Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
2017-05-17 packet
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Room 120 320 E. McCarty, Jefferson City, MO 65101 Phone 573.634.6410 Fax 573.634.6457 Board of Directors Wednesday,May 17,2017 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 April 19,2017 5. Communications received 6. Old Business A. FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program Action Requested: Public Hearing and adoption by Resolution RS2017-04 B. 2018-2022 Transportation Improvement Program Development Action Requested: Public Hearing and adoption by Resolution RS2017-05 C. Metropolitan Transportation Plan Amendment—TIP Incorporation Action Requested: Public Hearing and adoption by Resolution RS2017-06 7. Other Business A. Status of current work tasks 8. Next Meeting Date—Wednesday,June 21,2017 at 12:15 p.m.in the Boone/Bancroft Room #200 9. Adjournment Box lunches will be ordered from the Firehouse Subs 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, May 17, 2017. Box lunches include a sandwich, chips and a cookie. Mayonnaise and mustard packets are included. Sandwich options: smoked turkey, honey ham and roast beef. Salad options include: Firehouse salad with turkey,grilled chicken or ham$7.00;Italian with grilled chicken salad: $7.00;and Hook and Ladder salad: $6.50. 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. MINUTES Board of Directors CAPITAL AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION April 19, 2017 12:15 p.m. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Roger Fischer, Callaway County Larry Benz, P.E., Cole County Jeff Hoelscher, Chairman, Cole County Mark Tate, Designee for Rick Hess, Holts Summit Ron Fitzwater, Jefferson City Mark Mehmert, Jefferson City Matt Morasch, Jefferson City* Sonny Sanders, Jefferson City Doug Reece, St. Martins, Small Cities Representative Steve Engelbrecht, Designee for David Silvester, MoDOT *Arrived late BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Larry Henry, Jefferson City Ken Hussey, Jefferson City Erin Wiseman, Jefferson City EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT (Non-Voting) Michael Henderson, MoDOT EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS ABSENT (Non-Voting) Enos Han, FHWA CAMPO STAFF PRESENT (Non-Voting) Katrina Williams, Transportation Planner Alex Rotenberry, Transportation Planner Anne Stratman, Administrative Assistant GUESTS PRESENT Anthony Nichols, Central Missouri Community Action Ed Siegmund, Mid Missouri Regional Planning Commission 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 10 of 13 members or their designee present. Chairman Hoelscher introduced new Board member, Councilman Ron Fitzwater. 2. Public Comment No comments were received. 3. Adoption of the agenda as printed or amended Mr. Benz moved and Mr. Mehmert seconded to adopt the agenda as printed. The motion passed unanimously. 4. Approval of the minutes from the meeting of February 15, 2017 Mr. Benz moved and Mr. Reece seconded to approve the minutes from the Regular Meeting of February 15, 2017 as printed. The motion passed unanimously. Minutes/Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Board of Directors April 19, 2017 Page 2 5. Communications received. No correspondence was received. Mr. Rotenberry announced that the 2017-2021 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment for sidewalks on the north side of Missouri Boulevard has been approved by OneDOT. 6. New Business A. FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program Development Mr. Rotenberry explained that the Technical Committee recommends approval of the FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program and commencement of the seven day public comment period to the Board of Directors. He stated that 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. Mr. Morasch arrived at 12:22 p.m. Mr. Morasch moved and Mr. Benz seconded to open the seven day public comment period to conclude on May 17, 2017. The motion passed unanimously. B. Project Selection for Surface Transportation Program (STP) Funds Ms. Williams explained that the City of Jefferson submitted a project application for a traffic study at Clark Avenue and Highway 50/63 and Dunklin Street. She stated that the Technical Committee recommended forwarding the project application for a traffic study at Clark Avenue and Highway 50/63 and Dunklin Street to the Board of Directors. Ms. Williams explained that funding shall not exceed $93,658.26. Mr. Benz moved and Mr. Sanders seconded to select the project application for a traffic study at Clark Avenue and Highway 50/63 and Dunklin Street for the remaining balance of STP funds in the amount of$93,658.26. The motion passed unanimously. C. 2018-2022 Transportation Improvement Program Development Mr. Rotenberry explained that 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. Mr. Reece moved and Mr. Morasch seconded to open the 25 day public comment period to conclude on May 17, 2017. The motion passed unanimously. D. Metropolitan Transportation Plan Amendment — 2018-2022 Transportation Improvement Program Incorporation Ms. Williams explained that 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. She stated that the first 10 years of the MTP's regional financial plan is required to be fiscally constrained. Ms. Williams explained that projects programmed in the TIP are to be derived from the MTP. Mr. Benz moved and Mr. Morasch seconded to open the 25 day public comment period to conclude on May 17, 2017. The motion passed unanimously. E. Proposed Amendment to the 2017-2021 Transportation Improvement Program: Purchase of two paratransit vehicles Mr. Rotenberry explained that JEFFTRAN is to purchase two E450 Elkhart Coach II, Floor Plan CC Handi-Wheels buses equipped with Apollo 5 camera systems. He stated that they will be using Federal Transit Administration Section 5310 funds to make this purchase. Mr. Rotenberry explained that this project was listed in the Program of Projects in the Transportation Improvement Program. Mr. Benz moved and Mr. Morasch seconded to close the public comment period at 12:35 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Minutes/Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Board of Directors April 19, 2017 Page 3 Mr. Morasch moved and Mr. Reece seconded to approve the Proposed Amendment to the Transportation Improvement Program for the purchase of two paratransit vehicles. The motion passed unanimously. 7. Other Business A. Status of current work tasks • Visioning and Travel Demand Model update. • JEFFTRAN System-Wide Assessment stakeholders and public meetings. • Metropolitan Transportation Plan update has begun. • Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan adopted by the Jefferson City Planning & Zoning Commission. • MPO statewide coordination efforts. 8. Next Meeting Date—Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 12:15 p.m. in the Boone/Bancroft Room #200 9. Adjournment Mr. Benz moved and Mr. Morasch seconded to adjourn the meeting at 12:50 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Anne Stratman, Administrative Assistant RESOLUTION RS2017-04 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2018 UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM FOR THE JEFFERSON CITY URBANIZED AREA WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) is the Executive Body of the metropolitan planning organization designated by the Governor of the State of Missouri for the Jefferson City Urbanized Area, and responsible for carrying out the provisions of Section 134 Title 23 U.S. Code and Section 5303 Title 49 U.S. Code;and WHEREAS, the federal regulations for Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming, as specified in 23 CFR Part 450.308, requires that CAMPO develop a Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) as part of the continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process;and WHEREAS, the UPWP has been developed with recommended activities included in the Fiscal Year 2018 UPWP;and WHEREAS, these projects have been submitted for review to the CAMPO Technical Committee and the Board of Directors; and WHEREAS, the Technical Committee endorsed the Fiscal Year 2018 UPWP and recommended approval and adoption by the Executive Committee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization hereby approves and adopts the Fiscal Year 2018 Unified Planning Work Program. Adopted this 17th day of May, 2017. Jeff Hoelscher, Chairman Attest: Anne Stratman, Administrative Assistant Agenda Item 6A Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2018 Unified Planning Work Program Unified Planning Work Program FY 2018 November 1, 2017 to October 31, 2018 Adopted XXXXXXXXXXX pfi � x- _ - mirk ,__,:.-7„,,,,A.7.....,.,- u.,._ t did r ,Y` v ) , , 1 ` wi i Highlights indicate information to be changed Underlines indicate changes made CAMP A 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. 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 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 gallon' 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 Appendix A- Financial Summary Section 1 -Anticipated Expenditures FY2018 MPO Budget* Federal-CPG Federal-STP Local Total Labor Salaries 5148,076 537,019 5185,095 Benefits 544,423 SO 511,106 555,529 Labor Subtotal $192,499 $0 $48,125 $240,624 Direct Costs Materials & Supplies Advertising $2,000 SO S500 52.500 Postage $320 SO S80 5400 Printing $100 SO $25 $125 Copies $8 SO 82 $10 Office Supplies $800 SO 5200 51.000 Food $200 SO $50 5250 Operational Supplies 51,296 S0 5324 $1,620 Subtotal $4,724 $0 $1,181 $5,905 Other Contracted Services Dues&Publications $1,200 SO $300 51,500 Training iEducation/Meeting s/Conference 57,000 SO $1,750 S8,750 Professional Services Visioning/Travel Demand Model** 596,000 $24,000 $120,000 Subtotal $8,200 $96,000 $26,050 $130,250 Utilities* Telephone SO SO $0 SO Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 Equipment Repair and Maintenance Vehicle Wash SO SO $O SO Maintenance Agreement $600 SO $150 S750 Subtotal $600 $0 $150 $750 Capital Purchases* Equipment/software $540 SO $135 S675 Subtotal $540 $0 $135 $675 Direct Costs Total $14,064 $96,000 $27,516 $137,580 Total Labor and Direct Costs $206,563 $96,000 $75,641 $378,204 *Numbers have been rounded to the nea rest whole number. **Reappropriated from FY 2017 Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program 9 Section 2 -Anticipated Revenue Work Element Funding Summary-Consolidated Planning Grant and Local Funds Federal Federal Local Percent of Work Element Federal Local Match Total Work CPG Funds STP Funds Program 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 I $206,563 $96,000 $75,641 $378,204 100% *Numbers have been rounded to the nearest whole number. 2018 Local Match by Jurisdiction Planning Funds Surface Transportation Funds Total Local Local Match Local Match 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 $75,641 CAMPO Staff Sonny Sanders, Senior Transportation Planner(1.0 FTE) Katrina Williams, Transportation Planner(1.0 FTE) Alex Rotenberry, Transportation Planner(1.0 FTE) Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program 10 Appendix B — MPO Boundary Map CAMPO Metropolitan Planning Area Boundary Y _ Approved by the Board of Directors - tior Janua 16,2013 r January I. Lake Mykse r /` - ,_ Approved by the Governor of Missouri (0\ March 12,2013 -"°�J m j Holts 5 mmil ci 1 — oil? illil e� k�r SZ 0 el m ,ji'1 ,ziI ii4 IlrL - \ City of Jefferson ` _ r 7 Plielt:I'bk\. I Taos I I 1 , _.$ C 11 w-dsville `11` I -- (' . n r c D -1 Legend 0 Board Approved Planning Area Boundary - - Municipal BoundaI ry Bw .. ..,..,.,.....�_....w_6.,...,.....�...-,�._�., -- � Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program 11 Capital Area Metropolitan . Planning Organization y� Room 120, 320 E. McCarty St., Jefferson City, MO 65101 Phone: 573.634.6410 Fax: 573.634.6457 91/Iemoranium TO: CAMPO Board of Directors FROM: Alex Rotenberry,Transportation Planner DATE: May 10,2017 SUBJECT: 2018-2022 Transportation Improvement Program At their April 19 meeting, the CAMPO Board of Directors voted to commence the 25 day public comment period for the Draft 2018-2022 Transportation Improvement Program(TIP). Since then, minor changes have been made to the projects section as detailed below: • Added JEFFTRAN project (purchasing two paratransit buses) • Added City of Jefferson Clark Avenue project • Corrected two additional MoDOT projects (description/changing the funding category) This language has been incorporated into the Draft 2018-2022 TIP. There have been no other comments received during this 25 day public comment period. 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 6B 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. RESOLUTION RS2017-05 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2018-2022 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE JEFFERSON CITY URBANIZED AREA WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization(CAMPO) is the Executive Body of the metropolitan planning organization designated by the Governor of the State of Missouri for the Jefferson City Urbanized Area, and responsible for carrying out the provisions of Section 134 Title 23 U.S. Code and Section 5303 Title 49 U.S. Code; and WHEREAS, the federal regulations for Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming, as specified in 23 CFR Part 450.324, requires that CAMPO develop a Transportation Improvement Program as part of the continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process;and WHEREAS, the Transportation Improvement Program has been developed in compliance with approved procedures and processes, and is consistent with the CAMPO Metropolitan Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS, the Technical Committee endorsed the Program Year 2018-2022 Transportation Improvement Program and recommend its approval and adoption. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization hereby approves and adopts the 2018- 2022 Transportation Improvement Program. Adopted this 17th day of May, 2017. Jeff Hoelscher, Chairman Attest: Anne Stratman,Administrative Assistant Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 2018-2022 Transportation Improvement Program Transportation Improvement Program Program Years 2018 - 2022 July 1, 2017 —June 30, 2022 "'A-12 . ' ± vT --Yt "'Wk12 r 'kms +-•. - ?,. 4 s d _'in 4. .'ass ref 4 • J 'L rV #r. = {{y�; CAMP 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. 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.govicampo 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 (Resolution approving TIP goes here) i (CAMPO Board, TC, and staff listing goes here) ii 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. CAMPO Metropolitan Planning Area Boundary ' "L ' All Approved by the Board of Directors January 16,2013 e fyl�yy Laka Mykse Approved by the Governor of Missouri ROI. March 12,2013414 Al f co j Halts/Sum—mill i 1~ �. tae En 1 411111111111111,it. .* v in li Pi- l MaIt- ,_IV , .. ..,,,64. - ,,,...,,,, .......,.. .......,...„,1/4 , \,, f q 0" 1' 1 .--11'7,47.„::::',..7,t°,1° Ile S- D � : ,-- A- . pf ,u,\1 , 1 NL., ,__,4)\ .7-- , -1.0 ---) .//`L._ / 1 ,_ : 1 141•6 '< I'. 1. 1__J Taos 7 1 Wardsvillel. © \— ©J ri Legend — - 0 Board Approved Planning Area Boundary ___ r� _-- / \rTh M_ _1 Municipal Boundary % )„ — m 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 1 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 2 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 3 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. 4 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 1/2 cent sales tax to support its Capital Improvement Program and a I/2 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 '/2 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. 5 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. Available Local Transportation Funds 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($0.2466levy) $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 $ - CountyAidRoadTrust-StateFuelTax $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 $ - CountyAidRoadTrust-StateFuelTax $ 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 $ - CountyAidRoadTrust-StateFuelTax $ 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 lmprovement* $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 100,000 Taos $ - CountyAidRoadTrust-StateFuelTax $ 35,953_$ 36,672 $ 37,405 $ 38,154 $ 38,917 $ 187,101 Sales Tax-1/2%Capital lmprovement* $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 100,000 Wardsville $ - CountyAidRoadTrust-StateFuelTax $ 61,669 $ 62,902 $ 64,160 $ 65,443 $ 66,752 $ 320,927 Sales Tax-1/2%Capital lmprovement* $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 100,000 OATS $ - PassengerFares,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 Total Local Funds $ 121,624,273 Note:County Aid Road Trust includes State Fuel Tax,VehicleSales/Use Tax and Licensing Fees. CART Funds based on 2016 numbers from MoDOT.There is a conservative two(2) Please see more on CART funds here:http://dor.mo.gov/publ icreports/index.phpftmotorfuel percent increase per year,based on historical numbers. *This is distributed from Cole County 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. 6 Table 2-Programmed and Available Funds by Source. Programmed Funds Available Funds Federal 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 H51P $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 SW $392,828 55,106,400 $11,200 $1,132,000 $1,163,200 $7,805,628 $392,828 $5,106,400 $11,200 $1,132,000 $1,163,200 $7,805,628 FHWA TAP $278,564 $0 $0 $0 $0 $278,564 $278,564 $0 $0 $0 $0 $278,564 FHWA SH RP $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 $o $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 State 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 SWI MB $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 MoDOT TCOS $4,775,800_$2,362,150 $3,866,150 $296,750 $304,550 $11,605,400 $4,775,800 $2,362,150 $3,866,150 $296,750 $304,550 $11,605,400 Local _ Jefferson City $2,169,604 $1,285,332 $1,323,892 $1,363,609 $1,404,517 $7,546,954 $2,169,604 $1,285,332 $1,323,892 $1,363,609 $1,404,517 $7,546,954 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 Yearly Totals $9,308,899 $14,154,747 $8,144,407 $6,234,256 $6,419,158 $9,308,899 $14,154,747 $8,144,407 $6,234,256 $6,419,158 Total Programmed Total $44,261,467 Total Available Funds $44,261,467 7 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 8 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. Urban Urban Urban Urban Rural Rural Rural Total Percent of Other Other Minor Collector Other Minor Major Total Freeway Principal Arterial Principal Arterial Collector (Jurisdiction) Express Arterial Arterial way 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. 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. 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 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. 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 9 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. 10 Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects rid Bge m-ro ects MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA NHPP $21,000 $4,000 $54,400 $79,400 Name. Dix Road Bridge Improvements _N MoDOT TCOS $6,000 $1,000 $13,600 $20,600 TIP# 2013-05 C Local _ _ $0 MoDOTad 5P3015 Other $0 Description&Location:Bridge improvements to FHWA $0 the Dix Road bridge over US 50. o MoDOT $0 w Local $0 Other $0 C FHWA NHPP $757,600 _ $757,600 Comments:Involves bridge number A1187. N MoDOT TCOS $189,400 $189,400 Award date 2019. s Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $1,047,000 Total $27,000 $5,000 $1,015,000 $0 $0 $o $0 $1,047,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals ' Project FHWA STP $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $48,000 State System Bridge Inspection E Name: N MoDOT TCOS $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $12,000 - 11P# 2015-03 C Local _ $0 MoDOT# Other $0 Description&Location: State Bridge hspection FHWA $0 Program for on-system bridges at various 0 MoDOT - - $0 locations throughout the MPO. w Local $0 Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments: N MoDOT $0 s Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $60,000 Total $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $60,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals _ Project FHWA STP $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $12,000 Name: Non-State System Bridge Inspection N MoDOT TCOS $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 - $3,000 TIP# 2014-04 o Local $0 MODOT# Other $0 Description&Location:Non-State System FHWA $0 Bridge hspection Program for off-system 0 MoDOT $0 bridges at various locations throughout the w Local $o NP0 Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments: N MoDOT $0 s Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $15,000 Total $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $0 $15,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA NHPP $19,200 $20,000 $266,400 $305,600 Bridge Improvements over Route 54 E Name: _ N MODOT TCOS $4,800 $5,000 $66,600 $76,400 TIP# 2018-01 G Local $0 M000-17/553261 Other $0 Description&Location:Includes bridge FHWA NHPP $8,000 _ $8,000 improvements on Route 94 over Little Tavern 0 MoDOT TCOS $2,000 $2,000 Creek in Callaway County and West Main over w Local $0 Route 54/63 in Cole County Other $0 C FHWA NHPP _ $1,464,000 _ _ _ $1,464,000 Comments:Project involves bridges A3451, N MoDOT TCOS $366,000 $366,000 A4265,and A4662.Award date 2020. s Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $2,222,000 Total $0 $24,000 $35,000 $2.163,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,222 000 1 _ Roadway Projects MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWAUS 50 Outer Road Improvements E MODO $o Name: N MoDOT TCOS $200 $18,800 $19,000 t 1 C Local $0 MoDOT-5P3200 MoDOT TCOS(AC) $800 $75,200 $76,000 Description&Location:Includes ramps at FHWA $0 Route 50 and Truman Blvd.hcludes a portion o MoDOT _ - $0 of Mssouri Blvd.,a portion of Truman Blvd., w Local $0 and a portion of Big Horn Dr. Other - $0_ C FHWA $0 Comments:Pavement improvements.Award date 2018. N MoDOT TCOS $237,800 $237,800 Anticipated federal reimbursement from STP. s Local $0- T MoDOT TCOS(AC) $951,200 $951,200 Total Project Cost: $1,284,000 Total $1,000 $1,283,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,284,000 11 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals ProName: FHWA $0 US 54 Pavement Improvements E Name: _ N MoDOT TCOS $12,000 $43,000 $55,000 TIP# 2017-04 c Local $0 MODOV5P3118 MoDOT TCOS(AC) $8,000 $172,000 $180,000 Description&Location:Pavement,bridge,and FHWA $0 guardrail improvements from just west of Stadium Blvd. oR MoDOT $0 in Jefferson City to west of the Missouri River bridge. w Local $0 Project involves bridges A1307 and A1672. Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments:Award date 2018.Anticipated N MoDOT TCOS $519,400 $519,400 federal reimbursement from STP. s Local $0 T MoDOT TCOS(AC) $2,077,600 _ $2,077,600 Total Project Cost: $2,832,000 Total $20,000 $2,812,000 SO 00 $0 $0 $0 $2,832,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA NHPP $8,000 $8,000 $227,200 $243,200 US 54 Pavement Improvements Name: , MoDOT TCOS $27,000 $2,000 $56,800 $85,800 TIP# 2017-05 c Local $0 NbDOTd 5P3121 Other $0 Description&Location:Pavement FHWA $0 improvements on the eastbound and oR MoDOT $0 westbound lanes of US 54 from Route E(near w Local _ _ $0 Brazito)to near Stadium Blvd.in Jefferson City. Other _ $0 C FHWA NHPP $3,040,000 $3,040,000 Comments:Length:Award Date 2019 N MoDOT TCOS $760,000 $760,000 s Local _ - _ $o T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $4,129,000 Total $35,000 $10,000 $4,084,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,129,000 City of Jefferson Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Stadium&US 54 Intersection FHWA STP $289,360 $289,360 Name: Improvements N MoDOT $0 11P# 2013-15 G Local 1/2%Sales Tat $72,340 $72,340 MDDOTdd Local $0 Description&Location:Highway FHWA $0 54/Jefferson/Stadium Boulevard, o MoDOT $0 Stadium/Monroe&US 54/Christy Dr.Access, w Local 1/2%Sales Ta, $100,000 $100,000 Capacity,and Safety Improvements. Local 1/2%Sales Ta, $100,000 $100,000 C FHWA STP $249,170 $249,170 _ $498,340 Comments:Local funding is from 1/2%Jefferson City N MoDOT $0 Capital Improvement sales tax and Cole County 1/2% S Local 1/2%Sales Tao $360,165 $360,165 $720,330 sales tax T Local 1/2%Sales Tot $360,165 $360,165 $720,330 Total Project Cost: $2,500,700 Total $1,531,200 $969,500 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500,700 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 _Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Enhancement Projects in Central FHWA STP $67,200 $67,200 Name: District N MoDOT TCOS $16,800 $16,800 11P# 2017-12 c Local $0 MoDOT#0S3021F Other $o Description&Location: ADA Transition Ran FHWA $0 improvements at various locations in the o MoDOT $0 Central District w Local $0 Other $0 C FHWA STP $1,053,600 $1,053,600 Comments:$1.2 million statewide transportation 0 MoDOT TCOS _ $263,400_ $263,400 alternatives funds.Award Date 2021. g Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $1,401,000 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,401,000 $0 $0 $1,401,0001 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Enhancement Projects in Central FHWA STP $67,200 $67,200 Name: District N MoDOT TCOS $16,800 $16,800 TIP# 2018-05 G Local $0 MoDOTN OS3022F Other $0 Description&Location:ADA Transition Ran FHWA $0 improvements at various locations in the R MoDOT $0 Central District w Local _ _ $0 Other _ _ _ $0 C FHWA STP $1,084,800 $1,084,800 Comments:$1.2 million statewide transportation 0 MoDOT TCOS $271,200 $271,200 alternatives funds.Award Date 2022. s Local _ _ _ $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $1,440,000 Total $0 $0 SO SO $0 $1,440,000 $0 $1,440,050 12 Other Projects MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA HSIP $40,500 $4,500 $900 $45,900 Name: Scoping Routes M,B&W N MoDOT Safety $4,500 $500 $100 $5,100 TIP# 2013-16 c Local $0 MoDOTd 5S2234 Other $0 Description&Location:Scoping for safety FHWA $0 improvements at the intersection of Route M oR MoDOT $0 and Route Win Wardsville. w Local $0 Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments:Anticipated federal funding category: N MoDOT $0 Safety.Future construction costs:$301,000 to s Local $0 $1,000,000. T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $51,000 - Total $45,000 55,000 51,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $51,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA HSIP $118,800 $118,800 Safety Projects in Central District e Name: N MoDOT Safety $13,200 $13,200 I - TIP# '2017-16 O Local $0 MoDOT#OP3021 F Other $0 Description&Location: Safety projects at FHWA $0 various locations in the Central District. o MoDOT $0 w Local _ $0 Other $0 C FHWA HSIP $1,858,500 $1,858,500 Comments:$1.89 million from Open Container N MoDOT Safety $206,500 $206,500 funds.Award Date 2021.90/10 Grant/match. s Local _ $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $2,197,000 Total $0 $0 SO $0 $2,197,000 $0 $0 $2,197,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA HSIP $118,800 $118,800 Safety Projects in Central District e Name: N MoDOT Safety $13,200 $13,200 TIP# 2018-04 o Local $0 MoDOTdOP3022F Other $0 Description&Location:Safety projects at FHWA $0 various locations in the Central District. o MoDOT $0 w Local $0 Other $0 C FHWA HSIP $1,914,300 $1,914,300 Comments:$1.89 million from Open Container N MoDOT Safety $212,700 $212,700 funds.Aw and Date 2022.90/10 Grant/match. s Local _ $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $2,259,000 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,259,000 $0 $2,259,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 - Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Guard Cable&Guardrail Repair in FHWA $o Name: Northern Central District N MoDOT TCOS 07,600 $7,600 TIP# 2018-06 o Local $0 MODOT115P3274 MoDOT TCOS(AC) 530,400 $30,400 Description&Location:Job order contracting FHWA $0 for guard cables and guardrail repair on N MoDOT $0 various routes in the northern portion of the w Local $0 Central District. Other _-_ $0 C FHWA $0 Comments:Award Date Spring 2018. N MoDOT TCOS $102,000 $102,000 Anticipated federal reimbursement from STP. s Local $0 T MoDOT TCOS(AC) $408,000 $408,000 Total Project Cost: $548,000 1 Total $0 0548,000 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $548,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA STP $23,200 $4,000 $1,000 $1,000 51,000 $1,000 $31,200 Name: Scoping for Pavement Improvements N MoDOT TCOS $5,800 $1,000 $250 $250 $250 $250 $7,800 1 TIP# 2017-22 o Local $0 MoDOTt/5P3044 Other $0 - Description&Location:Scoping for pavement FHWA $0 improvements on various routes in the Central N MoDOT $0 District. w Local $0 _Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments:Anticipated federal funding category:STP. N MoDOT $0 - Future construction cost$15 million-$25 million. S Local _ $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $39,000 Total $29,000 $5,000 $1,250 $1,250 $1,250 $1,250 $0 $39,000 13 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA STP $48,000 $4,000 $200 $200 $200 $200 $52,800 Nan' Slide Repair Scoping N MoDOT TCOS $12,000 $1,000 $50 $50 $50 $50 $13,200 TIP# '2015-07 G Local $0 M3DOT#5S3081 Other $0 Description&Location:Scoping for slide FHWA $0 repairs in the northern portion of the Cental oR MoDOT $0 District at various locations. w Local $0 Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments:Anticipated Federal Funding Category- N MoDOT $0 STP.Future construction cost$2 million-5 million. s Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $66,000 Total 060.000 $5,000 $250 S250 5250 $250 $0 $66,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project On-call Work Zone EnforcementFHWA HSIP $900 $900 Name: N MoDOT Safety $100 $100 ' TIP# 2017-21 c Local $0 NbDOT/I5P3217 _Other . $0 Description&Location:On-call work zone FHWA _ $0 enforcement at various locations in the Central oR MoDOT $0 District. w Local - $0 Other $0 C FHWA HSIP $31,500 $31,500 Comments:90/10 match,using federal and N MoDOT Safety $3,500 $3,500 tvbDOT safety funds. s Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $36,000 Total $0 $36,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $36,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA HSIP $900 $900 On-call Work Zone Enforcement .e Name: H MoDOT Safety $100 _ $100 11P# 2018-07 c Local $0 MbDOT#5P3224 Other $0 Description&Location:On-call work zone FHWA _ _ _ $0 enforcement at various locations in the Central oR MoDOT $0 District. w Local $0 Other $0 C FHWA HSIP $31,500_ _ $31,500 Comments:90/10 match,using federal and N MoDOT Safety $3,500 $3,500 MoDOT safety funds. s Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $36,000 Total $0 $0 $36,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $36,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 _Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Scoping for Safety Improvements for FHWA HSIP $45,000 $202,500 $45,000 $292,500 Name: U.S.54 in Cole,Miler,and Camden N MoDOT TCOS $5,000 $22,500 $5,000 $32,500 11P# 2017-25 c Local _ $0_ MDDOT#5P3222 MoDOT $0 Description&Location:Scoping for safety FHWA $0 improvements along US 54 in Cole,Miller,and Ro MoDOT $0 Camden counties. From West of Stadium w Local $0 Boulevard in Jefferson City to Cecil Street in MoDOT $0 Camdenton. C FHWA $0 Comments: Anticipated future cost is between N MoDOT $0 $5 and$10 million. s Local $0 T MoDOT $0 Total Project Cost: $325,000 Total $50,000 $225,000 $50,000 50 00 $0 $0 $325,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals ProjectSurveying F FHWA $0 Name: H MoDOT TCOS $50,000 $25,000 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $105,000 TIP# 2018-08 c Local $0 MoDOTt/5P3179 MoDOT $0 Description&Location: Surveying to sell FHWA $0 excess right of way parcels in the Central o MoDOT $0 District. w Local $o MoDOT $0 C FHWA $0 Comments: No federal funds used for this N MoDOT $0 project. s Local $0 T MoDOT $0 Total Project Cost: $105,000 Total $50,000 $25,000 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $0 $105,000 14 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Pavement and shoulder irlprovements FHWA STP $0 Name: on Route M E MoDOT TCOS $8,000 $8,000 $113,200 $129,200 TIP# 2018-02 C Local $0 MODOT#5S3230 MoDOT TCOS(AC) $32,000 $32,000 $452,800 $516,800 Description&Location:Pavement and shoulder FHWA $0 improvements from Rte.B to Rte.50.Includes oR MoDOT $0 pavements and shoulder improvements on Rte.E from w Local $0 Rte.54 to Rte.B.Project also includes pavement MoDOT $0 improvements on Rte.W,Rte.Y and Rte.J. C FHWA STP $0 Comments:Potential ADA improvements in N MoDOT TCOS $570,200 $570,200 Taos.Award date 2020.Anticipated Federal s Local __ $0 Fltndn'STP T MoDOT TCOS(AC) $2,280,800 $2,280,800 Total Project Cost: $3,497,000 Total $0 $40,000 $40,000 $3,417,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,497,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Pavement and shoulder improvements FHWA STP $32,000 $397,600 $429,600 Name: on Route C E MoDOT TCOS $8,000 $99,400 $107,400 KM 2018-03 G Local $0 MoDOT-5S3259 MoDOT $0 Description&Location:Pavement and shoulder FHWA $0 improvements from Route 52 near Versailles to oR MoDOT $0 Jefferson City. w Local $0 Other _ $0 C FHWA STP $4,697,600 $4,697,600 Comments:Award date Fall 2018. N MoDOT TCOS $1,174,400 $1,174,400 s Local $0 T MoDOT $0 Total Project Cost: $6,409,000 Total $0 $40,000 $6,369,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,409,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Scoping for ADA Improvements in FHWA $0 Name: Various Locations EMoDOT TCOS $5,000 $1,250 $1,250 $1,250 $1,250 _ $10,000 TIP# 2018-09 G Local _ $0 MODOT#(5P3254 MoDOT TCOS(AC) $20,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $40,000 Description&Location:Scoping for ADA FHWA $0 improvements at various locations in Chamois, o MoDOT _ $0 Frankenstein,Route M in Taos,and Route Win w Local $0 Wardsville. Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments:Anticipated Federal Category-STP. °MoDOT _ $0 Includes sidewalks,curb ramps,entrances,and signals s Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $50,000 Total $0 $25,000 $6,250 $6,250 $6,250 $6,250 $0 $50,000 City of Jefferson Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project aark Avenue Interchange Project FHWA STP $93,658 $93,658 Name: Traffic Study N MoDOT $0 TIP# 2018-12 G Local Sales Tax $21,342 $21,342 MDDOT# Other $0 Description&Location:A traffic study and a FHWA $0 contextually specific conceptual design.The goal of the o -•MODOT $0 study will be to address the congestion and safety w Local $0 concerns along this corridor.A reduction in congestion ether $0 will lead to increased accessibility. C FHWA $0 Comments:It is assumed that the study will indicated 0 MoDOT $0 that improvements be made to the intersections of NsLocal $0 Dunklin,Elm,the ramp terminals and Miller Street. T Other $0 Total Proect Cost: $115,000 Total $0 $115,000 $O $0 $0 $0 $0 $115,000 Pedestrian&Bicycle Projects City of Jefferson Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Community ParkGreenway Trailhead E FHWA RTP $8,000 $6,000 mm Name: H MoDOT $0 TIP# 2017-24 G Local $0 MODOT# Other $0 Description&Location: Development of a FHWA $0 greenway trailhead at Community Park-a restroom, o MoDOT $0 spray ground,misting station,water fountain,bike rack, w Local $0 additional parking,benches,landscaping,and lighting. Other $0 Paid for by Local Parks Sales Tax. C FHWA RTP $71,000 $71,000 $142,000 Comments:The Jefferson City Cultural Arts N MoDOT $0 Foundation,Central Bank and Ameren Missouri have s Local Parks Tax $70,000 $70,000 $140,000 pledged donations to help fund the project. T Other Private Don. $19,000 $19,000 Total Project Cost: $309,000 1 Total $168,000 $141,000 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $309,000 15 City of Jefferson Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Missouri Boulevard Sidew alk,Beck to FHWA TAP _ _ $0 Name: Waverly N MoDOT $0 TIP# 12017-27 G Local Sales Tax $0 N10DOTii MoDOT _ _ $0 Description&Location:Construct a S wide FHWA $0 sidew alk along the northern side of Mssouri 0 MoDOT $0 Boulevard from Beck Street to Waverly Street. w Local $0 - Includes Bicycle/Pedestrian/Transit facilities. Mo00T $0 C FHWA TAP $278,564 $278,564 Comments: TAP Grant aw ardee. N MoDOT $0 - - s Local Sales Tax $69,641 $69,641 T MoDOT $0 Total Project Cost: $348,205 Total $0 S348,205 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $348,205 Public Transportation Projects City of Jefferson-JEFFTRAN Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project 0 Other Pass.Fares $598,000 $223,510 $230,215_ $237,122 $244,235 $251,562 $1,784,644 Operating Assistance Name: P MoDOT State Operatinc $17,500 $7,725 $7,957 $8,195 $8,441 $8,694 $58,512 TIP# 2011-04 6 Local $2,287,506 $1,247,895 $1,285,332 $1,323,892 $1,363,609 $1,404,517 $8,912,751 tvbDOT# R FTA 5307 $1,595,207 $775,236 $798,493 $822,448 $847,121 $872,535 $5,711,040 Description&Location:Operating Assistance FHWA $0 for JEFFTRAN service w ithin city limits of 0 M000T $0 Jefferson Qty(A 3%annual inflation factor w Local $5 applied.) Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments: N MoDOT $0 S Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $16,466,947 Total $4,498,213 $2,254,366 $2,321,997 $2,391,657 $2,463,406 $2,537,308 $0 $16,466,947' City of Jefferson-JEFFTRAN Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 I 2021 I 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA $0 Paratransit Bus Purchase Name: N MoDOT $0 TIP# 2017-28 G Local CIP $40,396 $40,396 tVbDOT$/ FTA 5310 $97,466 $97,466 Description&Location: Purchase 2 E450 FHWA $0 Bkhart Coach II,Floor Ran CC handi-Wheel 0 MoDOT $0 buses with Apollo 5 camera systems. w Local $0 Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments:Will replace 2 2010 model year N Mo00T $0 buses. s Local _ $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $137,862 Total $0 $137,862 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $137,862 16 Map of Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects ti / r c r - CAMPO ��.� ;11� Transportation Improvement Program of taxa y#aa July 1,2017-June 30,2022 - TIPS#2017-26` All •Brld a U3 54 Safety Improvements In � i b - Y P 9 Callaway County 1 .Road Improvement ~�; _ I —Pedestrian Facility v., i�' - I -I r/ �'`� \'✓ l Ildls Su_mmk _ f T117#2017-04 I 1 '' US 54 Pavement Improvements Irom.- J`1O� near Stadium Blvd.to the Missouri River 1 r 1 -( o ,` L�_! '� TIP#2013-05 11 f IM111111W TIP#ads imp Dix Road Bridge Improvements TIP#2016-01 Route 50 outer roads improvements. (' yam TMJ I � � `�j������������`��'TTT���... Bddge Improvements over Route 54� / TIP#201724 �� �� TIP#2017-27 t ! Community ParkG¢enwaY Trailhead 1-I� 41/Mlssou BoulevaN Sidewalk �� .� � Beck M Wav,riy •� -_ TIP#2018-03 -' y - Pavement and shoulder improvements , 63 �_ ` 10(,,_,____,,, on Roure C Y (/ - '� � Y J 1 t Stadium, ,Mo e,8 US 54 r Access andnd Intersection Improvement1 i, i, CI l /I j IIS. f� l , TIP N2013-16 - I �1 r ! I ✓ r_ = scoping Rout,M and W '—t f ria TIP#2017-05 war#arulel _r US 54 Pave ent Improvements from A !% ! RouleEre near Statliom Blutl. TIP#2018-02 �, \ N. -7" " Pavement and shoulder improvements A © `T } L on Routes M.W.Y,E and ilb iW41, 1 TIP#2017-25 - - '- Soaping for Safely Improvements along _ TIP#2018-02 US 54 in Cole.Miller,and Camden counties Pavement and shoulder improvements ------ti, p i on Routes M.W,Y,E and J a -7 171 1 ..1. 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 \ \ I r • Scale in Mils; \ \ /I $ 17 Program of Projects - OATS OATS Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project C FTA 5339 $40,000 540,000 Capital Funding-Vehicles A Name: P MODOT $0 TIP# 2015-01 l Local $2,000_ $2,000 MoDOTN T OATS $8,000 $8,000 Description&Location:Replacement of lift FHWA $0 equipped vehicles throughout service region. o M0DOT $0 w Local $0 Other $0 + C FHWA $0 Comments:Previous TIP Minder 2011-03 N MoDOT $0 S Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $50,000 Total $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 OATS Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project C FHWA 5310 $94,053 $94,053 Capital Funding-VehiclesA Name: P MoDOT - $0 TIP# 2018-10 i Local $0 MODOTti T Other $23,513 $23,513 Description&Location:Requested two(2) FHWA $0 vehicles to provide service in Jefferson City o MoDOT $0 and surrounding area w Local $0 Other $0 • C FHWA $0 Comments:Other Funding-OATS,hc. N MoDOT $0 S Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $117,566 Total $0 $117,566 SO 00 00 $0 $0 0117,566 OATS Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Operating Assistance o FHWA 5310 $60,000 $60,000 $70,000 $70,000 $75,000 $335,000 Name: P MoDOT $0 TIP# 2018-11 6 Local $60,000 $60,000 $70,000 $70,000 $75,000 $335,000 MoDOT!/ 6 Other $4,900 $5,000 $5,000 $5,100 $5,100 $25,100 Description&Location:Within the Jefferson FHWA $0 City NPO Region-Section 5310 Program for o Moo0T $0 Hderly and Handicapped w Local $0 Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments:Other Funding-OATS,Inc. N MoDOT $0 s Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $695,100 Total $0 $124,900 $125,000 $145,000 $145,100 $155,100 $0 $695,100 18 Program of Projects - JEFFTRAN JEFFTRAN Program of Projects Illustrative Projects Item Description Total FTA _Local 1 Replace Obsolete Lighting in Bus Barn with Energy Efficient Lighting $ 10,000 $ - $ 10,000 Update Automatic Vehicle Location(AVL)equipment,purchase Automatic Passenger 2 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 30ft.low floor buses for 2020 delivery(2) $ 1,200,000 $ 960,000 $ 240,000 17 Replace current low-floor route buses with 30ft.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 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. 19 Appendix A — Amendments and Administrative Modifications Amendments TIP No. Project Description Project Sponsor Project Cost Board OneDOT Approval Approval TIP Amendment 1 Administrative Modifications TIP No. Project Description Project Sponsor Project Cost Date 20 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) The NHPP provides support for the condition and performance of http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/nhpp.cfm 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) The Surface Transportation Program(STP)provides flexible funding http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/stp.cfm 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) Highway Safety Improvement Program(HSIP)is to support a http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/ 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) Funds most activities funded under the Transportation http://www.thwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/tap.cfin Enhancements,Recreational Trails,and Safe Routes to School programs under SAFETEA-LU. Railway-Highway Crossings(set-aside from HSIP) This program funds safety improvements to reduce the number of http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/ncc.cfm fatalities,injuries,and crashes at public grade crossings. FTA Programs Eligible Activities Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grants This program provides grants to Urbanized Areas (UZA)for public http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP- transportation capital,planning,job access and reverse commute 21 Fact Sheet - projects,as well as operating expenses in certain circumstances. Urbanized Area_Formula_Grants.pdf Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and This program is intended to enhance mobility for seniors and persons Individuals with Disabilities with disabilities by providing funds for programs to serve the special http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP- needs of transit-dependent populations beyond traditional public 21 Fact Sheet - transportation services and Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals wit complementary paratransit services. h Disabilities.pdf Section 5311 Formula Grants for Rural Areas This program provides capital,planning,and operating assistance to http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP- states to support public transportation in rural areas with populations 21 Fact Sheet - less than 50,000,where many residents often rely on public transit to _Formula_Grants_for_Rural_Areas.pdf reach their destinations. Section 5329 Transit Safety&Oversight MAP-21 grants FTA the authority to establish and enforce a new http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP- comprehensive framework to oversee the safety of public 21 Fact Sheet - Transit Safety and Oversight.pdf transportation throughout the United States as it pertains to heavy rail,light rail,buses,ferries,and streetcars. Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Provides capital funding to replace,rehabilitate and purchase buses http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP- and related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities. 21 Fact Sheet - Bus and Bus Facilities.pdf 21 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 22 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. 23 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 24 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. 25 Appendix D — Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process Certification 26 Appendix E — Definitions Attainment area means any geographic area in which levels of a given criteria air State Transportation Agency's program resources, 2) that have a high level of pollutant(e.g.,ozone,carbon monoxide,PM10,PM2.5,and nitrogen dioxide)meet public or congressional attention,or 3)that have extraordinary implications for the the health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for that national transportation system. pollutant.An area may be an attainment area for one pollutant and a nonattainment Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) means the geographic area determined by area for others. A maintenance area (see definition below) is not considered an agreement between the metropolitan planning organization(MPO)for the area and attainment area for transportation planning purposes. the Governor,in which the metropolitan transportation planning process is carried Available funds means funds derived from an existing source dedicated to or out. historically used for transportation purposes.For Federal funds,authorized and/or Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) means the official multimodal appropriated funds and the extrapolation of formula and discretionary funds at transportation plan addressing no less than a 20-year planning horizon that is historic rates of increase are considered available.A similar approach may be used developed, adopted, and updated by CAMPO through the metropolitan for State and local funds that are dedicated to or historically used for transportation transportation planning process. purposes. Nonattainment area means any geographic region of the United States that has been Conformity means a Clean Air Act(42 U.S.C.7506(c))requirement that ensures that designated by the EPA as a nonattainment area under section 107 of the Clean Air Federal funding and approval are given to transportation plans, programs and Act for any pollutants for which an NAAQS exists. 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 Obligated projects means strategies and projects funded under title 23 U.S.C. and transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations,worsen existing title 49 U.S.C.Chapter 53 for which the supporting Federal funds were authorized violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. The transportation and committed by the State or designated recipient in the preceding program year, conformity rule (40 CFR part 93) sets forth policy, criteria, and procedures for and authorized by the FHWA or awarded as a grant by the FTA. demonstrating and assuring conformity of transportation activities. Program of Projects(POP) is a list of projects to be funded in a grant application Cooperation means that the parties involved in carrying out the transportation submitted to FTA by a designated recipient. The POP lists the subrecipients and planning and programming processes work together to achieve a common goal or indicates whether they are private non-profit agencies,governmental authorities,or objective. private providers of transportation service,designates the areas served(including rural areas),and identifies any tribal entities. In addition,the POP includes a brief Coordination means the cooperative development of plans,programs,and schedules description of the projects,total project cost,and Federal share for each project. among agencies and entities with legal standing and adjustment of such plans, programs,and schedules to achieve general consistency,as appropriate. Project selection means the procedures followed by MPOs, States, and public transportation operators to advance projects from the first four years of an approved Design concept means the type of facility identified for a transportation improvement TIP and/or STIP to implementation,in accordance with agreed upon procedures. project(e.g.,freeway,expressway,arterial highway,grade separated highway,toll road,reserved right-of-way rail transit,mixed-traffic rail transit,or busway). Project sponsor must be a city, county, state, or other transportation related government agency eligible to receive federal funding from the Federal Highway Design scope means the aspects that will affect the proposed facility's impact on the or Federal Transit Administrations. All other entities must partner with a city, region,usually as they relate to vehicle or person carrying capacity and control county,or state agency to apply for and/or administer a transportation project. (e.g., number of lanes or tracks to be constructed or added, length of project, signalization, safety features, access control including approximate number and Public transportation operator means the public entity which participates in the location of interchanges,or preferential treatment for high occupancy vehicles). 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 Financial Plan means documentation required to be included with a metropolitan designated recipient of Federal funds under title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 for transportation plan and TIP (and optional for the long-range statewide transportation by a conveyance that provides regular and continuing general or transportation plan and STIP) that demonstrates the consistency between special transportation to the public, but does not include school bus, charter, or reasonably available and projected sources of Federal, State, local, and private intercity bus transportation or intercity passenger rail transportation provided by revenues and the costs of implementing proposed transportation system Amtrak. improvements. Regionally significant project means a transportation project(other than projects that Financially Constrained or Fiscal Constraint means that the metropolitan may be grouped in the TIP and/or STIP or exempt projects as defined in EPA's transportation plan, TIP, and STIP includes sufficient financial information for transportation conformity regulation(40 CFR part 93))that is on a facility which demonstrating that projects in the metropolitan transportation plan,TIP,and STIP serves regional transportation needs(such as access to and from the area outside can be implemented using committed,available,or reasonably available revenue the region;major activity centers in the region;major planned developments such sources, with reasonable assurance that the federally supported transportation as new retail malls, sports complexes, or employment centers; or transportation system is being adequately operated and maintained. For the TIP and the STIP, terminals) and would normally be included in the modeling of the metropolitan financial constraint/fiscal constraint applies to each program year. Additionally, area's transportation network. At a minimum,this includes all principal arterial projects in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas can be included in the highways and all fixed guideway transit facilities that offer a significant alternative first two years of the TIP and STIP only if funds are available or committed. to regional highway travel. Illustrative Project means an additional transportation project that may(but is not Statewide transportation improvement program (STIP) means a statewide required to)be included in a financial plan for a metropolitan transportation plan, prioritized listing/program of transportation projects covering a period of four years TIP,or STIP if reasonable additional resources were to become available. that is consistent with the long-range statewide transportation plan,metropolitan Maintenance Area means any geographic region of the United States that the EPA transportation plans,and TIPs,and required for projects to be eligible for funding previously designated as a nonattainment area for one or more pollutants pursuant under title 23 U.S.C.and title 49 U.S.C.Chapter 53. to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,and subsequently redesignated as an Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a document prepared by a attainment area subject to the requirement to develop a maintenance plan under metropolitan planning organization that lists projects to be funded with section 175A of the Clean Air Act,as amended. FHWA/FTA funds for the at least next one-to three-year period. Major Projects-These transportation improvements are defined as projects receiving Unified Planning Work Plan(UPWP)is the management plan for the(metropolitan) Federal financial assistance 1)with an estimated total cost of$500 million or more planning program. Its purpose is to coordinate the planning activities of all or 2) that have been identified by the FHWA as being a Major Project. The participants in the planning process. designated projects may include those: 1)that require a substantial amount of a 27 RESOLUTION RS2017-06 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN UPDATE TO THE 2035 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR THE CAPITAL AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION WHEREAS, the Board of Directors is the executive body of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), designated by the Governor of the State of Missouri to carry out the provisions of Section 134 Title 23 U. S. Code and Section 5503 Title 49 U.S. Code for the Jefferson City Urbanized Area;and WHEREAS, the federal regulations for metropolitan transportation planning and programming, as specified in 23 CFR Part 450.300, requires that CAMPO develop a long range transportation plan as part of the continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process; and WHEREAS, a long range transportation plan covers a planning horizon of at least 20 years, and fosters (1) mobility and access for people and goods, (2) efficient system performance and preservation, and (3) quality of life; and WHEREAS, the CAMPO 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan has been developed in accordance with requirements of the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration. WHEREAS, the Technical Committee endorsed incorporating the Program Year 2018- 2022 Transportation Improvement Program into the 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan as the first five(5) years of the regional financial plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors hereby approves and adopts the update of the 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. Adopted this 17th day of May, 2017. Jeff Hoelscher, Chairman Attest: Anne Stratman,Administrative Assistant Agenda Item 6C 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 2015-2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan For the Jefferson City, Missouri Urbanized Area Approved and adopted May 17, 2017 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,LISP,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. 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 Missouri Department of Transportation Ken Hussey,City Council Member David Silvester,PE,District Engineer Mark Schreiber,City Council Member Ex-Officio Members Erin Wiseman,City Council Member Randall Allen,Jefferson City Area Chamber of Sonny Sanders,AICP, GISP,PTP,Director, Commerce Planning&Protective Services Jeremiah Shuler,Federal Transit Administration, Matt Morasch,PE,Director,Public Works Region VII Mark Mehmert,Director,Transit Division Dion Knipp,Missouri Department of Cole County Transportation,Transit Section Cathy Brown,Office of Administration,Facilities Larry Benz,PE,Director,Public Works Management,Design and Construction Doug Reece,City Administrator,St.Martins Michael Henderson,AICP,Missouri Department Callaway County of Transportation,Transportation Planning Roger Fischer,Western District Commissioner Enos Han,Federal Highway Administration, Holts Summit Missouri Division Rick Hess, City Administrator, City of Holts Bruce Hackmann,Callaway County Economic Summit 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 Missouri Department of Transportation Todd Spalding,Director,Parks,Recreation& Steve Engelbrecht,PE,District Planning Manager Forestry Michael Henderson,AICP,Transportation Matt Morasch,PE,Director of Public Works Planning Specialist Mark Mehmert,Director,Transit Division Bob Lynch,PE,Area Engineer Alex Rotenberry,AICP,Transportation Planner Private Transportation Interest Britt Smith,PE,Operations&Maintenance Joe Scheppers,N.H.Scheppers Distributing Cole County Company. Larry Benz,PE,Director of Public Works Pedestrian or Biking Interest Eric Landwehr,PE,County Engineer Cary Maloney Callaway County Ex-Officio Members: Paul Winkelmann,PE, County Highway Jeremiah Shuler,Federal Transit Administration, Administrator Region VII Small City Representative-Callaway Enos Han,Federal Highway Administration: Mark Tate,Streets Department, City of Holts Missouri Division Summit Small City Representative-Cole David Elliot,Alderman,Wardsville CAMPO Staff Sonny Sanders,AICP, GISP,PTP—Director,Planning&Protective Services Katrina Williams,GISP—Transportation Planner Alex Rotenberry-Transportation Planner Anne Stratman—Administrative Assistant New Resolution Goes Here. 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization i 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 ii 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 Appendix 8: Current Transportation Improvement Program 109 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization i i i 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 1 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 requirements2. 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 measures4 (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. 2 (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. 3 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.' 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 Regulations9 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. 4 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. 5 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. 6 Table 2:Racial Composition of the MPO Population Year Year Change in Population Percent of Total Percentage 2000 2010 Numbers from 2000 to 2010 Population in 2010 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 6,446 8,613 2,167 11.96% 25.16% American Asian 466 957 491 1.33% 51.31% American Indian& 123 240 117 0.33% 48.75% Alaska Native Native Hawaiian& 9 46 37 0.06% 80.43% Other Pacific Islander Some Other Race 280 685 405 0.95% 59.12% Hispanic or Latino(of 710 1,855 1,145 2.58% 61.73% any race) 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. 7 Figure 1: Map of CAMPO MPA and Surrounding Area. I CAMPO Metropolitan Planning Area Boundary iiii M Approved by the Board of Directors January 16,2013 rr GI Lake Mykee il mi i Holts o.. lI qlIIIPT i di 0 , m IA 0 "illill' 411111t*c‘ Ioralit m 1011 I PAIIIIImpt,_ ,, ,, _, -r-dgi lik A' iiiY St:Martins'A ilhk"' I i- Ar.; i g ilaiiiiirr .,i7; I. D ' City of Jefferso Ilk „iv _....re: mr, .. „.____._________ 0i/T4 .41115"1torin ---.7---- \ o, _ . . _..ainar4 4,4. ,m40 i ,- h__,..44__. ' j fr.-,s, .., 17)6 li,i, i - 'twin /I _-- / ille - Sr : - 11 INE ,. . — . ,' -. _ . , N4,41 l it fatjA, ,i,044% b _ , , :. , . \ , Kv,,,- VV\ cs-----\,\L iiii, 1 Wardsville VA 411411%*r ;4r ' r � � I. LegendP ElBoard Approved Planning Area Boundary J Municipal Boundaryad”' dkillim..1 IC 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 8 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 9 • 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—2009/201111 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 10 information and public participation in matters relating to human health and the environmentlb. 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"(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. 11 Table 3:2011 HHS Poverty Guidelines Size of 100 Percent 110 Percent 125 Percent 150 Percent 175 Percent 185 Percent 200 Percent family unit of Poverty of Poverty of Poverty of Poverty of Poverty of Poverty 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.2021 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 12 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. 13 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. 14 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 Routes23 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. 15 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 2124 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.' 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. [23 USC 103(b)(2)(1)(B)as amended by Section 1104 16 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 Urban Urban Urban Urban Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Total Percent of Other Other Minor Collector Local Other Minor Major Minor Local Total Freeway Principal Arterial Principal Arterial Collector Collector (Jurisdiction) Expressway Arterial Arterial 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. 17 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: 18 Table 5: Structurally Deficient and Functionally Obsolete Bridges Maintenance Year Type of Work Total Project Facility Carried Feature Intersected Status Responsibility Built Needed Cost 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 WEARS CR City of Jefferson 1915 Rehabilitation $265,000 Functionally Obsolete RD HIGH ST WEARS CR, City of Jefferson 1949 Rehabilitation $3,391,000 Functionally Obsolete MISSOURI BLVD 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 MOREAU RVR Cole 1960 Rehabilitation $1,137,000 Functionally Obsolete RD PVT OVERPASS S US 50 MoDOT 1964 Replacement $949,000 Structurally Deficient US 50 E WELAFAYETTET ST, 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 CR MoDOT 1982 Rehabilitation $217,000 Functionally Obsolete T1012 S RP MADISON ST US 54 MoDOT 1966 Functionally Obsolete TO U 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 MoDOT 1991 Rehabilitation $46,189,000 Functionally Obsolete RR,CS US 54 E US 50,RP US54E TO MoDOT 1964 Functionally Obsolete US50W 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 MoDOT 1991 Functionally Obsolete US5OW US 63 S CST OILWELL RD, MoDOT 1975 Functionally Obsolete KATY TRA 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 19 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 JEFF IRAN with their Program of Projects processes. No expansion is proposed, but increased efficiency in routes has been introduced by changing routes and schedules. JEFFTRANParatransit 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. 20 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 ih 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. 21 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 Air Taxi&Commuter Airline General Aviation Military Total Operations Operations Operations 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 22 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 23 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 24 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.3o 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 25 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) Length Dunklin Street Trail Head to Southwest Blvd. 1.10 miles Southwest Blvd.to Stadium Blvd. 1.30 miles Stadium Blvd.to Edgewood Dr.Parking Lot 0.90 miles Edgewood Dr.Parking Lot to Fairgrounds Rd. 2.10 miles Fairgrounds Rd.through County Park Lake to Covington Gardens 1.3 miles Park/Fitness Trails Length East Miller Street Neighborhood Park 0.25 miles Ellis-Porter/Riverside Park 1.30 miles McKay Park 0.60 miles Memorial Park 1.30 miles Greenway Trail(Spurs) Length Duensing Ball field to Swifts Highway 0.70 miles Stadium Blvd.to Satinwood Dr. 0.50 miles Edgewood Dr.to Shermans Hollow 0.50 miles Ellis Porter/Riverside Park to Lewis&Clark State Office Building 0.70 miles Lewis&Clark Trailhead Plaza to Clay Street 0.60 miles Clay Street to North Jefferson Pavilion 1.70 miles North Jefferson Pavilion to the Katy Trail 1.00 miles Katy Trail to Summit Drive 0.20 miles Greenway Trail(East Branch of Wears Creek) Length East McCarty St.to Chestnut St. 1.20 miles Stadium Lafayette Round-About through Aurora Park 1.10 miles Mountain Bike Trails Length Binder Park 13.05 miles Edgewood Drive(adjacent to Greenway) 2.30 miles Source: City of Jefferson Parks and Recreation 12/26/12 26 Figure 2: City of Jefferson Sidewalk Master Plan 12/26/12 \ MAP OF REQUIRED SIDEWALKS - MASTER SIDEWALK PLAN MAP- rf .4 Appendix 32-A/Chapter 32 Code of the City of Jefferson,Missouri -- ', Ordinance No.14637 \\ Legend �1�� - School j ° -. Planned/Required Sidewalks �� Sidewalk Existing . - = ,. I Existing Greenway � Planned/Programmed Greenway ...,,,, '41111N1111411111 ' . . -.. Old Townned/Distrogrdct � ..PI ._` �',. ���� February 1,2010 - ---- 70 yi I' "--------- 16 1 11011 11lin owl hplivrI, i47,r1_. —• ' •••• •111111114j '--ter ,, , , E9' 1 f MI 44 _ .. -I\ , $1411:111S11, 1 .2,_/----- - _____ _____----- 1 IIII 711101IPt..4‘ titi4\41 „ i ..,,,, , 4 ,-,riir top ' . _. , i _ .. , , _ _ . =mr t. 'I , I hI . 27 Figure 3:City of Jefferson 2009 Greenways Trail Map 12/26/12 ,J 10).f 1 11111111K4 11111 1r ar © V \\\ 4 . ,. ,,t,L. ,4 .. ._,-----,\,.. , ---,.._ ,....„.,4 ,,, , 1 6- � oh, ��/ Airport a'"obom. II f K,,,,,‘„ ` k ily , _, 0 iliw N / j h).-- ---- ---'44ar,4 ----- _ 4ttir*/%. „„...... ------------kl-----" I_ .. ",:-' - ' '.:- ,, ,,,-.)-* , 1p :. 5.,0 A....4" WC.'''.i, Aremill Aft...• A'''"' '''''',' �i o A i fir 6::,',...„. S pOH. �~ 'tea '..-:' R 1111 of i„,,, , . , JEFFERSON CITY GREENWAY TRAILS _ i ,„\. —--- - 4111111 ' IS ----N, (.) Greenway frail5 . Location - Existing • Schools O binder Park 0 Memorial Park O North Jefferson City - Planninglln Progress 11111111 City of Jefferson • ©Cole County Park O McKay Park Recreation Area Future Off-Street City Parka l 0 West Edgewood O Washington Park 0 McClung Park --- Future On-Street IM surrounding Parks&School Properties '/' i,i Recreation Area O Aurora Park OM Lincoln University --- Katy Trail I 0 Runge Nature Center J©Oak Hills Golf Course (E)Adrlans Island �/ Park Trails effelsO>h \ti f �E 179 Soccer Park nasimmienamiEllis Porter/Riverside Park 28 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 29 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 1,800 Accidents 1,600 by 1,400 Severity 1,200 I. PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 1,000 ■ ■ ■ , ■ ■ MINOR INJURY 800 ■ DISABLING INJURY 600 ■ i l FATAL 400 ■ ■ 200 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 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. 30 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 Preparedness35 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.0 148,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: 31 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 32 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.43 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. 33 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, • Wetlands and water resources; homes and businesses • Forested and other natural areas; • Cultural resources (i.e. historic • Agricultural areas; properties or archaeological sites); • Endangered and threatened species;and • Parks and recreation areas; • 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 • Minimize noise impact with sound barriers • Prevent the spread of hazardous materials with soil and businesses testing and treatment • Replace or restore wetlands • Submerge or utilize bottomless culverts Wetlands and Water Resources • Bridge sensitive areas instead of laying pavement directly onto the ground • Improve storm water management • Use selective cutting and clearing Forested and other natural areas • Replace or restore forested areas • Preserve existing vegetation • Use selective cutting and clearing • Bridge sensitive areas instead of laying pavement Endangered and threatened species directly onto the ground • Replace or restore forested areas • Control loose exposed soils with watering or canvas Air Quality sheets • Minimize idling of heavy construction vehicles 34 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. 35 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 Changes-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 2000 Census 2000-2010 2000-2010 Percent Counts Counts Change Change Cole County 75,990 71,397 4,593 6.43% Callaway 44,332 40,766 3,566 8.75% County 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 36 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 (State (State (State County (actual) (actual) (linear) (linear) (linear) Projection) Projection) 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 Area in Percent Land Use-not Percent Land Use- Area in Square counting ROW and including ROW and General Land Use Acres miles Mo River. 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% 37 Figure 5:Land Use Map ti �I1 209{!General Land Use r of f; T, ' rum •i144 t _ _ MIr Cern TIEca1 (!�Cbmmectst'Rescrta1 . . f MI Ira,grigo..a,L=_irrs, --- pm mistgArti-gi ja - l 1.1-9-9-0.anrrng • .2 r mil r -_ -may _ a T f 'S"��`% s ''et,<!'13i1-I M*i-OmtB IliM* y`1In .L,-sae^rai-McH'amlt a f`1." r -:axoer Center r _ .0„.......,.... ,• . ,p. ---- 1 -Vam-x I. -ft r 1 '; r•` illi i „,,..<41, .. i .4, .#.„,,,,,,.., -_,,- ,.. , -%,„.. __ -- , _ .i i.4a''' 'i. tfrPill g—i.:%..," iirliL,4IlF.i.A• v,-, lfrz %- Rr.'V''.'...''1•.:'.4'.''-Jy•i.:'4.....'..''-''.N'.r,. ,.-,....-.0.:.-4.''-.,_':.,,i ,-,,...i--x.,'..‘...7..,......,...1.,i.,'.1._..,._'ii. L.- -,.,-- -r. '4 -,�� , .fir,�. } `. ,t '-'—.... 4-. ,i4ork-i. ..: ...b . . /- l' "t - 11111141111C jillrfjWi ___ IWO I i ' J 1 , -.' y r r ! 1 : ,... ,6 ,,,,, .. ', 0 itP / 1 e 4 i 14 I z. ._.. .. -... .... . __. ) Land use was identified Fan several s urate 1 f inctudmg tax assessmert data.ZOO serial -� r O t Qra;r'•Site v.SitS and att'>Er sots'S. 38 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 39 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. 40 Figure 6: Missouri State Penitentiary Redevelopment-Master Plan Proposed Districts Pubs'' Pubiic Assembly T tram pus Entertainment Area&Landing Area ♦ ...b..„,„--,4 V a -0 .,1 *st /. Resources Area tql0, s � ,,j - ,ate w�._.. ': • ^� _ISPHstorr t .V2.0, v. Y ,+pk iA s ft- ' ' `, sz Cornn utui-,:�a ea � 041-4- icti .c* .,. may'_ - : z -., A?' At ' hill (t,1...111111 A ♦ •�0 ♦ LE. fY a I,. 4, fiL Office C'aiiipus 'I 0 :r •+ :I. ♦ • "7 l •• ♦ • • o ` y ` ♦ ♦ .^ O ,> 5 �• ♦e R$1 The Master Plus Districts . Figure 7: M S P Redevelopment—Master Plan Proposed Roadways and Parking Areas V'. _.;"- - .. '''Ai �, r0. ii,o, r . ., _ ,.„.t. . , , ,......, ,.., .,, , , , .. . ; .8-,n i- 600 .E t.� d! 441/4 ,:- 4 ♦i1 4,-01- .. 4 A ..k . i ' l c t 41 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. 42 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 ,004. 1.11:' i .,,f„ ` (s\sks.4\ tT i?r'- _ � , , I' , M' › if . a• • Firs err =- TAOS - i Katy Trail +.Yt, a =1 Airports Rall f1 - 1 4461° 0 7r cn 166 - _ - _.. ®Cloptriwoot 9t'ConsorvOUGrr •Y • u - Mt Puhaniiiiv A. w Prop tO c®arnlydal ,.0 i r ;-.w Proud IrtdtrOtrial _ • =Ind 4N4141 x ',...-- MPublic A$xnsl'ubloc1-w. 4 !Abort Argo - l 3 Ruse!Arra _�l - 1 d 43 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 44 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. 45 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). 46 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 31,838 61.1% Area 47 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. 48 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. 49 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 2010 2020 2035 Intersection Sig/Unsig* Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1. US-54 SB Ramps&Simon Blvd U 24.6(5B) C 33.1(5B) D 2. Missouri Blvd EB Ramps&Rte. 179 5 13.9 B 14.1 B 14.2 B 3. US-50 EB/Horner Rd&Truman Blvd 5 18.3 B 20.5 C* 22.3 CI 4. Stadium Blvd&Jefferson St S 34.0 C 38.3 D 38.6 D* 5. Missouri Blvd&Dix Rd 5 29.9 C* 31.3 C# 31.9 C# 6. Missouri Blvd&Beck St 5 19.3 B 19.7 B 19.9 B 7. US-54 NB Ramps&Ellis Blvd S 23.8 C 24.1 C 27.8 C 8. US-50/63 EB Ramps&Eastland Dr 5 10.7 B 11.7 B 11.8 B 9. Rte. B/W/M** U 16.9(WB) C 20.1(WB) C 20.0(WB) C 10. U5-50/63 WB Ramps&Militia Dr U 8.7(WB) A 8.8(WB) A 9.2(WB) A 11. US-50 EB/Horner Rd&Big Horn Dr U 15.7(WB) C 16.5(WB) C 18.9(WB) C *For unsignalized intersections the delay/LOS reported are for the worst movement at the intersection. **Intersection 9 was analyzed as a two-way stop(east-west stop)because Synchro does not allow analysis of the actual configuration(3-way stop at a four-way intersection). 1 One or more movements operate at LOS E. 50 Figure 8:Map of Forecasted Traffic Volumes in 2035 on Major Routes r 5 2035 Forecast Bi-directional ,'+�„� Lake My kee Traffic Volume - 0 -01 - 1 5,001 - 10,000 AMP10,001 - 15,000 Hdts Summit . -.,....1...- 1 A Li 15,001 -20,000 �,1101000 20,001 -25,000 25,001 -30,000 I — 30,001 -35,000 X35,001 -40,000 4, CI (‘ 11.111111111111111111411L161 : . oh . , L St:Martinsill*Plill 94_ .__ \ ,_____. y .__J .I ______,-- _,,, ,i,„...... . 5a mi _.---„ C',,„„„„„„.. how �__� 179 ;,,, —__Ow r I---__—_-1 ' City of Jefferson / akiik AmitH Ail r / � i __ o t timr ,, .r_____,----7, , ,„„._, . __•, _,. __ .. , , *77 .sp- cc r ---- 11 . „_-, --;-,_,„ 'I '.- ....0. z- :_I L_ M f� I __ _. Taos • iii„ , _ ! ,, ._. 6 Wardsville 1 N I _, W I 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 r Source:CAMPO Travel Demand Model Scale in Mlles s .-e .,_...,Y...- ...�, , ,,,,_ . •---n,,,Ek 51 Figure 9:Forecasted Locations Where Traffic Volume Exceed Capacity • / 2035 Forecast �` / — — Volume Over Capacity 0%-70% AA 70%-80% r,„___- /,. +�80%-94% 90%- 140% Sib. ' 1 1"1% X100%- 110% 40110%-120% \W % 156% 02011100%hk CD Li 01Alik 4 ismia90.-. ililtri-4ffilrielt 44‘ lippir _ 14, ,,,,,,,,.,,,,r,e, , i _____„, ,, _, ,,,,,41. T.,.,, difilii. Il i lillp_ , ' I- - -Aikmt;rw*464itrlio:rILil , Lilc• ,, ,_„___. a J it, i isiir-- L_ ily %,.,1 ,_ 0 Ara' © i[ N 1 I j 61. 0 0-5 1 2 3 4 �QinMi S ISoumModel 52 Section 5 Strategies and Capital Investment Transportation Management& Operations Strategies48 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. 53 Access Management Strategy Access Management (AM) is the proactive management of vehicular access points to land parcels adjacent to all manner of roadways49. 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.so 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. 54 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. 55 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 56 (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. 57 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). 58 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 1/z cent sales tax to support its Capital Improvement Program and a 1/2 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 1/z 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. 59 Table 6-1-Forecast Revenue for Transportation projects,Operations and Maintenance. Available Local Transportation Funds 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 _ $ - CountyAidRoadTrust-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($0.27levy) $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 $ - CountyAidRoadTrust-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 ofJefferson-JEFFTRAN $ - PassengerFares&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 $ - CountyAidRoadTrust-State Fuel Tax $ 14,332 $ 14,619 $ 14,911 $ 15,209 $ 15,513 $ 74,584 St.Martins $ - CountyAidRoadTrust-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 $ - CountyAidRoadTrust-State Fuel Tax $ 35,953 $ 36,672 $ 37,405 $ 38,154 $ 38,917 $ 187,101 Sales Tax-1/2%Capital Improvement* $ 20,000 $ 20000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 100,000 Wardsville $ - CountyAidRoadTrust-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 $ - PassengerFares,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 Total Local Funds $ 121,624,273 Note:County Aid Road Trust includes State Fuel Tax,Vehicle Sales/Use Tax and Licensing Fees. CART Funds based on 2016 numbers from MoDOT.There is a conservative two(2)percent Please see more on CART funds here:http://dor.mo.gov/publicreports/index.phptlmotorfuel increase per year,based on historical numbers. *This is distributed from Cole County 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%. 60 Table 6-2-Programmed and Available Funds by Source. Programmed Funds Available Funds Federal 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 $392,828 $5,106,400 $11,200 $1,132,000 $1,163,200 $7,805,628 $392,828 $5,106,400 $11,200 $1,132,000 $1,163,200 $7,805,628 •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 State 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 Ope rating $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 1005 $4,775,800 $2,362,150 $3,866,150 $296,750 $304,550 $11,605,400 $4,775,800 $2,362,150 $3,866,150 $296,750 $304,550 $11,605,400 Local Jefferson City $2,169,604 $1,285,332 $1,323,892 $1,363,609 $1,404,517 $7,546,954 $2,169,604 $1,285,332 $1,323,892 $1,363,609 $1,404,517 $7,546,954 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 Yearly Totals $9,308,899 $14,154,747 $8,144,407 $6,234,256 $6,419,158 $9,308,899 $14,154,747 $8,144,407 $6,234,256 $6,419,158 Total Programmed Total $44,261,467 Total Available Funds $44,261,467 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 MoDOT maintains approximately 349 miles of federal aid eligible roads in the CAMPO area. Table 6-9(page 61 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 Urban Urban Urban Urban Rural Rural Rural Total Percent of Other Other Minor Collector Other Minor Major Total Freeway Principal Arterial Principal Arterial Collector (Jurisdiction) Express Arterial Arterial way 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. 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. 62 Table 6-4—JEFFTRAN Estimated Expenditures for Operations&Maintenance. 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 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. 63 Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects -July 1, 2018-June 30, 2022 Bridge Projects MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA NHPP $21,000 $4,000 $54,400_ $79,400 Dix Road Bridge Improvements E Name: N MoDOT TCOS $6,000 $1,000 $13,600 $20,600 TIP# 2013-05 G Local $0 MoDOT#5P3015 Other $0 Description&Location:Bridge improvements to FHWA $0 the Dix Road bridge over US 50. MODOT $0 w Local $0 Other $0 C FHWA NHPP $757,600 $757,600 Comments:Involves bridge number A1187. N MoDOT TCOS $189,400 $189,400 Award date 2019. s Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $1,047,000 Total $27,000 $5,000 $1,015,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,047,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA STP $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $48,000 State System Bridge Inspection E Name: N MoDOT TCOS $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $12,000 TIP# 2015-03 o Local $0 MoDOT# Other $0 Description&Location: State Bridge Inspection FHWA $0 Program for on-system bridges at various o MODOT $0 locations throughout the MPO. w Local $0 Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments: N MoDOT $0 9 Local $0 T Other $0 ' Total Project Cost: $60,000 Total $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $60,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA STP $2,000 $2,000 $2,000_ $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $12,000 Non-State System Bridge Inspection E Name: N MoDOT TCOS $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $3,000 TIP# 2014-04 O Local _ _ $0 MoDOT# Other $0 Description&Location:Non-State System FHWA $0 Bridge Inspection Program for off-system r MODOT $0 bridges at various locations throughout the w Local $0 MPO Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments: N MoDOT $0 8 Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $15,000 Total $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $0 $15,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA NHPP $19,200 $20,000 $266,400 $305,600 Bridge Improvements over Route 54E • Name: N MoDOT TCOS $4,800 $5,000 $66,600 $76,400 TIP# 2018-01 o Local $0 MoDOT#5S3261 Other $0 Description&Location:Includes bridge FHWA NHPP $8,000 $8,000 improvements on Route 94 over Little Tavern Ro MODOT TCOS $2,000 $2,000 Creek in Callaw ay County and West Main over w Local $0 Route 54/63 in Cole County Other $0 C FHWA NHPP $1,464,000 $1,464,000 Comments:Project involves bridges A3451, N MoDOT TCOS $366,000 $366,000 A4265,and A4662.Award date 2020. s Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $2,222,000 Total $0 $24,000 $35,000 $2,163,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,222,000 Roadway Projects MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project 50 Outer Road Improvements F FHWA $0 Name: N MoDOT TCOS $200 $18,800 $19,000 TIP# 2017-03 c Local $0 MoDOT#5P3200 MoDOT TCOS(AC) $800 $75,200 $76,000 Description&Location:Includes ramps at FHWA $0 Route 50 and Truman Blvd.Includes a portion Q MODOT $0 of Missouri Blvd.,a portion of Truman Blvd., w Lanai $0 and a portion of Big Horn Dr. Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments:Pavement improvements.Award date 2018. N MoDOT TCOS $237,800 $237,800 Anticipated federal reimbursement from SIP. S Local $0 T MoDOT TCOS(AC) $951.200 $951,200 Total Project Cost: $1,284,000 I Total $1,000 $1,283,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,284,000 64 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project US 54 Pavement Improvements e FHWA $0 Name: N MoDOT TCOS $12,000 $43,000 $55,000 TIP# 2017-04 c Local $0 MoDOT#5P3118 MoDOT TCOS(AC) $8,000 $172,000 $180,000 Description&Location:Pavement,bridge,and FHWA $0 guardrail improvements from just west of Stadium Blvd. oR MoDOT $0 in Jefferson City to west of the Missouri River bridge. w Local $0 Project involves bridges A1307 and A1672. Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments:Award date 2018.Anticipated N MoDOT TCOS $519,400 $519,400 federal reimbursement from STP. s Local $0 T MoDOT TCOS(AC) $2,077,600 $2,077,600 Total Project Cost: $2,832,000 Total $20,000 $2,812,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,832,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA NHPP $8,000 $8,000 $227,200 $243,200 US 54 Pavement Improvements F Name: N MoDOT TCOS $27,000 $2,000 $56,800 $85,800 TIP# 2017-05 G Local $0 MoDOT#5P3121 Other $0 Description&Location:Pavement FHWA $0 improvements on the eastbound and o MoDOT $0 westbound lanes of US 54 from Route E(near w Local _ $0 Brazito)to near Stadium Blvd.in Jefferson City. Other $0 C FHWA NHPP $3,040,000 $3,040,000 Comments:Length:Award Date 2019 N MODOT TCOS $760,000 $760,000 g Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $4,129,000 Total $35,000 $10,000 $4,084,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,129,000 City of Jefferson Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Stadium&US 54 Intersection FHWA STP $289,360_ $289,360 Name: Improvements N MoDOT $0 TIP# 2013-15 G Local 1/2%Sales Tar $72,340 $72,340 MoDOT# Local $0 Description&Location:Highway FHWA _ $0 54/Jefferson/Stadium Boulevard, o MoDOT $0 StadiurrVlvlonroe&US 54/Christy Dr.Access, w Local 1/2%Sales Tat $100,000 $100,000 Capacity,and Safety Improvements. _ Local 1/2%Sales Tao- $100,000 $100,000_ c FHWA STP $249,170 $249,170 _ $498,340_ Comments:Local funding is from 1/2%Jefferson City N MoDOT $0 Capital Improvement sales tax and Cole County 1/2% s Local 1/2%Sales Tat $360,165 $360,165_ _ _ _ _ $720,330 sales tax T Local 1/2%Sales Tar $360,165 $360,165 $720,330 Total Project Cost: $2,500,700 Total $1,531,200 $969,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 I $0 $2,500,700 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Enhancement Projects in Central FHWA STP $67,200 $67,200 Name: District N MoDOT TCOS $16,800 $16,800 TIP# 2017-12 o Local $0 MoDOT#053021 F Other , $0 Description&Location: ADA Transition Ran FHWA $0 improvements at various locations in the RO MoDOT $0 Central District w Local $0 Other $0_ C FHWA STP $1,053,600 $1,053,600 Comments:$1.2 million statewide transportation N MoDOT TCOS $263,400 $263,400 alternatives funds.Award Date 2021. a Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $1,401,000 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,401,000 $0 $0 $1,401,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Enhancement Projects in Central FHWA STP _ $67,200 $67,200_ Name: District N MoDOT TCOS $16,800 $16,800 TIP# 2018-05 G Local $0 MoDOT#0S3022F Other $0 Description&Location:ADA Transition Ran FHWA $0 improvements at various locations in the oR MoDOT $0 Central District w Local $0 Other $0 C FHWA STP $1,084,800 $1,084,800 Comments:$1.2 million statewide transportation N MoDOT TCOS $271,200 $271,200 alternatives funds.Award Date 2022. S Local $0 • T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $1,440,000 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,440,000 $0 $1,440,000 65 Other Projects MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA HSIP $40,500 $4,500 $900 $45,900 Scoping Routes M,B&W E Name: N MoDOT Safety $4,500 $500_ $100 $5,100 11P# 2013-16 o Local _ $0 MDDOTd 552234 .Other $0 Description&Location:Scoping for safety FHWA $0 improvements at the intersection of Route M Ro MoDOT $0 and Route Win Wardsville. w Local $0 Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments:Anticipated federal funding category: N MoDOT $0 Safety.Future construction costs:$301,000 to s Local $0 $1,000,000. T Other $0 Total Project Cost_$51,000 _ I Total $45,000 $5,000 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $51.000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA HSIP I $118,800 5118,800 Safety Projects in Central District E Name: N MoDOT Safety $13,200 $13,200 TIP# 2017-16 G Local _ _ $0 MoDOT#rOP3021 F other _ $0 Description&Location: Safety projects at FHWA $0 various locations in the Central District. o MoDOT _ $0 w Local - _ $0 Other $0 CI FHWA HSIP $1,858,500 $1,858,500 Comments:$1.89 million from Open Container N MoDOT Safety $206,500 $206,500 funds.Award Date 2021.90/10 Grant/match. s Local $0_ T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $2,197,000 Total $0 $0 SO $0 $2,197,000 $0 $0 $2,197,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA HSIP $118,800 $118,800 Safety Projects in Central District E Name: N MoDOT Safety $13,200 $13,200 TIP# 2018-04 c Local $0 MDDOTf'OP3022F Other $0 Description&Location:Safety projects at FHWA $0 various locations in the Central District. o MoDOT $0 w Local $0 Other $0 C FHWA HSIP $1,914,300 $1,914,300 Comments:$1.89 Trillion from Open Container N MoDOT Safety $212,700 $212,700 funds.Award Date 2022.90/10 Grant/match. s Local $0 T Other $0 , Total Project Cost: $2,259,000 Total $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $2,259,000 $0 $2,259,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Guard Cable&Guardrail Repair in FHWA $0 Name: Northern Central District N MoDOT TCOS $7,600 $7,600 11P# 2018-06 o Local _ $0 MoDOTt/5P3274 MoDOT TCOS(AC) $30,400 $30,400 Description&Location:Job order contracting FHWA $0 for guard cables and guardrail repair on o MoDOT $0 various routes in the northern portion of the w Local $0 Central District. Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments:Award Date Spring 2018. N MoDOT TCOS $102,000 $102,000 Anticipated federal reimbursement from SW. s Local $0 T MoDOT TCOS(AC) $408,000 $408,000 Total Project Cost: $548,000 Total $0 $548,000 00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $548,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA STP $23,200 $4,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $31,200 Scoping for Pavement Improvements E Name: N MODOT TCOS $5,800 $1,000 $250 $250 $250 $250 $7,800 TIP# 2017-22 G Local $0 MoDOTd5P3044 Other $0 - �i Description&Location:Scoping for pavement FHWA $0 improvements on various routes in the Central o MoDOT $0 District w Local $0 Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments:Anticipated federal funding category:STP. 0 MoDO_T - $0_ Future construction cost$15 million-$25 million. 9 Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $39,000 Total $29,000 $5,000 $1,250 $1,250 $1,250 $1,250 $0 $39,000 66 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA STP $48,000 $4,000 $200 $200 $200 $200 $52,800 Slide Repair Scoping Name: 0 MoDOT TCOS $12,000 $1,000 $50 $50 $50 $50 $13,200 TIP# 2015-07 o Local $0 MoDOT#553081 Other $0 Description&Location:Scoping for slide FHWA $0 repairs in the northern portion of the Cental o MoDOT $0 District at various locations. w Local I $0 Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments:Anticipated Federal Funding Category- N MoDOT $0 STP.Future construction cost$2 million-5 million. s Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $66,000 Total I $60,000 $5,000 $250 $250 $250 $250 $0 $66,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category I. Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project On-call Work Zone Enforcement FHWA HSIP $900 $900 Name: N MoDOT Safety $100 $100 TIP# 2017-21 G Local $0 MoDOT#5P3217 Other $0 Description&Location:On-call work zone FHWA $0 enforcement at various locations in the Central o MoDOT $0 District. w Local _ $0 Other $0 C FHWA HSIP $31,500 $31,500 Comments:90/10 match,using federal and N MoDOT Safety $3,500 $3,500 - MoDOT safety funds. s Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $36,000 Total $0 $36,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $36,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA HSIP $900 $900 On-call Work Zone Enforcement Name: N MoDOT Safety $100 $100 TIP# 2018-07 G Local $0 MoDOT#5P3224 Other $0 Description&Location:On-call work zone FHWA $0 enforcement at various locations in the Central o MoDOT - $0 District. w Local $0 Other $0 C FHWA HSIP $31,500 $31,500 Comments:90/10 match,using federal and N MoDOT Safety $3,500 $3,500 MoDOT safety funds. s Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $36,000 Total $0 $0 $36,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $36,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Scoping for Safety Improvements for FHWA HSIP $45,000 $202,500 $45,000 $292,500 Name: U.S.54 in Cole,fuller,and Camden N MoDOT TCOS $5,000 $22,500 $5,000 $32,500 TIP# 2017-25 o Local $0 MoDOT#5P3222 MoDOT , $0 Description&Location:Scoping for safety FHWA $0 improvements along US 54 in Cole,Miller,and Ro MoDOT $0_ Camden counties. From West of Stadium w Local $0 Boulevard in Jefferson City to Cecil Street in MoDOT $0 Camdenton. C FHWA $0 Comments: Anticipated future cost is between N MoDOT $0 $5 and$10 million. s Local $0 T MoDOT $0 Total Project Cost: $325,000 Total $50,000 $225,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $325,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals ProjectSurveying E FHWA $0 Name: N MoDOT TCOS $50,000 $25,000 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $105,000 TIP# 2018-08 G Local $0 MoDOT#5P3179 MoDOT $0 Description&Location: Surveying to sell FHWA $0 excess right of way parcels in the Central 0 MoDOT $0 District. w Local $0 MoDOT $0 C FHWA $0 Comments: No federal funds used for this N MoDOT $0 project. s Local $0 T MoDOT $0 Total Project Cost: $105,000 Total $50,000 $25,000 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $0 $105,000 67 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Pavement and shoulder improvements FHWA STP $0 Name: on Route M N MoDOT TCOS $8,000 $8,000 $113,200 $129,200 TIP# 2018-02 c Local _$ 0 MoDOT#'5S3230 MoDOT TCOS(AC) $32,000_ $32,000 $452,800 $516,800 Description&Location:Pavement and shoulder FHWA $0 improvements from Rte.B to Rte.50.Includes oR MoDOT $0 pavements and shoulder improvements on Rte.E from w Local _ $0 Rte.54 to Rte.B.Project also includes pavement MoDOT $0 improvements on Rte.W,Rte.Y and Rte.J. C FHWA STP $0- Comments:Potential ADA improvements in N MoDOT TCOS $570,200 $570,200 Taos. Award date 2020.Anticipated Federal s Local $o_ Funds'STP T MoDOT TCOS(AC) $2,280,800 $2,280,800 Total Project Cost: $3,497,000 Total _ $0 $40,000 $40,000 $3,417,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,497,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Pavement and shoulder improvements FHWA STP $32,000 $397,600 $429,600 Name: on Route C N MoDOT _TCOS $8,000 $99,400 $107,400 TIP# 2018-03 G Local $0 MODOT#'5S3259 MoDOT $0 Description&Location:Pavement and shoulder FHWA _ _ $0 improvements from Route 52 near Versailles to o MoDOT $o Jefferson City. w Local $0 Other $0 C FHWA _STP $4,697,600 $4,697,600 Comments:Award date Fall 2018. N MoDOT TCOS $1,174,400 $1,174,400 S Local $0 T MoDOT $0 Total Project Cost: $6,409,000 Total $0 $40,000 $6,369,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,409,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Scoping for ADA Improvements in FHWA $0 Name: Various Locations N MoDOT TCOS $5,000 $1,250 $1,250 $1,250 $1,250 $10,000_ TIP# 2018-09 o Local _ $0 MoDOT#'5P3254 MoDOT TCOS(AC) $20,000 $5,000, $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $40,000 Description&Location:Scoping for ADA FHWA $0 inprovements at various locations in Chamois, o MODOT $0 Frankenstein,Route M in Taos,and Route Win w Local $0_ Wardsville. Other $0 C FHWA $0_ Comments:Anticipated Federal Category-STP. 0 MoDOT $0 Includes sidewalks,curb ramps,entrances,and signals s Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $50,000 Total $0 $25,000 $6,250 $6,250 $6,250 $6,250 $0 $50,000 City of Jefferson Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Clark Avenue Interchange Project FHWA STP $93,658 $93,658 Name: Traffic Study N MoDOT $0 TIP# 2018-12 G Local Sales Tax $21,342 $21,342 MbDOT#1 Other $0 Description&Location:A traffic study and a FHWA $0 contextually specific conceptual design.The goal of the O MoDOT so study will be to address the congestion and safety w Local $0 concerns along this corridor.A reduction in congestion will lead to increased accessibility. Other $0 C FHWA $0 , Comments:It is assumed that the study will indicated 0 MoDOT $0 that improvements be made to the intersections of s Local $0 Dunklin,Elm,the ramp terminals and Miller Street. T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $115,000 I -Total $0 $115,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $115,000 I Pedestrian&Bicycle Projects City of Jefferson Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals ProjectCommunity Park Greenway Trailhead E FHWA RTP $8,000 $8,000 Name: N MoDOT $0 11P# 2017-24 o Local $0 MoDOT#/ Other - $0 Description&Location: Development of a FHWA $o greenway trailhead at Community Park-a restroom, 0 MoDOT _ $0 spray ground,misting station,water fountain,bike rack, w Local $0 additional parking,benches,landscaping,and lighting. Other $0 Paid for by Local Parks Sales Tax. C FHWA RTP $71,000 $71,000 $142,000 Comments:The Jefferson City Cultural Arts N MoDOT _ $0 Foundation,Central Bank and Ameren Missouri have s Local Parks Tax $70,000 $70,000 $140,000 pledged donations to help fund the project. T Other Private Don. $19,000 $19,000 Total Project Cost: $309,000 Total $168,000 $141,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $309,000 68 City of Jefferson Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Missouri Boulevard Sidew alk,Beck to FHWA TAP $0 Name: Waverly N MoDOT $0 TIPS 2017-27 o+Local Sales Tax $0 MDDOTdd MoDOT $0 Description&Location:Construct a 5'wide FHWA _ $0 sidew alk along the northern side of Mssouri o MoDOT $0 Boulevard from Beck Street to Waverly Street. w'Local $0 Includes Bicycle/Pedestrian/Transitfacilities. MoDOT $0 C FHWA TAP $278,564 $278,564 Comments: TAP Grant aw ardee. N MoDOT $0 S Local Sales Tax $69,641 $69,641 T MoDOT $0 Total Project Cost: $348,205 Total $0 $348,205 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $348,205 I iniEr Public Transportation Projects City of Jefferson-JEFFTRAN Funding Prior State Program Year-July'Ito June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project O Other _Pass.Fares $598,000 $223,510 $230,215_ $237,122 $244,235 $251,562 $1,784,644 Operating Assistance Name: P MoDOT State Operatinc $17,500 $7,725 $7,957 $8,195 $8,441 $8,694 $58,512 TIP# 2011-04 E Local $2,287,506 $1,247,895 $1,285,332 $1,323,892 $1,363,609 $1,404,517 $8,912,751 M3DOT# R FTA v 5307 $1,595,207 $775,236 $798,493 $822,448 $847,121 $872,535 $5,711,040 Description&Location:Operating Assistance FHWA $0 for JEFFTRAN service within city limits of o MoDOT $0 Jefferson City(A 3%annual inflation factor w Local $0 applied.) Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments: N MoDOT . $0 8 Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $16,466,947 Total $4,498,213 $2,254,366 $2,321,997 $2,391,657 $2,463,406 $2,537,308 $0 $16,466,947 City of Jefferson-JEFFTRANFunding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA $0 Paratransit Bus Purchase Name: N MoDOT $0 - TIP# 2017-28 G Local CIP $40,396 $40,396 MODOT# FTA 5310 $97,466 $97,466 Description&Location: Purchase 2 E450 FHWA $0- Ekhart Coach II,Floor Ran CC handi-Wheel Pro MoDOT _ $0 buses with Apollo 5 camera systems. w Local $0 Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments:Will replace 2 2010 model year N MoDOT $0 buses. $Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $137,862 Total $0 $137,862 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $137,8621 69 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 $285,152 $293,707 $302,518 $311,593 $320,941 $330,570 $340,487 $350,701 $361,222 $372,059 $2,034,571 Improvements&Contingency-Locations TBD 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 $51,399 $52,941 $54,529 $56,165 $57,850 $59,586 $61,373 $63,215 $65,111 $67,064 $366,735 Disabilities-5310(note:3%inflation factor applied) (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 $2,645,200 delivery (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 $816,000 $1,640,000 delivery (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 70 Figure 6-1:Map of Fiscally Constrained Projects CAMPO — Transportation Improvement Program / Lake yN July 1,2017-June 30,2022 - TIP#2017-26 (. - Bridge - US 54 Safety Improvements m � Gallawa Count Improvement - y r �r l Pedestrian facility ' 1Summit \ _ \ ILY1 aalte r ` TIP#017-04 I US 54 Pavement Improvements from ,ri -I near Stadium Blvd.to the Missouri River � il -( /-_ ifillININ / •' i'....a. 41 likallato -I', ,P 11111013 1111111`---APO" c TIP#2013-05 p` TIP#2017-03 Cu Road Bridge Improvements �. TIP#2018-01 ` '`�-- Route 50 outer roads improvements.♦ \� -� Bridge Improvements over Route 54 - '� ,z, Y ci an L I� o �� _I TIP TIP#2017-27 A r Community Par �ta - � *MAN #2017-2a � rs'J 1k Greenway Trailheatl ��_ • a, � tt�i d -_Missouri Boulevard Sidewalk e1?•�- t..-7,,,,z,0.4. v: -- _ _� {. Beek to Waverly - - TIP#2018-03 'a �" _}j* Alb ,ft 410.78. Iiin Sof Pavement and shoulder improvements q� �-yp ilk illitisa-NOVNiIM.10.1.1011: on Route C ArrkkgriplTIP#201315 a- telt k AICAkk /-j--I pir Stadium,Jefferson.Monroe,&US 54 r Access and Intersection Improvement U , I Ir` J �. /' twit}1 40 i ''' ibmi..,--....... 1140F1 ©_ TIP#2013 �_-_,—`7 I L , i r Sdoping Route Mand W- TIP#2017-05 - f wraevel.llir. __-__r-. T.as " US 54 Pavement Improvements from j Route E to near Stadium Blvd. f TIP#2018-02 �� ri I % -� PavementRout shoulder WimprovementsuJ i --,.. /IF on Rand sM, Y,EandJ 7© s il 01 4111/ TIP#2017-25 - - `•-) Scoping for Safety Improvements alongdi atippi , , _ __ TIP#2018 02 n r U854 in Cole,Miller,and Camden counties `,,'I Pavement and shoulder improvements '�I J - 1.i i on Routes M W,Y,E and J - -17 � 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 ".. ,, - �.,..\ -,-.-,,.e�.,.e.. ;;ZI.-...�....�—.m.mw... `ter--5.1eiw`� J \\ \\ I 5. 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. 71 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 2013 Operations&Maintenance 2013-2035 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 I $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 72 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 2028-2035 est. est. annual annual annual annual annual 5 year 8 year Jefferson City Operations Sr Maintenance $3,899,544 $3,977,535 $4,057,085 $4,138,227 $4,220,992 $22,405,534 $40,799,334 expenditure 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 Sr Maintenance $81,916 $83,554 $85,226 $86,930 $88,669 $470,664 $857,055 expenditure 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 $4,691,935 $4,785,774 $4,881,489 $4,979,119 $5,078,701 $26,958,360 $49,089,798 expenditure 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 Sr maintenance $6,607,784 $6,739,940 $6,874,739 $7,012,234 $7,152,478 $37,966,221 $69,134,549 expenditure 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 L $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 73 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 �E 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 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 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. 74 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 Funds56 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 Funding57 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 75 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. 76 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 77 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. 78 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 capita1.59 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. 79 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. 80 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 Metropolitan Planning Adjusted Urban Area Census Designated Urban Area Population Area Population Population 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 One Race Native Total Black or American Hawaiian Some Two or Hispanic White African Indian and Asian and Other Other More Races American Alaska Native Pacific Islander 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 81 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). C �✓I ,, + 1 I Minority Table 31: Distribution of Minority Populations by ' i f � iii P©zoiii� Census Block Group. -. _ -. 4.. I0%-9.945 Minority _I .- ../ I': %-7r_ %-z39%-39.9%Minn ray !!! _49%-49_9%Minority 7 i _50%-59.3%Minority r a - _ I _60%-69.9%Minority i iilikompliali �_- 4111411116, - tit 1. �' -'16 �_ •n `� i � a"� flay '`,� // , 40P4; 111 r.:IL62-7:1%119V ..;Mplignii.laillipa.34 1 *Isrli-41` 4101,,.7 .-----„, 14404' . �/ air . , a�1 _ _ m llor r Air 41111Lk 1,,rt_ , Nov Et. T -044__,_;,r=2 ,`4 iy. ''')-,,..0. „,,,,_A" i ' iiiiL ' N 1111*. lf 0 v1f: LI) vs I, or,,,ioye i _„, r.,,,it . ,_...,,.._ ie._ 1 w 4Wo a as 1 z r a a 82 Income An estimate based on the ` r �`� 1 13 I' ` / -III IIIISI Population U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American in Poverty Community Survey �• 2010 ti. indicates 7,605 persons o m lori 0 ro-3 ro(10.6%)in the CAMPO 3"�0-s�ioPlanning Area werejoiltHI s°io- z°io below povertyincome "°"'�"""" r level in past 12 months, :41:404 ( za°i-so°i in 2010. v,,IA ,? � .'` � lJ 4/1 - __,.....1 ik, 0 it ,f Fl � 1 Figure 10:Map of MPA a 4 \ Population in Poverty v __ t* ,-.i.,-„,-.._.40,1 - ,tiki_e,,,. ii / mu 11 -. ...p._.±6...„,,,swit -.),„,i, jiff- 4 0 liti I I I I I I I I I I I I III I I 111.1111"TA: ,71_ .�1 it It .s,r�, „ asl , 41� v„- : — • ,r a rAI ifii,L'4) , !I �I , Bei_ t. i_, 1 ; J Klee( iir 1410/ 4111114- ad Ille r --' 41 0 441L, iw j Ii, _67, 1 � M4 N mar ' i0 0.9 1 2 3 4 \r.lik1 It • Source'US Gensus_ V/ 5 Scale in Miles 83 Figure 11:Map of Median Household Income by Census Block Group ( r 1 CI I_ .','( f Median 1 Household 4- Income . ' k' r-1 \-. 1- Li IA, , \"f a 2010 F $14,847-$20,000 I $20,000-$40,000 a`_' �+ ` "'4 $40,000—$60000 f' \ ,J �� Hol[s Summit gar\ IF $60,000-$80,000 / IN / .r. k. } \ "r '� ` $80,000-$100,000 ....yr., I _.,_,..001 . „lei i / .„ IA ,r 4..., ....Pr \ve, Olt ir. r_ l' 10 �� L,1 4 rl+ JAL = /{ s InIi.-__.,0:-_-7;-_. '`—! �I , — ,:__d_r__ : „,,,J___L-1-_,_----- '\-- 1111 - 1111114 ' t city-t rd ---- _n- !ill �� . - '�I* � '� i ` Its } Al -q1 7i k ��l/ rvii_/7����'�f kiis 044k; V VONA r.f Mir ti. o It 4C 4 - - llith ,.._____ ) 4 J', 5.4, ,,,,r if. 4,,t, '— - ' I L ''--- ‘'"t\ v. r 71:Ltd„.'Ll''— pct �� m if lily; "ii 1 � I_ - _ - Tom”—1 4661. t S r iiik 4. coil ---N.,. i - rs... i Ward e✓i I_7)1 1 are - - i\- I;� g N / y, -. f3 3.5 t 2 3 4 -,y� _ l Scale In Maes Source:US Census. s r — 84 Elderly Populations - C � 1 Q S r -An estimate based• ' ! Percent of Population on the U.S.Census '1 65 Years and Older Bureau,2006-2010 '‘.' joil- � MY1 0%-a.4.9%American 5%-9.9% Community Survey } t 10%-14.9% indicates 8,836 L 1 _ 15%-19.9% d,. persons(12.3%)in 20%-2a.9% the CAMPO 25%-z9.9°i° _30%-35% Planning Area were s, ,� r age 65 or older in4-- 2010. -.w-, �:;�' Figure 12: Map of iholl lit \ Elderly Population Nogg a, , , 406 / Location by Census 7`4� F!� � `_ s Block Group + . ' +';; " g"'iialtiir r' �`' NIN ,..- i I a' I ■ c ,��rrers Z" r ./ +elegy 4 'y;fir jI] i I� ,� _,\-� L ' _ 1 r"' iv it Iâi R, _ ___ `.r , x,.19 - ot_ ill ; ;aros . likattly; i (I I 63 ..... _k gistitt ‘1. L tl D.5 1 2 3 4 - iUSCens us. ,. �� Scale in Miles �,) ' s 85 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 Margin of Margin of Margin of Margin of Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Error Error Error 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 86 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 87 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. f # , Limited English Figure 13: Map ofIII a14 ProficientersonsSpeaking Persons Population with %.,' � - (P &. MO,- English Less Than •- Limited English - - Well or Not At All proficiency byL—i,_ Very Well) Block Group 1 jgc 2010 7 L— Holtssuramct_!- 0%-0.2% / +' 0.6%-0.7% r N. ' } (111 jy' r _0.8%-0.9% 11161111 7 ) / ,..,),,,..,r 1 , , I _,Iir 1 _.,_, , ., ,L.__„.,,,,„,,t,...\ , ,... ,, __. ,_, .,,„, ,..„,,,.... ,,„ , / ,_, . ' � 14 IFali �, T, f „, ,..,..„. ,_ ,_____,..„. - 0,,, '4' ala: t'` / I ,, 1� 2�1 — a' �r�µI♦ _ ��-- 'I - ,,,,,.)- - "-Al) I i k yJ`}l „L L. 7 \__,_; -'-...4,.. 4 :.- 1 •••• Allikl; r , ii, _44 ,,,..1__: 1__ -4 , 11 41111 # i\, ilk websvo,, a KNO„,illall - ir.,„, i r )1111 N ...._ ,-404 Nil ,411111t . e i=a .‘, 1----_____ 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 'r \ 1 Scale In M aes Source:US Census. 88 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% 89 Table 35: Employment by Education Tobs by Worker Educational Attainment Count Share Tess 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% Tobs 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 LEND Origin-Destination Employment Statistics(Beginning of Quarter Employment,2nd Quarter of 2002-2010). Table 36:Projected Employment from 2010 to 2035 Change from Change from 2010 2020 2010 to 2020 2035 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 90 Figure 14:Dot Density Map of MPA Employment /.y Number of LnkeykeeL._,,\_......,_.., `••'' 1 Employees �' � ---- 2010 i° o o 0-5 I o 6-100 1 _, cHol>s Summit ' O 101 -500 ,b 2..11111111114111111111114 i� 501 -1000 -..r- 1001 -2000 ° ..r._ ill 2001-2941 --' 1 O r0' _ O 0 Oo Q • • " rY c'O o a O ,st Martins ! O —=0a• 0 • i,-_ 6 a �Q 0 O . -Dlli m ,5 ,,kr.„. D ° °or. o—_' �.°.. .._ • • • ° Ir_ 1•00 O • . . D • --- 0 O Cty of Jefferson 0— • 0 I 0 0o0 ° • r__ ,,ccBBs 0 • O O 0 I I •_ i j 0 0 i 41/1// 0 i , of 11111N lz.t.°1_, 1 14011 0 0 • g Wardsville • 0 0 • .;1'0 I., ,_,.., • IS . j N `.y O �� f ° T 4 0, 1 2 3 4 Source: US Census, Scale In Wes 91 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. 92 • Interchange improvements at US 50 and Truman Blvd/S. County Club. • Center Street Overpass improvements including shoulders, pedestrian facilities and resurfacing. • Route 00(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 S. Summit Drive to Various Connects S Summit Dr.sidewalk Connectivity Project Streets with Brookstone,Lindenwood, Lake Park,Cedars,Hollybrook, and Northstar Subdivisions. East Simon Blvd.and Highway East Simon Blvd.Overpass on Roundabout/Intersection 54 Round-a-bout/Intersection next to north bound exit and improvements connecting Route Improvements Project entrance OO/AA,Karen Drive,HWY 54 ramps, and Platinum Road including adding pedestrian walkway. Highway 54 Pedestrian Bridge Between Simon Blvd and Center Pedestrian bridge across HWY 54 Project St.connecting Karen Dr. and at City Hall and Karen Drive by Hibernia Park Lake Park Subdivision Karen Drive Sidewalk Project Between Simon Blvd and Center Sidewalk from Route 00 HWY Street 54 ramp to Center Street HWY 54 ramp on Karen Drive East Simon Blvd. Overpass Route 00(Simon Blvd HWY 54 Shoulder improvements and Shoulder Improvements Overpass) section improvements on the highway ramps and overpass 93 Center Street Overpass Shoulder Center Street(Center Street HWY Shoulder improvements and Improvements 54 Overpass) section improvements on highway ramps and overpass including adding pedestrian walkway. Center Street and HWY 54 Highway 54 N and East Center Roundabout and intersection Round-a-bout/Intersection Street improvements connecting Center Improvements Project Street,HWY 54,and Karen Drive and a companion to Center Street and Halifax Road Intersection Improvements. Center Street and Halifax Road Intersection of Halifax Road and Intersection improvements at Intersection Improvements Center Street Center Street and Halifax Road, and a companion to Center Street Round-A-Bout/Intersection Improvements Project Route AA/OO Route AA/OO from Callaway Shoulder Improvements from Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk Hills School to Winterwood Callaway Hills School to Improvements Estates Winterwood Estates including curb,gutter,and sidewalks Greenway/Bike Trail Loop and Karen Drive/Summit Drive Loop Loop around Holts Summit with Katy Trail Connection extending to Katy Trail Spur a Greenway Trail extending South to the Katy Trail Third Lane on Route AA/OO Route AA/OO from Callaway Third/Turn Lane from Callaway from Callaway Hills to Hills School to Winterwood Hills School to Winterwood Winterwood Estates Estates Estates including curb,gutter, and sidewalks Storm/Drainage and Crosswalk Intersection of Summit Drive and Improve drainage and cross Improvements at W.Simon Stop W.Simon Blvd. walks including lighting Light improvements at the stop light on Route 00. Public Transportation Project 2 bus stops on Karen Dr. and Extension of JeffTran to stop in Summit Dr. 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. 94 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. JEFFTRAN Program of Projects Illustrative Projects Item Description Total FTA Local 1 Replace Obsolete Lighting in Bus Barn with Energy Efficient Lighting $ 10,000 $ 8,000 $ 2,000 Update Automatic Vehicle Location(AVL)equipment,purchase Automatic Passenger 2 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 Transit Traveler Information System(6-Transfer facility,LU Wellness Center,Capitol Mall, 22 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 95 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 1/z cent sales tax. 96 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 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 I Benefits Benefits 97 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. Capacity Safety and Rte.95 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 Stadium Blvd.to Dix Road/Southwest Pedestrian Crossing Missouri Blvd. 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 Recreational Frog Hollow Branch Frog Hollow Bridge to Mission Dr. Health 98 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 Recreational Tower Area 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 99 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 Safety North to Henwick Lane intersection improvements to Route T Rte.D to Bus 50 Safety (possible round about or other) _ Curb,gutter and sidewalks along Renwick Lane on the west end to Business 50 West Rainbow Drive on the east end of Safety Business 50 Sidewalk on Verdant Lane Business 50 to the City Park Safety Curb,gutter and sidewalks Rainbow Drive to Pioneer Trail Drive Safety along Business 50 Rainbow Drive upgrade Capacity I Safety Business 50 resurfacing I Safety E.Simon Blvd./US54 E.Simon Blvd.overpass to US54 NB Safety Roundabout/Intersection Improvement Exit&Entrance 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 Rt.00 to US54 Overpass Safety Improvements 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 Recreational Trail 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 Monticello Road to end of road Upgrade 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 100 2013 Illustrative Needs List Location Benefits Benefits Ellis/US 54/Route C area 101 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: 102 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. 103 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. 104 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. 105 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. 106 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 June 15,2016 Addition of numerous local plans. Transportation Plan to Other 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 1/2 cent sales tax projects in the City of Jefferson 107 Appendix 6 October 19,2016 Addition of the 2016 Capital Area Pedestrian&Bicycle Plan as Appendix 6. Section 6 May 17,2017 Addition of 2018-2022 TIP Projects, Maps,Updated Fiscal Constraint and Financial Numbers Appendix 2 May 17,2017 Addition of the JEFFTRAN Program of Projects 108 Appendix 8: Current Transportation Improvement Program 109 Transportation Improvement Program Program Years 2018 - 2022 July 1, 2017 —June 30, 2022 "'A-12 . ' ± vT --Yt "'Wk12 r 'kms +-•. - ?,. 4 s d _'in 4. .'ass ref 4 • J 'L rV #r. = {{y�; CAMP 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. 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.govicampo 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 (Resolution approving TIP goes here) i (CAMPO Board, TC, and staff listing goes here) ii 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. CAMPO Metropolitan Planning Area Boundary ' "L ' All Approved by the Board of Directors January 16,2013 e fyl�yy Laka Mykse Approved by the Governor of Missouri ROI. March 12,2013414 Al f co j Halts/Sum—mill i 1~ �. tae En 1 411111111111111,it. .* v in li Pi- l MaIt- ,_IV , .. ..,,,64. - ,,,...,,,, .......,.. .......,...„,1/4 , \,, f q 0" 1' 1 .--11'7,47.„::::',..7,t°,1° Ile S- D � : ,-- A- . pf ,u,\1 , 1 NL., ,__,4)\ .7-- , -1.0 ---) .//`L._ / 1 ,_ : 1 141•6 '< I'. 1. 1__J Taos 7 1 Wardsvillel. © \— ©J ri Legend — - 0 Board Approved Planning Area Boundary ___ r� _-- / \rTh M_ _1 Municipal Boundary % )„ — m 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 1 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 2 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 3 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. 4 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 1/2 cent sales tax to support its Capital Improvement Program and a I/2 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 '/2 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. 5 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. Available Local Transportation Funds 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($0.2466levy) $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 $ - CountyAidRoadTrust-StateFuelTax $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 $ - CountyAidRoadTrust-StateFuelTax $ 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 $ - CountyAidRoadTrust-StateFuelTax $ 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 lmprovement* $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 100,000 Taos $ - CountyAidRoadTrust-StateFuelTax $ 35,953_$ 36,672 $ 37,405 $ 38,154 $ 38,917 $ 187,101 Sales Tax-1/2%Capital lmprovement* $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 100,000 Wardsville $ - CountyAidRoadTrust-StateFuelTax $ 61,669 $ 62,902 $ 64,160 $ 65,443 $ 66,752 $ 320,927 Sales Tax-1/2%Capital lmprovement* $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 100,000 OATS $ - PassengerFares,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 Total Local Funds $ 121,624,273 Note:County Aid Road Trust includes State Fuel Tax,VehicleSales/Use Tax and Licensing Fees. CART Funds based on 2016 numbers from MoDOT.There is a conservative two(2) Please see more on CART funds here:http://dor.mo.gov/publ icreports/index.phpftmotorfuel percent increase per year,based on historical numbers. *This is distributed from Cole County 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. 6 Table 2-Programmed and Available Funds by Source. Programmed Funds Available Funds Federal 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 H51P $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 SW $392,828 55,106,400 $11,200 $1,132,000 $1,163,200 $7,805,628 $392,828 $5,106,400 $11,200 $1,132,000 $1,163,200 $7,805,628 FHWA TAP $278,564 $0 $0 $0 $0 $278,564 $278,564 $0 $0 $0 $0 $278,564 FHWA SH RP $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 $o $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 State 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 SWI MB $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 MoDOT TCOS $4,775,800_$2,362,150 $3,866,150 $296,750 $304,550 $11,605,400 $4,775,800 $2,362,150 $3,866,150 $296,750 $304,550 $11,605,400 Local _ Jefferson City $2,169,604 $1,285,332 $1,323,892 $1,363,609 $1,404,517 $7,546,954 $2,169,604 $1,285,332 $1,323,892 $1,363,609 $1,404,517 $7,546,954 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 Yearly Totals $9,308,899 $14,154,747 $8,144,407 $6,234,256 $6,419,158 $9,308,899 $14,154,747 $8,144,407 $6,234,256 $6,419,158 Total Programmed Total $44,261,467 Total Available Funds $44,261,467 7 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 8 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. Urban Urban Urban Urban Rural Rural Rural Total Percent of Other Other Minor Collector Other Minor Major Total Freeway Principal Arterial Principal Arterial Collector (Jurisdiction) Express Arterial Arterial way 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. 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. 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 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. 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 9 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. 10 Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects rid Bge m-ro ects MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA NHPP $21,000 $4,000 $54,400 $79,400 Name. Dix Road Bridge Improvements _N MoDOT TCOS $6,000 $1,000 $13,600 $20,600 TIP# 2013-05 C Local _ _ $0 MoDOTad 5P3015 Other $0 Description&Location:Bridge improvements to FHWA $0 the Dix Road bridge over US 50. o MoDOT $0 w Local $0 Other $0 C FHWA NHPP $757,600 _ $757,600 Comments:Involves bridge number A1187. N MoDOT TCOS $189,400 $189,400 Award date 2019. s Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $1,047,000 Total $27,000 $5,000 $1,015,000 $0 $0 $o $0 $1,047,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals ' Project FHWA STP $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $48,000 State System Bridge Inspection E Name: N MoDOT TCOS $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $12,000 - 11P# 2015-03 C Local _ $0 MoDOT# Other $0 Description&Location: State Bridge hspection FHWA $0 Program for on-system bridges at various 0 MoDOT - - $0 locations throughout the MPO. w Local $0 Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments: N MoDOT $0 s Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $60,000 Total $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $60,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals _ Project FHWA STP $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $12,000 Name: Non-State System Bridge Inspection N MoDOT TCOS $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 - $3,000 TIP# 2014-04 o Local $0 MODOT# Other $0 Description&Location:Non-State System FHWA $0 Bridge hspection Program for off-system 0 MoDOT $0 bridges at various locations throughout the w Local $o NP0 Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments: N MoDOT $0 s Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $15,000 Total $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $0 $15,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA NHPP $19,200 $20,000 $266,400 $305,600 Bridge Improvements over Route 54 E Name: _ N MODOT TCOS $4,800 $5,000 $66,600 $76,400 TIP# 2018-01 G Local $0 M000-17/553261 Other $0 Description&Location:Includes bridge FHWA NHPP $8,000 _ $8,000 improvements on Route 94 over Little Tavern 0 MoDOT TCOS $2,000 $2,000 Creek in Callaway County and West Main over w Local $0 Route 54/63 in Cole County Other $0 C FHWA NHPP _ $1,464,000 _ _ _ $1,464,000 Comments:Project involves bridges A3451, N MoDOT TCOS $366,000 $366,000 A4265,and A4662.Award date 2020. s Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $2,222,000 Total $0 $24,000 $35,000 $2.163,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,222 000 1 _ Roadway Projects MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWAUS 50 Outer Road Improvements E MODO $o Name: N MoDOT TCOS $200 $18,800 $19,000 t 1 C Local $0 MoDOT-5P3200 MoDOT TCOS(AC) $800 $75,200 $76,000 Description&Location:Includes ramps at FHWA $0 Route 50 and Truman Blvd.hcludes a portion o MoDOT _ - $0 of Mssouri Blvd.,a portion of Truman Blvd., w Local $0 and a portion of Big Horn Dr. Other - $0_ C FHWA $0 Comments:Pavement improvements.Award date 2018. N MoDOT TCOS $237,800 $237,800 Anticipated federal reimbursement from STP. s Local $0- T MoDOT TCOS(AC) $951,200 $951,200 Total Project Cost: $1,284,000 Total $1,000 $1,283,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,284,000 11 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals ProName: FHWA $0 US 54 Pavement Improvements E Name: _ N MoDOT TCOS $12,000 $43,000 $55,000 TIP# 2017-04 c Local $0 MODOV5P3118 MoDOT TCOS(AC) $8,000 $172,000 $180,000 Description&Location:Pavement,bridge,and FHWA $0 guardrail improvements from just west of Stadium Blvd. oR MoDOT $0 in Jefferson City to west of the Missouri River bridge. w Local $0 Project involves bridges A1307 and A1672. Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments:Award date 2018.Anticipated N MoDOT TCOS $519,400 $519,400 federal reimbursement from STP. s Local $0 T MoDOT TCOS(AC) $2,077,600 _ $2,077,600 Total Project Cost: $2,832,000 Total $20,000 $2,812,000 SO 00 $0 $0 $0 $2,832,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA NHPP $8,000 $8,000 $227,200 $243,200 US 54 Pavement Improvements Name: , MoDOT TCOS $27,000 $2,000 $56,800 $85,800 TIP# 2017-05 c Local $0 NbDOTd 5P3121 Other $0 Description&Location:Pavement FHWA $0 improvements on the eastbound and oR MoDOT $0 westbound lanes of US 54 from Route E(near w Local _ _ $0 Brazito)to near Stadium Blvd.in Jefferson City. Other _ $0 C FHWA NHPP $3,040,000 $3,040,000 Comments:Length:Award Date 2019 N MoDOT TCOS $760,000 $760,000 s Local _ - _ $o T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $4,129,000 Total $35,000 $10,000 $4,084,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,129,000 City of Jefferson Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Stadium&US 54 Intersection FHWA STP $289,360 $289,360 Name: Improvements N MoDOT $0 11P# 2013-15 G Local 1/2%Sales Tat $72,340 $72,340 MDDOTdd Local $0 Description&Location:Highway FHWA $0 54/Jefferson/Stadium Boulevard, o MoDOT $0 Stadium/Monroe&US 54/Christy Dr.Access, w Local 1/2%Sales Ta, $100,000 $100,000 Capacity,and Safety Improvements. Local 1/2%Sales Ta, $100,000 $100,000 C FHWA STP $249,170 $249,170 _ $498,340 Comments:Local funding is from 1/2%Jefferson City N MoDOT $0 Capital Improvement sales tax and Cole County 1/2% S Local 1/2%Sales Tao $360,165 $360,165 $720,330 sales tax T Local 1/2%Sales Tot $360,165 $360,165 $720,330 Total Project Cost: $2,500,700 Total $1,531,200 $969,500 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500,700 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 _Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Enhancement Projects in Central FHWA STP $67,200 $67,200 Name: District N MoDOT TCOS $16,800 $16,800 11P# 2017-12 c Local $0 MoDOT#0S3021F Other $o Description&Location: ADA Transition Ran FHWA $0 improvements at various locations in the o MoDOT $0 Central District w Local $0 Other $0 C FHWA STP $1,053,600 $1,053,600 Comments:$1.2 million statewide transportation 0 MoDOT TCOS _ $263,400_ $263,400 alternatives funds.Award Date 2021. g Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $1,401,000 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,401,000 $0 $0 $1,401,0001 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Enhancement Projects in Central FHWA STP $67,200 $67,200 Name: District N MoDOT TCOS $16,800 $16,800 TIP# 2018-05 G Local $0 MoDOTN OS3022F Other $0 Description&Location:ADA Transition Ran FHWA $0 improvements at various locations in the R MoDOT $0 Central District w Local _ _ $0 Other _ _ _ $0 C FHWA STP $1,084,800 $1,084,800 Comments:$1.2 million statewide transportation 0 MoDOT TCOS $271,200 $271,200 alternatives funds.Award Date 2022. s Local _ _ _ $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $1,440,000 Total $0 $0 SO SO $0 $1,440,000 $0 $1,440,050 12 Other Projects MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA HSIP $40,500 $4,500 $900 $45,900 Name: Scoping Routes M,B&W N MoDOT Safety $4,500 $500 $100 $5,100 TIP# 2013-16 c Local $0 MoDOTd 5S2234 Other $0 Description&Location:Scoping for safety FHWA $0 improvements at the intersection of Route M oR MoDOT $0 and Route Win Wardsville. w Local $0 Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments:Anticipated federal funding category: N MoDOT $0 Safety.Future construction costs:$301,000 to s Local $0 $1,000,000. T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $51,000 - Total $45,000 55,000 51,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $51,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA HSIP $118,800 $118,800 Safety Projects in Central District e Name: N MoDOT Safety $13,200 $13,200 I - TIP# '2017-16 O Local $0 MoDOT#OP3021 F Other $0 Description&Location: Safety projects at FHWA $0 various locations in the Central District. o MoDOT $0 w Local _ $0 Other $0 C FHWA HSIP $1,858,500 $1,858,500 Comments:$1.89 million from Open Container N MoDOT Safety $206,500 $206,500 funds.Award Date 2021.90/10 Grant/match. s Local _ $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $2,197,000 Total $0 $0 SO $0 $2,197,000 $0 $0 $2,197,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA HSIP $118,800 $118,800 Safety Projects in Central District e Name: N MoDOT Safety $13,200 $13,200 TIP# 2018-04 o Local $0 MoDOTdOP3022F Other $0 Description&Location:Safety projects at FHWA $0 various locations in the Central District. o MoDOT $0 w Local $0 Other $0 C FHWA HSIP $1,914,300 $1,914,300 Comments:$1.89 million from Open Container N MoDOT Safety $212,700 $212,700 funds.Aw and Date 2022.90/10 Grant/match. s Local _ $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $2,259,000 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,259,000 $0 $2,259,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 - Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Guard Cable&Guardrail Repair in FHWA $o Name: Northern Central District N MoDOT TCOS 07,600 $7,600 TIP# 2018-06 o Local $0 MODOT115P3274 MoDOT TCOS(AC) 530,400 $30,400 Description&Location:Job order contracting FHWA $0 for guard cables and guardrail repair on N MoDOT $0 various routes in the northern portion of the w Local $0 Central District. Other _-_ $0 C FHWA $0 Comments:Award Date Spring 2018. N MoDOT TCOS $102,000 $102,000 Anticipated federal reimbursement from STP. s Local $0 T MoDOT TCOS(AC) $408,000 $408,000 Total Project Cost: $548,000 1 Total $0 0548,000 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $548,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA STP $23,200 $4,000 $1,000 $1,000 51,000 $1,000 $31,200 Name: Scoping for Pavement Improvements N MoDOT TCOS $5,800 $1,000 $250 $250 $250 $250 $7,800 1 TIP# 2017-22 o Local $0 MoDOTt/5P3044 Other $0 - Description&Location:Scoping for pavement FHWA $0 improvements on various routes in the Central N MoDOT $0 District. w Local $0 _Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments:Anticipated federal funding category:STP. N MoDOT $0 - Future construction cost$15 million-$25 million. S Local _ $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $39,000 Total $29,000 $5,000 $1,250 $1,250 $1,250 $1,250 $0 $39,000 13 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA STP $48,000 $4,000 $200 $200 $200 $200 $52,800 Nan' Slide Repair Scoping N MoDOT TCOS $12,000 $1,000 $50 $50 $50 $50 $13,200 TIP# '2015-07 G Local $0 M3DOT#5S3081 Other $0 Description&Location:Scoping for slide FHWA $0 repairs in the northern portion of the Cental oR MoDOT $0 District at various locations. w Local $0 Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments:Anticipated Federal Funding Category- N MoDOT $0 STP.Future construction cost$2 million-5 million. s Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $66,000 Total 060.000 $5,000 $250 S250 5250 $250 $0 $66,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project On-call Work Zone EnforcementFHWA HSIP $900 $900 Name: N MoDOT Safety $100 $100 ' TIP# 2017-21 c Local $0 NbDOT/I5P3217 _Other . $0 Description&Location:On-call work zone FHWA _ $0 enforcement at various locations in the Central oR MoDOT $0 District. w Local - $0 Other $0 C FHWA HSIP $31,500 $31,500 Comments:90/10 match,using federal and N MoDOT Safety $3,500 $3,500 tvbDOT safety funds. s Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $36,000 Total $0 $36,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $36,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA HSIP $900 $900 On-call Work Zone Enforcement .e Name: H MoDOT Safety $100 _ $100 11P# 2018-07 c Local $0 MbDOT#5P3224 Other $0 Description&Location:On-call work zone FHWA _ _ _ $0 enforcement at various locations in the Central oR MoDOT $0 District. w Local $0 Other $0 C FHWA HSIP $31,500_ _ $31,500 Comments:90/10 match,using federal and N MoDOT Safety $3,500 $3,500 MoDOT safety funds. s Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $36,000 Total $0 $0 $36,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $36,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 _Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Scoping for Safety Improvements for FHWA HSIP $45,000 $202,500 $45,000 $292,500 Name: U.S.54 in Cole,Miler,and Camden N MoDOT TCOS $5,000 $22,500 $5,000 $32,500 11P# 2017-25 c Local _ $0_ MDDOT#5P3222 MoDOT $0 Description&Location:Scoping for safety FHWA $0 improvements along US 54 in Cole,Miller,and Ro MoDOT $0 Camden counties. From West of Stadium w Local $0 Boulevard in Jefferson City to Cecil Street in MoDOT $0 Camdenton. C FHWA $0 Comments: Anticipated future cost is between N MoDOT $0 $5 and$10 million. s Local $0 T MoDOT $0 Total Project Cost: $325,000 Total $50,000 $225,000 $50,000 50 00 $0 $0 $325,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals ProjectSurveying F FHWA $0 Name: H MoDOT TCOS $50,000 $25,000 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $105,000 TIP# 2018-08 c Local $0 MoDOTt/5P3179 MoDOT $0 Description&Location: Surveying to sell FHWA $0 excess right of way parcels in the Central o MoDOT $0 District. w Local $o MoDOT $0 C FHWA $0 Comments: No federal funds used for this N MoDOT $0 project. s Local $0 T MoDOT $0 Total Project Cost: $105,000 Total $50,000 $25,000 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $0 $105,000 14 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Pavement and shoulder irlprovements FHWA STP $0 Name: on Route M E MoDOT TCOS $8,000 $8,000 $113,200 $129,200 TIP# 2018-02 C Local $0 MODOT#5S3230 MoDOT TCOS(AC) $32,000 $32,000 $452,800 $516,800 Description&Location:Pavement and shoulder FHWA $0 improvements from Rte.B to Rte.50.Includes oR MoDOT $0 pavements and shoulder improvements on Rte.E from w Local $0 Rte.54 to Rte.B.Project also includes pavement MoDOT $0 improvements on Rte.W,Rte.Y and Rte.J. C FHWA STP $0 Comments:Potential ADA improvements in N MoDOT TCOS $570,200 $570,200 Taos.Award date 2020.Anticipated Federal s Local __ $0 Fltndn'STP T MoDOT TCOS(AC) $2,280,800 $2,280,800 Total Project Cost: $3,497,000 Total $0 $40,000 $40,000 $3,417,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,497,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Pavement and shoulder improvements FHWA STP $32,000 $397,600 $429,600 Name: on Route C E MoDOT TCOS $8,000 $99,400 $107,400 KM 2018-03 G Local $0 MoDOT-5S3259 MoDOT $0 Description&Location:Pavement and shoulder FHWA $0 improvements from Route 52 near Versailles to oR MoDOT $0 Jefferson City. w Local $0 Other _ $0 C FHWA STP $4,697,600 $4,697,600 Comments:Award date Fall 2018. N MoDOT TCOS $1,174,400 $1,174,400 s Local $0 T MoDOT $0 Total Project Cost: $6,409,000 Total $0 $40,000 $6,369,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,409,000 MoDOT Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Scoping for ADA Improvements in FHWA $0 Name: Various Locations EMoDOT TCOS $5,000 $1,250 $1,250 $1,250 $1,250 _ $10,000 TIP# 2018-09 G Local _ $0 MODOT#(5P3254 MoDOT TCOS(AC) $20,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $40,000 Description&Location:Scoping for ADA FHWA $0 improvements at various locations in Chamois, o MoDOT _ $0 Frankenstein,Route M in Taos,and Route Win w Local $0 Wardsville. Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments:Anticipated Federal Category-STP. °MoDOT _ $0 Includes sidewalks,curb ramps,entrances,and signals s Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $50,000 Total $0 $25,000 $6,250 $6,250 $6,250 $6,250 $0 $50,000 City of Jefferson Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project aark Avenue Interchange Project FHWA STP $93,658 $93,658 Name: Traffic Study N MoDOT $0 TIP# 2018-12 G Local Sales Tax $21,342 $21,342 MDDOT# Other $0 Description&Location:A traffic study and a FHWA $0 contextually specific conceptual design.The goal of the o -•MODOT $0 study will be to address the congestion and safety w Local $0 concerns along this corridor.A reduction in congestion ether $0 will lead to increased accessibility. C FHWA $0 Comments:It is assumed that the study will indicated 0 MoDOT $0 that improvements be made to the intersections of NsLocal $0 Dunklin,Elm,the ramp terminals and Miller Street. T Other $0 Total Proect Cost: $115,000 Total $0 $115,000 $O $0 $0 $0 $0 $115,000 Pedestrian&Bicycle Projects City of Jefferson Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Community ParkGreenway Trailhead E FHWA RTP $8,000 $6,000 mm Name: H MoDOT $0 TIP# 2017-24 G Local $0 MODOT# Other $0 Description&Location: Development of a FHWA $0 greenway trailhead at Community Park-a restroom, o MoDOT $0 spray ground,misting station,water fountain,bike rack, w Local $0 additional parking,benches,landscaping,and lighting. Other $0 Paid for by Local Parks Sales Tax. C FHWA RTP $71,000 $71,000 $142,000 Comments:The Jefferson City Cultural Arts N MoDOT $0 Foundation,Central Bank and Ameren Missouri have s Local Parks Tax $70,000 $70,000 $140,000 pledged donations to help fund the project. T Other Private Don. $19,000 $19,000 Total Project Cost: $309,000 1 Total $168,000 $141,000 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $309,000 15 City of Jefferson Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Missouri Boulevard Sidew alk,Beck to FHWA TAP _ _ $0 Name: Waverly N MoDOT $0 TIP# 12017-27 G Local Sales Tax $0 N10DOTii MoDOT _ _ $0 Description&Location:Construct a S wide FHWA $0 sidew alk along the northern side of Mssouri 0 MoDOT $0 Boulevard from Beck Street to Waverly Street. w Local $0 - Includes Bicycle/Pedestrian/Transit facilities. Mo00T $0 C FHWA TAP $278,564 $278,564 Comments: TAP Grant aw ardee. N MoDOT $0 - - s Local Sales Tax $69,641 $69,641 T MoDOT $0 Total Project Cost: $348,205 Total $0 S348,205 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $348,205 Public Transportation Projects City of Jefferson-JEFFTRAN Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project 0 Other Pass.Fares $598,000 $223,510 $230,215_ $237,122 $244,235 $251,562 $1,784,644 Operating Assistance Name: P MoDOT State Operatinc $17,500 $7,725 $7,957 $8,195 $8,441 $8,694 $58,512 TIP# 2011-04 6 Local $2,287,506 $1,247,895 $1,285,332 $1,323,892 $1,363,609 $1,404,517 $8,912,751 tvbDOT# R FTA 5307 $1,595,207 $775,236 $798,493 $822,448 $847,121 $872,535 $5,711,040 Description&Location:Operating Assistance FHWA $0 for JEFFTRAN service w ithin city limits of 0 M000T $0 Jefferson Qty(A 3%annual inflation factor w Local $5 applied.) Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments: N MoDOT $0 S Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $16,466,947 Total $4,498,213 $2,254,366 $2,321,997 $2,391,657 $2,463,406 $2,537,308 $0 $16,466,947' City of Jefferson-JEFFTRAN Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 I 2021 I 2022 Future Totals Project FHWA $0 Paratransit Bus Purchase Name: N MoDOT $0 TIP# 2017-28 G Local CIP $40,396 $40,396 tVbDOT$/ FTA 5310 $97,466 $97,466 Description&Location: Purchase 2 E450 FHWA $0 Bkhart Coach II,Floor Ran CC handi-Wheel 0 MoDOT $0 buses with Apollo 5 camera systems. w Local $0 Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments:Will replace 2 2010 model year N Mo00T $0 buses. s Local _ $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $137,862 Total $0 $137,862 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $137,862 16 Map of Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects ti / r c r - CAMPO ��.� ;11� Transportation Improvement Program of taxa y#aa July 1,2017-June 30,2022 - TIPS#2017-26` All •Brld a U3 54 Safety Improvements In � i b - Y P 9 Callaway County 1 .Road Improvement ~�; _ I —Pedestrian Facility v., i�' - I -I r/ �'`� \'✓ l Ildls Su_mmk _ f T117#2017-04 I 1 '' US 54 Pavement Improvements Irom.- J`1O� near Stadium Blvd.to the Missouri River 1 r 1 -( o ,` L�_! '� TIP#2013-05 11 f IM111111W TIP#ads imp Dix Road Bridge Improvements TIP#2016-01 Route 50 outer roads improvements. (' yam TMJ I � � `�j������������`��'TTT���... Bddge Improvements over Route 54� / TIP#201724 �� �� TIP#2017-27 t ! Community ParkG¢enwaY Trailhead 1-I� 41/Mlssou BoulevaN Sidewalk �� .� � Beck M Wav,riy •� -_ TIP#2018-03 -' y - Pavement and shoulder improvements , 63 �_ ` 10(,,_,____,,, on Roure C Y (/ - '� � Y J 1 t Stadium, ,Mo e,8 US 54 r Access andnd Intersection Improvement1 i, i, CI l /I j IIS. f� l , TIP N2013-16 - I �1 r ! I ✓ r_ = scoping Rout,M and W '—t f ria TIP#2017-05 war#arulel _r US 54 Pave ent Improvements from A !% ! RouleEre near Statliom Blutl. TIP#2018-02 �, \ N. -7" " Pavement and shoulder improvements A © `T } L on Routes M.W.Y,E and ilb iW41, 1 TIP#2017-25 - - '- Soaping for Safely Improvements along _ TIP#2018-02 US 54 in Cole.Miller,and Camden counties Pavement and shoulder improvements ------ti, p i on Routes M.W,Y,E and J a -7 171 1 ..1. 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 \ \ I r • Scale in Mils; \ \ /I $ 17 Program of Projects - OATS OATS Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project C FTA 5339 $40,000 540,000 Capital Funding-Vehicles A Name: P MODOT $0 TIP# 2015-01 l Local $2,000_ $2,000 MoDOTN T OATS $8,000 $8,000 Description&Location:Replacement of lift FHWA $0 equipped vehicles throughout service region. o M0DOT $0 w Local $0 Other $0 + C FHWA $0 Comments:Previous TIP Minder 2011-03 N MoDOT $0 S Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $50,000 Total $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 OATS Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project C FHWA 5310 $94,053 $94,053 Capital Funding-VehiclesA Name: P MoDOT - $0 TIP# 2018-10 i Local $0 MODOTti T Other $23,513 $23,513 Description&Location:Requested two(2) FHWA $0 vehicles to provide service in Jefferson City o MoDOT $0 and surrounding area w Local $0 Other $0 • C FHWA $0 Comments:Other Funding-OATS,hc. N MoDOT $0 S Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $117,566 Total $0 $117,566 SO 00 00 $0 $0 0117,566 OATS Funding Prior State Program Year-July 1 to June 30 Source Category Funding 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Future Totals Project Operating Assistance o FHWA 5310 $60,000 $60,000 $70,000 $70,000 $75,000 $335,000 Name: P MoDOT $0 TIP# 2018-11 6 Local $60,000 $60,000 $70,000 $70,000 $75,000 $335,000 MoDOT!/ 6 Other $4,900 $5,000 $5,000 $5,100 $5,100 $25,100 Description&Location:Within the Jefferson FHWA $0 City NPO Region-Section 5310 Program for o Moo0T $0 Hderly and Handicapped w Local $0 Other $0 C FHWA $0 Comments:Other Funding-OATS,Inc. N MoDOT $0 s Local $0 T Other $0 Total Project Cost: $695,100 Total $0 $124,900 $125,000 $145,000 $145,100 $155,100 $0 $695,100 18 Program of Projects - JEFFTRAN JEFFTRAN Program of Projects Illustrative Projects Item Description Total FTA _Local 1 Replace Obsolete Lighting in Bus Barn with Energy Efficient Lighting $ 10,000 $ - $ 10,000 Update Automatic Vehicle Location(AVL)equipment,purchase Automatic Passenger 2 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 30ft.low floor buses for 2020 delivery(2) $ 1,200,000 $ 960,000 $ 240,000 17 Replace current low-floor route buses with 30ft.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 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. 19 Appendix A — Amendments and Administrative Modifications Amendments TIP No. Project Description Project Sponsor Project Cost Board OneDOT Approval Approval TIP Amendment 1 Administrative Modifications TIP No. Project Description Project Sponsor Project Cost Date 20 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) The NHPP provides support for the condition and performance of http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/nhpp.cfm 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) The Surface Transportation Program(STP)provides flexible funding http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/stp.cfm 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) Highway Safety Improvement Program(HSIP)is to support a http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/ 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) Funds most activities funded under the Transportation http://www.thwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/tap.cfin Enhancements,Recreational Trails,and Safe Routes to School programs under SAFETEA-LU. Railway-Highway Crossings(set-aside from HSIP) This program funds safety improvements to reduce the number of http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/ncc.cfm fatalities,injuries,and crashes at public grade crossings. FTA Programs Eligible Activities Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grants This program provides grants to Urbanized Areas (UZA)for public http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP- transportation capital,planning,job access and reverse commute 21 Fact Sheet - projects,as well as operating expenses in certain circumstances. Urbanized Area_Formula_Grants.pdf Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and This program is intended to enhance mobility for seniors and persons Individuals with Disabilities with disabilities by providing funds for programs to serve the special http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP- needs of transit-dependent populations beyond traditional public 21 Fact Sheet - transportation services and Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals wit complementary paratransit services. h Disabilities.pdf Section 5311 Formula Grants for Rural Areas This program provides capital,planning,and operating assistance to http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP- states to support public transportation in rural areas with populations 21 Fact Sheet - less than 50,000,where many residents often rely on public transit to _Formula_Grants_for_Rural_Areas.pdf reach their destinations. Section 5329 Transit Safety&Oversight MAP-21 grants FTA the authority to establish and enforce a new http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP- comprehensive framework to oversee the safety of public 21 Fact Sheet - Transit Safety and Oversight.pdf transportation throughout the United States as it pertains to heavy rail,light rail,buses,ferries,and streetcars. Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Provides capital funding to replace,rehabilitate and purchase buses http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP- and related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities. 21 Fact Sheet - Bus and Bus Facilities.pdf 21 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 22 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. 23 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 24 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. 25 Appendix D — Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process Certification 26 Appendix E — Definitions Attainment area means any geographic area in which levels of a given criteria air State Transportation Agency's program resources, 2) that have a high level of pollutant(e.g.,ozone,carbon monoxide,PM10,PM2.5,and nitrogen dioxide)meet public or congressional attention,or 3)that have extraordinary implications for the the health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for that national transportation system. pollutant.An area may be an attainment area for one pollutant and a nonattainment Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) means the geographic area determined by area for others. A maintenance area (see definition below) is not considered an agreement between the metropolitan planning organization(MPO)for the area and attainment area for transportation planning purposes. the Governor,in which the metropolitan transportation planning process is carried Available funds means funds derived from an existing source dedicated to or out. historically used for transportation purposes.For Federal funds,authorized and/or Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) means the official multimodal appropriated funds and the extrapolation of formula and discretionary funds at transportation plan addressing no less than a 20-year planning horizon that is historic rates of increase are considered available.A similar approach may be used developed, adopted, and updated by CAMPO through the metropolitan for State and local funds that are dedicated to or historically used for transportation transportation planning process. purposes. Nonattainment area means any geographic region of the United States that has been Conformity means a Clean Air Act(42 U.S.C.7506(c))requirement that ensures that designated by the EPA as a nonattainment area under section 107 of the Clean Air Federal funding and approval are given to transportation plans, programs and Act for any pollutants for which an NAAQS exists. 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 Obligated projects means strategies and projects funded under title 23 U.S.C. and transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations,worsen existing title 49 U.S.C.Chapter 53 for which the supporting Federal funds were authorized violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. The transportation and committed by the State or designated recipient in the preceding program year, conformity rule (40 CFR part 93) sets forth policy, criteria, and procedures for and authorized by the FHWA or awarded as a grant by the FTA. demonstrating and assuring conformity of transportation activities. Program of Projects(POP) is a list of projects to be funded in a grant application Cooperation means that the parties involved in carrying out the transportation submitted to FTA by a designated recipient. The POP lists the subrecipients and planning and programming processes work together to achieve a common goal or indicates whether they are private non-profit agencies,governmental authorities,or objective. private providers of transportation service,designates the areas served(including rural areas),and identifies any tribal entities. In addition,the POP includes a brief Coordination means the cooperative development of plans,programs,and schedules description of the projects,total project cost,and Federal share for each project. among agencies and entities with legal standing and adjustment of such plans, programs,and schedules to achieve general consistency,as appropriate. Project selection means the procedures followed by MPOs, States, and public transportation operators to advance projects from the first four years of an approved Design concept means the type of facility identified for a transportation improvement TIP and/or STIP to implementation,in accordance with agreed upon procedures. project(e.g.,freeway,expressway,arterial highway,grade separated highway,toll road,reserved right-of-way rail transit,mixed-traffic rail transit,or busway). Project sponsor must be a city, county, state, or other transportation related government agency eligible to receive federal funding from the Federal Highway Design scope means the aspects that will affect the proposed facility's impact on the or Federal Transit Administrations. All other entities must partner with a city, region,usually as they relate to vehicle or person carrying capacity and control county,or state agency to apply for and/or administer a transportation project. (e.g., number of lanes or tracks to be constructed or added, length of project, signalization, safety features, access control including approximate number and Public transportation operator means the public entity which participates in the location of interchanges,or preferential treatment for high occupancy vehicles). 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 Financial Plan means documentation required to be included with a metropolitan designated recipient of Federal funds under title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 for transportation plan and TIP (and optional for the long-range statewide transportation by a conveyance that provides regular and continuing general or transportation plan and STIP) that demonstrates the consistency between special transportation to the public, but does not include school bus, charter, or reasonably available and projected sources of Federal, State, local, and private intercity bus transportation or intercity passenger rail transportation provided by revenues and the costs of implementing proposed transportation system Amtrak. improvements. Regionally significant project means a transportation project(other than projects that Financially Constrained or Fiscal Constraint means that the metropolitan may be grouped in the TIP and/or STIP or exempt projects as defined in EPA's transportation plan, TIP, and STIP includes sufficient financial information for transportation conformity regulation(40 CFR part 93))that is on a facility which demonstrating that projects in the metropolitan transportation plan,TIP,and STIP serves regional transportation needs(such as access to and from the area outside can be implemented using committed,available,or reasonably available revenue the region;major activity centers in the region;major planned developments such sources, with reasonable assurance that the federally supported transportation as new retail malls, sports complexes, or employment centers; or transportation system is being adequately operated and maintained. For the TIP and the STIP, terminals) and would normally be included in the modeling of the metropolitan financial constraint/fiscal constraint applies to each program year. Additionally, area's transportation network. At a minimum,this includes all principal arterial projects in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas can be included in the highways and all fixed guideway transit facilities that offer a significant alternative first two years of the TIP and STIP only if funds are available or committed. to regional highway travel. Illustrative Project means an additional transportation project that may(but is not Statewide transportation improvement program (STIP) means a statewide required to)be included in a financial plan for a metropolitan transportation plan, prioritized listing/program of transportation projects covering a period of four years TIP,or STIP if reasonable additional resources were to become available. that is consistent with the long-range statewide transportation plan,metropolitan Maintenance Area means any geographic region of the United States that the EPA transportation plans,and TIPs,and required for projects to be eligible for funding previously designated as a nonattainment area for one or more pollutants pursuant under title 23 U.S.C.and title 49 U.S.C.Chapter 53. to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,and subsequently redesignated as an Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a document prepared by a attainment area subject to the requirement to develop a maintenance plan under metropolitan planning organization that lists projects to be funded with section 175A of the Clean Air Act,as amended. FHWA/FTA funds for the at least next one-to three-year period. Major Projects-These transportation improvements are defined as projects receiving Unified Planning Work Plan(UPWP)is the management plan for the(metropolitan) Federal financial assistance 1)with an estimated total cost of$500 million or more planning program. Its purpose is to coordinate the planning activities of all or 2) that have been identified by the FHWA as being a Major Project. The participants in the planning process. designated projects may include those: 1)that require a substantial amount of a 27 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 7Federal 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 1°Detailed in 23 CFR 450.308 11 Amended May 24,2011 12 Participation section from requirements for MIT 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. 2°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 dassification 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 27http://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. 47East West Gateway Coordinating Council.September 21,1998 http://www.ewgateway.org/trans/LongRgPlan/TRII/CongesPaper/congespaperl.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#tocl 5o 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/ 34 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) 111 Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Room 120 320 E. McCarty, Jefferson City, MO 65101 Phone 573.634.6410 Fax 573.634.6457 9ll emorand um TO: CAMPO Board of Directors FROM: Katrina Williams, Transportation Planner DATE: May 10,2017 SUBJECT: Status of Current Work Tasks Major active work tasks to be discussed at the May 17,2017 Board of Directors meeting include: • Visioning and Travel Demand Model update. A consultant has been chosen and staff has begun contract negotiations. • JEFFTRAN System-Wide Assessment. The JEFFTRAN System-Wide Assessment is being conducted by the Lochmueller Group, Inc. The consultant held several stakeholder meetings and interviewed staff in March. A survey tool is currently under development and should be available for the public in May. • MTP update. Staff has begun the process of editing content and reformatting the plan, including review of the illustrative project list and integration of performance measures. • Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan. The plan will be presented to the City of Jefferson City Council for their endorsement on May 15, coinciding with National Bike Month. • Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan. Staff has started the process to update the plan. Staff will be coordinating with Mid-MO RPC, due to both agencies undergoing a similar update. • Capital Eclipse. Staff has been asked to assist with planning for the upcoming solar eclipse celebration. Alex Rotenberry is participating in bicycle planning and Katrina Williams is participating in parking and transportation planning. The Capital Eclipse Event will occur August 19-21, 2017. Agenda Item 8A 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.