Federal purposes of the Public
Transportation Program.
National Policy Statement of the FAST Act, Metropolitan Transportation Planning section
(a) Policy - It is in the national interest
(1) to encourage and promote the safe and efficient management, operation, and development of
surface transportation systems that will serve the mobility needs of people and freight and
foster economic growth and development within and between States and urbanized areas,
while minimizing transportation-related fuel consumption and air pollution through
metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes identified in this Section; and
(2) to encourage the continued improvement and evolution of the metropolitan and statewide
transportation planning processes by metropolitan planning organizations, State departments
of transportation, and public transit operators as guided by the planning factors identified in
subsection (h) and section 135(d) of 23 U.S.C.
National Objectives - Metropolitan Transportation Planning
The FAST Act continues the requirement to develop an MTP (and a Transportation Improvement
Program or TIP) in order to accomplish these national objectives: 1 Specifically, “to accomplish the
objectives in 1-4, metropolitan planning organizations, in cooperation with the State and public
transportation operators, shall develop long-range transportation plans (also referred to as the MTP) and
transportation improvement programs through a performance-driven, outcome-based approach to
planning for metropolitan areas of the State”, as per the FAST Act:
The contents of the MTP and also the TIP …”for each metropolitan area shall provide for the
development and integrated management and operation of transportation systems and facilities
(including accessible pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) that will function as an
intermodal transportation system for the metropolitan planning area and as an integral part of an
intermodal transportation system for the State and the United States.”
The current transportation act, the FAST Act, contains the “National Objectives” that the legislation
expects to be accomplished in part through the statewide and metropolitan transportation planning
process.
The Metropolitan Transportation Planning National Objectives contained in the FAST Act are:
1. Encourage and promote the safe and efficient management, operation, and development of
surface transportation systems that will serve the mobility needs of people and freight
2. Foster economic growth and development within and between States and urbanized areas
3. Minimize transportation-related fuel consumption and air pollution through metropolitan and
statewide transportation planning processes and
4. Encourage the continued improvement and evolution of the metropolitan and statewide
transportation planning processes by metropolitan planning organizations, State departments of
transportation, and public transit operators as guided by the ten planning factors.
Also included in this same federal legislation is a section stating that this “scope of the planning process”,
should be based on the scale and complexity of many issues, including transportation system
development, land use, employment, economic development, human and natural environment, and
housing and community development.” This is an important statement since there are significant
2
resources dedicated to do metropolitan planning and MPOs are not the same, CAMPO is one of many
small MPOs and has extremely limited resources.
Factors and Requirements Considered in the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process
Federal legislation identifies several factors that must be considered to fulfill the FAST Act planning
process requirements 2. The following section describes the newest regulatory items that CAMPO must
consider in the development of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan.
The Scope of the Planning Process: The Ten Planning Factors
The eight planning factors are identified as the process to achieve one of four national objectives detailed
in the Metropolitan Transportation Planning National Objectives section included in the plan.
(h) (1) The metropolitan planning process for a metropolitan planning area under this section is carried
over from the previous federal transportation legislation and shall provide for consideration of projects
and strategies that will:
(A) support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global
competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency;
(B) increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users;
(C) increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users;
(D) increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight;
(E) 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;
(F) enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between
modes, for people and freight;
(G) promote efficient system management and operation; and
(H) emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.
(I) improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or mitigate
stormwater impacts of surface transportation; and
(J) enhance travel and tourism 3
Subsection H2 describes the continued linkage from the initial Metropolitan Transportation Planning
Objectives and the planning factors above, to the performance based approach intended to produce a
performance based outcome to federal transportation planning:
(h) (2) Performance-based approach. -
(A) In general. - The metropolitan transportation planning process shall provide for the
establishment and use of a performance-based approach to transportation decision making to
support the national goals described in section 150(b) of this title and in section 5301(c) of
title 49.
23 U.S.C. Sec. 150. National goals and performance management measures 4
(a) Declaration of Policy. - Performance management will transform the Federal-aid highway program
and provide a means to the most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds by refocusing
on national transportation goals, increasing the accountability and transparency of the Federal-aid
highway program, and improving project decision-making through performance-based planning
and programming.
3
(b) National Goals. - It is in the interest of the United States to focus the Federal-aid highway program
on the following national goals: 5
(1) Safety. - To achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public
roads.
(2) Infrastructure condition. - To maintain the highway infrastructure asset system in a state of
good repair.
(3) Congestion reduction. - To achieve a significant reduction in congestion on the National
Highway System.
(4) System reliability. - To improve the efficiency of the surface transportation system.
(5) Freight movement and economic vitality. - To improve the national freight network,
strengthen the ability of rural communities to access national and international trade markets,
and support regional economic development.
(6) Environmental sustainability. - To enhance the performance of the transportation system while
protecting and enhancing the natural environment.
(7) Reduced project delivery delays. - To reduce project costs, promote jobs and the economy, and
expedite the movement of people and goods by accelerating project completion through
eliminating delays in the project development and delivery process, including reducing
regulatory burdens and improving agencies' work practices.
CAMPO is addressing these national goals by anticipating the future integration into the metropolitan
transportation planning process, by reference, the goals, objectives, performance measures, and targets
described in MoDOT’s State transportation plans and transportation processes, when developed, as well
as any plans developed under chapter 53 of title 49 by providers of public transportation, required as part
of a performance-based program.
Rulemaking by the FHWA regarding the establishment of performance measures and standards shall be
completed no later than 18 months after the enactment of the FAST Act, which was enacted December 4,
2015. State DOTs have no later than 1 year after rulemaking to establish performance targets that reflect
these measures and standards. Upon the establishment of these targets and measures by MoDOT and
FHWA, CAMPO will either adopt MoDOT’s targets by reference or establish alternative measures.
General Federal Requirements of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan
(a) General Requirements -
(1) Development of long-range plans and tips. - To accomplish the objectives in subsection (a),
metropolitan planning organizations designated under subsection (d), in cooperation with the
State and public transportation operators, shall develop long-range transportation plans and
transportation improvement programs through a performance-driven, outcome-based
approach to planning for metropolitan areas of the State.
(2) Contents. - The plans and TIPs for each metropolitan area shall provide for the development
and integrated management and operation of transportation systems and facilities (including
accessible pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) that will function as an
intermodal transportation system for the metropolitan planning area and as an integral part of
an intermodal transportation system for the State and the United States.
(3) Process of development. - The process for developing the plans and TIPs shall provide for
consideration of all modes of transportation and shall be continuing, cooperative, and
comprehensive to the degree appropriate, based on the complexity of the transportation
problems to be addressed.
4
Section 1: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Metropolitan Transportation Planning Concept
A good starting point is to review several important concepts: the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, an
Urbanized Area, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and the Metropolitan Planning Area.
A Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), referred to as a Long Range Transportation Plan in the past,
is a requirement for all urbanized areas that have a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).
An Urbanized Area (UA) is an area that contains a city of 50,000 or more in population plus the
incorporated surrounding areas meeting size or density criteria as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau.6
When an area has been identified as an urbanized area, by the US Department of Commerce Census
Bureau, and designated as such by the Office of Management and Budget, a transportation planning
organization such 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.7
A Metropolitan Planning Organization is a transportation policy-making body made up of
representatives from local government and transportation agencies with authority and responsibility in
metropolitan planning areas. Federal legislation passed in the early 1970s required the formation of an
MPO for any urbanized area (UA). The MPO mandate is still in the Federal legislation today.
This policy-making organization made up of representatives from local governments, key transportation
entities and transportation authorities has five “core” functions:8
1. To establish and manage a fair and impartial setting for effective regional decision-making in the
metropolitan area.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Involve the general public and all the significantly affected sub-groups in the four essential functions
listed above.
A Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations 9 as the geographic
area in which the metropolitan transportation planning process must be carried out.10 “The MPA
boundary shall, as a minimum, cover the Urbanized Area and the contiguous geographic area(s) likely to
become urbanized within the twenty year forecast period covered by the transportation plan. The MPA
boundary may encompass the entire metropolitan statistical area or consolidated metropolitan statistical
area, as defined by the Census Bureau.”
And, as with prior legislation, the 3C process is continued. “The process for developing the plans and
TIPs shall provide for consideration of all modes of transportation and shall be continuing, cooperative,
and comprehensive to the degree appropriate, based on the complexity of the transportation problems to
be addressed”.
For an MPO such as CAMPO, the MTP is updated at least every 5 years, and more frequently if the MPO
elects to 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.
5
Goals and Objectives of the MPO
The Vision: Enhance regional quality of life
The Primary Goal: Infrastructure support for community health and economic growth
Objectives:
1. Improve the safety for all travel modes: reduce frequency and severity of crashes, for motorized,
and non-motorized modes of travel
i. Increase sidewalk mileage and condition
ii. Improve number and locations of crosswalks
iii. Improve street and roadway operations practices
iv. Identify locations for potential safety projects
2. Reduce traffic congestion and delay
i. Support travel demand modeling
ii. Improve management and operations programs
iii. Support access management programs
iv. Identify locations for congestion projects
3. Identify and support activities that encourage economic development
i. Corridor Preservation: Preserve motorized and motorized transportation corridors for
future growth
ii. Improve asset management capabilities and life cycle planning
iii. Improve airport infrastructure, operations and capabilities
4. Improve freight, multimodal and intermodal movement
i. Identify potential freight related projects
ii. Improve existing multimodal and intermodal freight related facilities
iii. Support improvements to freight rail
iv. Support projects that have multimodal improvements
v. Improve transit operations and connectivity
5. Improve non-motorized travel opportunities and facilities
i. Build and maintain sidewalks and greenways
ii. support improvements to passenger rail system
The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO)
CAMPO is the designated MPO for the Jefferson City urbanized area in 2002 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.
6
CAMPO was formally established with the development of membership, bylaws, and the completion of a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in March of 2003. Adopted in April 2015, the current MOU was
drafted with the cooperation of Holts Summit, Lake Mykee, St. Martins, Taos, Wardsville, Jefferson City,
Callaway County, and Cole County. It should be noted Taos and Wardsville were added to the MPO
planning area in 2013.
This MTP is the update of the first Metropolitan Transportation Plan and 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.
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Demographics Update
Trend #1 - Population Growth
The CAMPO Metropolitan Planning Area, as it is in 2013 experienced a population growth of
approximately 9.2% between years 2000 to 2010. The population grew by 6,651 persons, from 65,346 in
2000 to 71,997 in 2010.
Location of Population Growth
Most of this growth occurred on the urban fringes, primarily in and around Holt Summit in Callaway
County, western Jefferson City to St. Martin’s and to the south in the Wardsville area.
Trend # 2 - The population is aging.
The median age is the age at the midpoint of the population, so half of the population is older than the
median age and half of the population is younger. The median age is often used to describe the “age” of a
population.
In 2000, the median age was 34.7 years for Callaway County and 35.5 years for Cole County
In 2010, the median age was 37.7 for Callaway County and 37.7 for Cole County.
Table 1: Median Age of the MPA from 2000 to 2010
Median Age Callaway Cole
2000 2010 2000 2010
Both Sexes 34.7 37.7 35.5 37.7
Males 34 36.8 34.4 36.8
Females 35.4 38.6 36.9 38.8
Trend # 3 - Demographic Shifts
A notable shift occurred in increased racial diversification. In 2000, 86.3% of the population was
classified as White. This ratio declined to 83.4% in 2010. Between the years 2000 – 2010, the rate of
growth for the White population was 6%, while the Non-White population grew 25%.
The following table shows the shift in racial composition of the MPA.
7
Table 2: Racial Composition of the MPO
Population Year
2000
Year
2010
Change in Population
Numbers from 2000 to 2010
Percent of Total
Population in 2010
Percentage
Change 2000-2010
Total 65,346 71,997 6,651 9.24%
White 56,402 60,030 3,628 83.38% 6.04%
Non-White 8,944 11,967 3,023 16.62% 25.26%
Black or African
American 6,446 8,613 2,167 11.96% 25.16%
Asian 466 957 491 1.33% 51.31%
American Indian &
Alaska Native 123 240 117 0.33% 48.75%
Native Hawaiian &
Other Pacific Islander 9 46 37 0.06% 80.43%
Some Other Race 280 685 405 0.95% 59.12%
Hispanic or Latino (of
any race) 710 1,855 1,145 2.58% 61.73%
The areas of the MPO with the highest minority populations include the downtown Jefferson City area,
the western portion of region, and the eastern portion. However, the eastern portion concentration is due
to the location of state prison facilities that moved from the more central part of Jefferson City.
For more detailed information about demographics, area characteristics or commute patterns please refer
to Appendix 3.
Geographic Region Covered By the Plan
The MTP covers the entire MPA. 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 71,997.
With the new MAP boundary, it covers 152.7 sq. miles, with 23.2 square miles in Callaway County, and
129.5 square miles within Cole County.
With the results of the 2010 Census counts and geographic boundaries in, the MPO and MoDOT revised
the adjusted urban area, and the Board of Directors revised the Metropolitan Planning Area of MPA to
expand to the southeast, and contract in the northeast and northwest, in Callaway County.
This designation includes the original portions of the northern Cole County, part of southern Callaway
County, the City of Jefferson, the City of St. Martins, the City of Holts Summit, and the Village of Lake
Mykee, and now includes the municipalities of Taos and Wardsville as of 2013.
8
Figure 1: Map of CAMPO MPA and Surrounding Area.
MTP Development
Developing the CAMPO Metropolitan Transportation 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 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 2010 census was used as a base population and an estimate of
future population growth was forecast out to 2035. 2010-2035 growth rates are based on the Missouri State
Demographer forecasts. CAMPO staff also inventoried the current land uses within the Metropolitan
9
Planning Area (MPA) of CAMPO in preparation for forecasting land uses for the MTP planning horizon out
to 2035 through the use of parcel data from Cole and Callaway Counties.
Based on population growth forecasts, the next step was to develop an estimate of future development and
housing growth for the CAMPO area. Housing was evaluated through 2010 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
2035.
Known and probable future commercial development locations were identified and located 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.
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 a model to forecast 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.
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 special districts, zoning and land use, transit and roadway plans, airport and aviation plans,
water and rail transport, air quality and congestion plans if available.
In addition to this, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan strives to be consistent with local growth and
economic development plans. The following plans are incorporated into the MTP by reference.
Local and regional plans used in the production of this plan include:
Callaway County Hazard Mitigation Plan
Callaway County Emergency Management Plan
CAMPO Travel Demand Model
CAMPO Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan
City of Holts Summit – Transportation Plan – 2014
City of Holts Summit – Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Plan – 2014
City of Jefferson Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Jefferson Central East side Neighborhood Plan – 2005
City of Jefferson Community Development Block Grant Program 2014-2018 Consolidated Plan
City of Jefferson Comprehensive Plan – 1996
City of Jefferson Greenways Master Plan
City of Jefferson Historic Preservation Commission Preservation Plan – 2010
City of Jefferson Memorial Airport Layout Master Plan – 2011
City of Jefferson Sewerage Master Plan Update – 2009
City of Jefferson Southside Redevelopment Plan
City of Jefferson Transit Feasibility Study – 2010
City of Jefferson Transit Development Plan –2006
Cole County Missouri 2010 County Master Plan
Cole County Hazard Mitigation Plan
Cole County Emergency Management Plan
County-Wide Transportation Study Cole County and City of Jefferson – 2003
10
Missouri River Freight Corridor Assessment & Development Plan – 2011
Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission Regional Transportation Plan – March, 2016
Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission Regional Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services
Transportation Plan – 2013
Missouri Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
Missouri State Penitentiary Redevelopment Plan (as of 2008)
Missouri State Rail Plan – 2012
Missouri State 2013 Highway Safety Plan & Performance Plan
MoDOT Whitton Expressway Environmental Impact Study – 2012
St. Martins Long Range Transportation Plan – 2009/2011 11
For an MPO, the Transportation plan 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.
Public Participation
CAMPO has a responsibility to coordinate the metropolitan 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.12
FHWA and FTA have identified several performance standards for effective public participation, and these
standards are supported by CAMPO.13 These standards include:
1. Early and continuous involvement
2. Reasonable public availability of technical and other information
3. Collaborative input on alternatives, evaluation criteria, and mitigation needs
4. Open public meetings where matters related to transportation policies, programs, and projects are being
considered, and
5. Open access to the decision making process prior to closure
The Metropolitan Planning Organization has a Public Participation Plan in place and is available for viewing
online at
http://www.jeffersoncitymo.gov/government/long_range_transportation_plan/public_participation.php.14
Environmental Justice and Non-Discrimination in Transportation Services
The Environmental Protection Administration defines environmental justice as: “the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.”
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.
Meaningful involvement means that: (1) people have an opportunity to participate in decisions about
activities that may affect their environment and/or health; (2) the public’s contribution can influence the
regulatory agency's decision; (3) their concerns will be considered in the decision making process; and (4) the
decision makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected.15
Executive Order 12898 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. The order is also intended to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs that affect human
health and the environment. It aims to provide minority and low-income person’s access to public
11
information and public participation in matters relating to human health and the environment 16.
According to Federal publications, Environmental Justice has three fundamental principles:
1. 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.
2. To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation
decision-making process.
3. To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-
income populations.
When transportation projects and investments are considered, one of the requirements of CAMPO is to see
that Environmental Justice requirements and principles are integrated into the processes and plans, taking
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
It is the policy of CAMPO that as general principle and CAMPO also certifies that 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 and related
nondiscrimination statutes.
To certify compliance with environmental justice, CAMPO incorporates the following activities into the
planning processes, (MPO requirements as identified by the Federal Highway Administration), and works
towards the following:
1. Enhancement of analytical capabilities to ensure that the long-range transportation plan and the
transportation improvement program (TIP) comply with Title VI.
2. 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 will be fairly distributed.
3. Evaluate, and where necessary, improve public involvement processes to eliminate participation barriers
and engage minority and low-income populations in transportation decision-making.
Low Income
For purposes of Title VI and Environmental Justice, what is considered “low-income”?
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.
FHWA documents provide a Title VI Definition of Low Income 17 (and Low Income Population)
Low-Income =A household income at or below the Department of Health and Human Services 2011 poverty
guidelines of $22,350 for a family of four.
Low-Income Population = any readily Identifiable group of low-income persons who live in geographic
proximity, and, if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant
workers or Native Americans) who would be similarly affected by a proposed FHWA program, policy, or
activity.
12
Table 3: 2011 HHS Poverty Guidelines
Size of
family unit
100 Percent
of Poverty
110 Percent
of Poverty
125 Percent
of Poverty
150 Percent
of Poverty
175 Percent
of Poverty
185 Percent
of Poverty
200 Percent
of Poverty
1 $11,170 $12,287 $13,963 $16,755 $19,548 $20,665 $22,340
2 $15,130 $16,643 $18,913 $22,695 $26,478 $27,991 $30,260
3 $19,090 $20,999 $23,863 $28,635 $33,408 $35,317 $38,180
4 $23,050 $25,355 $28,813 $34,575 $40,338 $42,643 $46,100
5 $27,010 $29,711 $33,763 $40,515 $47,268 $49,969 $54,020
6 $30,970 $34,067 $38,713 $46,455 $54,198 $57,295 $61,940
7 $34,930 $38,423 $43,663 $52,395 $61,128 $64,621 $69,860
8 $38,890 $42,779 $48,613 $58,335 $68,058 $71,947 $77,780
Source: http://www.liheap.ncat.org/profiles/povertytables/FY2013/popstate.htm
For all states (except Alaska and Hawaii) and for the District of Columbia.
Note: For optional use in FFY 2012 and mandatory use in FFY 2013
Mobility and Disability
Mobility may have more than one definition, depending on context, but for transportation it is defined here
as the ability to move about and perform ordinary tasks such as traveling for work, social interactions,
shopping or medical and health care visits.
Mobility: In the context of performance indicators refers to the time and costs required for travel. Mobility is
higher when average travel times, variations in travel times, and travel costs are low. Indicators of mobility
are indicators of travel times and costs and variability in travel times and costs.18 There is also a
differentiation of system vs. “people” mobility. A system indicator is more applicable to performance
measures being emphasized in this current planning environment of performance and measurement.
The most frequently cited mobility measures fall into six major areas: congestion related (e.g., level of
service, volume/capacity, and delay); trip time; amount of travel (vehicle miles traveled, vehicle hours
traveled); mode share; transfer time; and transit performance.19
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 2010 Census data in the Demographics section of the plan presents the extent of the disabled and elderly
populations within the MPA, taken from the best available information.
CAMPO recommends additional study into the possibilities of establishing mobility management in the
MPO area.20 21
Several examples of mobility management activities include:
1. “one-stop” information centers that coordinate information on all transportation options,
2. travel training and trip planning for individuals,
3. transportation brokerages that coordinate providers, funding agencies, and persons needing trips,
and,
4. planning and implementation of coordinated services, such as local and state coordination councils
13
Mobility Management
In 2015 a Mobility Management program and position were created within the Mid-Missouri Regional
Planning Commission (Mid-MO RPC) region. The program stemmed from the 2013 update the Coordinated
Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan. With financial support from the Missouri
Developmental Disabilities Council (MODDC), Mid-MO RPC staff worked alongside several regional
transportation stakeholders as part of a planning grant to increase regional transportation coordination.
After completing a Coordination Strategy for MODDC additional funding was received to implement a
Mobility Management Project in the Mid-MO RPC region, including the CAMPO and CATSO MPOs. With
support from Central Missouri Community Action (CMCA), United Way’s 211, and MODDC, these
partners, along with many others, provided the drive to improve transportation coordination in the region.
Funding was approved for a two year project in the spring of 2015.
The funding supports efforts to provide mobility management tools to the public via bolstering education of
available services and the creation of a Mobility Manager staff position. The project includes:
• Creation and Implementation of 2 Poverty/Mobility Simulations to educate local decision
makers on transit needs
• Educational and advertising materials to support the Mid-Missouri Mobility Management
• Increase of provider coordination to increase efficiency, access, and reduce costs
• Formation of new partnerships with regional agencies, employers, and other stakeholders to
provide more transportation choices
The goal of the project is to increase access to transit through improvements to coordination, efficiency, and
education. Target populations include disabled, elderly, and low-income individuals as well as the general
public.
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.”22
CAMPO consults with representatives of 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 are also consulted, such as human service agencies,
human service transportation providers, environmental, natural resource and conservation agencies, freight
interests, and tribal interests.
MoDOT Programs
The MoDOT Fiscal Year 2017 budget provides approximately $2.1 billion for the Missouri Department of
Transportation (MoDOT). Yearly funding is projected to slightly increase to approximately $2.2 billion over
the next five years.
The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act was signed into law by the President on December
4, 2015 and provides funding for surface transportation programs for federal fiscal years 2016, 2017, 2018,
2019 and 2020. The total apportionments under the FAST Act are significantly more than under the previous
federal funding act, MAP-21. While federal funding has improved, it still only allows enough for emphasis
on system preservation or Taking Care of the System and safety. The State of Missouri is and MoDOT are
exploring additional revenue through increased fees or taxes.
14
MoDOT is responsible for overseeing all aspects of Missouri’s transportation system, with their core
functions being:
1. Constructing and maintaining the state road and bridge system.
2. Encouraging safety on Missouri highways for citizens and Department of Transportation employees.
3. Providing capital improvement and operating assistance grants for rural and urban transit systems,
public airports, ferry boats, and passenger rail service.
4. Registering commercial motor vehicles.
15
Section 2: The Existing and Proposed Transportation System
This section identifies existing major roadways, transit, multimodal and intermodal facilities, pedestrian
walkways, bicycle facilities, and intermodal connectors, and identifies proposed facilities to the system.
Roadways
Roadways making up the CAMPO road and bridge network are composed of:
1. US highways
2. State highways (may be more than one category of state highway)
3. County roads
4. Municipal roads/streets
Private roads are not included in the CAMPO network nor are Interstate highways, tribal lands roadways, or
Federal lands roadways that may be included in some other MPO areas.
Roadways are usually defined by one of two methods, by design or function. MPOs generally use functional
classification of roadways to describe or define a roadway, and these roadway functional classifications are
reviewed periodically. These roadways are divided into urban and rural, and are further classified as:
1. Interstate
2. Freeway/Expressway
3. Other Principle Arterial
4. Minor Arterial
5. Collector (major or minor)
6. Intermodal Connector, and
7. Local road
Major Street and Highway Routes 23
US Highways: The major routes into and through the region are US highways 54/50/63, intersecting at a
point in northern Cole County and south of the Missouri River, near the center of Jefferson City.
1. United States Route 63, from United States Route 36 and the proposed Interstate Route 72 to the East-
West Trans-America corridor, at the Arkansas State line.
2. United States Route 54, from the Kansas State line to United States Route 61/ Avenue of the Saints.
The 2010 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for US 54 was 26,582 near the Holts Summit area in
Callaway County and 21,726 AADT south of Ellis Boulevard in Jefferson City, while US 63 west of Jefferson
City and north of the river, in Callaway County had 18,564 AADT. The Missouri River Bridge Crossing,
connecting Cole and Callaway Counties has a January, 2011 count of 52,757 vehicles per day (AADT).
For US 50, the east/west route through Jefferson City had a 2010 count of 36,423 AADT west of the tri-level,
the interchange where these three primary routes meet, and 34,520 east of the tri-level.
Other Principal Arterials: Other Principal Arterial routes, in and around the City of Jefferson, including MO
Rt. 179, Missouri Boulevard, Stadium Boulevard, and Ellis Boulevard. MO Rt. 179 carried 14,117 AADT in
2010 north of Rt. C, Missouri Boulevard carried 36,423 AADT between Southwest Boulevard and the tri-
level, and Ellis Boulevard carried 14,489 AADT near the US 54 interchange and MO Rt. B.
New roadways are a lower priority than system preservation. Some additions are necessary however,
several bypasses are recommended in outer years, a second bridge crossing is recommended, and resolution
to the US 50/63 Whitton Expressway bottleneck is constantly identified as a priority as are Ellis Blvd. at
US/54, along with Stadium Blvd. and Jefferson St. at US/54.
16
Minor Arterials:
In 2010, MO Rt. C is a significant Minor Arterial. Located in the southwest part of the City of Jefferson, it
carried between 12,000 AADT between Stadium Blvd. 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/Truman Drive carried 11,160 AADT east of MO Rt. 179 and 17,000
AADT between Scott Station Road and US 50 West. Remaining Minor Arterials carry substantially less
traffic, from 5,000 to 9,000 AADT. See Table 6 for additional information.
The National Highway System under MAP 21 24
In general - for the purposes of 23 USC, the Federal-aid system is the National Highway System, which
includes the Interstate System.25
The National Highway System consists of roadways important to the nation's economy, defense, and
mobility. All principal arterial routes that are not currently on the NHS before October 1, 2012, will
automatically be added to the NHS provided the principal arterials connect to the NHS in a one-time
addition.1 There will be no restrictions on maximum NHS mileage.
The National Highway System (NHS) includes the following subsystems of roadways (note that a specific
highway route may be on more than one subsystem):
1. Interstate: The Eisenhower Interstate System of highways retains its separate identity within the NHS.
2. Other Principal Arterials: Highways in rural and urban areas that provide access between an arterial
and a major port, airport, public transportation facility, or other intermodal transportation facility.
3. Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET): A highway network important to the United States'
strategic defense policy, providing defense access, continuity and emergency capabilities for defense
purposes.
4. Major Strategic Highway Network Connectors: Highways that provide access between major military
installations and highways that are part of the Strategic Highway Network.
5. Intermodal Connectors: These highways provide access between major intermodal facilities and the
other four subsystems making up the National Highway System.
For the Jefferson City MPA NHS Routes consist of US 50East and West in Cole County, and US 54 and 63
through the entire MPA.
Congressional High Priority Corridors on the NHS
There are two Congressional High Priority Corridors that pass through the CAMPO area:
1. United States Route 63, from United States Route 36 and the proposed Interstate Route 72 to the East-
West Trans-America corridor, at the Arkansas State line.
2. United States Route 54, from the Kansas State line to United States Route 61/ Avenue of the Saints.
These corridors are congressionally designated. According to the FHWA website, the only criteria for being a
congressionally designated High Priority Corridor is that it is what Congress designates. Although, there are
some routes that have federal money attached to them, none are in the CAMPO area.
1 [23 USC 103(b) (2)(1)(B) as amended by Section 1104
17
CAMPO and MoDOT reviewed and revised the Roadway Functional Classification system in early 2013.
Table 4: CAMPO 2013 MPA Roadway Mileage by Functional Classification and jurisdiction
Urban
Other
Freeway
Expressway
Urban
Other
Principal
Arterial
Urban
Minor
Arterial
Urban
Collector
Urban
Local
Rural
Other
Principal
Arterial
Rural
Minor
Arterial
Rural
Major
Collector
Rural
Minor
Collector
Rural
Local
Total Percent of
Total
(Jurisdiction)
Callaway County 2.3 2.9 11.2 0.9 2.9 13.9 34.2 5.32%
Cole County 3.6 5.9 70.1 4.6 3.3 82.4 169.8 26.46%
Holts Summit 3.1 4.1 14.5 0.5 0.6 22.7 3.53%
City of Jefferson* 4.3 37.4 23.6 190.6 255.9 39.87%
MoDOT 34.6 8.7 18.2 11.9 5.6 5.4 5.3 32.7 1.0 0.1 123.5 19.24%
Lake Mykee 2.0 2.0 0.32%
State of Missouri** 4.0 1.6 5.6 0.87%
St. Martins 1.5 0.5 7.4 0.7 10.0 1.55%
Taos 9.6 9.6 1.50%
Wardsville 8.6 8.6 1.33%
Total (Functional Class) 34.6 13.0 66.1 48.8 305.3 5.4 6.3 37.8 7.7 116.9 641.8 100.00%
Percent (Functional
Class) 5.4% 2.0% 10.3% 7.6% 47.6% 0.8% 1.0% 5.9% 1.2% 18.2%
*Includes Parks & Rec. and Interim
** MDC, MDNR, MDOC, etc.
18
Bridges
According to National Bridge Inventory at the Federal Highway Administration, there are 179 bridges in
the CAMPO planning area as of 2011.
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
suspended off of the Eastern side. The bicycle lane is reportedly 2,953 feet long, eight feet wide and
includes two look out points with a view of the Missouri State Capitol.
This structure has been identified as part of the regional critical transportation infrastructure with 52,757
vehicles crossing these bridges on an average day in 2010. 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 south of the Missouri River. This intersection point is also identified as
regional critical infrastructure and is regularly identified as a periodic point of traffic congestion.
Structurally Deficient or Functionally Obsolete Bridges
Bridges are inspected and maintained on a regular basis, but two terms identify bridges that require
attention “structurally deficient” and “functionally obsolete”.
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
the MPA, and CAMPO will include bridges in the infrastructure databases and database development
and maintenance program and for the safety element in CAMPO planning program.
CAMPO identifies bridge safety and efficiency as extremely high priority in planning and programming
for municipalities, Counties and State facilities.
CAMPO is seeking a higher level of funding and programming for replacement and maintenance of
structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridge structures.
The Structurally Deficient and Functionally Obsolete bridges are listed in the following table:
19
Table 5: Structurally Deficient and Functionally Obsolete Bridges
Facility Carried Feature Intersected Maintenance
Responsibility
Year
Built
Type of Work
Needed
Total Project
Cost Status
COUNTY RD 382 CLIFTON CR Callaway 1935 Replacement $282,000 Structurally Deficient
DUNKLIN ST WEARS CR City of Jefferson 1900 Rehabilitation $411,000 Structurally Deficient
OHIO ST WEARS CR City of Jefferson 1970 Replacement $341,000 Structurally Deficient
FROG HOLLOW
RD WEARS CR City of Jefferson 1915 Rehabilitation $265,000 Functionally Obsolete
HIGH ST WEARS CR,
MISSOURI BLVD City of Jefferson 1949 Rehabilitation $3,391,000 Functionally Obsolete
MCCARTHY ST WEARS CR City of Jefferson 1985 Rehabilitation $707,000 Functionally Obsolete
HELIAS RD SANFORD CR City of Taos 1930 Replacement $153,000 Structurally Deficient
HEMSTREET RD N MOREAU CR Cole 1930 Replacement $991,000 Structurally Deficient
TANNER BRIDGE
RD MOREAU RVR Cole 1960 Rehabilitation $1,137,000 Functionally Obsolete
PVT OVERPASS S US 50 MoDOT 1964 Replacement $949,000 Structurally Deficient
US 50 E CST LAFAYETTE ST,
WEARS MoDOT 1959 Rehabilitation $3,382,000 Structurally Deficient
BOLIVAR ST N US 50, US 63, US 63 MoDOT 1964 Functionally Obsolete
DIX RD S US 50 MoDOT 1964 Rehabilitation $1,046,000 Functionally Obsolete
JACKSON ST N US 50 MoDOT 1959 Rehabilitation $552,000 Functionally Obsolete
MO 179 S GRAYS CR MoDOT 1959 Replacement $1,192,000 Functionally Obsolete
MoDOT DR S WEARS CR MoDOT 1992 Rehabilitation $908,000 Functionally Obsolete
OR 63 S TURKEY CR MoDOT 1940 Rehabilitation $489,000 Functionally Obsolete
PVT BRIDGE
T1012 S CR MoDOT 1982 Rehabilitation $217,000 Functionally Obsolete
RP MADISON ST
TO U US 54 MoDOT 1966 Functionally Obsolete
RT C E US 54 MoDOT 1965 Functionally Obsolete
US 50 W MO 179 MoDOT 1983 Functionally Obsolete
US 54 E NEIGHORN BR MoDOT 1941 Rehabilitation $477,000 Functionally Obsolete
US 54 E BU 50 MoDOT 1966 Rehabilitation $889,000 Functionally Obsolete
US 54 E CST LINDEN DR MoDOT 1966 Rehabilitation $746,000 Functionally Obsolete
US 54 E CST STADIUM BLVD MoDOT 1966 Rehabilitation $638,000 Functionally Obsolete
US 54 E MISSOURI RVR, UP
RR, CS MoDOT 1991 Rehabilitation $46,189,000 Functionally Obsolete
US 54 E US 50, RP US54E TO
US50W MoDOT 1964 Functionally Obsolete
US 54 W NEIGHORN BR MoDOT 1965 Rehabilitation $515,000 Functionally Obsolete
US 54 W CST STADIUM BLVD MoDOT 1966 Functionally Obsolete
US 54 W BU 50 MoDOT 1966 Rehabilitation $889,000 Functionally Obsolete
US 54 W CST LINDEN DR MoDOT 1966 Rehabilitation $746,000 Functionally Obsolete
US 54 W MISSOURI RVR MoDOT 1955 Rehabilitation $45,701,000 Functionally Obsolete
US 63 S US 50, RP US54E TO
US50W MoDOT 1991 Functionally Obsolete
US 63 S CST OILWELL RD,
KATY TRA MoDOT 1975 Functionally Obsolete
W HIGH ST E US 54, US 63 MoDOT 1991 Functionally Obsolete
W MAIN ST E US 54 MoDOT 1989 Functionally Obsolete
Source: National Bridge Inventory
Urban Transit Services
Fixed Route Service
JEFFTRAN is the public transportation provider for the City of Jefferson. Operated as a division in the
Department of Public Works of the City of Jefferson, JEFFTRAN provides fixed route and paratransit
20
services within the city limits of Jefferson City.
JEFFTRAN operates six fixed routes and three commuter/school tripper routes during the school year.
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
40 minute intervals.
All buses on regular scheduled routes have bicycle racks to accommodate two bicycles and is part of the
JEFFTRAN Bike 'n' Ride program.
When travel requires changing to a different route to complete a journey, a transfer point becomes
necessary. The transfer center is on 820 East Miller Street.
CAMPO staff continues to assist JEFFTRAN in consultation, programming, scheduling and maps as
needed. CAMPO assists JEFFTRAN with their Program of Projects processes. No expansion is proposed,
but increased efficiency in routes has been introduced by changing routes and schedules.
JEFFTRAN 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 (an
"origin to destination" service). Although the Handi-Wheels service operates entirely 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 eight vehicles that report 1,930 ADA qualified passengers with daily
transport of as many as 300 riders. All buses are wheelchair-lift equipped and provide transportation for
those individuals who because of disability cannot travel to or from a "fixed route" bus stop or cannot get
on, ride or get off a "fixed route" bus.
Funding is provided through a mix of sources such as passenger fares, local funding, FTA funding and
contracts. Handi-Wheels can pick up clients anywhere inside the city limits and take them to any
destination within the city limits.
Handi-Wheels riders must apply for and be approved in order to use this service. Applications and
detailed service descriptions are available in standard print and accessible formats.
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. OATS, Inc. ridership numbers remain strong after 40 years of service and the service
continues to grow in popularity.
Serve Inc. serves the residents of Callaway County through CALTRAN a public transportation program
based in Fulton.
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.
21
Intercity Bus Service
A limited intercity bus service is provided by Greyhound. Connections are located at a local grocery at
701 Eastland Dr. Some inter-city bus service through paratransit services does occur and fills the need
somewhat.
Taxi/ limousine
Jefferson City 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
Missouri Rideshare and Carpool Program
The Missouri Rideshare and Carpool Program is a free service provided by the Missouri Department of
Natural Resources. The program organizes carpools by matching commuters who live and work in the
same vicinity. The 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 Missouri Rideshare and Carpool Program information is found on the Missouri Department of
Natural Resources website at: http://www.dnr.missouri.gov/energy/transportation/ridemap.htm.
MoDOT appears to cooperate with DNR on carpooling through “Share the Ride Statewide”. Information
on the “icarpool” carpooling database is available on the MoDOT website at
http://www.MoDOT.org/services/carpools/CarpoolConnections.htm. The website states that the iCarpool
database allows you to find fellow rural carpoolers in your area.
Carpool/Commuter lots are located at the following locations:
1. By the municipal airport
2. Across US 54 at the Jefferson City Park
3. US 50/63 East at Route M and J
The Aviation System
Jefferson City Memorial Airport
The City of Jefferson completed an Airport Master Plan Update in 2008.
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 4,800
square foot Airport Terminal Building, Air Traffic Control Tower, 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 ½ hours per day, from 6:00 a.m. until 9:30 p.m., 365 days a year and 24-
hour approach services are provided by Mizzou Approach, which is located at Springfield, Missouri. 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.
The nearest regional airport with commercial service is the Columbia Missouri Regional Airport near
Ashland, MO, 10 nautical miles SE of Columbia, MO between Jefferson City and Columbia on US 63. The
airport is publicly owned by the City of Columbia and has 4 runways.
22
CAMPO will support the local decisions of municipalities in improvements for general aviation airports
and cooperative inter-city regional airport improvements, when economically feasible.
Table 6: Jefferson City Airport Statistics
Aircraft Based at Jefferson City Facility Jefferson City Operational Statistics
Aircraft based on field: 53 Aircraft Operations: 70/Day
Single Engine Airplanes: 26 Air Taxi: 2.30%
Multi Engine Airplanes: 12 General Aviation Local: 35.70%
Jet Engine Airplanes: 4 General Aviation Itinerant: 49.50%
Helicopters: 4 Military: 12.50%
Military: 7
Time Period: 01-01- 2010 to 12-31- 2010
Other Aviation Facilities
The Missouri National Guard has a small aviation facility near the Jefferson City Memorial Airport and
two heliports are located at the Missouri National Guard Ike Skelton Training Site.
Capital Region Medical Center Heliport (MU64) Helipad H1 is a private medical heliport located at the
Medical Center.
Table 7: Columbia Regional Airport Statistics
Columbia Based Aircraft Columbia Operational Statistics
Aircraft based on field: 41 Aircraft Operations: 71/Day
Single Engine Airplanes: 18 Commercial 8.90%
Multi Engine Airplanes: 10 Air Taxi 1.90%
Jet Engine Airplanes: 11 General Aviation Local 26.10%
Helicopters: 2 General Aviation Itinerant 53.30%
Time Period: 2010-01-01 - 2010-12-31
Table 8: Airport Traffic Counts for Jefferson City- (ATCT) (added Oct 1, 2012)
Year Air Carrier
Operations
Air Taxi & Commuter Airline
Operations
General Aviation
Operations Military Total
1995** 0 1,368 29,783 10,595 41,746
1996 0 1,378 33,475 11,541 46,394
1997 2 1,291 36,279 12,405 49,977
1998 0 769 32,815 11,661 45,245
1999 18 489 35,442 11,977 47,926
2000 0 1,538 28,472 8,586 38,596
2001 0 2,339 28,512 5,939 36,790
2002 0 1,792 32,687 7,199 41,678
2003 0 889 31,355 7,304 39,548
2004 0 610 25,564 4,010 30,184
2005 0 523 24,325 7,298 32,146
2006 0 595 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.
Freight
Freight movement in the Jefferson City MPO region consists primarily of truck transport or river
transport of bulk commodities.
For freight in general, previous stakeholder input identified several high priority deficiencies in the
23
regional freight environment, such as truck routing, signage, street and intersection design, 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 advocates improved design of access to commercial and industrial areas, intersection
improvements, and improved directional and traffic signage throughout the MPO area.
River Transportation
In FY 2011 and 2012, Missouri provided $360,000 in State Aid to Port Authorities statewide.
Two rivers in the MPA 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.26
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 truckloads.27
According to the 2011 Missouri River Freight Corridor Assessment and Development Plan, along the
Missouri River Corridor, “few of the existing facilities have marine infrastructure suitable to
accommodate large capacity lift machines or to support the weight and footprint associated with cranes,
truck turn around space, cargo staging area, or large material handling rolling stock. However,
“appropriate structures in good condition are presently available in the Jefferson City and St. Joseph
areas.”28
A November 2010 inventory of public and private port facilities and infrastructure It was noted in the
plan that Union Pacific has a rail line, but it is on the South side of the river, while the airport and river
terminals are on the North side, so the terminals are accessible only from the river side or by truck.
Therefore, full intermodal opportunities are not being realized into each transportation mode.
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 side and flood plain to the north. It is generally considered to be an
underutilized resource for recreation and to a lesser degree transportation.
Rail Roads: Passenger
Jefferson City is served by AMTRAK, with a station at 101 Jefferson St., Jefferson City, MO. 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, but no ticketing services are available. Station hours
are 9:00am – 12:00pm and 3:30pm – 8:00pm, daily.
The current station facility and parking is owned by the State of Missouri while the tracks are owned by
the Union Pacific.
Services are extremely limited, with no ticket office hours, no Quik-Trak hours, no checked baggage
24
hours, no help with baggage, restrooms only during station hours, and unattended long and short term
parking for passengers across street in the State parking lot.
Revenue for the Jefferson City AMTRAK station in FY 2011 was $1,081,412(from October through
September) and Station Ridership for FY 2011 was 48,993 and increasing to 50,282 in 2012. This station
has the fourth highest usage on this route after Kansas City, St. Louis, and Kirkwood.
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.
MoDOT says ridership on the Amtrak route increased from about 164,000 in the 2010 fiscal year to about
191,000 passengers in 2011.29
Missouri's proposed budget for the fiscal year starting July 1, 2010 includes $8.6 million for Amtrak
service throughout the state. However, officials from the Missouri Department of Transportation predict
the state will owe Amtrak about $2.9 million by the end of the 2011 fiscal year due to shortfalls in
subsidies of the route.
Missouri has budgeted $7,900,000 in FY 2010 for State Passenger Rail Assistance and Station
Improvements, and $8,125,000 in FY 2011 and again in FY 2012.
CAMPO advocates improved station, services, and facilities at the Jefferson City AMTRAK station, with
potential intermodal connections for transit and public transport, waiting and pickup accommodations
and higher levels of amenities.
Rail Roads: Freight
Rail traffic carrying freight is generally through traffic on the Union Pacific Railroad. The main track is a
double track line with a new second bridge crossing the Moreau River, done in 2013, and a spur line
running from the Missouri Boulevard and Water Street area to just west of MO Rt. 179/Truman
Boulevard. A second branch also runs from Cole Junction Road and MO Rt. 179, while a third spur runs
eastward to Militia Drive.
According to the Missouri Freight and Passenger Rail Capacity Analysis of 2007 the corridor running
through Jefferson City is handling between 50-60 trains per day which is at the upper limits of capacity
for a double track line handling the types of freight that it does. From a train weight perspective this
corridor handles a large percentage (roughly 50%) of heavy coal trains.
Recent rail improvements include a new siding near California and a second bridge over the Osage River.
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, 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.
CAMPO advocates for a regional intermodal facility, possibly but not necessarily along the current rail
lines, to incorporate truck, rail, and river freight storage and transfer facilities, outside the developed
25
urban areas. CAMPO should advocate for a regional comprehensive intermodal freight and passenger
plan.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Systems – Sidewalks, Greenways, Routes and Trails
Please see Appendix 6 for the 2016 Capital Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan for more details. Non-
motorized transportation in the form of bicycle and pedestrian travel are a common, but limited-range
transportation option.
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.
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 of bicycle and pedestrian plans.
Member jurisdictions have taken advantage of federal and state funding for sidewalks, trails and
greenways through the federal Safe Routes to School Program, Transportation Enhancement Program,
Recreational Trails Program, and State coordinating programs. CAMPO will continue to advocate and
assist jurisdictions in plan development, funding and programming.
Sidewalks
The City of Jefferson did a sidewalk inventory in 2008, adopted A Sidewalk Plan for Jefferson City, Missouri
in February of 2010 by passing an ordinance adopting the plan(ord. 32-105-112), and developed a rating
matrix in 2012.
This matrix is a methodology for prioritizing areas for sidewalks under the City’s Capital Improvement
Program and outlines various sidewalk segments, and includes mostly arterial and collector class streets,
although on the last page, there are other, “local” streets that serve as important connectors between
neighborhoods or existing sidewalks or sidewalks and greenways.
The City of Jefferson approved plans for over 9,600 linear feet of sidewalks in Jefferson City. Over 2,200
linear feet of sidewalk will be constructed in conjunction with new buildings or building additions. Also,
two subdivisions were approved in 2010 that will eventually add 7,460 linear feet of sidewalk to the
City’s infrastructure.30
In June of 2012 the EQC recommended that grocery stores, parks and playgrounds and the Health
Department be added to the matrix spreadsheet.31
Holts Summit identifies sidewalks as a priority in their Draft Long Range Transportation Plan.
CAMPO will support a comprehensive program to identify, maintain and improve sidewalks throughout
the MPO area.
Greenways and Trails
Holts Summit Trails and Greenways:
The concrete walking trail that winds through Hibernia Station Park is approximately 0.75 of a mile
long and a proposed 3200 ft. of natural surface trail, including a natural surface trail that
currently goes around the pond at Greenway Park with an approximate length of 1400 ft.
Callaway County Bicycle/Pedestrian facilities:
Katy Trail State Park is a bicycle and pedestrian trail that extends for 240 miles from Machens to
26
Clinton and is operated by the Department of Natural Resources as part of the state park
system. A section goes through Callaway County just north of US 63, with access from the
airport exit of us 63/54.
Katy Trail Spur - An additional access point to the Katy Trail is off of US 54 at the S. Summit Drive
exit.
Cole County Bicycle/Pedestrian facilities:
County Jaycee Park is an 80 acre park southwest of Jefferson City and has a Lake Loop walking trail
around the County Park Lake with a length of 0.66 of a mile or 3490 ft. Access is from County
Park Rd.
City of Jefferson facilities:
There are approximately 31.9 miles of greenway trails, fitness trails and mountain bike trails throughout
Jefferson City consisting of greenways, fitness trails and mountain bike trails.
CAMPO will advocate and assist member jurisdictions in planning, funding and programming expansion
and connectivity of greenways and trail systems within in the MPA through local development efforts.
Table 9: Bicycle/Pedestrian Routes in Jefferson City – Greenways and Trails
Greenway Trails (Main Corridor)
Dunklin Street Trail Head to Southwest Blvd.
Southwest Blvd. to Stadium Blvd.
Stadium Blvd. to Edgewood Dr. Parking Lot
Edgewood Dr. Parking Lot to Fairgrounds Rd.
Fairgrounds Rd. through County Park Lake to Covington Gardens
Length
1.10 miles
1.30 miles
0.90 miles
2.10 miles
1.3 miles
Park/Fitness Trails
East Miller Street Neighborhood Park
Ellis-Porter/Riverside Park
McKay Park
Memorial Park
Length
0.25 miles
1.30 miles
0.60 miles
1.30 miles
Greenway Trail (Spurs)
Duensing Ball field to Swifts Highway
Stadium Blvd. to Satinwood Dr.
Edgewood Dr. to Shermans Hollow
Ellis Porter/Riverside Park to Lewis & Clark State Office Building
Lewis & Clark Trailhead Plaza to Clay Street
Clay Street to North Jefferson Pavilion
North Jefferson Pavilion to the Katy Trail
Katy Trail to Summit Drive
Length
0.70 miles
0.50 miles
0.50 miles
0.70 miles
0.60 miles
1.70 miles
1.00 miles
0.20 miles
Greenway Trail (East Branch of Wears Creek)
East McCarty St. to Chestnut St.
Stadium Lafayette Round-About through Aurora Park
Length
1.20 miles
1.10 miles
Mountain Bike Trails
Binder Park
Edgewood Drive (adjacent to Greenway)
Length
13.05 miles
2.30 miles
Source: City of Jefferson Parks and Recreation 12/26/12
27
Figure 2: City of Jefferson Sidewalk Master Plan 12/26/12
28
Figure 3: City of Jefferson 2009 Greenways Trail Map 12/26/12
29
Transportation System Safety - Safety Element
Safety is defined as protection of persons or property from unintentional damage or destruction caused
by accidental or natural events.32
MAP 21 introduced new safety measures, funding, regulatory authority, and programs for the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA)33. Transportation providers will be expected to participate in new safety
performance criteria, vehicle safety performance standards, Safety Certification Training Program,
Transit Agency Safety Plans, a bus testing program and a State Safety Oversight Program. FTA is given
increasing authority for enforcement, reporting and oversight. This will also likely increase costs and
regulatory overhead.
As recommended in federal legislation34, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan is incorporating the 2013
Highway Safety Plan & Performance Plan into the MTP by reference, summarizing the plan’s priorities,
goals and countermeasures, or projects for the metropolitan planning area.
CAMPO Roadway Accident Statistics
CAMPO compiled accident data on roadway accidents, car/train accidents, and bicycle and pedestrian
accidents.
The intersections with the highest accident numbers from 2007 to 2011 are listed in the following two
tables:
Table 10: Highest Accident Locations at Non-Interchange Intersections - 2007- 2011
Rank Location Number of Accidents
1 Missouri Blvd. & US 50/63 194
2 Missouri Blvd. & Dix Rd. 94
3 Country Club & Truman Blvd. 85
4 Missouri Blvd. & Stadium Blvd. 84
5 US 50/63 & Madison St. 81
6 Missouri Blvd. & Southwest Dr. 78
7 Southwest & Rte. C. & Southridge Dr. 71
8 US 50 & Monroe St. 69
9 Tie Rt. C & Jefferson St. 60
9 Tie US 50/63 & Jefferson St. 60
11 Mo. 179 & Edgewood 56
12 Dix Rd. & Industrial Rd. 50
13 Mo. 179 & Truman Blvd. 47
14 US 50/63 & Broadway 46
15 Dix Rd. & William St. 44
16 Missouri Blvd. & Dunklin St. & Bolivar St. 43
Table 11: Severity of Auto Accidents from 2007 to 2011
Accident Severity 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 5-Year Total
Fatal 4 6 7 10 3 30
Disabling injury 34 60 61 60 83 298
Minor injury 386 334 298 358 369 1,745
Property damage only 1,065 977 966 1,117 1,141 5,266
All Accidents 1,489 1,377 1,332 1,545 1,596 7,339
30
Table 12: Highest Accident Locations at Interchanges – 2007-2011
Rank Location Number of Accidents
1 US 54/63 & US 50 172
2 US 50 & rte. 179 156
3 US 50 & S. Country Club Dr./Truman Blvd. 112
4 US 54 & Rt. C/Ellis Blvd. 103
5 US 54 & Rt. 179 86
6 US 50 & Dix Rd. 84
7 US 54 & US 63 69
8 US 54/63 & Airport Rd. 61
9 US 50 & Eastland Dr. 54
10 US 50 & Clark Ave. 53
11 US 54 & Madison St. 51
12 US 54/63 & Main St. 47
13 AA/OO & US 54 34
14 US 50 & Big Horn 26
15 Center St. & US 54 22
16 US 54/63 & McCarty St. 22
17 US 50 & rte. T 19
18 US 54 & Jefferson/Christy 15
19 S. Summit Dr. & US 54 13
20 US 50 & Rt. M/J 11
21 US 50 & Militia 8
22 US 50 & BU 50/Apache Flats 2
Figure 4: Chart on Auto Accidents by Severity
Bicycle and/or Pedestrian Accidents
In the five year period from 2007-2011 there were 60 pedestrian and 23 bicyclist accidents. This is up
from the 2003 -2006 time period.
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY
MINOR INJURY
DISABLING INJURY
FATAL
Accidents
by
Severity
31
Table 13: Bicycle/Pedestrian Accidents from 2007 to 2011
Accident severity Pedestrian Bicycle
Disabling injury 18 12
Fatal 3 0
Minor injury 37 9
Property damage only 2 2
Source: MoDOT 2007-2011 Accident Data
Car/Train Accidents:
Car/Train accidents happen infrequently but they do happen. In 2007, three car/ train accidents occurred
and on January 20, 2008 at Cole Junction, one fatality occurred as a result of a train hitting an automobile.
According to the 2012- 2016 STIP, the Passenger Rail and Highway/Rail Crossing Safety Program has no
project programmed in Cole County or Callaway Counties.
Table 14: Car/Train Accidents2007 to 2011
Roadway Accident Severity MoDOT Accident Category Year Fatalities
Industrial Dr. Property Damage Only Railroad/Train 2007 0
Rte. 179 Property Damage Only Railroad/Train 2007 0
Cole Junction Rd. Fatality Railroad/Train 2008 1
Industrial Dr. Property Damage Only Railroad/Train 2007 0
Strategic Highway Safety Plan and Emergency Relief / Disaster Preparedness 35
The Highway Safety Act of 1966, 23 USC, Section 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.
In accordance with 23 U.S.C 148, Missouri developed and certified a 203 page 2013 Highway Safety Plan
& Performance Plan in August of 2013. The strategies outlined within the HSP and performance plan will
be implemented by MoDOT in an attempt to reach the overarching statewide Blueprint goal of 700 or
fewer fatalities by 2016.
CAMPO supports the Missouri Highway Safety Plan & Performance Plan, and the intent of the plan to
reduce injuries, fatalities and property damage. Specifically, the MoDOT goal #1 is to reduce fatalities
And the MoDOT Goal #2 is to reduce serious injuries.
CAMPO does not legislate, enforce, nor design safety projects and programs. It 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.
Best Practices Countermeasures36
According to MoDOT literature, the highway safety division at MoDOT attempts to ensure that effective
countermeasure efforts are incorporated into the strategies of the Plan by employing the following
methods:
• Utilizing proven countermeasures identified within the latest update of Countermeasures That Work:
32
A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices, USDOT, NHTSA;
• Evaluating traffic crash data to determine crash types, target populations and geographic locations
in order to most effectively implement countermeasure efforts;
• Participating in national law enforcement mobilizations that combine blanketed enforcement and
saturated media during established timeframes and in targeted traffic corridors; and
• Participating in state, regional, and national training opportunities in order to gain insight into
proven programs that can be replicated in Missouri.
State Emergency relief and disaster preparedness plans and strategies
The State Emergency Management Agency’s mission (SEMA) is to protect the lives and property of all
Missourians when major disasters threaten public safety in any city, county or region of Missouri. SEMA
responds to two types of disasters - natural and those caused by man. Natural disasters are major snow
and/or ice storms, floods, tornadoes and/or severe weather, as well as a potential major earthquake along
Missouri's New Madrid Fault. Man-made disasters, also known as technological emergencies, may
include hazardous material incidents, nuclear power plant accidents and other radiological hazards.37
SEMA is also responsible for developing a State Emergency Operations Plan which coordinates the
actions of Missouri state government departments and agencies in the event of any emergency requiring
the use of state resources and personnel. SEMA also serves as the statewide coordinator for activities
associated with the National Flood Insurance Program.
Emergency Preparedness Grants
The Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Program provides resources to the State
Emergency Management Agency and local government emergency management agencies, for the
sustainment and enhancement of all-hazard emergency management capabilities. An all hazards
approach to emergency response, including the development of a comprehensive program of planning,
training, and exercises, means there can be an effective and consistent response to disasters and
emergencies, regardless of the cause. It involves building long-term strategic relationships within the
emergency management community to ensure that the program meets the needs of Missourians during
disasters.38
Natural Hazards/ Emergency Planning
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, but they do occur.
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 MPA especially major flooding on the Missouri River
and flash flooding of its tributaries. Severe floods in 1993 and 1995 caused significant damage and
resulted in the buyout of residents of Cedar City which had recorded 9 floods between 1942 and 1993.
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.39
33
The MPA 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.40 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.41 Transportation planning for natural disasters is an activity that includes
participants at the most immediately 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.42
Mitigation activities for areas of the CAMPO MPA 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 / 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.
Recommendations of FHWA for the role of security in MPO planning is that consideration of security in
the planning process should be documented in key planning documents such as the UPWP, the State
Planning and Research Program, the long-range transportation plan, STIP or TIP or may be part of a
standalone study. Federally funded or regionally significant transportation security should be included in
the metropolitan long-range plan, STIP, or TIP. Other activities may include documenting conversations
and coordination with groups focused on security or including transportation security as a project
selection criterion.43
Environmental Consultation and Mitigation
State DOTs and MPOs consult with state and local agencies responsible for land use management,
natural resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic preservation. CAMPO staff
contacted 219 individuals, including 118 agencies, departments and organizations for four stakeholder
meetings.
CAMPO staff is planning consultation contact and establishing a relationship with environmental
agencies by soliciting input and comments on the draft MTP and the draft mitigation discussion.
Included in this solicitation is also a request for suggestions on potential environmental mitigation
strategies that should be employed in our region, which have been incorporated into this discussion as
appropriate.
34
At this point, this initial discussion tends to provide an overview of mitigation activities currently
undertaken throughout the region at the project level.
Mitigation: In its simplest form, policy for environmental mitigation consists of avoidance of negative
environmental impacts (by far the best solution), minimization of negative impacts, and if negative
impacts are unavoidable, compensation (as for lost habitat).
Environmental resources and areas are generally impacted by transportation projects as a result of
construction, increased traffic, storm water runoff from paved surfaces, among others. Examples of these
resources where mitigation efforts can be focused include:
• Neighborhoods and communities,
homes and businesses
• Cultural resources (i.e. historic
properties or archaeological sites);
• Parks and recreation areas;
• Wetlands and water resources;
• Forested and other natural areas;
• Agricultural areas;
• Endangered and threatened species; and
• Air Quality.
Environmental mitigation is the process of addressing damage to the environment caused by
transportation or other public works projects. Actions taken to avoid or minimize environmental damage
are considered the most preferable method of mitigation. Otherwise, some potential environmental
mitigation activities may include:
• avoiding impacts altogether;
• minimizing a proposed activity/project size or its involvement;
• rectifying impacts (restoring temporary impacts);
• precautionary and/or abatement measures to reduce construction impacts;
• employing special features or operational management measures to reduce impacts; and
• Compensating for environmental impacts by providing suitable, replacement or substitute
environmental resources of equivalent or greater value, on or off-site.
Table 15: Mitigation Strategies Identified in Five Major types of Projects
Resource Potential Mitigation Strategy
Neighborhoods and communities, homes
and businesses
• Minimize noise impact with sound barriers
• Prevent the spread of hazardous materials with soil
testing and treatment
Wetlands and Water Resources
• Replace or restore wetlands
• Submerge or utilize bottomless culverts
• Bridge sensitive areas instead of laying pavement
directly onto the ground
• Improve storm water management
Forested and other natural areas
• Use selective cutting and clearing
• Replace or restore forested areas
• Preserve existing vegetation
Endangered and threatened species
• Use selective cutting and clearing
• Bridge sensitive areas instead of laying pavement
directly onto the ground
• Replace or restore forested areas
Air Quality
• Control loose exposed soils with watering or canvas
sheets
• Minimize idling of heavy construction vehicles
35
Air Quality
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 volatile organic compounds, ozone, or particulate matter, from
mobile emissions (such as automobile), stationary emissions (such as industrial and power plant), and
wider area emissions (from the general area) continuously have to deal with a complex set of air quality
issues affecting health, their economy and extensive regulatory costs.
36
Section 3 Future Development Affecting Transportation
2000 through 2010:
The Census counted 53,714 people within the Jefferson City Urban Area in 2000 and 58,553 people in
2010, for a change in population of 8.97% over 10 years.
Table 16: Capital Area MPO Urban Area Population and Land Area C hanges - 2000 through 2010
Urban Area 2000 Population 53,714
Urban Area 2010 Population 58,533
Urban Area Population Change 2000-2010 4,819
Urban Area Population Percentage Change 8.97%
Urban Area Land Area 2010 39.99 sq. mile
Urban Area Land Area 2000 38.16 sq. mile
Urban Area Land Area Change 1.83 sq. mile
Urban Area Land Area Percentage Change 4.79%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
Municipalities had significant variability in their growth rates over the years from 2000 through 2010.
Table 17: Municipality Population Change– 2000 through 2010
City/County 2010 Census 2000 Census 2000-2010 Change
Counts Counts Change Percentages
Jefferson City 43,079 39,636 3,443 8.69%
Holts Summit 3,247 2,935 312 10.63%
St. Martins 1,140 1,023 117 11.44%
Lake Mykee 350 326 24 7.36%
Taos 878 870 8 0.92%
Wardsville 1,506 976 530 54.30%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
The following table shows the historic (2000-2010) growth rates within the MPA of the portions of Cole
and Callaway Counties within the CAMPO MPA.
Table 18: Callaway and Cole County Population Growth
2010 Census
Counts
2000 Census
Counts
2000-2010
Change
2000-2010 Percent
Change
Cole County 75,990 71,397 4,593 6.43%
Callaway
County 44,332 40,766 3,566 8.75%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
Several trends emerged from the land use study and travel demand modeling over the 2000 to 2010
decade.
In land use, dwelling numbers are decreasing in the downtown area as redevelopment occurs, but
development is occurring at high rates south of Jefferson City and northward into Callaway County
around Holts Summit. New commercial development is occurring to the east along US 50/63 and E.
McCarty St., with major street improvements and big box retailers. To the west, a new school will prompt
37
new development but infrastructure such as sewers may inhibit smaller lot residential development west
of St. Martins.
Depending on funding, a new proposed “mega” school and new hospital at Rte. 179 between Rte. C and
W. Edgewood will almost certainly spur commercial development along the Rte. 179 corridor. The
sluggish Truman Blvd. / US 50 East area should expand when redevelopment or mall related reuse finally
occurs.
Demographics: in general, family size is getting smaller. The population, (and the drivers), are getting
older, as evidenced by the decreasing number of drivers. Family size is also getting smaller.
Projected growth from year 2000 through 2035
Projecting growth based on historic trends,
Table 19: Callaway and Cole County Population Projections from 2000 to 2030 to 2035
Year 2000 2010 2020 2020 2030 2030 2035 2035
County (actual) (actual) (linear) (State
Projection) (linear) (State
Projection) (linear) (State
Projection)**
Callaway 40,766 44,332 48,210 50,140 52,427 55,096 54,761 57,545
Cole 71,397 75,990 80,878 79,333 86,081 83,583 88,886 85,645
Source: CAMPO * * w/linear projection last 5 years - date 12/25/12
Current Land Use
Table 20: Proportions of land use by category for 2010
General Land Use
Area in
Acres
Area in
Square
miles
Percent Land Use - not
counting ROW and
Mo River.
Percent Land Use -
including ROW and
Mo River.
Agriculture 57,798.2 90.3 65.80% 59.14%
Recreation 2,950.0 4.6 3.36% 3.02%
Residential - Duplex 296.3 0.5 0.34% 0.30%
Residential - Mobile Homes 606.0 0.9 0.69% 0.62%
Residential - Multi Family 719.5 1.1 0.82% 0.74%
Residential - Single Family 14,604.9 22.8 16.63% 14.94%
Transportation Center 520.6 0.8 0.59% 0.53%
Utility 479.0 0.7 0.55% 0.49%
Vacant 3,254.3 5.1 3.70% 3.33%
Commercial 2,370.1 3.7 2.70% 2.43%
Commercial/Residential 47.7 0.1 0.05% 0.05%
Industrial/Manufacturing 1,012.3 1.6 1.15% 1.04%
Institutional 2,280.1 3.6 2.60% 2.33%
Mining-Quarrying 566.8 0.9 0.65% 0.58%
Parking 136.2 0.2 0.16% 0.14%
Public/Semi-Public 187.9 0.3 0.21% 0.19%
Total 87,829.9 137.2 99.99% 89.87%
38
Figure 5: Land Use Map
39
Projected Land Use, Development, and Redevelopment
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.
A new United States Courthouse is a major new development in this neighborhood. It is located at 80
Lafayette Street is a 118,000-square-foot facility overlooking the Missouri River and completed in 2012. It
houses the Central Division of the U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts for the Western District of
Missouri, provides space for two district courtrooms, two magistrate courtrooms, space for a bankruptcy
chamber, the U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Attorney, Probation, and Pretrial Services, space for GSA and
local congressional offices.
The now abandoned Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) has been replaced under a redevelopment
program which includes demolition of most of the prison buildings except for particularly historic
structures, by new buildings such as the Lewis & Clark Building of the Department of Natural Resources
and the Department of Health State Health Lab, which have been completed, and are operating on a part
of the former prison site. For additional details, go to the MSP redevelopment section of this document.
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 Avenue, 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.
Table 21: 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, and a new $71 million federal
40
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.
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.
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.
41
Figure 6: Missouri State Penitentiary Redevelopment - Master Plan Proposed Districts
Figure 7: M S P Redevelopment – Master Plan Proposed Roadways and Parking Areas
42
Other Urbanizing Development Locations
• Central East Side Neighborhood Plan - The prison redevelopment program is complemented by a
City of Jefferson Central East Side Neighborhood Plan adopted in 2006.
• MO Rt. 179 - A potentially important location undergoing development is the area east and west
of a midpoint on MO Rt. 179, between MO Rt. C and W. Edgewood Drive to provide access to
adjacent properties. Development is underway with a hospital and associated medical services and
proposed new schools on the east side of MO Rt. 179, along with anticipated office buildings, and
undetermined future development on the west side of MO Rt. 179 with an estimated 80 to 120 acres
of retail/commercial land use.
Additional development along the MO Rt. 179 corridor from W. Edgewood Drive to the south will
also increase accident and congestion problems, especially at the MO Rt. 179 US 50 interchange.
Rapid development along W. Edgewood and the proposed interchange on a MO Rt. 179 midpoint
between MO Rt. C and W. Edgewood will also become a major issue.
• The West Edgewood corridor - from Stadium Blvd. to Country Club Rd. is a rapidly developing
commercial corridor near to the Rt. 179 corridor. Additional residential development, situated
behind the commercial corridors is expected to be at least 10-15 years out.
• East McCarty at US 50 – A continued increase in retail and commercial development is expected
with the construction of a large retail center and new interchange at the current East
McCarty/City View Drive and US 50 intersection along with the completion of E. McCarty
corridor improvements with roadway expansion curb and gutter, and sidewalks. Additional
roadways and sewers are expected to extend into nearby areas to the south of US 50 at E.
McCarty St.
• Stoneridge Parkway - The Stoneridge Parkway area south of Missouri Boulevard and west of
Stadium Boulevard continues to develop commercial/retail uses, as will MO Rt. 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 is expected to 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
MO Rt. C to W. Edgewood Drive and along Rock Ridge Road after 2010. Other 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.
• Capital Mall US/50 Truman Blvd. area – expect continued commercial development and
adaptive reuse strategies for the Capital Mall leading to a resurgence of commercial activities in a
stagnant office area to the north of the mall.
43
Transportation Corridor Development
The 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan includes future transportation corridors for long-range planning.
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.
Missouri has legislation that allows MoDOT to file Corridor Preservation (CP) plans that identify priority
corridors. DOT is notified of all developments sought along these corridors and the state has 120 days to
approve the development, negotiate the project, or buy the property. The statute is not used much outside of St.
Charles County because it only applies to counties that have zoning. There are also no budget allocations for
this program. 44
Corridor preservation tools might include, but are not limited to:
1. annexation or development agreements (land owner agreements)
2. regulating the use of such land (land use regulations)
3. acquiring property rights within a corridor (land acquisition)
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.
Eastern Cole County Corridor Projections
The Cole County Master Plan referred to as the Corridor Land Use Plans of the county plan includes a section of
the Highway 50 Corridor. This section of the land use plan for the area between the City of Jefferson and Taos
describes how it will develop into an urban area. Figure 7 of the plan shows proposed commercial development
north of Liberty Ln south of US 50 and proposed industrial development south of Liberty Ln.45
44
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 of 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.
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.
As urbanization accelerates between Henwick Lane, Scott Station Road, and Schumate Chapel Road, the City
and County will require arterial intersections and a connecting arterial within this area, about a mile northwest
of the current city limits roughly outlined by Truman Boulevard. The arterial should be extended northward to
MO Rt. 179. Current roadways are inadequate to carry increased traffic from development, being the top of a
ridge, with housing on both sides, right of way for road widening may be impossible to acquire. The preferable
route is a north south arterial connecting all three roadways.
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 MO Rt. 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 Horn Drive interchange on US 50 remains an underutilized interchange – serving local traffic only. Utilizing
Big Horn Drive for future beltways around Jefferson City, connecting with MO Rt. 179 to the north and south,
and with US highways 50 and 54 should be included in a Major Investment Study.
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 MO Rt. 179, landing near the Cole Junction area of MO Rt. 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
45
Investment Analysis.
Continuing Safety and /Congestion Issues
The Whitton Expressway will continue to be the most obvious congestion issue with peak period congestion a
chronic condition. Solutions have not progressed past the Problem Definition Study, and the Whitton
Expressway Environmental Impact Statement. However, with funding reductions, significant improvements
may be limited in the short term.
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 occurs east of the CBD, along with eastside area
redevelopment progress. MoDOT estimates that this traffic will double within 20 years.
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.
Ellis Blvd./US 50 and Stadium Blvd. at Jefferson St. - Interchanges with multiple signals and intersections that
are way too close together, such as US 54 @ Ellis Blvd., US/54 off ramp/Stadium Blvd @ Jefferson St. and Christy
Dr., US 50@ Missouri Blvd and 179, and at Truman Blvd. @US/50/S. Country Club interact to produce LOS D
and E conditions, and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future. All of the interchange areas are in
heavily commercialized areas, on main thoroughfares. Stadium/Jefferson St. and Christy Dr. are access routes to
the two high schools in the City and the Capital Region Hospital.
All commercial or institutional locations at these intersections/interchanges have expansion plans and will
continue to increase the congestion and potential accident levels.
46
Section 4 Congestion and Travel Forecasting
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, and most likely include trip chaining.
CAMPO attempts to identify how well the 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.
Table 22: Where Commuting Workers Employed in the CAMPO MPA Live
Where (Primary Jobs) Workers Live That are Employed and Commute to the CAMPO Planning Area
2010
Count Share
Cole County, MO 21,956 42.1%
Callaway County, MO 4,480 8.6%
Boone County, MO 3,557 6.8%
Osage County, MO 2,606 5.0%
Moniteau County, MO 1,813 3.5%
Miller County, MO 1,514 2.9%
St. Louis County, MO 1,210 2.3%
Jackson County, MO 920 1.8%
St. Charles County, MO 647 1.2%
Greene County, MO 558 1.1%
All Other Locations 12,836 24.6%
Total Primary Jobs 52,097 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, On The Map Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (Beginning of
Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2002-2010).
Table 23: Commuting Distance of Workers Living Outside the MPA
Commute Distance of Workers Who are Employed in the CAMPO Planning Area - 2010
Count Share
Less than 10 miles 22,151 42.5%
10 to 24 miles 9,495 18.2%
25 to 50 miles 7,072 13.6%
Greater than 50 miles 13,379 25.7%
Total Primary Jobs 52,097 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, On The Map Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (Beginning of
Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2002-2010).
47
Table 24: Commuting Distances of Workers Living in the MPA but Working Outside the MPA
Commuting Distances of Workers Living in the CAMPO Planning Area But Working Outside of the
MPA - Year 2010
Range of Commuting Count Share
Less than 10 miles 19,963 65.1%
10 to 24 miles 2,398 7.8%
25 to 50 miles 2,742 8.9%
Greater than 50 miles 5,552 18.1%
Total Primary Jobs 30,655 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, On The Map Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics
(Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2002-2010).
Table 25: Where Workers That Live in the MPA Work
Where Workers That Live in the MPA Work
County of Employment 2010
Count Share
Cole County, MO 19,894 64.9%
Boone County, MO 2,185 7.1%
Callaway County, MO 1,660 5.4%
St. Louis County, MO 1,085 3.5%
Jackson County, MO 531 1.7%
St. Louis city, MO 406 1.3%
Greene County, MO 320 1.0%
St. Charles County, MO 300 1.0%
Osage County, MO 298 1.0%
Camden County, MO 263 0.9%
All Other Locations 3,713 12.1%
Total Primary Jobs 30,655 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, On the Map Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment
Statistics (Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2002-2010).
Table 26: CAMPO Employment Travel in the MPA at One Point in Time
In Area Employment Efficiency (2010) Count Share
Employed in the CAMPO Planning Area 52,097 100.0%
Employed and Living in the CAMPO Planning Area 20,259 38.9%
Employed in the CAMPO Planning Area but Living Outside the CAMPO Planning
Area 31,838 61.1%
48
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.” 46
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.”47
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 Capital Area MPO is not required to initiate Congestion Management Programs within the 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.
Forecasting Future Travel Demand
Travel Demand Forecasting
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
CAMPO required inclusion of portions of Callaway and Cole County to be included for travel modeling
and Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) development. Travel demand forecasts included current travel
demand, demand out to year 2020, and a long term planning horizon of year 2030.
49
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 2035 as inputs to the travel demand model. The following methods were used to determine residential
and commercial development out to year 2035.
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.
2010 census population data formed the baseline population.
2000 to 2010 growth rates were identified for CAMPO area, and then future 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.
Projected travel demand for people and fright
The number of vehicle miles of travel (or VMT) is an indicator of the roadway system travel levels by
motor vehicles and is an estimate, based upon traffic volume counts and roadway lengths, for a specific
point in time. So, estimated VMT was determined by the use of the CAMPO travel demand model at
three points in time with 10 year intervals
VMT: Vehicle miles of travel - the number of vehicles on a link, generally for a daily period, multiplied
by the length of the link, in miles. The VMT for a study area is the sum of the VMTs for each link.
Forecast Future Travel Demand
Daily VMT New MPO MPA (modeled roads only)
Year 2010 = 1,759,282 Vehicle Miles Traveled
Year 2020 = 1,909,957 Vehicle Miles Traveled
Year 2035 = 2,055,874 Vehicle Miles Traveled
Projected Traffic Volumes 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.
50
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, with the evening congestion frequently being of longer duration.
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 following levels of service are listed for reference, and may be found in the Highway Capacity
Manual and AASHTO Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.
LOS A = a Free flow
LOS B = a reasonably free flow
LOS C = a stable flow
LOS D = approaching an unstable flow
LOS E = an unstable flow
LOS F = forced flow or breakdown in flow
Table 27: 2020 and 2035 Critical Intersections Level of Service
51
Figure 8: Map of Forecasted Traffic Volumes in 2035 on Major Routes
52
Figure 9: Forecasted Locations Where Traffic Volume Exceed Capacity
53
Section 5 Strategies and Capital Investment
Transportation Management & Operations Strategies 48
The FAST Act 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 in better understanding the opportunities and options available for programming and projects
utilizing Transportation Management and Operations in their plans.
The term transportation systems management and operations' generally refers to integrated strategies to
optimize the performance of existing infrastructure through the implementation of multimodal and
intermodal, cross-jurisdictional systems, services, and projects designed to preserve capacity and improve
security, safety, and reliability of the transportation system.
Some of the types of Federal-aid projects that may be funded under Transportation Systems Management
and Operations-include--
1. actions such as traffic detection and surveillance
2. corridor management
3. freeway management
4. arterial management
5. active transportation and demand management
6. work zone management
7. emergency management
8. traveler information services
9. congestion pricing
10. parking management
11. automated enforcement
12. traffic control
13. commercial vehicle operations
14. freight management, and
15. coordination of highway, rail, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian operations; and
16. coordination of the implementation of regional transportation system management and
operations investments such as:
a. traffic incident management
b. traveler information services
c. emergency management
d. roadway weather management
e. intelligent transportation systems
f. communication networks, and information sharing systems requiring agreements,
integration, and interoperability to achieve targeted system performance, reliability, safety,
and customer service levels
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 and assist in facilitating Human
Services transportation coordination efforts as provided for in the Coordinated Public Transit Human
Services Transportation Plan.
54
Access Management Strategy
Access Management (AM) is the proactive management of vehicular access points to land parcels
adjacent to all manner of roadways 49. Most opportunities for removing conflict points lie in the
consideration for turning movements to driveways, and in the frequency of, or separation between,
streets crossing arterials and highways.50
An effective Access Management Program should address the following situations:
1. the Facility Hierarchy
2. Intersection and Interchange Spacing
3. Driveway spacing
4. Traffic signal spacing
5. Median treatments and median openings
6. Turning lanes and auxiliary lanes, and
7. Street connections
CAMPO recommends and supports improvements in access management planning for urbanized areas
of CAMPO, improving traffic flow, reducing conflicts, and congestion through the application of
planning, regulatory, and design strategies such as:
1. Policies, directives, and guidelines issued by state and local agencies having permit authority on
development and roadway infrastructure improvements
2. Regulations, codes, and guidelines that are enforceable
3. Acquisition of access rights by states and local jurisdictions that serve to protect transportation
interests and enable sufficient infrastructure is built
4. Land development regulations by state and local jurisdictions that address property access and
related issues
5. Development review and impact assessments by state and local jurisdictions
6. Good geometric design of transportation facilities, and
7. Understanding of access implications by businesses and property owners.
MoDOT currently has guidelines and the City of Jefferson has an Access Management Plan in
development.
Asset Management
CAMPO supports and encourages the development of public asset management programs and plans:
Public asset management especially “transportation asset management” (TAM) can provide a valuable
tool to maximize transportation system performance, improve system user satisfaction, and minimize
life-cycle costs of transportation infrastructure.
Pavement management systems and programs such as the MoDOT Rail Asset Management Business
Plan are but two examples of existing asset management programs.
Benefits of Applying Transportation Asset Management
1. Maximize transportation system performance.
2. Improve customer satisfaction.
3. Minimize life-cycle costs.
4. Match service provided to public expectations.
5. Make more informed, cost-effective program decisions and better use of existing transportation
assets.
55
According to FHWA, an asset management program can:
1. Track system condition, needs, and performance.
2. Clearly identify costs for maintaining and preserving existing assets.
3. Clearly identify public expectations and desires.
4. Directly compare needs to available funding, including operating and maintenance costs.
5. Define asset conditions so that decisions can be made on how best to manage and maintain
assets.
6. Determine when to undertake action on an asset such as preservation, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, capacity enhancement, or replacement.
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 approve the development, negotiate the project, or buy the property. However, this applies
only to counties that have zoning.51
CAMPO encourages local jurisdictions with authority to provide for transportation corridors
preservation, minimizing development within an identified future 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 Strategies
Federal law requires that the State and Metropolitan transportation planning process be consistent with
Strategic Highway Safety Plans.52
CAMPO cooperates and assists 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.
CAMPO will continue to improve safety data through data management, collection methods and related
performance data in accordance with federal safety performance mandates directed at the states.53 54
Congestion Strategies
CAMPO continues to encourage and support local 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. Use of the most recent travel demand model and coordinated traffic
count databases contribute to identifying local congestion problems.
As far as traffic congestion on arterial streets, capacity and the level of congestion depend on intersection
traffic control and management strategies, as well as design, pavement width (number of through and
turning lanes) and access control.
From an economic and efficiency standpoint, Campo must support and advocate strategies previously
identified in Transportation Systems Management and Operations as preferable to expansion and
widening. This also supports system preservation efforts of MoDOT.
56
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. Other public involvement pertaining to nondiscrimination actions for individuals that
are not proficient in English are contained in the Limited English Proficiency Plan. Both the PPP and LEP
are located online at
http://www.jeffersoncitymo.gov/government/long_range_transportation_plan/campo_plans_and_publica
tions.php.
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 strives to adhere to a continuous, cooperative and comprehensive planning process and provide
for consideration and implementation of projects, strategies and services that will address the FAST Act
planning factors.
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 RPCs and MPOs.
Table 28: Regional Initiatives
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
Sidewalk Projects: Programs for safer movement of pedestrians.
CAMPO will continue to seek Safe Routes to School funding through the local jurisdictions for
improvements to travel to and from schools, Transportation Enhancement grants, STP funding, and set
aside municipal funds in addition to local match requirements.
Staff suggests that the cities establish a fairly sophisticated program of annual sidewalk maintenance and
repair, and be responsible for the maintenance of sidewalk damage caused by vehicle accidents, water
main breaks and natural subsidence and have the property owners be responsible for the repair or
replacement of their sidewalk when damaged by privately owned tree roots, heavy vehicle traffic or
drainage from private property.
If the sidewalk is raised or cracked because of a City owned tree, the jurisdiction should make the repairs
57
(at the request of the property owner). In addition, the City should split the cost with the property owner
as part of the 50/50 Cost Sharing Program in the event that sidewalks are simply old and deteriorated.
The fee should be based on a per square foot cost and be the same for all neighborhoods of the City and
the area to be repaired must be at least 75 square feet of old and deteriorated sidewalk not including the
section of sidewalk directly behind the driveway entrance.
Sidewalks should be upgraded to conform to ADA standards, at the very least.
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. Projects are reflected in the locally developed long range
transportation plans or Capital Improvement Programs of the cities or counties.
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.
Greenway and Trail Projects: Ongoing programs of safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Area Greenway / Trail projects are part of the Jefferson City Area Greenway Master Plan and are
designed to create a connected non-motorized vehicle system. Other projects and programs are contained
in the Holts Summit and St. Martins transportation plans.
Bridge Projects: Programs for repair and replacement for critical infrastructure:
CAMPO is continuing to improve the bridge inventories of the MPA, and supporting prioritization of
bridge repair and maintenance.
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. Improvements and project priorities are originated in the transit
improvement program, the Capital Improvement program, or transportation plan of the transit provider.
58
Section 6 The Regional Financial Plan
Fiscally Constrained Investment Plan 2015 – 2035
The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization is the designated metropolitan planning organization
for the Jefferson City, Missouri Urbanized Area whose purpose is to carry out a continuing, cooperative, and
comprehensive long range transportation planning process. As part of this process, in 2013, CAMPO
published the 2013-2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, a long range transportation plan addressing the
current and future transportation needs for the Metropolitan Planning Area.
The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a 5-year financial program of transportation projects to be
implemented within the MPA, which are funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), or are deemed ‘regionally significant.’ Each project or project phase
included in the TIP is to be derived from the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and is part of the process of
applying for funds from the FHWA and FTA. Certain capital and non-capital transportation projects using
funding under 23 USC and 49 USC Chapter 53 or regionally significant projects requiring action by the
FHWA or the FTA are required to be included in the TIP and derived from the MTP. The TIP is updated
annually by CAMPO in cooperation with the Missouri Department of Transportation and local public
transportation operators and is therefore more accurate and representative of project being implemented.
Therefore, the TIP and first 5 years of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan’s fiscally constrained investment
plan have been incorporated together. Annually, after the public involvement process, as the TIP is
approved, simultaneous approval of an update to this section of the plan will occur.
Project Selection
Transportation projects, funded by direct allocation of Federal funds to a project sponsor, award of Federal
funds via competitive grant, or wholly funded by the sponsor, are selected by the agency having jurisdiction
over the project using their own criteria and submitted to the CAMPO Board of Directors for inclusion in the
TIP. Transportation projects included within the TIP should be consistent with investment strategies
discussed in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan.
Transportation projects, funded by sub-allocated Federal funds directly to CAMPO or otherwise made
available for programming at the discretion of CAMPO, are selected based on competitive process approved
by the CAMPO Board of Directors. This process involves a call for projects, ranking based on CAMPO
priorities by staff, and review by the CAMPO Technical Committee, prior to being forwarded to the CAMPO
Board of Directors for a vote of approval. The ranking process has unique evaluation criteria for different
categories of projects – roadway/intersection, bridge, non-motorized, transit, and ‘other.’
Financial Plan
The TIP and MTP includes a financial plan that demonstrates how the approved TIP and MTP can be
implemented, and indicates resources from public and private sources that are reasonably expected to be
made available to carry out the TIP. In developing the TIP and MTP, CAMPO, MoDOT, and public
transportation operators cooperatively develop estimates of funds that are reasonably expected to be
available to support implementation. Only projects for which construction or operating funds can
reasonably be expected to be available may be included. In developing the financial plan, CAMPO takes
into account all projects and strategies funded under title 23 U.S.C., title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, and other
Federal funds; and regionally significant projects that are not federally funded. For purposes of
transportation operations and maintenance, the financial plan shall contain system-level estimates of costs
and revenue sources that are reasonably expected to be available to adequately operate and maintain
Federal-aid highways (as defined by 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(5)) and public transportation (as defined by title 49
U.S.C. Chapter 53).
59
Forecast Revenue Available for Transportation Funding
Federal funding forecasts, provided by MoDOT based on published notices in the Federal Register, estimate
fiscal year authorization levels by the FHWA and FTA under the Fixing America's Surface Transportation
Act, (FAST Act) the current highway act. Appendix B briefly describes most of the FAST Act Federal
transportation programs which could fund projects in the CAMPO planning area.
For Federally-funded projects, the TIP must identify the appropriate “matching funds” by source. The
matching funds are usually provided by state and local governments. State revenue forecasts are also
provided by MoDOT based on historical data of the State Fuel Tax, State Vehicle Sales and Use Tax and
General Revenue.
Local revenue forecast from the County Aid Road Trust (State Fuel Tax and State Vehicle Sales and Use Tax)
for each jurisdiction are based on past distributions and are assumed to continue a trend of a 2% inflation
rate. The City of Jefferson has a ½ cent sales tax to support its Capital Improvement Program and a ½ cent
sales tax for Parks and Recreation, which supports greenways and other non-motorized transportation
activities. The City of Jefferson has provided its own future revenue projections from these sources. Cole
County has a ½ sales tax to support its Capital Improvement Program and a real property tax levy of $0.27
earmarked for Road & Bridges. All small cities get $100,000 every five years from Cole County. Callaway
County has a real property tax levy of $0.2466 earmarked for Road & Bridges.
Outlined in Table 6-1 are local forecasts of revenue sources for over the life of the TIP available for
transportation projects, operations and maintenance.
60
Table 6-1 – Forecast Revenue for Transportation projects, Operations and Maintenance.
In the past, local governments have used general revenue and other sources of revenue as they deemed
appropriate to match transportation grants awarded. It is not uncommon, nor difficult, for local jurisdictions
to transfer funds from one account to another at their discretion.
Table 6-2 shows the total programmed project funds and available project funds by source. The project costs
have inflation factored in by each project sponsor. The instructions on the form used to submit a project for
inclusion in the TIP reminds the project sponsor to take inflation into account when estimating the project’s
cost. Since the last iteration of the MTP, the inflation factor for the TIP has been set as 3%.
Callaway County 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
County Aid Road Trust - State Fuel Tax 1,791,734$ 1,827,569$ 1,864,120$ 1,901,403$ 1,939,431$ 9,324,258$
Property Tax - Road & Bridge ($0.2466 levy)1,900,000$ 1,900,000$ 1,900,000$ 1,900,000$ 1,900,000$ 9,500,000$
Transfer from general revenue 300,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 1,500,000$
Cole County -$
County Aid Road Trust - State Fuel Tax 1,224,143$ 1,248,625$ 1,273,598$ 1,299,070$ 1,325,051$ 6,370,487$
Sales Tax 5,030,870$ 5,030,870$ 5,030,870$ 5,030,870$ 5,030,870$ 25,154,350$
Property Tax - Road & Bridge ($0.27 levy)3,770,847$ 3,770,847$ 3,770,847$ 3,770,847$ 3,770,847$ 18,854,235$
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax 331,268$ 331,268$ 331,268$ 331,268$ 331,268$ 1,656,340$
Holts Summit -$
County Aid Road Trust - State Fuel Tax 132,961$ 135,620$ 138,332$ 141,099$ 143,921$ 691,933$
Transportation Sales Tax 312,000$ 312,000$ 312,000$ 312,000$ 312,000$ 1,560,000$
Sales Tax 25,750$ 26,523$ 27,318$ 28,138$ 28,982$ 136,710$
Cap Imp Street Revenue 40,170$ 41,375$ 42,616$ 43,895$ 45,212$ 213,268$
Interest 8,400$ 8,400$ 8,400$ 8,400$ 8,400$ 42,000$
NID Deposits 7,000$ 7,000$ 7,000$ 7,000$ 7,000$ 35,000$
City of Jefferson -$
County Aid Road Trust - State Fuel Tax 1,764,033$ 1,799,314$ 1,835,300$ 1,872,006$ 1,909,446$ 9,180,099$
Sales Tax - 1/2% Parks Sales Tax 4,951,878$ 4,951,878$ 4,951,878$ 4,951,878$ 4,951,878$ 24,759,390$
Sales Tax - 1/2% Capital Improvement (Expires March 2022)1,720,000$ 1,720,000$ 1,720,000$ 1,720,000$ 1,720,000$ 8,600,000$
City of Jefferson - JEFFTRAN -$
Passenger Fares & Misc. 229,889$ 236,785$ 243,889$ 251,205$ 251,205$ 1,212,973$
Sales Tax - 1/2% Capital Improvement (Expires March 2022)80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 400,000$
Lake Mykee -$
County Aid Road Trust - State Fuel Tax 14,332$ 14,619$ 14,911$ 15,209$ 15,513$ 74,584$
St. Martins -$
County Aid Road Trust - State Fuel Tax 46,682$ 47,615$ 48,568$ 49,539$ 50,530$ 242,933$
General Revenue Funds 209,733$ 211,830$ 213,948$ 216,087$ 216,087$ 1,067,685$
Sales Tax - 1/2% Capital Improvement*20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 100,000$
Taos -$
County Aid Road Trust - State Fuel Tax 35,953$ 36,672$ 37,405$ 38,154$ 38,917$ 187,101$
Sales Tax - 1/2% Capital Improvement* 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 100,000$
Wardsville -$
County Aid Road Trust - State Fuel Tax 61,669$ 62,902$ 64,160$ 65,443$ 66,752$ 320,927$
Sales Tax - 1/2% Capital Improvement* 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 100,000$
OATS -$
Passenger Fares, Misc.6,000$ 6,000$ 6,000$ 6,000$ 6,000$ 30,000$
Section 5310 6,000$ 6,000$ 6,000$ 6,000$ 6,000$ 30,000$
Medicaid Transportation 36,000$ 36,000$ 36,000$ 36,000$ 36,000$ 180,000$
121,624,273$
Note: County Aid Road Trust includes State Fuel Tax, Vehicle Sales/Use Tax and Licensing Fees.
Please see more on CART funds here: http://dor.mo.gov/publicreports/index.php#motorfuel
* This is distributed from Cole County
Available Local Transportation Funds
Total Local Funds
CART Funds based on 2016 numbers from MoDOT. There is a conservative two (2) percent
increase per year, based on historical numbers.
61
Table 6-2 – Programmed and Available Funds by Source.
Operations and Maintenance - MoDOT
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. Maintenance operations expenditures are expected to increase 1%
annually. In fiscal year 2016, MoDOT is budgeting $535,140,000 in maintenance expenditures that would
grow to $554,874,000 in fiscal year 2021.
This makes MoDOT’s cost $6,913 per lane mile.
Calculations are $535,140,000 / 77,409 lane miles of roadway.
Assumptions:
Maintenance Operations $485,578,000 *
Fleet Investments $ 22,362,000 *
Facility Investments $ 7,200,000 *
IS Investments $ 20,000,000 *
Total $535,140,000
Lane miles 77,409 **
*Source: FY 2016 Budget Request (5-6-15)
** Source: Official 2014 State System Mileage
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
FHWA NHPP $31,200 $4,107,200 $1,730,400 $0 $0 $5,868,800 $31,200 $4,107,200 $1,730,400 $0 $0 $5,868,800
FHWA HSIP $239,400 $78,300 $0 $1,977,300 $2,033,100 $4,328,100 $239,400 $78,300 $0 $1,977,300 $2,033,100 $4,328,100
FHWA STP $267,170 $11,200 $11,200 $1,132,000 $1,163,200 $2,584,770 $267,170 $11,200 $11,200 $1,132,000 $1,163,200 $2,584,770
FHWA TAP $278,564 $0 $0 $0 $0 $278,564 $278,564 $0 $0 $0 $0 $278,564
FHWA SHRP2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
FHWA RTP $71,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $71,000 $71,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $71,000
FTA 5307 $775,236 $798,493 $822,448 $847,121 $872,535 $4,115,833 $775,236 $798,493 $822,448 $847,121 $872,535 $4,115,833
FTA 5310 $251,519 $60,000 $70,000 $70,000 $75,000 $526,519 $251,519 $60,000 $70,000 $70,000 $75,000 $526,519
FTA 5311 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
FTA 5316 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
FTA 5329 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
FTA 5339 $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $40,000 $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $40,000
MoDOT MPEN $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
MoDOT Safety $4,100 $3,700 $0 $219,700 $225,900 $453,400 $4,100 $3,700 $0 $219,700 $225,900 $453,400
MoDOT State Operating $7,725 $7,957 $8,195 $8,441 $8,694 $41,012 $7,725 $7,957 $8,195 $8,441 $8,694 $41,012
MoDOT SWIMB $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
MoDOT TCOS $4,807,800 $7,457,350 $3,866,150 $296,750 $304,550 $16,732,600 $4,807,800 $7,457,350 $3,866,150 $296,750 $304,550 $16,732,600
Jefferson City $2,148,262 $1,285,332 $1,323,892 $1,363,609 $1,404,517 $7,525,612 $2,148,262 $1,285,332 $1,323,892 $1,363,609 $1,404,517 $7,525,612
Cole County $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Oats $60,000 $62,000 $70,000 $70,000 $75,000 $337,000 $60,000 $62,000 $70,000 $70,000 $75,000 $337,000
Holts Summit $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
St. Martins $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $251,923 $243,215 $242,122 $249,335 $256,662 $1,243,257 $251,923 $243,215 $242,122 $249,335 $256,662 $1,243,257
$9,193,899 $14,154,747 $8,144,407 $6,234,256 $6,419,158 $9,193,899 $14,154,747 $8,144,407 $6,234,256 $6,419,158
$44,146,467 $44,146,467
Programmed Funds Available Funds
Total Available Funds
Federal
State
Local
Yearly Totals
Total Programmed Total
62
MoDOT maintains approximately 349 miles of federal aid eligible roads in the CAMPO area. Table 6-9 (page
76) shows the MoDOT cost for maintenance and operations for the MPO MPA for the horizon of this plan.
Operations and Maintenance– Local Government
Local revenue sources for operations and maintenance include state fuel tax, state vehicles sales/use tax, 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, or operations and maintenance budgets.
The operations and maintenance costs for local governments include salaries, fringe benefits, materials, and
equipment needed to deliver the street and bridge maintenance programs. This category includes basic
maintenance activities like minor surface treatments such as sealing, small concrete repairs, pothole
patching, mowing, snow removal, replacing signs, striping, and repairing traffic signals. These activities
may be performed in-house or outsourced.
Local government operations & maintenance on federal aid roads calculated for the system wide average of
operations & maintenance per centerline mile is $12,433 and $6,136 per lane mile plus 3 percent per year out
to FY 2021, as determined by consultation with engineering and technical staff of the local jurisdictions.
Table 6-3 shows the various roadway types in CAMPO’s MPA and the governing body that is responsible
for maintenance.
Table 6-3– Federal Aid Road Mileage by Jurisdiction
Source: CAMPO Functional Classification GIS Database.
In addition to the local government operations and maintenance previously discussed, JEFFTRAN expenses
also cover fleet repair/maintenance, repairing/replacing bus shelters, bus washing, bus maintenance
facilities, public restrooms, and fuel. Table 6-4 shows the estimated expenditures for transit operations and
maintenance.
63
Table 6-4 – JEFFTRAN Estimated Expenditures for Operations & Maintenance.
Operations and Maintenance revenue and expenditures are based on the most recently available
budgets and apply the inflation factor of 3% for FTA and City of Jefferson funding sources.
Financial Constraint
To exhibit financial constraint, a financial plan should address three questions:
1) What will the needs for transportation in the CAMPO planning area cost?
The needs are identified by project in the following section and costs are summarized by funding
source in Table 6-1.
2) What revenues are available that can be applied to the needs?
Specific revenues available to meet the needs are identified in Table 6-1 - Forecast Revenue for
Transportation projects, Operations and Maintenance, by jurisdiction and source.
3) Are the revenues sufficient to cover the costs?
As shown in Table 6-2 – Programmed and Available Funds by Source, programmed fund amounts
equal anticipated fund amounts. For many jurisdictions as shown in Table 1, available funds exceed the
amounts of revenues required to fund programmed projects.
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
FTA-Section 5307 752,656$ 752,656$ 752,656$ 752,656$ 752,656$
City of Jefferson-Local Operating Assistance 1,247,895$ 1,285,332$ 1,323,892$ 1,363,609$ 1,404,517$
MoDOT State Operating Assistance 7,500$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 7,500$
Passenger fares and misc 223,510$ 230,215$ 237,122$ 244,235$ 251,562$
Capital funds 100,000$ 300,000$ 50,000$ 170,000$ 50,000$
Total 2,331,561$ 2,575,703$ 2,371,170$ 2,538,000$ 2,466,235$
64
Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects - July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2022
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA NHPP $21,000 $4,000 $54,400 $79,400
MoDOT TCOS $6,000 $1,000 $13,600 $20,600
TIP #2013-05 Local $0
MoDOT#5P3015 Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA NHPP $757,600 $757,600
MoDOT TCOS $189,400 $189,400
Local $0
Other $0
Total $27,000 $5,000 $1,015,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,047,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA STP $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $48,000
MoDOT TCOS $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $12,000
TIP #2015-03 Local $0
MoDOT#Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
Total $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $60,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA STP $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $12,000
MoDOT TCOS $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $3,000
TIP #2014-04 Local $0
MoDOT#Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
Total $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $0 $15,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA NHPP $19,200 $20,000 $266,400 $305,600
MoDOT TCOS $4,800 $5,000 $66,600 $76,400
TIP #2018-01 Local $0
MoDOT#5S3261 Other $0
FHWA NHPP $8,000 $8,000
MoDOT TCOS $2,000 $2,000
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA NHPP $1,464,000 $1,464,000
MoDOT TCOS $366,000 $366,000
Local $0
Other $0
Total $0 $24,000 $35,000 $2,163,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,222,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA $0
MoDOT TCOS $200 $18,800 $19,000
TIP #2017-03 Local $0
MoDOT#5P3200 MoDOT TCOS (AC)$800 $75,200 $76,000
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT TCOS $237,800 $237,800
Local $0
MoDOT TCOS (AC)$951,200 $951,200
Total $1,000 $1,283,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,284,000
Prior
Funding
C
O
N
S
T
Description & Location: Non-State System
Bridge Inspection Program for off-system
bridges at various locations throughout the
MPO.
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Comments:
Total Project Cost: $15,000
Total Project Cost: $1,284,000
MoDOT
Comments: Pavement improvements. Award date 2018.
Anticipated federal reimbursement from STP.
MoDOT Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:Non-State System Bridge Inspection E
N
G
Funding Prior
Funding
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:US 50 Outer Road Improvements E
N
G
Description & Location: Includes ramps at
Route 50 and Truman Blvd. Includes a portion
of Missouri Blvd., a portion of Truman Blvd.,
and a portion of Big Horn Dr.
R
O
W
Bridge Projects
MoDOT Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:State System Bridge Inspection E
N
G
Total Project Cost: $1,047,000
Description & Location: Bridge improvements to
the Dix Road bridge over US 50.R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: Involves bridge number A1187.
Award date 2019.
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30MoDOT Funding
Project
Name:Dix Road Bridge Improvements E
N
G
Description & Location: State Bridge Inspection
Program for on-system bridges at various
locations throughout the MPO.
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Comments:
Total Project Cost: $60,000
Prior
Funding
Prior
Funding
Roadway Projects
Total Project Cost: $2,222,000
MoDOT Funding Prior
Funding
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:Bridge Improvements over Route 54 E
N
G
Description & Location: Includes bridge
improvements on Route 94 over Little Tavern
Creek in Callaway County and West Main over
Route 54/63 in Cole County
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: Project involves bridges A3451,
A4265, and A4662. Award date 2020.
65
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA $0
MoDOT TCOS $12,000 $43,000 $55,000
TIP #2017-04 Local $0
MoDOT#5P3118 MoDOT TCOS (AC)$8,000 $172,000 $180,000
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT TCOS $519,400 $519,400
Local $0
MoDOT TCOS (AC)$2,077,600 $2,077,600
Total $20,000 $2,812,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,832,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA NHPP $8,000 $8,000 $227,200 $243,200
MoDOT TCOS $27,000 $2,000 $56,800 $85,800
TIP #2017-05 Local $0
MoDOT#5P3121 Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA NHPP $3,040,000 $3,040,000
MoDOT TCOS $760,000 $760,000
Local $0
Other $0
Total $35,000 $10,000 $4,084,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,129,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA STP $289,360 $289,360
MoDOT $0
TIP #2013-15 Local 1/2% Sales Tax $72,340 $72,340
MoDOT#Local $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local 1/2% Sales Tax $100,000 $100,000
Local 1/2% Sales Tax $100,000 $100,000
FHWA STP $249,170 $249,170 $498,340
MoDOT $0
Local 1/2% Sales Tax $360,165 $360,165 $720,330
Local 1/2% Sales Tax $360,165 $360,165 $720,330
Total $1,531,200 $969,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500,700
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA STP $67,200 $67,200
MoDOT TCOS $16,800 $16,800
TIP #2017-12 Local $0
MoDOT#0S3021F Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA STP $1,053,600 $1,053,600
MoDOT TCOS $263,400 $263,400
Local $0
Other $0
Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,401,000 $0 $0 $1,401,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA STP $67,200 $67,200
MoDOT TCOS $16,800 $16,800
TIP #2018-05 Local $0
MoDOT#0S3022F Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA STP $1,084,800 $1,084,800
MoDOT TCOS $271,200 $271,200
Local $0
Other $0
Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,440,000 $0 $1,440,000
MoDOT Funding Prior
Funding
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:
Enhancement Projects in Central
District E
N
G
Description & Location: ADA Transition Plan
improvements at various locations in the
Central District
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Comments:$1.2 million statewide transportation
alternatives funds. Award Date 2022.
Total Project Cost: $4,129,000
Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:US 54 Pavement Improvements E
N
G
E
N
G
MoDOT
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: Award date 2018. Anticipated
federal reimbursement from STP.
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Description & Location: Pavement
improvements on the eastbound and
westbound lanes of US 54 from Route E (near
Brazito) to near Stadium Blvd. in Jefferson City.
Prior
Funding
Prior
Funding
Prior
Funding
Prior
Funding
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30MoDOT
MoDOT
Project
Name:US 54 Pavement Improvements E
N
G
Description & Location: Pavement, bridge, and
guardrail improvements from just west of Stadium Blvd.
in Jefferson City to west of the Missouri River bridge.
Project involves bridges A1307 and A1672.
Stadium & US 54 Intersection
Improvements
Comments: Length: Award Date 2019
R
O
W
Total Project Cost: $2,832,000
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Enhancement Projects in Central
District E
N
G
Description & Location: ADA Transition Plan
improvements at various locations in the
Central District
R
O
W
City of Jefferson Funding
Total Project Cost: $1,440,000
Total Project Cost: $1,401,000
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: $1.2 million statewide transportation
alternatives funds. Award Date 2021.
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: Local funding is from 1/2% Jefferson City
Capital Improvement sales tax and Cole County 1/2%
sales tax
Total Project Cost: $2,500,700
Project
Name:
Funding
Project
Name:
Description & Location: Highway
54/Jefferson/Stadium Boulevard,
Stadium/Monroe & US 54/Christy Dr. Access,
Capacity, and Safety Improvements.
66
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA HSIP $40,500 $4,500 $900 $45,900
MoDOT Safety $4,500 $500 $100 $5,100
TIP #2013-16 Local $0
MoDOT#5S2234 Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
Total $45,000 $5,000 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $51,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA HSIP $118,800 $118,800
MoDOT Safety $13,200 $13,200
TIP #2017-16 Local $0
MoDOT#0P3021F Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA HSIP $1,858,500 $1,858,500
MoDOT Safety $206,500 $206,500
Local $0
Other $0
Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,197,000 $0 $0 $2,197,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA HSIP $118,800 $118,800
MoDOT Safety $13,200 $13,200
TIP #2018-04 Local $0
MoDOT#0P3022F Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA HSIP $1,914,300 $1,914,300
MoDOT Safety $212,700 $212,700
Local $0
Other $0
Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,259,000 $0 $2,259,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA $0
MoDOT TCOS $7,600 $7,600
TIP #2018-06 Local $0
MoDOT#5P3274 MoDOT TCOS (AC)$30,400 $30,400
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT TCOS $102,000 $102,000
Local $0
MoDOT TCOS (AC)$408,000 $408,000
Total $0 $548,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $548,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA STP $23,200 $4,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $31,200
MoDOT TCOS $5,800 $1,000 $250 $250 $250 $250 $7,800
TIP #2017-22 Local $0
MoDOT#5P3044 Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
Total $29,000 $5,000 $1,250 $1,250 $1,250 $1,250 $0 $39,000
Scoping for Pavement Improvements
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:Safety Projects in Central District E
N
G
Description & Location: Safety projects at
various locations in the Central District.R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: $1.89 million from Open Container
funds. Award Date 2022. 90/10 Grant/match.
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: $1.89 million from Open Container
funds. Award Date 2021. 90/10 Grant/match.
Total Project Cost: $2,197,000
MoDOT Funding Prior
Funding
Comments: Anticipated federal funding category: STP.
Future construction cost $15 million - $25 million.
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
E
N
G
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Other Projects
E
N
G
Description & Location: Safety projects at
various locations in the Central District.
MoDOT
MoDOT
Description & Location: Job order contracting
for guard cables and guardrail repair on
various routes in the northern portion of the
Central District.
R
O
W
Total Project Cost: $51,000
R
O
W
MoDOT
C
O
N
S
T
Project
Name:Safety Projects in Central District
Total Project Cost: $39,000
Project
Name:
Description & Location: Scoping for pavement
improvements on various routes in the Central
District.
R
O
W
Total Project Cost: $2,259,000
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:Scoping Routes M, B & W E
N
G
Description & Location: Scoping for safety
improvements at the intersection of Route M
and Route W in Wardsville.
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: Anticipated federal funding category:
Safety. Future construction costs: $301,000 to
$1,000,000.
Prior
Funding
Funding
Prior
Funding
Funding Prior
Funding
Funding Prior
Funding
Project
Name:
Guard Cable & Guardrail Repair in
Northern Central District E
N
G
MoDOT
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: Award Date Spring 2018.
Anticipated federal reimbursement from STP.
Total Project Cost: $548,000
Funding
67
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA STP $48,000 $4,000 $200 $200 $200 $200 $52,800
MoDOT TCOS $12,000 $1,000 $50 $50 $50 $50 $13,200
TIP #2015-07 Local $0
MoDOT#5S3081 Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
Total $60,000 $5,000 $250 $250 $250 $250 $0 $66,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA HSIP $900 $900
MoDOT Safety $100 $100
TIP #2017-21 Local $0
MoDOT#5P3217 Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA HSIP $31,500 $31,500
MoDOT Safety $3,500 $3,500
Local $0
Other $0
Total $0 $36,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $36,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA HSIP $900 $900
MoDOT Safety $100 $100
TIP #2018-07 Local $0
MoDOT#5P3224 Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA HSIP $31,500 $31,500
MoDOT Safety $3,500 $3,500
Local $0
Other $0
Total $0 $0 $36,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $36,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA HSIP $45,000 $202,500 $45,000 $292,500
MoDOT TCOS $5,000 $22,500 $5,000 $32,500
TIP #2017-25 Local $0
MoDOT#5P3222 MoDOT $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
MoDOT $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
MoDOT $0
Total $50,000 $225,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $325,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA $0
MoDOT TCOS $50,000 $25,000 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $105,000
TIP #2018-08 Local $0
MoDOT#5P3179 MoDOT $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
MoDOT $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
MoDOT $0
Total $50,000 $25,000 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $0 $105,000
Funding Prior
Funding
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: 90/10 match, using federal and
MoDOT safety funds.
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:
Scoping for Safety Improvements for
U.S. 54 in Cole, Miller, and Camden E
N
G
Description & Location: Scoping for safety
improvements along US 54 in Cole, Miller, and
Camden counties. From West of Stadium
Boulevard in Jefferson City to Cecil Street in
Camdenton.
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name: E
N
G
MoDOT Funding Prior
Funding
MoDOT Funding Prior
Funding
Funding Prior
Funding
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:Surveying
Total Project Cost: $36,000
Project
Name:
Comments: Anticipated future cost is between
$5 and $10 million.
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
E
N
G
MoDOT
Total Project Cost: $325,000
MoDOT
Funding Prior
Funding
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:On-call Work Zone Enforcement E
N
G
Description & Location: On-call work zone
enforcement at various locations in the Central
District.
On-call Work Zone Enforcement E
N
G
Description & Location: On-call work zone
enforcement at various locations in the Central
District.
Total Project Cost: $66,000
Slide Repair Scoping
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: Anticipated Federal Funding Category -
STP. Future construction cost $2 million - 5 million.
Description & Location: Scoping for slide
repairs in the northern portion of the Cental
District at various locations.
MoDOT
Description & Location: Surveying to sell
excess right of way parcels in the Central
District.
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
R
O
W
Total Project Cost: $105,000
Comments: No federal funds used for this
project.
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: 90/10 match, using federal and
MoDOT safety funds.
Total Project Cost: $36,000
68
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA STP $0
MoDOT TCOS $8,000 $8,000 $113,200 $129,200
TIP #2018-02 Local $0
MoDOT#5S3230 MoDOT TCOS (AC)$32,000 $32,000 $452,800 $516,800
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
MoDOT $0
FHWA STP $0
MoDOT TCOS $570,200 $570,200
Local $0
MoDOT TCOS (AC)$2,280,800 $2,280,800
Total $0 $40,000 $40,000 $3,417,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,497,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA $0
MoDOT TCOS $8,000 $99,400 $107,400
TIP #2018-03 Local $0
MoDOT#5S3259 MoDOT TCOS (AC)$32,000 $397,600 $429,600
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT TCOS $1,174,400 $1,174,400
Local $0
MoDOT TCOS (AC)$4,697,600 $4,697,600
Total $0 $40,000 $6,369,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,409,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA $0
MoDOT TCOS $5,000 $1,250 $1,250 $1,250 $1,250 $10,000
TIP #2018-09 Local $0
MoDOT#5P3254 MoDOT TCOS (AC)$20,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $40,000
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
Total $0 $25,000 $6,250 $6,250 $6,250 $6,250 $0 $50,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA RTP $8,000 $8,000
MoDOT $0
TIP #2017-24 Local $0
MoDOT#Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA RTP $71,000 $71,000 $142,000
MoDOT $0
Local Parks Tax $70,000 $70,000 $140,000
Other Private Don.$19,000 $19,000
Total $168,000 $141,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $309,000
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA TAP $0
MoDOT $0
TIP #2017-27 Local Sales Tax $0
MoDOT#MoDOT $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
MoDOT $0
FHWA TAP $278,564 $278,564
MoDOT $0
Local Sales Tax $69,641 $69,641
MoDOT $0
Total $0 $348,205 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $348,205
Comments: The Jefferson City Cultural Arts
Foundation, Central Bank and Ameren Missouri have
pledged donations to help fund the project .
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: Award date Fall 2018.
Total Project Cost: $3,497,000
MoDOT Funding Prior
Funding
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:
Pavement and shoulder improvements
on Route M E
N
G
Project
Name:Community Park Greenway Trailhead
R
O
W
Description & Location: Pavement and shoulder
improvements from Rte. B to Rte. 50. Includes
pavements and shoulder improvements on Rte. E from
Rte. 54 to Rte. B. Project also includes pavement
improvements on Rte. W, Rte. Y and Rte. J.
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Funding Prior
Funding
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Prior
Funding
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30Funding
Funding Prior
Funding
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
City of Jefferson Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:
Missouri Boulevard Sidewalk, Beck to
Waverly E
N
G
Description & Location: Construct a 5’ wide
sidewalk along the northern side of Missouri
Boulevard from Beck Street to Waverly Street.
Includes Bicycle/Pedestrian/Transit facilities.
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: TAP Grant awardee.
Total Project Cost: $348,205
City of Jefferson
Pedestrian & Bicycle Projects
Total Project Cost: $309,000
Prior
Funding
Description & Location: Development of a
greenway trailhead at Community Park – a restroom,
spray ground, misting station, water fountain, bike rack,
additional parking, benches, landscaping, and lighting.
Paid for by Local Parks Sales Tax.
Comments: Potential ADA improvements in
Taos. Award date 2020. Anticipated Federal
Funds: STP.
Total Project Cost: $50,000
MoDOT
Project
Name:
Scoping for ADA Improvements in
Various Locations E
N
G
Description & Location:Scoping for ADA
improvements at various locations in
Waynesville, Chamois, Frankenstein, Taos,
Wardsville, and Vienna.
E
N
G
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
Comments: Anticipated Federal Category - STP.
Total Project Cost: $6,409,000
MoDOT
Project
Name:
Pavement and shoulder improvements
on Route C E
N
G
Description & Location: Pavement and shoulder
improvements from Route 52 near Versailles to
Jefferson City.
69
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
Other Pass. Fares $598,000 $223,510 $230,215 $237,122 $244,235 $251,562 $1,784,644
MoDOT State Operating $17,500 $7,725 $7,957 $8,195 $8,441 $8,694 $58,512
TIP #2011-04 Local $2,287,506 $1,247,895 $1,285,332 $1,323,892 $1,363,609 $1,404,517 $8,912,751
MoDOT#FTA 5307 $1,595,207 $775,236 $798,493 $822,448 $847,121 $872,535 $5,711,040
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
Total $4,498,213 $2,254,366 $2,321,997 $2,391,657 $2,463,406 $2,537,308 $0 $16,466,947
Source Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
TIP #2017-28 Local CIP $40,396 $40,396
MoDOT#FTA 5310 $97,466 $97,466
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
FHWA $0
MoDOT $0
Local $0
Other $0
Total $0 $137,862 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $137,862
Paratransit Bus PurchaseProject
Name:
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
Project
Name:Operating Assistance
Public Transportation Projects
Funding Prior
FundingCity of Jefferson - JEFFTRAN
City of Jefferson - JEFFTRAN Funding
Comments: Will replace 2 2010 model year
buses.
C
O
N
S
T
O
P
E
R
Description & Location: Operating Assistance
for JEFFTRAN service w ithin city limits of
Jefferson City (A 3% annual inflation factor
applied.)
R
O
W
C
O
N
S
T
E
N
G
Comments:
Total Project Cost: $137,862
Total Project Cost: $16,466,947
Prior
Funding
Description & Location: Purchase 2 E450
Elkhart Coach II, Floor Plan CC handi-Wheel
buses with Apollo 5 camera systems.
R
O
W
State Program Year - July 1 to June 30
70
Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects - 2021-2035
Table 6-5 – Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects - 2021-2035
Project 2021 est. 2022 est. 2023 est. 2024 est. 2025 est. 2026 est. 2027 est. 2028 est. 2029 est. 2030 est. 2031-2035
est.
Sidewalk Projects
Miscellaneous Emerging Sidewalks Projects, ADA
Improvements & Contingency- Locations TBD $285,152 $293,707 $302,518 $311,593 $320,941 $330,570 $340,487 $350,701 $361,222 $372,059 $2,034,571
Transit
JARC - 5316 (note: no inflation factor applied) $58,125 $58,125 $58,125 $58,125 $58,125 $58,125 $58,125 $58,125 $58,125 $58,125 $290,625
New Freedom - 5317 (note: no inflation factor applied) $42,000 $42,000 $42,000 $42,000 $42,000 $42,000 $42,000 $42,000 $42,000 $42,000 $210,000
Capital Assistance for Elderly Persons & Persons with
Disabilities - 5310 (note: 3% inflation factor applied) $51,399 $52,941 $54,529 $56,165 $57,850 $59,586 $61,373 $63,215 $65,111 $67,064 $366,735
(2) 30 ft. low floor coach (replacements) $986,481 $1,247,608
(5) 12 yr. 30 ft. low floor coach (replacements) $978,169
(3) 30 ft. low floor coach (replacements) - 2030 delivery $1,410,000
(3) Paratransit Van/mini bus-replacement $201,033
(5) 12 yr. 30 ft. low floor coach (replacements) - 2029
delivery $2,645,200
(4) Paratransit Van/mini bus-replacement $268,044
(2) Paratransit Van/mini bus-replacement $300,000 $134,022
(1) Paratransit Van/mini bus-replacement $30,000 $67,011
(3) 12 yr. 35 ft. low floor coach (replacements) - 2030
delivery $816,000 $1,640,000
(2) Paratransit Van/mini bus-replacement $67,011 $201,033
(4) Paratransit Vehicles - 2029 $268,044
(2) Paratransit Vehicles - 2030 $134,022
(1) Paratransit Vehicle - 2032 $67,011
(3) Paratransit Vehicles - 2033
(4) Paratransit Vehicles - 2034 $201,033
(2) Paratransit Vehicles - 2035 $268,044
$134,022
Transit Total $1,334,535 $183,066 $1,342,168 $1,402,503 $291,997 $159,711 $228,509 $364,373 $3,078,480 $3,351,211 $2,785,078
71
Figure 6-1: Map of Fiscally Constrained Projects
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 2013 through 2035, the following tables (Tables 6-6. 6-7, and 6-8) show 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 yearly increments from 2013 out to 2017, at which point the remaining yearly operations &
maintenance expenditures and revenue (from 2018 – 2035) are contained in bands that estimate a low range of 2%
inflation rates for those years. The same procedure applies to the revenue rates.
Operations & Maintenance estimates are based on current Operations & Maintenance budgets from the
municipalities and counties within CAMPO and an inflation factor.
A four year review of prior increases in the making of this plan showed that although annual budgets can
fluctuate significantly, in recessionary periods the cost trend may become fairly flat, generally.
72
A 3% inflation factor estimated too high, and extended over time can become unreasonable. Therefore, a
compromise 2% inflation factor was used to estimate future costs and revenue.
Table 6-6: Annual Operations & Maintenance Expenditures and Revenues – Years 2013-2017
Operations & Maintenance 2013 - 2035 2013
reported 2014 est. 2015 est. 2016 est. 2017 est.
annual annual annual annual annual
Jefferson City Operations & Maintenance expenditure $3,531,937 $3,602,576 $3,674,627 $3,748,120 $3,823,082
Revenue $3,531,937 $3,602,576 $3,674,627 $3,748,120 $3,823,082
Holts Summit Operations & Maintenance expenditure Local R&B tax or Trans. Tax $35,613 $36,325 $37,052 $37,793 $38,549
Revenue $35,613 $36,325 $37,052 $37,793 $38,549
ST. Martins Operations & Maintenance expenditure $74,194 $75,678 $77,191 $78,735 $80,310
Revenue $74,194 $75,678 $77,191 $78,735 $80,310
Cole County Road & Bridge expenditure $7,983,895 $8,143,573 $8,306,444 $8,472,573 $8,642,025
Revenue $7,983,895 $8,143,573 $8,306,444 $8,472,573 $8,642,025
MPO expenditure $1,948,070 $1,987,032 $2,026,772 $2,067,308 $2,108,654
Callaway County Road & Bridge expenditure $4,249,630 $4,334,623 $4,421,315 $4,509,741 $4,599,936
Callaway County revenue $6,950,303 $7,089,309 $7,231,095 $7,375,717 $7,523,231
MPO expenditure $509,956 $520,155 $530,558 $541,169 $551,992
MPO total operations & maintenance expenditure $5,984,874 $6,104,571 $6,226,663 $6,351,196 $6,478,220
MPO proportional revenue $5,984,874 $6,104,571 $6,226,663 $6,351,196 $6,478,220
73
Table 6-7: Operations & Maintenance Years 2018 through 2035
Operations & Maintenance 2013 - 2035 2018 est. 2019 est. 2020 est. 2021 est. 2022 est. 2023 - 2027
est.
2028-2035
est.
annual annual annual annual annual 5 year 8 year
Jefferson City Operations & Maintenance
expenditure $3,899,544 $3,977,535 $4,057,085 $4,138,227 $4,220,992 $22,405,534 $40,799,334
Revenue $3,899,544 $3,977,535 $4,057,085 $4,138,227 $4,220,992 $22,405,534 $40,799,334
Holts Summit Operations &
Maintenance expenditure
Local R&B tax or Trans. Tax $39,320 $40,106 $40,908 $41,726 $42,561 $225,918 $411,385
Revenue $39,320 $40,106 $40,908 $41,726 $42,561 $225,918 $411,385
ST. Martins Operations & Maintenance
expenditure $81,916 $83,554 $85,226 $86,930 $88,669 $470,664 $857,055
Revenue $81,916 $83,554 $85,226 $86,930 $88,669 $470,664 $857,055
Cole County Road & Bridge expenditure $8,814,865 $8,991,163 $9,170,986 $9,354,405 $9,541,494 $50,647,402 $92,226,333
Revenue $8,814,865 $8,991,163 $9,170,986 $9,354,405 $9,541,494 $50,647,402 $92,226,333
MPO expenditure $2,150,827 $2,193,844 $2,237,721 $2,282,475 $2,328,124 $12,357,966 $22,503,225
Callaway County Road & Bridge
expenditure $4,691,935 $4,785,774 $4,881,489 $4,979,119 $5,078,701 $26,958,360 $49,089,798
Callaway County revenue $7,673,696 $7,827,170 $7,983,713 $8,143,388 $8,306,255 $44,090,609 $80,286,747
MPO expenditure $563,032 $574,293 $585,779 $597,494 $609,444 $3,235,003 $5,890,776
MPO total operations & maintenance
expenditure $6,607,784 $6,739,940 $6,874,739 $7,012,234 $7,152,478 $37,966,221 $69,134,549
MPO proportional revenue $6,607,784 $6,739,940 $6,874,739 $7,012,234 $7,152,478 $37,966,221 $69,134,549
Notes on the preceding tables:
City of Jefferson Maintenance and Operations:
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 2% inflation factor.
City of Holts Summit Maintenance and Operations: Holts Summit has a 3% inflation factor.
St. Martins Maintenance and Operations: St. Martins’ Street Operation & Maintenance program contains a 2% inflation Factor (but excludes lighting).
Cole County Maintenance and Operations:
Revenue is based on the county annual budget with the sources being local property tax, state gas tax, motor vehicle sales tax.
Cole County includes their overlay program and an Operations & Maintenance budget with 2% inflation factor and an MPO road mile proportion of 23%.
Callaway County Maintenance and Operations:
Callaway County includes their overlay and paving with Operations & Maintenance, using a 2% inflation factor, and an MPO 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 5 years for a 2% inflation factor for those years.
Table 6-8: JEFFTRAN Operating & Maintenance - Funding Schedule from 2021 through 2035
Funding Funding Agency FY 2021 FY 2022
Local operating assistance- Local Taxes City of Jefferson $1,478,158 $1,553,733
Passenger fares & other revenue $381,000 $381,000
State Operating Assistance MoDOT $10,000 $10,000
Federal - FTA 5307 FTA $650,000 $650,000
Total $2,519,158 $2,594,733
Funding Funding Agency FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027
Local operating assistance- Local Taxes City of Jefferson $1,631,575 $1,711,752 $1,794,335 $1,879,395 $1,967,007
Passenger fares & other revenue $381,000 $381,000 $381,000 $381,000 $381,000
State Operating Assistance MoDOT $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Federal - FTA 5307 FTA $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000
Total $2,672,575 $2,752,752 $2,835,335 $2,920,395 $3,008,007
Funding Funding Agency FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032
74
Local operating assistance- Local Taxes City of Jefferson $2,057,247 $2,150,194 $2,245,930 $2,344,538 $2,446,104
Passenger fares & other revenue $381,000 $381,000 $381,000 $381,000 $381,000
State Operating Assistance MoDOT $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Federal - FTA 5307 FTA $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000
Total $3,098,247 $3,191,194 $3,286,930 $3,385,538 $3,487,104
Funding Funding Agency FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035
Local operating assistance- Local Taxes City of Jefferson $2,550,717 $2,658,469 $2,769,453
Passenger fares & other revenue $381,000 $381,000 $381,000 State Operating Assistance MoDOT $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Federal - FTA 5307 FTA $650,000 $650,000 $650,000
Total $3,591,717 $3,699,469 $3,810,453
Note: Funding is based on a 3% annual increase in Federal FTA funding and a flat “State operating Assistance”
amount, and a flat “other revenue” estimate.
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 2013, MoDOT estimated
$494,881,000 in maintenance expenditures.
MoDOT’s annual cost to operate and maintain its system is approximately $6,400 per lane mile. MoDOT
maintains approximately 349 miles of federal aid eligible roads in the CAMPO area.
MoDOT and local entities operation and maintenance costs were compounded annually at 1% inflation
through the planning horizon.
Table 6-9: Estimated State Roadway Maintenance & Operation Costs through 2035
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 FTA
5307 funding.
Year Maintenance Cost Year Maintenance Cost
2014 $2,268,500 2025 $2,530,894
2015 $2,291,185 2026 $2,556,203
2016 $2,314,097 2027 $2,581,765
2017 $2,337,238 2028 $2,607,582
2018 $2,360,610 2029 $2,633,658
2019 $2,384,216 2030 $2,659,995
2020 $2,408,058 2031 $2,686,595
2021 $2,432,139 2032 $2,713,461
2022 $2,456,460 2033 $2,740,595
2023 $2,481,025 2034 $2,768,001
2024 $2,505,835 2035 $2,795,681
75
Inflation factors for total operating costs and revenues are estimated by CAMPO at 4% per year from 2013
to 2035. 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.55
The State Operating Grant is assumed to continue at the same level, through 2035, 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 Commute program (JARC),
the FTA 5317 New Freedom program, and the FTA 5310 Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Capital
Assistance program, all administered through the MoDOT Multimodal Office.
Total planned costs and revenues from 2013 through 2035 for Transit Operation is $52,908,694 and is
previously listed in the Operations and Maintenance Section.
Anticipated Capital investments through 2035 are $18,821,305. Sources of revenue include Local Capital
Assistance (City of Jefferson transportation sales tax) FTA 5309 funding and local private donations.
Public 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 FTA has distinctly different programs and guidelines for capital and operating
grant programs.
Operating Funds 56
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 Funding 57
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.
MoDOT Transit Section58
Formula Operating Assistance - The FTA provides formula operating assistance to transit systems in
76
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 Missouri Elderly and Handicapped Transportation Assistance Program - provides
state financial assistance for public and nonprofit organizations offering transportation services
to the elderly and disabled at below-cost rates.
• FTA Section 5307 – Urban Area Formula Grant – This program provides grants to Urbanized
Areas for public transportation capital, planning, job access and reverse commute projects, and
operating expenses in certain circumstances. These funds constitute a core investment in the
enhancement and revitalization of public transportation systems in the nation’s urbanized areas,
which depend on public transportation to improve mobility and reduce congestion.
• FTA Section 5310 - Program Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Capital Assistance Program -
The Transit Section purchases approximately 65 vehicles for about 35 grantees statewide each
year using funds allocated to the State through the FTA Section 5310 program.
• 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 - As of FY 2013, changes
in the former transportation bill, MAP-21, ended JARC (Job Access and Reverse Commute) as a
distinct program. JARC-type projects will be eligible activities under the rural (Section 5311) and
urban (Section 5307) funding provisions.
• 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).
• FTA Section 5326 Program - Transit Asset Management - This regulation establishes new
requirements for transit asset management by FTA’s grantees as well as new reporting
requirements to promote accountability. The goal of improved transit asset management is to
implement a strategic approach for assessing needs and prioritizing investments for bringing the
nation’s public transit systems into a state of good repair.
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, along with operations and
maintenance budgets.
77
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, (2013
through 2035), with no inflation adjustment, totals $99,388,612. However, these highway user revenues
may vary from year to year and may be used for any purpose. The following table, Table 6-10, shows the
amount of user revenue distributed to the cities and counties for the CAMPO area, from FY 2011.
Table 6-10: State Highway User Receipts by Jurisdiction
Annual Amount 2013-2035 Estimated Future Receipts
Cole County $1,063,095 $24,451,185
Callaway County $1,500,797 $34,518,331
Jefferson City $1,521,968 $35,005,264
Holts Summit $112,700 $2,592,100
Lake Mykee $12,518 $287,914
St. Martins $39,282 $903,486
Taos $33,407 $768,361
Wardsville $37,477 $861,971
Total $4,321,244 $99,388,612
Note: future totals estimate continued annual amounts for each future year.
Federal Funding Resources/Options for this Planning Period
Federal funding comes primarily from the FAST Act, the current Federal transportation act. These are the
main source of funding that will be used in future project and program funding through FY 2014.
1) National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) - The purposes of the National Highway
Performance Program (NHPP) are
a) to provide support for the condition and performance of the National Highway System (NHS);
b) to provide support for the construction of new facilities on the NHS; and
c) to ensure that investments of Federal-aid funds in highway construction are directed to support
progress toward the achievement of performance targets established in a State's asset
management plan for the NHS.
Projects must be on an “eligible facility" which includes only those facilities located on the NHS, be
identified in the STIP/TIP and be consistent with the Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plan and
the Metropolitan Transportation Plan(s).
2) Surface Transportation Program (STP) - STP may be used by States and localities for projects to
preserve or improve conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any
78
public road, facilities for non-motorized transportation, transit capital projects and public bus
terminals and facilities.
Fifty percent of a State’s STP funds are to be distributed to areas based on population (sub-allocated),
with the remainder to be used in any area of the State. Consultation with rural planning
organizations, if any, is required. Also, a portion of its STP funds (equal to 15 percent of the State’s
Highway Bridge Program apportionment) is to be set aside for bridges not on Federal-aid highways
(off-system bridges), unless the Secretary determines the State has insufficient needs to justify this
amount. A special rule is provided to allow a portion of funds reserved for rural areas to be spent on
rural minor collectors, unless the Secretary determines this authority is being used excessively.
3) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) - CAMPO receives no
CMAQ funding since the area meets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, carbon
monoxide, or particulate matter (nonattainment areas) as well as former nonattainment areas that are
now in compliance (maintenance areas).
4) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) - Safety throughout all transportation programs
remains ONEDOT’s number one priority. The FAST Act continues the successful HSIP, with average
annual funding of $2.4 billion, including $220 million per year for the Rail-Highway Crossings
program.
Every State is required to develop a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) that lays out strategies to
address these key safety problems. The SHSP remains a statewide coordinated plan developed in
cooperation with a broad range of multidisciplinary stakeholders.
5) Transportation Alternatives (TA)
TA is a new program, with funding derived from the NHPP, STP, HSIP, CMAQ and Metropolitan
Planning programs, encompassing most activities funded under the Transportation Enhancements,
Recreational Trails, and Safe Routes to School programs under SAFETEA-LU.
Fifty percent of TA funds are distributed to areas based on population (sub-allocated), similar to the STP.
States and MPOs for urbanized areas with more than 200,000 people will conduct a competitive
application process for use of the sub-allocated funds; eligible applicants include tribal governments,
local governments, transit agencies, and school districts. Options are included to allow States flexibility in
use of these funds.
This program is funded at a level equal to two percent of the total of all the FAST Act authorized Federal-
aid highway and highway research funds, with the amount for each State set aside from the State’s
formula apportionments). Unless a State opts out, it must use a specified portion of its TA funds for
recreational trails projects. Eligible activities include:
a) Transportation alternatives (new definition incorporates many transportation enhancement
activities and several new activities)
b) Recreational trails program (program remains unchanged)
c) Safe routes to schools program
d) Planning, designing, or constructing roadways within the right-of way of former Interstate routes
or other divided highways.
79
TIFIA:
The Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program provides Federal credit
assistance to eligible surface transportation projects. The FAST Act dramatically increases funding
available for TIFIA, authorizing $750 million in FY 2013 and $1 billion in FY 2014 to pay the subsidy cost
(similar to a commercial bank’s loan reserve requirement) of supporting Federal credit. A $1 billion TIFIA
authorization will support about $10 billion in actual lending capacity. The FAST Act also calls for a
number of significant program reforms, to include: a 10 percent set-aside for rural projects; an increase in
the share of eligible project costs that TIFIA may support; and a rolling application process.
The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1998 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 capital.59
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.
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.
State Funding Options
Partnership Funding Programs: Programs that bring money to the project and have to be repaid.
• Missouri Transportation Finance Corporation (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) – State Transportation Assistance
Revolving Fund created to assist in the planning, acquisition, development and construction of
transportation facilities other than highways in the state.
• State Infrastructure Bank - A state infrastructure bank (SIB) is an investment fund at the state level
with the ability to make loans and provide other forms of credit assistance to public and private
entities to carry out transportation projects.
80
Partnership Debt-Financing Programs: Programs that bring money to the project.
• 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 MO Rt. 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.
81
Appendices
Appendix 1: Demographic and Area Characteristics
Year 2000 to 2010 Changes in the Land Area and Urban Area Population
Table 29: CAMPO 2010 Decennial Census Demographics by Jurisdiction
Total
Population
Metropolitan Planning
Area Population
Adjusted Urban Area
Population
Census Designated Urban Area
Population
Persons Percent Persons Percent Persons Percent
City of Jefferson (Cole County) 43,057 43,057 59.80% 43,057 72.08% 42,785 73.10%
St. Martins 1,140 1,140 1.58% 1,140 1.91% 1,063 1.82%
Taos 878 878 1.22% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Wardsville 1,506 1,506 2.09% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Unincorporated Cole County 18,507 25.71% 10,696 17.91% 10,048 17.17%
City of Jefferson (Callaway County) 22 22 0.03% 22 0.04% 0 0.00%
Holts Summit 3,247 3,247 4.51% 3,247 5.44% 3,108 5.31%
Lake Mykee 350 350 0.49% 350 0.59% 350 0.60%
Unincorporated Callaway County 3,290 4.57% 1,220 2.04% 1,179 2.01%
Totals 71,997 100.00% 59,732 100.00% 58,533 100.00%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
Table 30: Racial Census of CAMPO Cities and Counties
Total
One Race
Two or
More Races Hispanic White
Black or
African
American
American
Indian and
Alaska Native
Asian
Native
Hawaiian
and Other
Pacific
Islander
Some
Other
Callaway County 44,332 40,778 2,032 217 245 17 201 842 707
Cole County 75,990 64,137 8,512 242 966 46 667 1,420 1,795
City of Jefferson 43,079 33,581 7,263 141 755 25 333 959 1,103
City of Holts Summit 3,247 2,991 128 10 15 2 33 68 73
Village of Lake Mykee 350 339 2 0 3 0 0 6 5
City of St. Martins 1,140 1,087 13 3 8 0 11 18 14
City of Taos 878 867 0 4 2 0 0 5 9
City of Wardsville 1,506 1,471 9 5 4 5 0 12 7
CAMPO MPA 71,997 60,022 8,613 240 957 46 685 1,426 1,855
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
82
Demographics of Title VI and Environmental Justice
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.60 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).
Table 31: Distribution of Minority Populations by
Census Block Group.
83
Income
An estimate based on the
U.S. Census Bureau,
2006-2010 American
Community Survey
indicates 7,605 persons
(10.6%) in the CAMPO
Planning Area were
below poverty income
level in past 12 months,
in 2010.
Figure 10: Map of MPA
Population in Poverty
84
Figure 11: Map of Median Household Income by Census Block Group
85
Elderly Populations
- An estimate based
on the U.S. Census
Bureau, 2006-2010
American
Community Survey
indicates 8,836
persons (12.3%) in
the CAMPO
Planning Area were
age 65 or older in
2010.
Figure 12: Map of
Elderly Population
Location by Census
Block Group
86
Disabled Population
Table 32: Disabled Population by County
Callaway County Cole County
With a disability Percent with a disability With a disability Percent with a disability
Estimate Margin of
Error Estimate Margin of
Error Estimate Margin of
Error Estimate Margin of
Error
Total civilian non-institutionalized population 5,968 +/-685 14.2% +/-1.6 9,675 +/-834 13.2% +/-1.2
Population under 5 years 28 +/-34 1.1% +/-1.4 21 +/-24 0.4% +/-0.5
With a hearing difficulty 28 +/-34 1.1% +/-1.4 14 +/-22 0.3% +/-0.5
With a vision difficulty 13 +/-23 0.5% +/-0.9 7 +/-11 0.1% +/-0.2
Population 5 to 17 years 556 +/-221 7.9% +/-3.1 704 +/-259 5.4% +/-2.0
With a hearing difficulty 56 +/-62 0.8% +/-0.9 51 +/-47 0.4% +/-0.4
With a vision difficulty 91 +/-113 1.3% +/-1.6 71 +/-73 0.5% +/-0.6
With a cognitive difficulty 455 +/-210 6.4% +/-3.0 403 +/-140 3.1% +/-1.1
With an ambulatory difficulty 165 +/-129 2.3% +/-1.8 160 +/-167 1.2% +/-1.3
With a self-care difficulty 140 +/-122 2.0% +/-1.7 76 +/-63 0.6% +/-0.5
Population 18 to 64 years 3,292 +/-528 12.1% +/-1.9 5,590 +/-749 12.1% +/-1.6
With a hearing difficulty 907 +/-278 3.3% +/-1.0 1,307 +/-343 2.8% +/-0.7
With a vision difficulty 334 +/-147 1.2% +/-0.5 1,321 +/-360 2.9% +/-0.8
With a cognitive difficulty 1,222 +/-380 4.5% +/-1.4 2,513 +/-443 5.4% +/-1.0
With an ambulatory difficulty 1,802 +/-399 6.6% +/-1.5 2,862 +/-531 6.2% +/-1.2
With a self-care difficulty 450 +/-173 1.7% +/-0.6 699 +/-251 1.5% +/-0.5
With an independent living difficulty 913 +/-262 3.4% +/-1.0 1,761 +/-395 3.8% +/-0.9
Population 65 years and over 2,092 +/-363 40.2% +/-6.4 3,360 +/-403 37.4% +/-4.3
With a hearing difficulty 1,012 +/-290 19.5% +/-5.4 1,479 +/-278 16.5% +/-3.2
With a vision difficulty 282 +/-151 5.4% +/-2.9 605 +/-253 6.7% +/-2.7
With a cognitive difficulty 396 +/-228 7.6% +/-4.5 728 +/-219 8.1% +/-2.4
With an ambulatory difficulty 1,199 +/-307 23.1% +/-5.6 2,070 +/-304 23.0% +/-3.3
With a self-care difficulty 308 +/-159 5.9% +/-3.1 517 +/-150 5.8% +/-1.7
With an independent living difficulty 738 +/-236 14.2% +/-4.5 1,264 +/-255 14.1% +/-2.8
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
87
Table 33: Cole and Callaway County Disabled Populations
Callaway County Cole County
Disability status 4.4% 4.2%
Hearing difficulty 3.0% 3.2%
Vision difficulty 3.2% 3.5%
Cognitive difficulty 3.4% 3.5%
Ambulatory difficulty 3.5% 3.7%
Self-care difficulty 3.6% 3.6%
Independent living difficulty 3.6% 2.7%
Source: U.S Bureau of the Census
88
Limited English Proficient Population
An estimate based on the U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey indicates 381 persons (0.53%), older than 5 years of age, in the
CAMPO Planning Area could not speak English better than ‘less than well or not at all in 2010.
Figure 13: Map of
Population with
Limited English
proficiency by
Block Group
89
Employment
Table 34: MPA Employment Profile for 2010
Total Primary Jobs Count Share
Total Primary Jobs 52,097 100.00%
Jobs by Worker Age Count Share
Age 29 or younger 10,636 20.40%
Age 30 to 54 30,992 59.50%
Age 55 or older 10,469 20.10%
Jobs by Earnings Count Share
$1,250 per month or less 8,732 16.80%
$1,251 to $3,333 per month 25,818 49.60%
More than $3,333 per month 17,547 33.70%
Jobs by NAICS Industry Sector Count Share
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 181 0.30%
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 91 0.20%
Utilities 270 0.50%
Construction 2,407 4.60%
Manufacturing 3,427 6.60%
Wholesale Trade 1,147 2.20%
Retail Trade 4,850 9.30%
Transportation and Warehousing 524 1.00%
Information 936 1.80%
Finance and Insurance 2,034 3.90%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 287 0.60%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 1,721 3.30%
Management of Companies and Enterprises 1,091 2.10%
Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation 1,928 3.70%
Educational Services 1,920 3.70%
Health Care and Social Assistance 4,276 8.20%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 758 1.50%
Accommodation and Food Services 2,792 5.40%
Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 1,654 3.20%
Public Administration 19,803 38.00%
Jobs by Worker Race Count Share
White Alone 48,444 93.00%
Black or African American Alone 2,496 4.80%
American Indian or Alaska Native Alone 179 0.30%
Asian Alone 583 1.10%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Alone 20 0.00%
Two or More Race Groups 375 0.70%
90
Table 35: Employment by Education
Jobs by Worker Educational Attainment Count Share
Less than high school 3,262 6.30%
High school or equivalent, no college 13,859 26.60%
Some college or Associate degree 14,195 27.20%
Bachelor's degree or advanced degree 10,145 19.50%
Educational attainment not available (workers aged 29 or younger) 10,636 20.40%
Jobs by Worker Gender Count Share
Male 26,138 50.20%
Female 25,959 49.80%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, On The Map Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2002-2010).
Table 36: Projected Employment from 2010 to 2035
2010 2020
Change from
2010 to 2020 2035
Change from
2020 to 2035
Households 31,052 33,563 2,511 37,098 3,535
Employees:
Retail 4,670 5,348 678 6,553 1,205
Office/Service 24,414 25,064 650 26,134 1,070
Education 2,678 2,796 118 2,999 203
Medical 4,905 5,210 305 5,710 500
Industrial 4,091 4,486 395 5,176 690
Warehouse 1,869 1,952 83 2,112 160
Entertain/Recreation 578 598 20 648 50
Retail – High Density 3,275 3,475 200 3,575 100
Other 3,533 3,553 20 3,623 70
Total Employees 50,013 52,482 2,469 56,530 4,048
91
Figure 14: Dot Density Map of MPA Employment
92
Appendix 2: MPA Illustrative Needs List
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.
In 2014, CAMPO identified high priority projects for the region using an intense public involvement process
and approved by the CAMPO Board of Directs. These projects have been identified as a part of our illustrative
list.
Passenger Rail Improvements
• Amtrak Station Improvements or Replacement.
• Construct third mainline rail track in Jefferson City to better accommodate the MO River
Runner trains.
Aviation Improvements
• Runway 1,000’ Extension.
• Control Tower Replacement.
• New Airport Maintenance/Storage Facility.
Pedestrian / Bicycle Improvements
• Complete Streets Project - Missouri Boulevard from McCarty St. to S. Country Club (including
179 under US 50).
• Complete Street Project – Dix Rd. from Missouri Boulevard to Industrial, along Industrial to
McCarty Street.
• US 50 and 54 Overpass Improvements -Shoulders, Crosswalks (w/signals as appropriate),
Sidewalks, Railing Improvements.
• City of Jefferson Greenway Plan Buildout.
• Greenway / Bike Trail Loop from Holts Summit to Katy Trail.
• Business 50 Improvements - Shoulder Improvements, Crosswalks (w/signals as appropriate),
Sidewalks, Railing Improvements.
Transit Improvements
• Expansion of Service (times, routes, etc).
• Transit Facility Improvements/Renovation.
Roads & Bridge Improvement
• Rex Whitton Expressway Improvements (50/63) from (and including) Clark Ave. to (and
including) Missouri Boulevard.
• Ellis Boulevard and Route C from Christy Dr. to intersection of Route C, Southwest Blvd, and
Southridge.
• Tri-level Improvements.
• Construction of Ramps on US 54 on the north side of S. Summit Dr.
• Intersection Improvements (Roundabouts) on US 54 and the Center St. and Simon St. Ramps.
Roundabouts (Holts Summit).
• Upgrade US 54 and US 63 to Interstate from Jefferson City to I-70.
• 179 Bypass Extension connecting 179 eastward to Militia Dr.
• Providing three lanes on 54/63 at the Missouri River Bridge to the US 54/63 intersection in both
directions.
93
• Interchange improvements at US 50 and Truman Blvd/S. County Club.
• Center Street Overpass improvements including shoulders, pedestrian facilities and
resurfacing.
• Route OO (Simon Blvd.) surface improvements on overpass and state maintained portion of the
road.
• Route B capacity and safety improvement from Meta to and including the Route B/W/M
Intersection in Wardsville.
• Shamrock Rd., Liberty Lane and US 50/63 Intersection Improvements
• Route AA/OO Improvements from Callaway Hills School to Winterwood Estates including
should, curb/gutter, sidewalks and turning lane.
• Upgrade Highway 50 to four lanes between Kansas City and St. Louis
Programmatic Projects
• Pedestrian and bicycle improvements at the local level, similar to the previous Safe Routes to
School or bike/pedestrian component of the previous Transportation Enhancement Program.
• If US 50 is not upgraded to four lanes, fund Interstate 70 improvements from statewide funds.
• Expanding shoulders (min 2’ – 4’) on Missouri numbered and lettered routes.
• Safety program for small cities with population of less than 5,000. The program would support
small cities making safety (sidewalks, curb/gutter, crosswalk, signage, etc.) improvements along
state highways that run through their town.
• Transit Capital and Operating Program – maintain current level service for urban and rural
public transportation.
• Transit Capital and Operating Program – increase service for urban and rural public
transportation.
The Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission worked with the City of Holts Summit, a jurisdiction found
within the CAMPO region to identify needs in a 2014 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Plan. The table below
shows a number of future projects proposed in that plan.
Holts Summit Identified Bike, Pedestrian, Transportation Improvement Projects
Project Name Location Description
Safe Route to School
Connectivity Project
S. Summit Drive to Various
Streets
Connects S Summit Dr. sidewalk
with Brookstone, Lindenwood ,
Lake Park, Cedars, Hollybrook,
and Northstar Subdivisions.
East Simon Blvd. and Highway
54 Round-a-bout/Intersection
Improvements Project
East Simon Blvd. Overpass on
next to north bound exit and
entrance
Roundabout/Intersection
improvements connecting Route
OO/AA, Karen Drive, HWY 54
ramps, and Platinum Road
including adding pedestrian
walkway.
Highway 54 Pedestrian Bridge
Project
Between Simon Blvd and Center
St. connecting Karen Dr. and
Hibernia Park
Pedestrian bridge across HWY 54
at City Hall and Karen Drive by
Lake Park Subdivision
Karen Drive Sidewalk Project Between Simon Blvd and Center
Street
Sidewalk from Route OO HWY
54 ramp to Center Street HWY 54
ramp on Karen Drive
East Simon Blvd. Overpass
Shoulder Improvements
Route OO (Simon Blvd HWY 54
Overpass)
Shoulder improvements and
section improvements on the
highway ramps and overpass
94
Center Street Overpass Shoulder
Improvements
Center Street (Center Street HWY
54 Overpass)
Shoulder improvements and
section improvements on
highway ramps and overpass
including adding pedestrian
walkway.
Center Street and HWY 54
Round-a-bout/Intersection
Improvements Project
Highway 54 N and East Center
Street
Roundabout and intersection
improvements connecting Center
Street, HWY 54, and Karen Drive
and a companion to Center Street
and Halifax Road Intersection
Improvements.
Center Street and Halifax Road
Intersection Improvements
Intersection of Halifax Road and
Center Street
Intersection improvements at
Center Street and Halifax Road,
and a companion to Center Street
Round-A-Bout/Intersection
Improvements Project
Route AA/OO
Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk
Improvements
Route AA/OO from Callaway
Hills School to Winterwood
Estates
Shoulder Improvements from
Callaway Hills School to
Winterwood Estates including
curb, gutter, and sidewalks
Greenway/Bike Trail Loop and
Katy Trail Connection
Karen Drive/Summit Drive Loop
extending to Katy Trail Spur
Loop around Holts Summit with
a Greenway Trail extending
South to the Katy Trail
Third Lane on Route AA/OO
from Callaway Hills to
Winterwood Estates
Route AA/OO from Callaway
Hills School to Winterwood
Estates
Third/Turn Lane from Callaway
Hills School to Winterwood
Estates including curb, gutter,
and sidewalks
Storm/Drainage and Crosswalk
Improvements at W. Simon Stop
Light
Intersection of Summit Drive and
W. Simon Blvd.
Improve drainage and cross
walks including lighting
improvements at the stop light
on Route OO.
Public Transportation Project 2 bus stops on Karen Dr. and
Summit Dr.
Extension of JeffTran to stop in
200 Block of S Summit Dr. and
300 block of Karen Dr. with
shelters in Holts Summit.
In 2015, the City of St. Martins was assisted through MoDOT’s Transportation Engineering Assistance Program
in the definition of a transportation project consisting of improvements on and along West Business 50 from
Rainbow to Henwick Lane. The project would extend Cole County's planned improvement to Business 50 from
Apache Flats and add a sidewalk on the north side of Business 50 which would connect to the Cole County-
Apache Flats improvements.
95
Every year the local transit provider for the City of Jefferson provides a Program of Projects showing a number
of illustrative projects to be completed at some point in the future. The table below shows the 2016 Program of
Projects.
Item #Description Total FTA Local
1 Replace Obsolete Lighting in Bus Barn with Energy Efficient Lighting 10,000$ 8,000$ 2,000$
2
Update Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) equipment, purchase Automatic Passenger
Counter (APC) equipment and purchase Automatic Voice Annunciation (AVA) equipment 275,000$ 220,000$ 55,000$
3 Paratransit widebody cutaway bus replacement (2)120,000$ 96,000$ 44,000$
4 Upgrade/replace electronic fare card system 300,000$ 240,000$ 60,000$
5 Design work for New Transit Passenger Transfer and Admin Facility 150,000$ -$ 150,000$
6 Replace outdated bus video systems 60,000$ 48,000$ 12,000$
7 Purchase new phone system 10,000$ 8,000$ 2,000$
8 Replace low-floor minivan support vehicle 40,000$ 32,000$ 8,000$
9 Transit facility improvements--roof and gutter replacement for CM, bus barn, wash facility 200,000$ 160,000$ 40,000$
10 Transit facility improvements--overhead doors for CM and Bus Barn 95,000$ 76,000$ 19,000$
11 Repair Transfer Facility Roof & Defective Windows (Bus Shelter)12,000$ 9,600$ 2,400$
12 Security camera upgrades 20,000$ 16,000$ 4,000$
13 Public restroom upgrades 7,500$ 6,000$ 1,500$
14 Purchase and install 4-6 bus shelters at various locations in Jefferson City 60,000$ 48,000$ 12,000$
15 Purchase emergency back-up generator & switches 100,000$ 80,000$ 20,000$
16 Replace current low-floor route buses with 30 ft. electric low floor buses for 2019 delivery (2)1,200,000$ 960,000$ 240,000$
17 Replace current low-floor route buses with 30 ft. electric low floor buses for 2021 delivery (3)1,800,000$ 1,440,000$ 360,000$
18 Purchase Paratransit software package 25,000$ 20,000$ 5,000$
19 Construct new passenger transfer and administrative facility 3,000,000$ 2,400,000$ 600,000$
20 Transit training facility rehab 50,000$ 40,000$ 10,000$
21 JEFFTRAN lighted signs 10,000$ 8,000$ 2,000$
22
Transit Traveler Information System (6-Transfer facility, LU Wellness Center, Capitol Mall,
Both Wal-Marts, Eastland Convenient Food Mart) 60,000$ 48,000$ 12,000$
23 Bike racks at passenger transfer facilities and selected bus stops 20,000$ 16,000$ 4,000$
24 Security gates for transit storage, maintenance and fueling facilities 20,000$ 16,000$ 4,000$
25 Inductive charging system for electric buses 100,000$ 80,000$ 20,000$
JEFFTRAN Program of Projects
Illustrative Projects
96
Included in 2016 is the below project list proposed by the City of Jefferson Public Works department for future
projects to be potentially funded in whole or part by a 5 year ½ cent sales tax.
97
Ongoing planning, scoping and design activities through MoDOT are also categorized 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
MPA. Planning, scoping, and design activities by MoDOT and local jurisdictions required for these needs are
also illustrative needs.
2013 Illustrative Needs List Location Benefits Benefits
Sales Tax G - Partial/Potential Project Listing
Roadway
Edgewood Roundabouts - Stadium and Creek Trail $4,550,000
Myrtle Roundabouts - Swifts Highway and Stadium $3,640,000
Country Club Drive - Hwy 179 to the Mall $4,875,000
School Road - Creek Trail Drive to Mission Drive Roundabout $2,145,000
Wildwood - Edgewood to Rock Ridge $4,030,000
Mission Drive Extension - Hwy 179 to Rock Ridge $6,175,000
Truman at Scott Station - Traffic Signal $260,000
Stadium and Southwest - Widening/Signal Improvements $650,000
Clark and Highway 50 $5,200,000
Dunklin and Clark Intersection $975,000
West Main, Truman, Hwy 179 Intersection (dual lane roundabout)$1,300,000
Monroe Street - Atchison to Woodlawn $1,235,000
Seven Hills and Bald Hill Road $780,000
Ellis Boulevard and Greenberry Road $780,000
Country Club Drive and Rainbow Drive $780,000
Total $37,375,000
Bridge
Dunklin Street Bridge $1,950,000
Ohio Street Bridge $455,000
Box Culvert over Wears Creek at Edgewood $949,000
High Street Viaduct $5,200,000
Total $8,554,000
Sidewalk
Southwest Boulevard sidewalk, Tower to Stadium $195,000
Southwest Boulevard sidewalk, Stadium to Rt. C $338,000
Stadium Boulevard Sidewalk, Myrtle to Southwest $156,000
Leandra Lane Sidewalk / curb and gutter, west side $364,000
Moreau Drive Sidewalk / curb and gutter - Hough Park Road to Ellis $286,000
Boonville Sidewalk - Wayne Street to Belair $416,000
Southridge Sidewalk - Veith Drive to Park at Rolling Hills $123,500
Dix Road Sidewalk - Williams to Missouri Boulevard $205,400
Total $2,083,900
Stormwater
Various, as needed to maintain existing system
98
2013 Illustrative Needs List Location Benefits Benefits
Corridor Improvements
MO Rte. 179 Edgewood Dr. to Sue Dr. Capacity Safety
Scott Station Rd. Truman Blvd. to Ten Mile Dr. Capacity Safety
Truman Blvd. Constitution to Missouri Blvd. Capacity Safety
Country Club Dr. Truman Blvd. to Rainbow Dr. Capacity Safety
Dix Rd. Missouri Blvd. to W. Main St. Capacity Safety
Monroe St. Atchison to Tanner Bridge Rd. Capacity Safety
S. Country Club Dr. Missouri Blvd. to W. Edgewood Dr. Capacity Safety
Whitton Expressway US 54 to Eastland Dr. Capacity Safety
US 54 Ellis Blvd. to Jefferson St. Capacity Safety
Stadium Blvd. Jefferson St. to Adams St. Capacity Safety
Ellis Blvd. Christy Dr. to Mo Rt. C Capacity Safety
Ellis Blvd. Lorenzo Greene Dr. to Green Berry Rd. Capacity Safety
US 50/63 Clark Ave. roundabout N. and S. Capacity Safety
Eastland Dr. Elm St. to Bald Hill Rd. Capacity Safety
MO Rte. C MO Rte. 179 to Rumsey Ln. Capacity Safety
MO Rte. B Lorenzo Greene Dr. to MO Rte. M
Wardsville Capacity Safety
Edgewood Dr. MO Rte. 179 to Stadium Blvd. Capacity Safety
S. Summit Dr./ US 54 Ramps US/54 to S. Summit Dr. Capacity Safety
US 50.63/54 Trilevel All directions Capacity Safety
US 54 third travel lane Missouri R. Bridge to US 63 E. and W.
and Rte. 95 Capacity Safety
US 50/63 Shamrock Rd. to Liberty Ln. Capacity Safety
Missouri Blvd. crossings Rt. 179 to US/50 Safety
Liberty Dr. & Shamrock Rd. Safety
Bike Pedestrian Improvements
Bike Loop City wide Mobility
Pedestrian Crossing Missouri Blvd. Stadium Blvd. to Dix Road/Southwest
Blvd. Safety
Sidewalk Plan Implementation City-wide Mobility Safety
Boonville Rd. Mobility Safety
Southwest Blvd. Mobility Safety
Ellis Blvd. Mobility Safety
Seven Hills Rd. Mobility Safety
Eastland Dr. Mobility Safety
Vieth Dr. Mobility Safety
Missouri Blvd. (west) Mobility Safety
Stadium Blvd. W. Edgewood to Myrtle Ave. Mobility Safety
Dix Rd. Missouri Blvd. to Industrial Dr. Mobility Safety
W. Main St. Mobility Safety
Belair W. Main St to 430’ S. of Ker-Mac Mobility Safety
Green Berry Rd./ Moreau Dr. Mobility Safety
Greenways/Trails
JCMG Medical Center to Satinwood
Recreational
Health
Frog Hollow Branch Frog Hollow Bridge to W. Edgewood
Recreational
Health
Frog Hollow Branch Frog Hollow Bridge to Mission Dr.
Recreational
Health
99
2013 Illustrative Needs List Location Benefits Benefits
Frog Hollow Branch Edgewood DR. to Missions Dr.
Recreational
Health
Frog Hollow Branch Dunklin Trailhead to McCarty St.
Recreational
Health
Frog Hollow Branch McCarty St. to W. Main St.
Recreational
Health
East Branch Aurora Park to Hough Parks
Recreational
Health
Lewis & Clark State Office Building to Hamilton-Dulle
Tower Area
Recreational
Health
Boggs Creek Branch Riverside Park to E. McCarty St.
Recreational
Health
Congested Intersections V/C >= 100% by 2030
Jefferson City Stadium Blvd. @ Southwest Blvd. Connectivity Safety
Jefferson City Stadium Blvd. @ W. Edgewood Dr. Connectivity Safety
Holts Summit Old US 54 @ Summit Dr. Connectivity Safety
New Roads or Extensions
Connector Eastwood to Skyview Connectivity local
Connector E. Miller to Eastland Dr. Connectivity local
Connector Schotthill Woods Dr. to Schotts Rd. Connectivity local
Militia Dr. Extension US 50/63 to Liberty Rd. Connectivity local
E. Miller St. Vetter Ln. to Eastland Dr. Connectivity local
Skyview DR. Woodlander RD. to E. McCarty St. Connectivity local
Schott Rd. Schotthill Woods Rd. to E. McCarty St. Connectivity local
Wildwood extension RockRidge Rd. to W. Edgewood Dr. Connectivity Collector
Stoneridge Extension ? Connectivity local
Sherwood Dr. Extension Terminus to W. Edgewood Dr. Connectivity local
Graystone DR. Bannister Dr. to Sherwood Dr. Connectivity Local
Weatherhill Rd. Terminus to W. Edgewood Dr. Connectivity local
Emerald Ln. Diamond Ridge Rd to Weatherhill Rd. Connectivity local
Mission Dr. MO Rte. 179 to Rock Ridge Rd. Connectivity local
New Southwest Arterial Corridor US 50 to US54 Connectivity Bypass
New Southeast Arterial Corridor US 54 to US54/63 Connectivity Bypass
New Northwest Arterial Corridor Rainbow Dr. to MO Rt. 179 Connectivity Bypass
I-54 Designation MPA area
Airport/Aviation
Air Traffic Control Tower
Rehab Runway 12-30
Runway lighting on 12-30 and 9-27
Construct Runway full length parallel
taxiway "B"
Capital Equipment - MU Meter
Upgrade Terminal Bldg.
Transit
Multimodal Transit Center undetermined
Expand service area Mobility
Expand service hours and days
(Saturday) Mobility
Increase frequency Mobility
Expand service for people with Mobility
100
2013 Illustrative Needs List Location Benefits Benefits
disabilities
Parking Improvements
Jefferson City - increase Downtown Economic
Shepard Hills Rd. US 50/63 Safety
County Park Rd. Curb& Gutter Safety
Loesch Rd. Zion Rd. to Heritage Hwy. Safety
Widen shoulders on Route T intersection Route T and Bus 50 to
North to Henwick Lane Safety
intersection improvements to Route T
(possible round about or other) Rte. D to Bus 50 Safety
Curb, gutter and sidewalks along
Business 50 West
Henwick Lane on the west end to
Rainbow Drive on the east end of
Business 50
Safety
Sidewalk on Verdant Lane Business 50 to the City Park Safety
Curb, gutter and sidewalks Rainbow Drive to Pioneer Trail Drive
along Business 50 Safety
Rainbow Drive upgrade Capacity Safety
Business 50 resurfacing Safety
E. Simon Blvd. /US54
Roundabout/Intersection Improvement
E. Simon Blvd. overpass to US54 NB
Exit & Entrance Safety
S. Summit Dr. Overpass US54 to S. Summit Dr. Safety
US54 Pedestrian Bridge Simon Blvd. to Center St. Safety
Karen Dr. Sidewalk Simon Blvd. to Center St. Safety
E. Simon Blvd. Overpass Shoulder
Improvements Rt. OO to US54 Overpass Safety
Center Street Overpass Shoulder
Improvements Center St. to US54 Overpass Safety
Center Street/US54 Roundabout US54 N. to E. Center St. Safety
Center Street Surface Improvement Center St. Safety
Center St. /Halifax Intersection
Improvements Halifax Rd. to Center St. Safety
Holts Summit Hibernia Station Trail to Greenway Park
Trail
Recreational
Health
Cole County Rock Ridge Road Curb and Gutter Route C to Route C
Loesch Road Gravel Road Upgrade Zion Road to Moreau River
Moreau Ridge Road Gravel Road
Upgrade Monticello Road to end of road
Rainbow Drive Curb and Gutter End of C&G to Binder Lake
Wildwood Drive Extension W. Edgewood to Rock Ridge
Mission Drive Extension Hwy 179 to Frog Hollow
Militia Drive Extension Hwy 50 to Liberty Road
Scott Station Road Curb and Gutter City Limits to approximately 910 Scott
Station Road
Route 179 Connection to Hwy 50 East From Route B to Militia Drive
Freight related improvements
Need 2nd River Crossing - Second Bridge on 54/63 (northbound) increased traffic on Tri-Level – bypass needed
Rex Whitton Expressway - No good east/west truck route nor north/south – Rex Whitton bottleneck
Poor Access to Industrial Drive - Narrow Intersections – 179/Industrial Drive, Dix/Industrial
Improve signage on US 54 EB
Truck Stop - Some times of evening Kingdom City nearest fuel - Long haul carrier rest areas
101
2013 Illustrative Needs List Location Benefits Benefits
Ellis/US 54/ Route C area
102
Appendix 3: National Environmental Policy Act Impact on Transportation Planning
From The Transportation Planning Process: Key Issues - FHWA
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) established a national policy to promote the protection
of the environment in the actions and programs of federal agencies. The FHWA and FTA act as lead Federal
agencies, and are responsible for implementing the NEPA process and working with state and local project
sponsors during transportation project development. The FHWA and FTA NEPA process is designed to assist
transportation officials in making project decisions that balance engineering and transportation needs with the
consideration of social, economic and environmental factors. This process allows for involvement and input
from the public, interest groups, resource agencies and local governments. The FHWA and FTA NEPA process
is used as an "umbrella" for compliance with over 40 environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders and
provides an integrated approach to addressing impacts to the human and natural environment from
transportation projects.
What NEPA documentation is required?
A good decision based on an understanding of environmental impacts is the objective of the NEPA process and
a thorough analysis of these impacts as presented in the NEPA document is essential in meeting that objective.
NEPA documentation serves several purposes: to disclose the analysis of benefits and impacts to the human
and natural environment; to get input from the public and other stakeholders on the proposed project and the
environmental consequences; and to inform the final decision.
Different types of transportation projects will have varying degrees of complexity and potential to affect the
environment. Under NEPA, the required environmental document depends on the degree of impact. FHWA
and FTA, in coordination with the project sponsor, prepare one or more of the following documents for a
proposed project:
• Notice of Intent (NOI) - a notice that an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared and
considered.
• Categorical Exclusions (CE) - apply to projects that do not have a significant impact on the human and
natural environment.
• Environmental Assessments (EA) - prepared for projects where it is not clearly known if there will be
significant environmental impacts. If the analysis in the EA indicates the proposed project will have
significant environmental impacts, an EIS is prepared.
• Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) - If there is not a significant impact, this conclusion is
documented in a separate decision document, the FONSI.
• Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) - prepared for projects that have a significant impact on the
human and natural environment. Draft EIS (DEIS) and Final EIS (FEIS) documents, with input from the
public, provide a full description of the proposed project, the existing environment, and the analysis of
the beneficial and adverse impacts of all reasonable alternatives.
• Record of Decision (ROD) - presents the selected transportation decision analyzed in an EIS, the basis
for that decision, and the environmental commitments, if any, to mitigate for project impacts to the
human and natural environment.
Regardless of the type of NEPA document prepared, final selection or approval of a proposed project
alternative by FHWA and FTA allows the project to be eligible for federal funding of subsequent project
activities such as final design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction.
Environmental Links - Plans Incorporated by Reference:
103
http://www.epa.gov/emefdata/em4ef.home - A single point of access to select U.S. EPA environmental data.
This Web site provides access to several EPA databases to provide you with information about
environmental activities that may affect air, water, and land anywhere in the United States. With
Envirofacts, you can learn more about these environmental activities in your area or you can generate
maps of environmental information.
http://www.dnr.mo.gov/gis/index.html - The Missouri Department of Natural Resources GIS Mapping page has
clickable maps, statitc maps and GIS data about air, cultural, land, geology and water resources.
http://newmdcgis.mdc.mo.gov – The Missouri Department of Conservations Public Map Gallery is a collection
of web maps designed to showcase the conservation management areas and features throughout the state.
http://water.usgs.gov/maps.html - Water resources information from the US Geological Survey: Maps and GIS
Data.
https://hazards.fema.gov/wps/portal/mapviewer - The FEMA Flood Map View.
http://nationalatlas.gov/mapmaker - The National Atlas mapping application contains agricultural, biological,
climate, environmental, geological, hydrological and many other map layers.
http://www.nps.gov/state/mo/index.htm?program=all – The National Park Service mapping application
provides a gateway into NPS activities in the state including National Register of Historic Places.
104
Appendix 4: Summary of Federal Transportation Acts
The Long Range Transportation Plan or as it’s come to be known, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan is
mandated by the federal government through a series of federal legislation. The Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240), the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century,
enacted June 9, 1998 (Public Law 105-178), the "Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity
Act of 2003", (Public Law 105-178), as amended by the TEA 21 Restoration Act, title IX of Public Law 105-206.
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Public
Law 109-59), enacted in 2005 (and later, the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-244)
signed on June 6, 2008).
The newest legislation, signed into law on July 6, 2012 is the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
(P.L. 112-141), and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan mandate continues as one of the strategies in
implementing national goals and objectives, as expressed by Congress.61
The Unites States Code section pertaining to metropolitan transportation planning of the FAST Act, specifically,
Subtitle B - Performance Management - Section 1201, Metropolitan Transportation Planning can be found in
Section 134 of title 23, United States Code, as amended, and under Section 53 of title 49, United States Code as
amended. While the Federal regulations for the FAST Act will be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, 23
C.F.R and 49 C.F.R. respectively.
105
Appendix 5: Other National Goals, in MAP 21 programs
Section 53, 49 U.S.C. - National Goals and Objectives: Public Transportation
General Purposes — the purposes of this section are:
1. to assist in developing improved public transportation equipment, facilities, techniques, and
methods with the cooperation of both public transportation companies and private companies
engaged in public transportation;
2. to encourage the planning and establishment of area-wide public transportation systems needed
for economical and desirable urban development with the cooperation of both public
transportation companies and private companies engaged in public transportation;
3. to assist States and local governments and their authorities in financing area-wide public
transportation systems that are to be operated by public transportation companies or private
companies engaged in public transportation as decided by local needs;
4. to provide financial assistance to State and local governments and their authorities to help carry
out national goals related to mobility for elderly individuals, individuals with disabilities, and
economically disadvantaged individuals; and
5. to establish a partnership that allows a community, with financial assistance from the Government,
to satisfy its public transportation requirements.
106
Appendix 6: 2016 Capital Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan
On October 19, 2016, the CAMPO Board of Directors approved the Capital Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan. The
Capital Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan is intended as a resource to improve safety, connectivity, and mobility
for pedestrian and bicycle users in the CAMPO planning area. The goals, recommendations, and strategies
outlined in the plan can be used by jurisdictions to develop an individualized implementation strategy to fit the
unique pedestrian and bicycle needs of that community. The plan is also intended to be a guide for future
growth by recommending strategies, policies, and procedures to guide future development and improve
existing infrastructure, making the CAMPO planning area a great place to walk and bike.
The document has been added as Appendix 6, but will be fully incorporated into the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan during the next update.
107
Appendix 7: Updates and Revisions
There may be, upon occasion, a need or desire to make minor revisions to the MTP prior to five year update.
This appendix will demonstrate the changes made and where they found.
Revisions
Section or Appendix Date Type of Change
Section 6 May 20, 2015 Addition of 2016-2020 TIP Projects,
Maps, Updated Fiscal Restraint and
Financial Numbers.
Appendix 2 May 20, 2015 Addition of Illustrative Projects
from the 2014 Project Prioritization
Process.
Entire Document June 15, 2016 Removed most references to MAP-
21 and replaced them with the
FAST Act
The Relationship of the
Transportation Plan to Other Plans
June 15, 2016 Addition of numerous local plans.
Members List June 15, 2016 Inserted an up-to-date list of
current Technical Committee,
Board of Directors, and staff.
Planning Factors June 15, 2016 Updated planning factors to
include two new factors from the
FAST Act.
Section 6 June 15, 2016 Addition of 2017-2021 TIP Projects,
Maps, Updated Fiscal Restraint and
Financial Numbers (present and
future).
Appendix 2 June 15, 2016 Addition of projects from the Holts
Summit Bicycle, Pedestrian, and
Transit Plan.
Appendix 2 June 15, 2016 Addition of the JEFFTRAN
Program of Projects
Appendix 2 June 15, 2016 Addition of potential ½ cent sales
tax projects in the City of Jefferson
108
Appendix 6 October 19, 2016 Addition of the 2016 Capital Area
Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan as
Appendix 6.
109
End Notes:
1 SEC. 1201. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING of MAP-21 amending 23 U.S.C. Section 134
2 Section 134, 23 U.S.C., subsection h1 and h2 for national performance goals
3 Or, comparable 23 U.S.C. Section 135 (d)
4 Section 150 of title 23
5 appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account)
6 http://www.trbcensus.com/urbanized.html
7 Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1973
8 The Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process: Key Issues. A Publication of the Metropolitan Capacity Building
Program. http://www.planning.dot.gov/documents/BriefingBook/BBook.htm
9 23 CFR 450.104
10 Detailed in 23 CFR 450.308
11 Amended May 24, 2011
12 Participation section from requirements for MTP content 23 CFR November 15, 2012, use as checklist:
(i) The MPO shall provide citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of public transportation employees, freight
shippers, providers of freight transportation services, private providers of transportation, representatives of users of public
transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, representatives of the
disabled, and other interested parties with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the transportation plan using the
participation plan developed under § 450.316(a).
13 The Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process: Key Issues. A Publication of the Metropolitan Capacity Building
Program - http://www.planning.dot.gov/documents/BriefingBook/BBook.htm
14 Publication and access to MTP section from requirements for MTP content 23 CFR November 15, 2012, use as checklist:
needs a home somewhere in this area… (j) The metropolitan transportation plan shall be published or otherwise made
readily available by the MPO for public review, including (to the maximum extent practicable) in electronically accessible
formats and means, such as the World Wide Web.
15 Source: http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/basics/ejbackground.html
16 http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/basics/ejbackground.html
17 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental_justice/training/title_vi/title609.cfm
18 Key Transportation Indicators: Summary of a Workshop, Committee on National Statistics, Janet Norwood and Jamie
Casey, Editors, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council, National Academy
Press.
19 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10404&page=19. Key Transportation Indicators: Summary of a Workshop.
20 https://sites.google.com/site/managingmobility/mobilitymanagement101
21 See CAMPO Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan
22 H.R.3 - Section 5303. Metropolitan transportation planning
23 Highway Functional Classification. (1) The State transportation agency shall have the primary responsibility for
developing and updating a statewide highway functional classification in rural and urban areas to determine functional
usage of the existing roads and streets. Guidance criteria and procedures are provided in the FHWA publication "Highway
Functional Classification--Concepts, Criteria and Procedures." [ This publication, revised in March 1989, is available on
request to the FHWA, Office of Environment and Planning, HEP - 10, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. 3] The
State shall cooperate with responsible local officials, or appropriate Federal agency in the case of areas under Federal
jurisdiction, in developing and updating the functional classification. (2) The results of the functional classification shall be
mapped and submitted to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for approval and when approved shall serve as the
official record for Federal-aid highways and the basis for designation of the National Highway System. Federal-aid policy
guide december 19, 1997, transmittal 20, 23 cfr 470a, OPI: HEP-11 Subchapter E - Planning Part 470 - Highway Systems
Subpart A - Federal-aid Highway Systems - Sec. 470.105(b)
24 23 usc Section 103, as of Dec. 27, 2012
25 23 usc Section 103 as of Dec. 27, 2012
26 http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/16332502.htm
27 http://www.mdn.org/2006/STORIES/BARGE2.HTM
110
28 Missouri River Freight Corridor Assessment and Development Plan, October, 2011.
29http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/missouri-running-up-debt-to-run-amtrak-trains/article_ac0c2a5c-
4750-11e1-b825-001a4bcf6878.html
30 Environmental Quality Commission 2011 Annual Report. April, 2011
31 ..\..\..\..\..\SIDEWALKS\EQC Work on Sidewalks\eqc 2012sep20-matrix.docx
32 NCHRP Report 525
33 49 U.S.C. Section 5329/MAP Section 20021
34 23 CFR Section 450.322(h)
35 For more information, go to http://contribute.MoDOT.mo.gov/safety/documents/HSPFY2013.pdf
36 http://contribute.MoDOT.mo.gov/safety/documents/HSPFY2013.pdf
37 http://sema.dps.mo.gov/about/
38 http://sema.dps.mo.gov/programs/empg.asp
39 Callaway County, Missouri Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, February, 2005.
40 Cole County/Jefferson City Emergency Operations Plan. January, 2004.
41 Intensity 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.
42 Callaway County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, February, 2005.
43 http://www.planning.dot.gov/documents/briefingbook/bbook.htm#13BB
44 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/realestate/cp_state.htm
45 Cole County Master Plan Section 11.3.5
46 Transportation Research Board. Quantifying Congestion User's Guide. Report 398 (Washington D.C., National cademy
Press, 1997). Vol 2. 1.
47 East West Gateway Coordinating Council. September 21, 1998
http://www.ewgateway.org/trans/LongRgPlan/TRII/CongesPaper/congespaper1.htm
48 Transportation Systems Management & Operations: Strategies and Projects Eligible for Funding under the Federal-Aid
Highway Program *(Section 1103)
49 http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/access_mgmt/progplan.htm#toc1
50 http://www.accessmanagement.info/pdf/IdahoMPOCompassAMToolkit2008.pdf
51 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/realestate/cp_state.htm#fsp
52 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/tsp/
53 http://www.mireinfo.org/
54 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/data_tools/fhwasa09002/
55 as per 23 CFR 450.322f(10)(iv)
56 Jefferson City Transit Development Plan. Transystems Corp., March 2006.
57 Jefferson City Transit Development Plan. Transystems Corp., March 2006.
58 http://www.mptaonline.com/transit.shtml
59 http://tifia.fhwa.dot.gov/Fact Sheet: Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
61 PL 112-141, July 6, 2012, Sec. 20005 Metropolitan Transportation Planning Section (d)(1)
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
2017 – 2021 New Project Application
1
Project Name: Para-Transit Vehicles (2)
Primary Project Sponsoring Organization: JEFFTRAN
Project Contact: Mark Mehmert
Sponsor Project Number: Click here to enter text.
Type of Project (check all that apply):
☐ Airport/Aviation ☐ Bicycle/Pedestrian ☐ Bridge ☐ Intersection
☐ Plans/Studies ☐ Roadway Expansion ☐ Roadway Preservation ☐ Railway
☐ Safety ☒ Transit ☐ Other: Click here to enter text.
Project Description: Purchase 2 E450 Elkhart Coach II, Floor Plan CC Handi-Wheels buses with Apollo 5-camera system.
Project Location: City of Jefferson
Project History: These paratransit vehicles will replace 2-2010 model year buses which have accumulated well over the
required 150,000 miles. FTA 5310 funds are designated for meeting the transportation needs of the elderly and
disabled.
Project Timeline, Cost and Funding Sources:
Project
Phase
Funding
Source
Funding
Agency
Agency Funding
Category
CAMPO Program Years (July 1-June 30)
Prior
Years 2017 2018 2019 2020
2021
Funding
Source
Totals
- Federal FTA 5310 $97,465.60 $97,465.60
- Local City of
Jefferson
Capital
Improvement
Program
$40,396.40
$40,396.40
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
Yearly Totals $137,862
Total Project Cost = $137,862
Source of operating / maintenance funding for 10 years after project is completed: Combination of FTA-Section 5307,
City of Jefferson-Capital Improvement Program sales tax, MoDOT state operating assistance and passenger fares.
Additional Comments: Click here to enter text.
Individuals should contact the ADA Coordinator at (573) 634-6570
to request accommodations or alternative formats as required under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Please allow three business days to process the request.
Capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization
Room 120 320 E. McCarty, Jefferson City, MO 65101 Phone 573.634.6410 Fax 573.634.6457
Memorandum
TO: CAMPO Board of Directors
FROM: Katrina Williams, Transportation Planner
DATE: April 14, 2017
SUBJECT: Status of Current Work Tasks
Major active work tasks to be discussed at the April 19, 2017 Board of Directors meeting include:
• Visioning and Travel Demand Model update - The selection committee met in March to
interview qualified consultants. Four consultants were interviewed.
• JEFFTRAN System-Wide Assessment - The JEFFTRAN System-Wide Assessment,
conducted by contractor the Lochmueller Group, began in March. The consultants
conducted several stakeholder meetings and a public meeting during the week of March
27. The consultant interviewed JEFFTRAN staff and drivers and also conducted bus
ridership counts during that same time period.
• MTP update – Staff has begun the process of editing content and reformatting the plan,
including review of the illustrative project list.
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan - Jefferson Planning and Zoning Commission has adopted
the plan as a component of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The plan will now move
forward to City Council for their endorsement in May, coinciding with National Bike
Month.
• Statewide MPO Coordination – Staff has been collaborating with other MPOs within
Missouri to improve efficiency in development of required state and federal plans and
documents. An MPO Manual is being developed as part of this process, detailing best
practices.
• Coordinated Public Transit - Human Services Transportation Plan – Staff will be starting
the process to update the plan in late spring. Staff will be coordinating with the Mid-
MO RPC, due to both agencies undergoing a similar update.
Agenda Item 8A