The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About2022-04-07 packet Individuals should contact the ADA Coordinator at (573) 634-6570 to request accommodations or alternative formats as required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please allow three business days to process the request. Please call (573) 634-6410 with questions regarding agenda items. Technical Committee Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. Meeting Location: Boone-Bancroft Room, John G. Christy Municipal Building 320 E. McCarty, Jefferson City, MO 65101 - Enter through Main Lobby THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE VIRTUALLY TO JOIN VIRTUALLY: https://jeffersoncity.webex.com/jeffersoncity/j.php?MTID=m52216b3c2e474c7b8fa9a22888b98fc5 CALL-IN AVAILABLE AT: 1-404-397-1516 MEETING NUMBER: 2496 123 2596 MEETING PASSWORD: 1234 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 March 3, 2022 5. Communications Received 6. Old Business A. 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Action Requested: Review and discussion. Staff Report: The TIP is a 5-year financial program of transportation projects to be implemented within the Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA), which are funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), or are deemed ‘regionally significant. The TIP is updated annually by CAMPO in cooperation with local jurisdictions, the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), and local public transportation operators. B. FY 2023 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) Action Requested: Review and discussion. Staff Report: The UPWP is CAMPO’s annual statement of work identifying the budget, planning priorities, and activities to be carried out for the year (November 1 to October 31). The UPWP contains many ongoing activities required to perform the essential functions of CAMPO, as well as, periodic and one-time activities. The UPWP serves as the basis for funding agreements with the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT). 7. New Business 8. Other Business A. Transit Feasibility Study - Completed B. Status of Current Work Tasks C. Member Updates 9. Next Meeting Date – Thurs., May 5, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. - Boone-Bancroft Room, City of Jefferson City Hall 10. Adjournment Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Room 120 320 E. McCarty, Jefferson City, MO 65101 Phone 573.634.6410 Fax 573.634.6457 MINUTES TECHNICAL COMMITTEE CAPITAL AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION March 3, 2022 VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT Cole County: Shannon Kliethermes Matthew Prenger Jefferson City: Sonny Sanders, Chairman David Bange, Vice Chairman Eric Barron Mark Mehmert Britt Smith Matt Morasch MoDOT: Mike Henderson Bob Lynch Steve Engelbrecht (Virtually) VOTING MEMBERS ABSENT Paul Stonner, Wardsville Paul Winkelmann, Callaway County Joe Scheppers, Private Transportation Interest Kevin Schwartz, Bike Ped Interest Mark Tate, Holt Summit EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS ABSENT Brad McMahon, Federal Highway Administration Eva Steinman, Federal Transit Administration STAFF PRESENT (Non-Voting) Katrina Williams, Planner Lee Bowden, Planner Beth Sweeten, Administrative Assistant GUESTS PRESENT Kim Tipton, MoDOT Bob Gilbert, Bartlett and West Gary Plummer, Jefferson City Chamber of Commerce Jennifer Bowden, Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission Rachel Senzee, City of Jefferson 1. Call to order, roll call, and determination of a quorum Mr. Sanders called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. and asked Ms. Sweeten to call roll. A quorum of 11 voting members or their designee was present. 2. Public comment None 3. Adoption of the agenda as printed or amended Mr. Morasch moved and Mr. Bange seconded to approve the agenda as printed. The motion passed unanimously. 4. Approval of the minutes from the meeting of January 6, 2022 Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Morasch seconded to approve the minutes from the meeting of January 6, 2022 as written. The motion passed unanimously. 5. Communications Received No Communication was received Minutes/Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Committee March 3, 2022 Page 2 6. New Business A. 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Mr. Bowden stated the development of the 2023-2027 TIP is starting and had a handout of the draft TIP project list. He went over the list and explained a few of the projects. He stated they are making the last call for Federally Funded Transportation Projects and requesting budget information supporting fiscal constraint. He asks members to submit applications and budget information to CAMPO staff ASAP. Mr. Bowden stated he received a possible TIP Amendment this morning for two new busses. This was given to us this morning, so nothing is available to propose at this meeting. Mr. Mehmert stated that funding was supposed to go to Joplin but they were unable to come up with a match which allowed the City to receive the grant. It must be in the TIP before we are able to accept. Mr. Henderson asked if there was a timeframe of when the funds would expire. Mr. Mehmert responded that he did not. Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Morasch seconded to amend the current TIP by the addition of two new busses, opening a public comment period and moving the item along to the CAMPO Board of Directors for approval. The motion passes unanimously. B. FY 2023 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) Ms. Williams went over the draft that as provided in the packet. She stated the estimated draft budget for FY2023 is approximately $292,939 with $234,351 (80%) funded through the Consolidated Planning Grant (CPG) and $58,588 (20%) funded through local match. The 20% local match is provided by Jefferson City (75%) and Cole County (25%). Based on the anticipated FY2022 expenditure and estimated FY2023 draft budget, it is projected that CAMPO will have a balance of approximately $414,627 in unprogrammed CPG funds at the end of FY2023. The following chart details the estimated trajectory of the CAMPO Consolidated Planning Grant balance. She pointed out that all of these totals are subject to change during the development of the UPWP. C. FY 2022 UPWP Amendment Request – Environmental Assessment for Relocation and Construction of New Air Traffic Control Tower. Ms. Williams stated an amendment is proposed to the FY 2022 Unified Planning Work Program UPWP for the procurement of an environmental clearance, survey, and appraisal for the relocation and construction of a new Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) at the Jefferson City Memorial Airport. The ATCT replacement project is listed in the CAMPO Illustrative List as a Tier 2 project and on the 2022 MoDOT unfunded needs list as a multi-modal priority in Central District. The current tower, built as a temporary wooden structure in 1973, has weathered several flood events and sits approximately 29 feet above ground level. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommends an elevation of 61-67 feet above ground level. The cost estimate for replacement is $4.6 million according to the 2020 JC Airport Master Plan. City of Jefferson Public Works staff are in the process of applying for FAA funds to relocate and construct the new ATCT, but an environmental assessment is necessary to secure the funds. The project cost would total approximately $55,000. The project would utilize 80% Consolidated Planning Grant funds ($44,000) and with 20% local match ($11,000). Mr. Smith stated we no longer need the amendment as funds are not able to be used with this project. He stated that AIP funds are now available to fund the tower, and it will hopefully be funded this way. Minutes/Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Committee March 3, 2022 Page 3 7. Other Business A. Technical Committee Pedestrian/Biking Interest Representative – Recommendation to Board of Directors - Ms. Williams stated Kevin Schwartz, JC Parks Outdoor Recreation Program Manager, has been recommended to be appointed as the new “Pedestrian and Bicycle Interest” representative on the Technical Committee. Per CAMPO bylaws, this position is to be formally recommended by the Technical Committee and appointed by the Board of Directors. Mr. Morasch moved and Mr. Bange seconded to recommend appointment of Mr. Schwartz as the “Pedestrian and Bicycle Interest” representative on the Technical Committee. The motion passed unanimously. B. Transit Feasibility Study Update- Mr. Bange stated the consultant was brought in to study JEFFTRAN transit facilities and to provide recommendations pertaining to the administrative offices, bus storage, bus wash and fueling, and Central Maintenance. The consultants are now looking to test fit these building footprints into various locations to better understand the space requirements, the interaction between the various buildings were they to be clustered together, the effects on operations in each scenario, and the impacts that may exist with other City facilities were they to be constructed on property currently owned by the City. A draft of the study is forthcoming. C. Missouri Unfunded Needs List Update – Mr. Barron stated that MoDOT has finalized the 2022 High-Priority Unfunded Needs document, which the CAMPO Board, Technical Committee, and staff were heavily involved in. He went over the list. Bob Gilbert with Bartlett and West and Gary Plumer with the Chamber of Commerce were present and spoke about wanting the tri-level and Whiton Expressway moved up on the list and asked what they could do to get planning started and wanted to lend support. Mr. Barron stated staff would stay in contact D. Status of Current Work Tasks – Ms. Williams stated that the following topics had already been touched on earlier in the meeting. • FY 2023 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) development. • 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) development. • JEFFTRAN Transit Facility Feasibility Study RFQ. • GIS Assistance. • Capital Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan update. E. Member Updates- MoDOT --Mr. Henderson had nothing to announce. --Mr. Lynch stated on MoDOT website, there is a list of projects that are at risk if the state legislature passes a bill that would is rescind some funding. Cole County --Mr. Kliethermes had nothing to add. --Mr. Prenger stated stormwater is moving along and prepping for overlay and chip seal. Jefferson City --Mr. Gates was not present. --Mr. Mehmert had nothing to announce --Mr. Bange had nothing to announce --Mr. Smith stated the airport ramp project has been started and working with consultant on parking garage study. --Mr. Barron had nothing to announce. Minutes/Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Committee March 3, 2022 Page 4 --Mr. Sanders asked Ms. Senzee to provide an update on the status of the CDBG-CV funds for the Monroe St. widening grant application. Ms. Senzee stated that the original application was denied, staff then appealed and reapplied. Holt Summit --Mr. Tate was not present. Private Interest -- Mr. Scheppers was not present. 8. Next Meeting Date - Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. in the Boone/Bancroft Room #200. 9. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 11:31 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Beth Sweeten, Administrative Assistant Page 1 of 4 Agenda Item 6A CAMPO Technical Committee Staff Report 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program Update April 7, 2022 Summary The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a 5-year financial program of transportation projects to be implemented within the Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA). Projects in the program are funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and are deemed ‘regionally significant.’ The TIP is updated annually by CAMPO in cooperation with local jurisdictions, the Missouri Department of Transportation, and local public transportation operators. TIP Development The CAMPO TIP year runs from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023. The current 5-year TIP includes 45 projects that total over $119 million dollars programed in the 2023-2027 TIP. The TIP discusses federal performance measure targets that have been reviewed by the CAMPO Technical Committee and passed by the Board of Directors. Updated financial data for the jurisdictions within the CAMPO region are used to demonstrate fiscal constraint, which is the availability of local matching funds for federal transportation dollars from FHA or FTA. Additionally, the TIP contains the Program of Projects that public transportation agencies are required to create. The Program of Projects consists of projects and costs as well as an illustrative project list for JEFFTRAN. Federal Performance Measures FTA and MoDOT set the Federal and State Performance Measures each year. The CAMPO Technical Committee reviews these performance measures and the Board of Directors provide approval of the measures. These Federal and State Performance Measures are required to be put in each years TIP. One of the key parts of these performance measures is Safety. MoDOT’s Safety Targets are based on Zero by 2030 fatality reduction, Zero by 2040 serious injury reduction, 1% VMT increase, and non-motorized reduction based on overall fatality and serious injury reductions. In this year’s TIP $39,973,535 dollars are programmed for safety projects. Another part of the performance measures is transit asset management, which has $19,563,669 dollars programed in this year’s TIP. The performance measures also include maintaining roadway and bridge conditions. There is $60,140,000 dollars programmed in this year’s TIP for pavement and bridge projects. There is a total of $119,677,204 dollars programmed in this year’s TIP, that includes $112,337,343 dollars in future funding and $7,339,861 in prior project funding. Financial Plan As part of the Financial Plan section, each year staff reaches out to the local jurisdictions in the CAMPO region to collect financial data that is required to be included in the TIP. Part of this financial data includes general tax revenue and local operating assistance, but can also include FTA grants. The 5-year total available funds for all local jurisdictions total is $117,695,772 dollars for 2023-2027. That includes $5,504,298 in FTA 5307 funds, $1,005,128 in 5339 funds, and $990,000 in FTA 5310 funds. The rest is from MoDOT, FHWA, and local jurisdiction budgets. Operations and Maintenance Included in the financial data that staff collected from the local jurisdictions are Operations and Maintenance costs. Operations and Maintenance costs are the expenditures it takes for each jurisdiction to maintain the current roadway system. This includes personnel and contractual services, utilities, materials and supplies, and repair and maintenance costs. Each jurisdiction provides these costs within their financial data. These numbers are used with the number of lane miles per jurisdiction to get an estimated cost per lane mile. Statewide, MoDOT has a maintenance cost per lane mile of $5,291 dollars. Our local jurisdictions see a cost per lane mile very similar to the statewide cost per lane mile, some being a little more and some a little less per lane mile. The total of all Operations and Maintenance costs for all of our local jurisdictions is $1,404,099 dollars for 2023-2027, for federally funded lane miles in each jurisdiction. Page 2 of 4 Agenda Item 6A Financial Constraint Additionally, in this year’s TIP each jurisdiction has to show a Demonstration of Fiscal Constraint. By utilizing revenue numbers and the operations and maintenance costs we can show Financial Constraint calculations for each jurisdiction. This is accomplished by showing the total revenue numbers and subtracting the operation and maintenance costs and the TIP commitment to show either a positive (fiscally constrained) number, or a negative number. The TIP commitment is the amount of money a local jurisdiction has committed to a project that is in the TIP. At this time there are no jurisdictions that have a commitment for a project in this year’s TIP. The City of Jefferson and Transit providers show TIP commitments for their operating assistance and Transit projects. All jurisdictions have shown that they are fiscally constrained in this year’s TIP. This is important for each jurisdiction in the future if they intend to have a federally funded transportation project that would need to be listed in the TIP. Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects One of the most important parts of the TIP is the projects that are listed in it. Most of the projects are MoDOT sponsored and are also listed in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). We classify TIP projects into 5 categories, Road, Bridge, Pedestrian, Transit, and Other. Bridge - This year there are 13 projects listed in the Bridge category that includes several bridge repairs and maintenance projects, and 1 bridge removal, in the CAMPO region. These 13 projects have a total cost of $19,412,000 dollars. Road – There are 12 projects listed in the Road category in this year’s TIP. These projects are for maintenance, repairs, improvements to several roadways throughout the CAMPO region, and 3 system expansion projects. The total of these 12 projects is $55,981,000 dollars. Although, several of the 12 Road projects extend beyond the CAMPO region borders. Pedestrian – There are 3 pedestrian projects in the CAMPO region. One is an RTP Trails Grant located in St. Martins. The other 2 projects are upgrades to pedestrian facilities, both projects extend beyond the CAMPO region throughout various locations in Central District. The 3 pedestrian projects total up to $23,536,535 dollars. Transit - Transit projects are for our various transit organizations within our CAMPO region, most of which includes operating assistance. These 11 projects total up to $19,563,669. Other - There are 6 projects in the “other” category that include scoping and on-call work zone enforcement at various locations in the region and throughout Central District. Only 3 of the 6 projects are designated for specific locations in the CAMPO region. The 6 projects total up to $1,184,000 dollars, of that, $992,000 dollars are designated for the 3 projects that are specified in the CAMPO region. These 5 categories make up the 45 projects totaling $119,677,204 dollars, which includes $112,337,343 dollars in future funding and $7,339,861 in prior project funding. Of that total, $56,637,000 is programed for projects that extend beyond the CAMPO region. Attached is a spreadsheet containing the projects that are programmed in the 2023-2027 TIP, also attached is the full 2023-2027 TIP. Public Comment A 25-day public comment period will be opened by April 20th and closed by the Board of Directors meeting on May 18th, after which the TIP can be approved. Staff Recommendation Staff has worked extensively with local jurisdictions, public transportation providers, and MoDOT to demonstrate fiscal constraint and show projects in the CAMPO region for the next five program years. All jurisdictions active with CAMPO have consulted with staff to ensure financial details and projects are correct and appropriate. Staff recommends motion to forward the Draft 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program to the Board of Directors for review and approval. Recommended Form of Motion: Motion to forward the Draft 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program to the Board of Directors for review and approval. Page 3 of 4 Agenda Item 6A Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects Class Project Name TIP #MoDOT #Total Project Cost 1 Bridge Bridge Rehabilitation over Rte. 54 and Rte. 94 2022-03 5S3458 $3,203,000 2 Bridge Bridge Improvement On US 50 over Vetter Lane 2022-07 5P3523 $1,608,000 3 Bridge Bridge Improvement On US 54 over Missouri River 2022-08 5P3451 $84,000 4 Bridge Bridge Improvement on US 54 over McCarty Street and Rte. 50 2022-09 5P3467 $2,922,000 5 Bridge Bridge Improvement On US 54 over Bus. 50 2022-10 5P3525 $2,373,000 6 Bridge Bridge Improvement On US 54 over Neighorn Branch 2022-11 5P3560 $3,569,000 7 Bridge Bridge Improvement On RT B over Moreau River 2022-12 5S3464 $842,000 8 Bridge Bridge Improvement On Rt D over North Moreau Creek 2022-13 5S3526 $1,387,000 9 Bridge Bridge Rehabilitaion on RP US 50 E to US 54 E over Rte. 50 2022-14 5P3459 $373,000 10 Bridge Bridge improvement On CST W Truman over Rte. 50 2022-15 5S3457 $1,257,000 11 Bridge Bridge Improvement On S Summit Dr over US 54 2023-01 CD0072 $760,000 12 Bridge Bridge Rehabilitation on US 50 over Moreau River 2023-02 CD0039 $824,000 13 Bridge Bridge Removal on Tri-Level over Rte. 50 2023-03 CD0075 $210,000 14 Road Intersection Improvements at South Ten Mile Drive 2020-12 5S3418 $1,658,000 15 Road Roadway Improvements on US 54 on Missouri River Bridge 2022-01 5P3497 $4,354,000 16 Road Interchange Improvements at Simon Boulevard and US 54 2022-02 5P3576 $3,410,000 17 Road Pavement improvements on MO 179 2022-04 5S3454 $6,440,000 18 Road Pavement improvements on US 50 2022-06 5P3453 $5,754,000 19 Road Guard Cable & Guardrail Repair in Northern Central District 2022-23 5P3487 $2,718,000 20 Road Guard Cable & Guardrail Repair in Northern Central District 2023-04 CD0004 $3,113,000 21 Road Pavement Improvement on US 54 2023-05 CD0100 $22,724,000 22 Road Pavement Improvement on US 50 2023-06 CD0106 $3,328,000 23 Road Pavement Resurfacing on US 54 2023-07 CD0090 $1,238,000 24 Road Pavement Improvement on RT E 2023-08 CD0040 $190,000 25 Road Pavement Improvement on RT H, RT BB, and RT CC 2023-09 CD0043 $1,054,000 26 Other Scoping Routes M, B & W 2013-16 5S2234 $58,000 27 Other Scoping for Interchange Improvements at Truman Blvd and Country Club Drive 2022-27 5P3588 $334,000 28 Other Scoping for Interchange Improvements at Ellis Boulevard 2022-28 5P3589 $600,000 29 Other On-Call Work Zone Enforcement 2023-10 5P3495 $64,000 30 Other On-Call Work Zone Enforcement 2023-11 5P3521 $64,000 31 Other On-Call Work Zone Enforcement 2023-12 CD0006 $64,000 32 Pedestrian Updating Pedestrian Facilities 2022-18 5P3490 $2,008,000 33 Pedestrian Updating Pedestrian Facilities 2020-16 5S3369 $21,310,000 34 Pedestrian St. Martins Trail 2023-14 $218,535 35 Transit JEFFTRAN Operating Assistance 2011-04 $15,599,534 36 Transit JEFFTRAN Operating Assistance 2022-21 $840,000 37 Transit Transit Farecard System Replacement 2020-17 $100,000 38 Transit Update Bus Wash Facility 2020-18 $167,053 39 Transit Replace Security Systems in Transit Facilities 2020-22 $52,719 40 Transit Replacement of Two Low-Floor Buses 2022-24 $288,000 41 Transit Bus Hoist Replacement 2023-13 $250,000 42 Transit Repair Bus Barn Roof 2022-26 $35,000 43 Transit JEFFTRAN Hybrid Gillig Buses 2022-30 $1,461,363 44 Transit OATS Operating Assistance 2018-10 $150,000 45 Transit OATS Operating Assistance 2018-11 $620,000 119,677,204$ Project Total Page 4 of 4 Agenda Item 6A Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects Map DRAFT TIP Transportation Improvement Program Program Years 2023-2027 July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2027 Adopted XXXX 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. Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Public Participation ................................................................................................................................. 2 Project Selection ...................................................................................................................................... 2 TIP Development ..................................................................................................................................... 2 TIP Amendments and Administrative Modifications ............................................................................... 3 Previous Projects ................................................................................................................................. 3 Annual Listing of Obligated Projects ...................................................................................................... 3 Air Quality Designation .......................................................................................................................... 3 Environmental Justice ............................................................................................................................. 3 Federal Performance Measures ............................................................................................................... 4 Financial Plan ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Forecast Revenue Available for Transportation Funding .................................................................... 6 Operations and Maintenance .............................................................................................................. 8 Financial Constraint .............................................................................................................................. 10 Demonstration of Fiscal Constraint ................................................................................................... 11 Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects .................................................................................... 14 Multimodal Projects .............................................................................................................................. 40 Regionally Significant Projects ............................................................................................................. 40 Appendix 1 – Amendments and Administrative Modifications ............................................................ 41 Appendix 2 – Federal Funding Sources ................................................................................................ 42 Appendix 3 – Policies and Procedures ................................................................................................. 43 Appendix 4 – Definitions ...................................................................................................................... 46 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 CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program i LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS FTA 5303 Metropolitan & Statewide Planning and Non-Metropolitan Transportation Planning FTA 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grants FTA 5310 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities FTA 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Adv. Con. Advanced Construction AM Asset Management (Replaces TCOS in 2022) CAMPO Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization CO Carbon Monoxide (vehicle emissions) EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration FY Fiscal Year HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century MoDOT Missouri Department of Transportation MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MTP Metropolitan Transportation Plan NHFP National Highway Freight Program NHPP National Highway Performance Program NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide ONE DOT Collaboration between FHWA and FTA PBPP Performance Based Planning and Programming PM-2.5 Small Particulate Matter Lead POP Program of Projects PY Program Year SO2 Sulfur Dioxide STIP State Transportation Improvement Program STBG Surface Transportation Block Grant Program TAP Transportation Alternatives TCOS Taking Care of the System TERM Transit Economic Requirements Model TDM Travel Demand Model TIP Transportation Improvement Program TPM Transportation Performance Management VMT Vehicle Miles of Travel CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program ii (Resolution) CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program iii Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Board of Directors Chairman – Ron Fitzwater, City Council Member, City of Jefferson Vice-Chairman –Jeff Hoelscher, Eastern District Commissioner, Cole County City of Jefferson Jon Hensley, City Council Member Mike Lester, City Council Member Hank Vogt, City Council Member Sonny Sanders, AICP, Director, Planning & Protective Services Matt Morasch, PE, Director, Public Works Mark Mehmert, Director, Transit Division Cole County Eric Landwehr, PE, Director, Public Works Doug Reece, City Administrator, St. Martins Callaway County Roger Fischer, Western District Commissioner Holts Summit Hanna Thomas, City Administrator, City of Holts Summit Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) Machelle Watkins, PE, District Engineer Ex-Officio Members Missy Bonnot, Jefferson City Area Chamber of Commerce Eva Steinman, Federal Transit Administration, Region VII Christy Evers, Missouri Department of Transportation, Transit Administrator Cathy Brown, Office of Administration, Facilities Management, Design and Construction Michael Henderson, AICP, Missouri Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Brad McMahon, Federal Highway Administration, Missouri Division Marty Wilson, Callaway County Economic Development Technical Committee Chairman – Sonny Sanders, AICP, Director, Planning and Protective Services, City of Jefferson Vice-Chairman – David Bange, PE, Engineering Supervisor, Department of Public Works, City of Jefferson City of Jefferson Todd Spalding, Director, Parks, Recreation & Forestry Matt Morasch, PE, Director of Public Works Mark Mehmert, Director, Transit Division Eric Barron, AICP, Transportation Planner Britt Smith, PE, Operations & Maintenance Cole County Matt Prenger, PE, County Engineer Shannon Kliethermes, Senior Planner Callaway County Paul Winkelmann, PE, County Highway Administrator Small City Representative - Callaway Mark Tate, Streets Department, City of Holts Summit Small City Representative - Cole Paul Stonner/Brian Schrimpf, Alderman, Wardsville Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) Steve Engelbrecht, PE, District Planning Manager Michael Henderson, AICP, Transportation Planning Specialist Bob Lynch, PE, Area Engineer Private Transportation Interest Joe Scheppers, N.H. Scheppers Distributing Company. Pedestrian or Biking Interest Cary Maloney Ex-Officio Members: Eva Steinman, Federal Transit Administration, Region VII Brad McMahon, Federal Highway Administration, Missouri Division - March 2021 CAMPO Staff Sonny Sanders, AICP, GISP – Director, Planning & Protective Services Eric Barron, AICP - Planning Manager Katrina Williams, GISP, AICP – Planner II Lee Bowden - Planner I Beth Sweeten – Administrative Assistant CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 1 Introduction The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) is the designated metropolitan planning organization for the Jefferson City, Missouri planning area whose purpose is to carry out a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive long range transportation planning process. As part of this process CAMPO updates the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) with the latest program year TIP, to address 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, St. Martins, Taos, and the Village of Wardsville. Figure 1 – The CAMPO Planning Area The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a 5-year financial program of transportation projects to be implemented within the MPA. The projects 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 consistent with investment strategies discussed in the MTP 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 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. CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 2 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 City of Jefferson website 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 https://www.jeffersoncitymo.gov/campo. The approved TIP is available for review at several locations throughout the CAMPO planning area as outlined in the 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 has ensured that the public is aware that the TIP and the Public Participation Plan are being used to satisfy the POP public participation requirements. 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. Both JEFFTRAN and OATS, Inc. meet this coordination and public awareness criteria. 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 MTP. CAMPO no longer receives any type of discretionary funding for infrastructure projects. If such funds again become available, the following prioritization process is in place. 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.’ TIP Development The TIP is updated every year and covers a 5-year period starting July 1 of each year. 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 in the TIP. CAMPO staff develops the financial plan, project listings, maintenance and operations, and other components of the TIP with support from the Technical Committee, member jurisdictions, MoDOT, FHWA, and FTA. 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 will open and be held prior to the Board of Directors approval of the TIP. The Board then requests approval of the TIP by the Governor and ONE DOT (consisting of FHWA and FTA). CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 3 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 3 – Policies and Procedures of this document. Appendix 1 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. No work on a federally funded project can begin until the scope of work has been authorized and the federal funds obligated in the FHWA Financial Management Information System (FMIS). 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 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 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/campo. 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. CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 4 Federal Performance Measures In the passage of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). FHWA defines Transportation Performance Management (TPM) as a strategic approach that uses system information to make investment and policy decisions to achieve national performance goals. Another requirement is Performance Based Planning and Programming (PBPP) which impacts the TIP and the MTP. PBPP refers to the application of performance management principles within the planning and programming processes of transportation agencies to achieve desired performance outcomes for the multimodal transportation system. To comply with these new requirements, the CAMPO Board of Directors adopted targets for five performance areas: Transit Asset Management, Safety, Pavement and Bridge, Travel Time Reliability and Freight Reliability, and Transit Safety. Transit Asset Management Measures MoDOT collected and evaluated existing buses and facilities to be included in the State Transit Asset Management Plan and used this information to set targets, which will be evaluated on an annual basis as inventory changes. JEFFTRAN opted to create its own Transit Asset Management Plan and set its own targets, which are identical to the state targets. These targets can be found in the System Performance Report located in Appendix C of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). JEFFTRAN has its budget, fiscally constrained projects, and Program of Projects in this document. The agency has identified $19,563,669 in project funding programmed into the 2023-2027 TIP that may be utilized for bus replacement and other capital projects to help JEFFTRAN move towards these targets. Safety Measures The Federal Highway Administration established five performance measures to assess performance and carry out the Highway Safety Improvement Program: (1) number of fatalities, (2) rate of fatalities per vehicle mile traveled (VMT), (3) number of serious injuries, (4) rate of serious injuries per VMT, and (5) number of combined non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries. MoDOT established the statewide safety targets in 2021, which were adopted by CAMPO. These targets are updated annually. These targets can be found in the System Performance Report located in Appendix C of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). There are a number of projects programmed for safety in the TIP, totaling $39,973,535 for Program Years 2023-2027, all sponsored by the Central District of MoDOT, to help the State move towards these targets. CAMPO staff also actively participates in the Central District Coalition of Roadway Safety, which works to implement Missouri’s Show-Me Zero ultimate goal of zero fatalities on Missouri roadways, and participates in the annual Highway Safety and Traffic Blueprint Conference. CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 5 Pavement and Bridge Measures The Federal Highway Administration established 6 performance measures to assess pavement and bridge conditions: (1) percent of interstate pavements in Good condition, (2) percent of interstate pavements in Poor condition, (3) percent of non-interstate national highway system (NHS) pavements in Good condition, (4) percent of non-interstate NHS pavements in Poor condition, (5) percent of NHS bridges by deck area classified as Good condition, and (6) percent of NHS bridges by deck area classified as Poor condition. There are no interstate highways in the CAMPO region, so those targets are not addressed. MoDOT established statewide pavement and bridge targets in 2018, and revised in 2020, which shows the targets set by MoDOT and adopted by CAMPO. These targets may be updated every other year. These targets can be found in the System Performance Report located in Appendix C of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). Many projects in the TIP address Asset Management, a major priority for MoDOT. There is currently $60,140,000 in project funding in the 2023-2027 TIP that address either work on roads or bridges that maintain or update these roads or bridges which will help the state move toward these targets. Travel Time Reliability and Freight Reliability The Federal Highway Administration established 3 performance measures to assess travel time reliability and freight movement on the interstate system: (1) Percent of Reliable Person-Miles Traveled on the Interstate, (2) Percent of Reliable Person-Miles Traveled on the Non-Interstate NHS, and (3) Truck Travel Time Reliability Index. There are no interstate highways in the CAMPO region, so only one performance measures one and three are not applicable to CAMPO. MoDOT established the travel time reliability targets in 2018, which was adopted by CAMPO. This target may be updated every other year. These targets can be found in the System Performance Report located in Appendix C of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). There are currently no projects programmed into the 2023-2027 TIP with the sole purpose of improving travel time reliability. Several of the projects within the TIP address this target indirectly, which will help the state move toward this target. Transit Safety Measures The Federal Transit Administration requires that each Public Transportation Agency establish a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan (PTASP). This plan utilizes existing agency safety practices and industry best practices to meet the new regulations set in 49 CFR Part 673 of the Federal regulations. The PTASP includes formal documentation to guide the agency in proactive safety management policy, safety risk management, safety assurance, and safety promotion. The goal is to provide management and labor with a comprehensive and collaborative approach to managing safety. The plan includes the process and schedule for an annual review of the plan to review the safety performance measures and update processes that may be needed to improve the organization’s safety practices. There are currently no projects programmed into the 2023-2027 TIP with the sole purpose of improving transit safety. Several of the projects within the TIP address these targets indirectly, which will help JEFFTRAN move toward these targets. CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 6 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 Title 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 2 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 two percent inflation rate. The City of Jefferson has a ½ cent sales tax to support its Capital Improvement Program and a ½ cent sales tax for Parks and Recreation, which supports greenways and other non-motorized transportation activities. The City of Jefferson has provided its own future revenue projections from these sources. Cole County has a ½ cent sales tax to support its Capital Improvement Program and a real property tax levy of $0.27 earmarked for Road & Bridges. All small cities get $100,000 every five years from Cole County, which comes from the aforementioned sales tax. Callaway County has a real property tax levy of $0.2466 earmarked for Road & Bridges. CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 7 Figure 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 two percent. Figure 2 – Programmed Funds and Available Project Funds by Source 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total FHWA AC - STBG $18,453,600 $172,000 $4,479,200 $800 $2,487,200 $25,592,800 FHWA NHPP $16,133,600 $25,252,800 $5,728,000 $618,400 $2,633,600 $50,366,400 FHWA HSIP $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FHWA STBG $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FHWA TAP $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FHWA SAFTEY $51,200 $51,200 $51,200 $0 $0 $153,600 FHWA RTP $146,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $146,200 FTA 5307 $838,354 $1,916,868 $889,410 $916,092 $943,575 $5,504,298 FTA 5310 $152,000 $232,000 $182,000 $242,000 $182,000 $990,000 FTA 5311 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FTA 5329 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FTA 5339 $501,953 $503,175 $0 $0 $0 $1,005,128 $36,276,907 $28,128,043 $11,329,810 $1,777,292 $6,246,375 $83,758,426 MoDOT STATE $8,659,600 $6,369,000 $2,564,600 $154,800 $1,280,200 $19,028,200 $8,659,600 $6,369,000 $2,564,600 $154,800 $1,280,200 $19,028,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $37,400 $1,091,500 $1,771,000 $1,805,100 $1,839,882 $6,544,882 $156,100 $195,544 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $435,644 $72,335 $0 $0 $0 $0 $72,335 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,600 $18,500 $4,000 $19,000 $4,000 $48,100 $268,435 $1,305,544 $1,803,000 $1,852,100 $1,871,882 $7,100,961 $45,204,942 $35,802,587 $15,697,410 $3,784,192 $9,398,457 $109,887,587 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total FHWA AC - STBG $18,453,600 $172,000 $4,479,200 $800 $2,487,200 $25,592,800 FHWA NHPP $16,133,600 $25,252,800 $5,728,000 $618,400 $2,633,600 $50,366,400 FHWA HSIP $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FHWA STBG $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FHWA TAP $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FHWA SHRP2 $51,200 $51,200 $51,200 $0 $0 $153,600 FHWA RTP $146,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $146,200 FTA 5307 $838,354 $1,916,868 $889,410 $916,092 $943,575 $5,504,298 FTA 5310 $152,000 $232,000 $182,000 $242,000 $182,000 $990,000 FTA 5311 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FTA 5329 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FTA 5339 $501,953 $503,175 $0 $0 $0 $1,005,128 $36,276,907 $28,128,043 $11,329,810 $1,777,292 $6,246,375 $83,758,426 MoDOT STATE $8,659,600 $6,369,000 $2,564,600 $154,800 $1,280,200 $19,028,200 $8,659,600 $6,369,000 $2,564,600 $154,800 $1,280,200 $19,028,200 $5,065,064 $5,166,365 $5,269,693 $5,375,086 $5,482,588 $26,358,796 $5,408,267 $5,516,432 $5,626,761 $5,739,296 $5,854,082 $28,144,839 $781,163 $796,786 $812,722 $828,976 $845,556 $4,065,204 $6,913,520 $7,051,790 $7,192,826 $7,336,683 $7,483,416 $35,978,236 $3,644,360 $4,922,428 $3,401,173 $3,471,521 $3,543,542 $18,983,025 $580,305 $591,911 $603,749 $615,824 $628,141 $3,019,931 $36,818 $37,554 $38,305 $39,072 $39,853 $191,602 $38,862 $39,639 $40,432 $41,241 $42,065 $202,239 $91,900 $180,000 $140,000 $200,000 $140,000 $751,900 $22,560,259 $24,302,907 $23,125,662 $23,647,699 $24,059,244 $117,695,772 $67,496,766 $58,799,950 $37,020,072 $25,579,791 $31,585,819 $220,482,398Total Available Funds Yearly Totals Holts Summit Local Totals Total Programmed Total Available Funds Federal Toas State Local Callaway County Cole County Federal Totals Programmed Funds Federal Local State State Totals Federal Totals Oats Yearly Totals Local Totals JEFFTRAN St. Martins Toas Wardsville Callaway County Cole County Holts Summit City of Jefferson State Totals Wardsville Oats City of Jefferson JEFFTRAN St. Martins CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 8 Operations and Maintenance MoDOT Maintenance costs for MoDOT includes salaries, 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; and materials such as salt, asphalt and fuel. Maintenance operations expenditures are provided annually by MoDOT. Maintenance operations expenditures are expected to increase 1.5% annually. MoDOT’s cost per lane mile is $5,291, ($5,291 per lane mile x 344.8 lane miles = $1,824,337 annual cost), and can be seen in Figure 4. 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. Maintenance operations expenditures are expected to increase 1.5% annually. 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 determined below in Figure 4. As a further demonstration of fiscal constraint, another requirement is that municipalities report their operations and maintenance budget. Reported below are Cole and Callaway Counties, Holts Summit, Jefferson City, St. Martins, and MoDOT. The municipalities of Taos and Wardsville do not have any locally maintained roadways that are eligible for federal-aid and have not been included. There are 546.67 miles of Federal-Aid eligible roadway in the CAMPO region. MoDOT is responsible for the maintenance of all “State System” roadways (344.8 miles) while “Off System” roadways are the responsibility of the local governments (201.88 miles), shown in Figure 3. Figure 3 - Federal Aid Eligible Road Mileage by Jurisdiction. MoDOT Lane Miles Local Lane Miles Total Lane Miles 31.14 10.98 42.12 17.04 14.37 31.4 16.79 1.64 18.43 117.58 28.46 146.04 135.87 142.04 277.91 10.11 4.39 14.5 8.66 0 8.66 7.61 0 7.61 344.8 201.88 546.67 Jefferson City St. Martins Taos Wardsville Total Jurisdiction Callaway County Holts Summit Jefferson City Cole County CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 9 Figure 4 – Locally Owned Federal-aid System Mileage and O&M Costs by Jurisdiction Transit 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. Figures 5 and 6 show the estimated expenditures for transit operations and maintenance for JEFFTRAN and OATs, respectively. Figure 5 - JEFFTRAN Estimated Expenditures for Operations & Maintenance. Operations and Maintenance revenue and expenditures are based on the most recently available budgets Figure 6 – OATS Estimated Expenditures for Operations & Maintenance. Cost/Lane Mile Local Lane Miles Local O&M Cost $6,458 10.98 $70,909 $4,778 14.37 $68,660 $7,209 1.64 $11,823 $6,935 28.46 $197,370 $7,209 142.04 $1,023,966 $7,146 4.39 $31,371 $5,291 0 $0 $5,291 0 $0 201.88 Cost/Lane Mile State System Lane Miles MoDOT O&M Cost $5,291 344.8 $1,824,337 State System MoDOT Locally owned federal-aid system lane miles for each jurisdiction were developed by MoDOT Source: MoDOT Jurisdiction St. Martins Taos Wardsville Total Callaway County Jefferson City Holts Summit Jefferson City Cole County Personnel Services (1,645,745)$ (1,670,431)$ (1,695,488)$ (1,720,920)$ (1,746,734)$ Materials and Supplies (261,147)$ (265,064)$ (269,040)$ (273,076)$ (277,172)$ Contractual Services (324,544)$ (329,412)$ (334,353)$ (339,369)$ (344,459)$ Utilities (27,800)$ (28,217)$ (28,640)$ (29,070)$ (29,506)$ Repairs and Maintenance (441,050)$ (447,666)$ (454,381)$ (461,196)$ (468,114)$ Total (2,700,286)$ (2,740,790)$ (2,781,902)$ (2,823,631)$ (2,865,985)$ FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2026 FY 2027FY 2025 Personnel Services (72,000)$ (73,080)$ (74,176)$ (75,289)$ (76,418)$ Materials and Supplies (2,500)$ (2,538)$ (2,576)$ (2,614)$ (2,653)$ Repairs and Maintenance (5,500)$ (5,583)$ (5,666)$ (5,751)$ (5,837)$ Total (80,000)$ (81,200)$ (82,418)$ (83,654)$ (84,909)$ FY 2026 FY 2027FY 2024 FY 2025FY 2023 CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 10 Financial Constraint To exhibit financial constraint, a financial plan should address three questions: 1) What will the needs for transportation in the CAMPO planning area cost? The needs are identified by project in the following section and costs are summarized by funding source in Figure 2. 2) What revenues are available that can be applied to the needs? Specific revenues available to meet the needs are identified in the Demonstration of Fiscal Constraint tables - Forecast Revenue for Transportation projects, Operations and Maintenance, by jurisdiction and source. 3) Are the revenues sufficient to cover the costs? As shown in Figure 2 – Programmed by Source, programmed fund amounts equal available fund amounts. For many jurisdictions as shown in Figure 2, available funds exceed the amounts of revenues required to fund programmed projects. CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 11 Demonstration of Fiscal Constraint Source 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total CART 1,745,064$ 1,779,965$ 1,815,565$ 1,851,876$ 1,888,913$ 9,081,383$ General Revenue 3,320,000$ 3,386,400$ 3,454,128$ 3,523,211$ 3,593,675$ 17,277,413$ Total Available Revenue 5,065,064$ 5,166,365$ 5,269,693$ 5,375,086$ 5,482,588$ 26,358,796$ Operation & Maintenance Costs (70,909)$ (71,973)$ (73,052)$ (74,148)$ (75,260)$ (365,342)$ TIP Commitment Totals -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Costs (70,909)$ (71,973)$ (73,052)$ (74,148)$ (75,260)$ (365,342)$ Remaining Financial Capacity 4,994,155$ 5,094,393$ 5,196,640$ 5,300,938$ 5,407,328$ 25,993,454$ Callaway County Demonstration of Fiscal Constraint Revenue Costs Source 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total CART 1,193,267$ 1,217,132$ 1,241,475$ 1,266,304$ 1,291,631$ 6,209,809$ Taxes 4,215,000$ 4,299,300$ 4,385,286$ 4,472,992$ 4,562,452$ 21,935,029$ Total Available Revenue 5,408,267$ 5,516,432$ 5,626,761$ 5,739,296$ 5,854,082$ 28,144,839$ Operation & Maintenance Costs (197,370)$ (200,331)$ (203,336)$ (206,386)$ (209,481)$ (1,016,903)$ TIP Commitment Totals -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Costs (197,370)$ (200,331)$ (203,336)$ (206,386)$ (209,481)$ (1,016,903)$ Remaining Financial Capacity 5,210,897$ 5,316,102$ 5,423,425$ 5,532,911$ 5,644,601$ 27,127,936$ Cole County Demonstration of Fiscal Constraint Revenue Costs Source 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total CART 136,163$ 138,886$ 141,664$ 144,497$ 147,387$ 708,598$ General Revenue 645,000$ 657,900$ 671,058$ 684,479$ 698,169$ 3,356,606$ Total Available Revenue 781,163$ 796,786$ 812,722$ 828,976$ 845,556$ 4,065,204$ Operation & Maintenance Costs (68,660)$ (69,690)$ (70,735)$ (71,796)$ (72,873)$ (353,755)$ TIP Commitment Totals -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Costs (68,660)$ (69,690)$ (70,735)$ (71,796)$ (72,873)$ (353,755)$ Remaining Financial Capacity 712,503$ 727,096$ 741,987$ 757,180$ 772,683$ 3,711,449$ Holts Summit Demonstration of Fiscal Constraint Revenue Costs Source 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total CART 1,806,520$ 1,842,650$ 1,879,503$ 1,917,093$ 1,955,435$ 9,401,203$ Taxes 5,107,000$ 5,209,140$ 5,313,323$ 5,419,589$ 5,527,981$ 26,577,033$ Total Available Revenue 6,913,520$ 7,051,790$ 7,192,826$ 7,336,683$ 7,483,416$ 35,978,236$ Operation & Maintenance Costs (1,035,789)$ (1,051,326)$ (1,067,096)$ (1,083,102)$ (1,099,349)$ (5,336,661)$ TIP Commitment Totals (37,400)$ (56,500)$ (66,000)$ (66,000)$ (66,000)$ (291,900)$ Total Costs (1,073,189)$ (1,107,826)$ (1,133,096)$ (1,149,102)$ (1,165,349)$ (5,628,561)$ Remaining Financial Capacity 5,840,331$ 5,943,965$ 6,059,730$ 6,187,581$ 6,318,068$ 30,349,674$ Costs City of Jefferson Demonstration of Fiscal Constraint Revenue CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 12 Source 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total FTA Section 5307 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ FTA Section 5310 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ FTA Section 5339 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Sales Tax - 1/2% Capital Improvement 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 400,000$ City of Jefferson-Local Operating Assistance 1,705,000$ 1,739,100$ 1,773,882$ 1,809,360$ 1,845,547$ 8,872,888$ MoDOT State Operating Assistance 11,500$ 11,500$ 11,500$ 11,500$ 11,500$ 57,500$ Farebox and Reimbursements 459,692$ 468,886$ 478,264$ 487,829$ 497,585$ 2,392,256$ Capital Funds 125,000$ 125,000$ 125,000$ 125,000$ 125,000$ 625,000$ Total Available Revenue 2,381,192$ 2,424,486$ 2,468,646$ 2,513,688$ 2,559,632$ 12,347,644$ Personnel Services (1,645,745)$ (1,670,431)$ (1,695,488)$ (1,720,920)$ (1,746,734)$ (8,479,318)$ Materials and Supplies (261,147)$ (265,064)$ (269,040)$ (273,076)$ (277,172)$ (1,345,499)$ Contractual Services (324,544)$ (329,412)$ (334,353)$ (339,369)$ (344,459)$ (1,672,137)$ Utilities (27,800)$ (28,217)$ (28,640)$ (29,070)$ (29,506)$ (143,233)$ Repairs and Maintenance (441,050)$ (447,666)$ (454,381)$ (461,196)$ (468,114)$ (2,272,407)$ Operation & Maintenance Totals (2,700,286)$ (2,740,790)$ (2,781,902)$ (2,823,631)$ (2,865,985)$ (13,912,594)$ TIP CommitmentsTIP Commitment Totals -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Remaining Financial Capacity (319,094)$ (316,304)$ (313,257)$ (309,942)$ (306,353)$ (1,564,950)$ Operation & Maintenance JEFFTRAN Demonstration of Fiscal Constraint Revenue Source 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total CART 47,805$ 48,761$ 49,736$ 50,731$ 51,746$ 248,779$ General Revenue 532,500$ 543,150$ 554,013$ 565,093$ 576,395$ 2,771,151$ Total Available Revenue 580,305$ 591,911$ 603,749$ 615,824$ 628,141$ 3,019,931$ Operation & Maintenance Costs (31,371)$ (31,842)$ (32,319)$ (32,804)$ (33,296)$ (161,632)$ TIP Commitment Totals (72,335)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ (72,335)$ Total Costs (103,706)$ (31,842)$ (32,319)$ (32,804)$ (33,296)$ (233,967)$ Remaining Financial Capacity 476,599$ 560,070$ 571,430$ 583,020$ 594,845$ 2,785,964$ St. Martins Demonstration of Fiscal Constraint Revenue Costs Source 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total CART 36,818$ 37,554$ 38,305$ 39,072$ 39,853$ 191,602$ Other -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Available Revenue 36,818$ 37,554$ 38,305$ 39,072$ 39,853$ 191,602$ Operation & Maintenance Costs -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ TIP Commitment Totals -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Costs -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Remaining Financial Capacity 36,818$ 37,554$ 38,305$ 39,072$ 39,853$ 191,602$ Taos Demonstration of Fiscal Constraint Revenue Costs Source 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total CART 38,862$ 39,639$ 40,432$ 41,241$ 42,065$ 202,239$ Other -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Available Revenue 38,862$ 39,639$ 40,432$ 41,241$ 42,065$ 202,239$ Operation & Maintenance Costs -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ TIP Commitment Totals -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Costs -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Remaining Financial Capacity 38,862$ 39,639$ 40,432$ 41,241$ 42,065$ 202,239$ Costs Wardsville Demonstration of Fiscal Constraint Revenue CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 13 Source 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total FTA Section 5310 40,000$ 120,000$ 70,000$ 130,000$ 70,000$ 430,000$ Farebox and Reimbursements 4,500$ 5,000$ 5,500$ 5,500$ 5,500$ 26,000$ Capital Funds 47,400$ 55,000$ 64,500$ 64,500$ 64,500$ 295,900$ Total Available Revenue 91,900$ 180,000$ 140,000$ 200,000$ 140,000$ 751,900$ Personnel Services (72,000)$ (73,080)$ (74,176)$ (75,289)$ (76,418)$ (370,963)$ Materials and Supplies (2,500)$ (2,538)$ (2,576)$ (2,614)$ (2,653)$ (12,881)$ Repairs and Maintenance (5,500)$ (5,583)$ (5,666)$ (5,751)$ (5,837)$ (28,337)$ Operation & Maintenance Totals (80,000)$ (81,200)$ (82,418)$ (83,654)$ (84,909)$ (412,181)$ TIP CommitmentsTIP Commitment Totals (2,600)$ (18,500)$ (4,000)$ (19,000)$ (4,000)$ (48,100)$ Remaining Financial Capacity 9,300$ 80,300$ 53,582$ 97,346$ 51,091$ 291,619$ Operation & Maintenance OATS Demonstration of Fiscal Constraint Revenue CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 14 Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $92,000 $443,200 $535,200 MoDOT STATE $23,000 $110,800 $133,800 TIP #2022-03 Local $0 MoDOT#5S3458 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $2,027,200 $2,027,200 MoDOT STATE $506,800 $506,800 Local $0 Other $0 Total $115,000 $3,088,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,203,000 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $800 $16,000 $42,400 $211,200 $270,400 MoDOT STATE $200 $4,000 $10,600 $52,800 $67,600 TIP #2022-07 Local $0 MoDOT#5P3523 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $1,016,000 $1,016,000 MoDOT STATE $254,000 $254,000 Local $0 Other $0 Total $1,000 $20,000 $53,000 $1,534,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,608,000 Bridge Projects Project Name: Bridge Rehabilitation over Rte. 54 and Rte. 94 E N G Description & Location: Bridge rehabilitation over Rte. 54 includes Rte. 94, Rte. H and Rte. W over Rte. 54. R O W MoDOT Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 MoDOT Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Comments: Project involves bridges A3508, A4635, and twin bridges A3539. Total Project Cost: $3,203,000 C O N S T Description & Location: Bridge improvement over Vetter Lane. Includes Bolivar Street over Rte. 50. R O W C O N S T Comments: Project involves bridges A1420 and twin bridges A0722. Total Project Cost: $1,608,000 Project Name: Bridge Improvement On US 50 over Vetter Lane E N G CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 15 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $800 $800 $5,600 $7,200 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 $1,400 $1,800 TIP #2022-08 Local $0 MoDOT#5P3451 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $60,000 $60,000 MoDOT STATE $15,000 $15,000 Local $0 Other $0 Total $1,000 $1,000 $82,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $84,000 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $36,800 $95,200 $370,400 $502,400 MoDOT STATE $9,200 $23,800 $92,600 $125,600 TIP #2022-09 Local $0 MoDOT#5P3467 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $1,835,200 $1,835,200 MoDOT STATE $458,800 $458,800 Local $0 Other $0 Total $46,000 $119,000 $2,757,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,922,000 MoDOT Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name: Bridge Improvement On US 54 over Missouri River E N G Description & Location: Bridge improvement over Missouri River.R O W C O N S T Comments: Project involves bridges A4497 and L0550. Total Project Cost: $84,000 Total Project Cost: $2,922,000 MoDOT Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name: Bridge Improvement on US 54 over McCarty Street and Rte. 50 E N G Description & Location: Bridge improvement over McCarty Street and Rte. 50.R O W C O N S T Comments: Project involves bridges A1416 and A1417. CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 16 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $800 $16,800 $89,600 $291,200 $398,400 MoDOT STATE $200 $4,200 $22,400 $72,800 $99,600 TIP #2022-10 Local $0 MoDOT#5P3525 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $1,500,000 $1,500,000 MoDOT STATE $375,000 $375,000 Local $0 Other $0 Total $1,000 $21,000 $112,000 $2,239,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,373,000 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $800 $40,000 $120,000 $520,000 $680,800 MoDOT STATE $200 $10,000 $30,000 $130,000 $170,200 TIP #2022-11 Local $0 MoDOT#5P3560 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $2,174,400 $2,174,400 MoDOT STATE $543,600 $543,600 Local $0 Other $0 Total $1,000 $50,000 $150,000 $3,368,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,569,000 Total Project Cost: $2,373,000 MoDOT Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name: Bridge Improvement On US 54 over Neighorn Branch E N G Description & Location: Bridge improvement over Neighorn Branch.R O W C O N S T Comments: Project involves bridges K0760 and G0302. Total Project Cost: $3,569,000 Comments: Project involves bridges A1415, A1309 and twin bridges A1305, A1307 and A1672. MoDOT Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name: Bridge Improvement On US 54 over Bus. 50 E N G Description & Location: Bridge improvement over Bus. 50, Linden Drive, Moreau Overflow, and Stadium Boulevard. Includes Madison Street Ramp over Rte. 54. R O W C O N S T CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 17 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $800 $20,800 $123,200 $144,800 MoDOT STATE $200 $5,200 $30,800 $36,200 TIP #2022-12 Local $0 MoDOT#5S3464 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $528,800 $528,800 MoDOT STATE $132,200 $132,200 Local $0 Other $0 Total $1,000 $26,000 $815,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $842,000 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $18,400 $32,000 $187,200 $237,600 MoDOT STATE $4,600 $8,000 $46,800 $59,400 TIP #2022-13 Local $0 MoDOT#5S3526 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $4,000 $4,000 MoDOT STATE $1,000 $1,000 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $868,000 $868,000 MoDOT STATE $217,000 $217,000 Local $0 Other $0 Total $23,000 $45,000 $1,319,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,387,000 MoDOT MoDOT Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Funding Prior Funding Project Name: Bridge Improvement On RT B over Moreau River E N G Description & Location: Bridge improvement over Moreau River.R O W C O N S T Comments: Project involves bridge A3618. Total Project Cost: $842,000 Project Name: Bridge Improvement On Rt D over North Moreau Creek E N G Description & Location: Bridge rehabilitation over North Moreau Creek.R O W C O N S T Comments: Project involves bridge A1470. Total Project Cost: $1,387,000 CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 18 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $20,800 $44,800 $65,600 MoDOT STATE $5,200 $11,200 $16,400 TIP #2022-14 Local $0 MoDOT#5P3459 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $232,800 $232,800 MoDOT STATE $58,200 $58,200 Local $0 Other $0 Total $26,000 $347,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $373,000 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $45,600 $176,000 $221,600 MoDOT STATE $11,400 $44,000 $55,400 TIP #2022-15 Local $0 MoDOT#5S3457 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $0 MoDOT STATE $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $784,000 $784,000 MoDOT STATE $196,000 $196,000 Local $0 Other $0 Total $57,000 $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,257,000 State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Total Project Cost: $1,257,000 MoDOT Funding Prior Funding Project Name: Bridge Rehabilitaion on RP US 50 E to US 54 E over Rte. 50 E N G MoDOT Funding Prior Funding Description & Location: Bridge rehabilitation over Rte. 50.R O W C O N S T Total Project Cost: $373,000 Project Name: Bridge improvement On CST W Truman over Rte. 50 E N G Description & Location: Bridge improvement over Rte. 50 and Rte. D over Rte. 50.R O W C O N S T Comments: Project involves bridges A3978 and A4154. Comments: Project involves bridge A1419. State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 19 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $800 $800 $14,400 $108,800 $124,800 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 $3,600 $27,200 $31,200 TIP #2023-01 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0072 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $483,200 $483,200 MoDOT STATE $120,800 $120,800 Local $0 Other $0 Total $0 $1,000 $1,000 $18,000 $740,000 $0 $0 $760,000 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $144,800 $144,800 MoDOT STATE $36,200 $36,200 TIP #2023-02 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0039 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $514,400 $514,400 MoDOT STATE $128,600 $128,600 Local $0 Other $0 Total $0 $824,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $824,000 Project Name: Bridge Rehabilitation on US 50 over Moreau River E N G Total Project Cost: $824,000 State Program Year - July 1 to June 30MoDOTFundingPrior Funding Description & Location: Bridge rehabilitation over Moreau River.R O W C O N S T Comments: Project involves bridge A4351. MoDOT Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name: Bridge Improvement On S Summit Dr over US 54 E N G Description & Location: Bridge improvement over Rte. 54 R O W C O N S T Comments: Project involves bridge A3521. Total Project Cost: $760,000 CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 20 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $800 $800 $21,600 $23,200 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 $5,400 $5,800 TIP #2023-03 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0075 FHWA $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $144,800 $144,800 MoDOT STATE $36,200 $36,200 Local $0 MoDOT $0 Total $0 $1,000 $1,000 $208,000 $0 $0 $0 $210,000 State Program Year - July 1 to June 30Prior Funding Project Name: Bridge Removal on Tri-Level over Rte. 50 E N G MoDOT Description & Location: Bridge romoval on tri- level over Rte. 50.R O W C O N S T Comments: Project involves bridge A1418. Total Project Cost: $210,000 Funding CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 21 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $12,000 $800 $72,000 $262,400 $347,200 MoDOT STATE $3,000 $200 $18,000 $65,600 $86,800 TIP #2020-12 MoDOT $0 MoDOT#5S3418 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $86,400 $86,400 MoDOT STATE $21,600 $21,600 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $892,800 $892,800 MoDOT STATE $223,200 $223,200 Local $0 Other $0 Total $15,000 $1,000 $198,000 $1,444,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,658,000 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $200,000 $20,000 $241,600 $461,600 MoDOT STATE $50,000 $5,000 $60,400 $115,400 TIP #2022-01 Local $0 MoDOT#5P3497 MoDOT $0 FHWA NHPP $461,600 $461,600 MoDOT STATE $115,400 $115,400 Local $0 MoDOT $0 FHWA NHPP $2,560,000 $2,560,000 MoDOT STATE $640,000 $640,000 Local $0 MoDOT $0 Total $250,000 $602,000 $3,502,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,354,000 State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Roadway Projects R O W C O N S T Comments: Total Project Cost: $1,658,000 MoDOT Prior Funding C O N S T Comments: Total Project Cost: $4,354,000 Funding Description & Location: Roadway improvements from West McCarty Street to Rte. 63 north of Missouri River Bridge in Jefferson City. R O W State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name: Roadway Improvements on US 54 on Missouri River Bridge E N G Description & Location: Intersection improvements at South Ten Mile Drive in Jefferson City. Funding Prior Funding Project Name: Intersection Improvements at South Ten Mile Drive E N G MoDOT CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 22 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $244,000 $211,200 $455,200 MoDOT STATE $61,000 $52,800 $113,800 TIP #2022-02 Local $0 MoDOT#5P3576 FHWA $0 FHWA AC-STBG $72,000 $72,000 MoDOT STATE $18,000 $18,000 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $2,200,800 $2,200,800 MoDOT STATE $550,200 $550,200 Local $0 FHWA $0 Total $395,000 $3,015,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,410,000 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $24,800 $436,000 $460,800 MoDOT STATE $6,200 $109,000 $115,200 TIP #2022-04 Local $0 MoDOT#5S3454 FHWA $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $4,691,200 $4,691,200 MoDOT STATE $1,172,800 $1,172,800 Local $0 FHWA $0 Total $31,000 $6,409,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,440,000 MoDOT Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name: Interchange Improvements at Simon Boulevard and US 54 E N G Description & Location: Modify interchange configuration with addition of roundabout, turn lanes and pavement resurfacing at Simon Boulevard and Rte. OO. R O W C O N S T Comments: Total Project Cost: $6,440,000 Total Project Cost: $3,410,000 MoDOT Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name:Pavement improvements on MO 179 E N G Description & Location: Pavement resurfacing from north of Truman Boulevard to Rte. B, Bus. 50 from Rte. 50 to Rte. 179, Rte. 50 from south of Truman Boulevard to west of Dix Road and east of Vetter Lane to 0.5 mile east of Moreau River. Includes High Friction Surface Treatment. R O W C O N S T Comments: CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 23 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $23,200 $388,800 $412,000 MoDOT STATE $5,800 $97,200 $103,000 TIP #2022-06 Local $0 MoDOT#5P3453 FHWA $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $4,191,200 $4,191,200 MoDOT STATE $1,047,800 $1,047,800 Local $0 FHWA $0 Total $29,000 $5,725,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,754,000 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $800 $800 $800 $135,200 $137,600 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 $200 $33,800 $34,400 TIP #2022-23 Local $0 MoDOT#5P3487 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $2,036,800 $2,036,800 MoDOT STATE $509,200 $509,200 Local $0 Other $0 Total $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $2,715,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,718,000 Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name:Pavement improvements on US 50 E N G MoDOT MoDOT Description & Location: Pavement resurfacing and high friction surface treatment from 0.2 mile east of Vetter Lane to 0.3 mile west of Dix Road. R O W C O N S T Comments: Total Project Cost: $5,754,000 Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name: Guard Cable & Guardrail Repair in Northern Central District E N G Description & Location: Job Order Contracting for guard cable and guardrail repair on various routes in the northern portion of the Central District. R O W C O N S T Comments: Total Project Cost: $2,718,000 CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 24 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $800 $800 $800 $800 $146,400 $149,600 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 $200 $200 $36,600 $37,400 TIP #2023-04 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0004 FHWA $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $2,340,800 $2,340,800 MoDOT STATE $585,200 $585,200 Local $0 FHWA $0 Total $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $3,109,000 $0 $3,113,000 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $160,000 $1,881,600 $2,041,600 MoDOT STATE $40,000 $470,400 $510,400 TIP #2023-05 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0100 FHWA $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $16,137,600 $16,137,600 MoDOT STATE $4,034,400 $4,034,400 Local $0 FHWA $0 Total $0 $200,000 $22,524,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,724,000 Total Project Cost: $3,113,000 Total Project Cost: $22,724,000 MoDOT Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 MoDOT Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name:Pavement Improvement on US 54 E N G Description & Location: Pavement improvement from County Road 147 north of Kingdom City to Missouri River bridge. R O W C O N S T Comments: Project Name: Guard Cable & Guardrail Repair in Northern Central District E N G Description & Location: Job Order Contracting for guard cable and guardrail repair on various routes in the northern portion of the Central District. R O W C O N S T Comments: CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 25 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $800 $800 $800 $26,400 $185,600 $214,400 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 $200 $6,600 $46,400 $53,600 TIP #2023-06 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0106 FHWA $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 FHWA $0 FHWA NHPP $2,448,000 $2,448,000 MoDOT STATE $612,000 $612,000 Local $0 FHWA $0 Total $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $33,000 $3,292,000 $0 $3,328,000 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $88,800 $88,800 MoDOT STATE $22,200 $22,200 TIP #2023-07 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0090 FHWA $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 FHWA $0 FHWA NHPP $901,600 $901,600 MoDOT STATE $225,400 $225,400 Local $0 FHWA $0 Total $0 $1,238,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,238,000 C O N S T Comments: Description & Location: Pavement improvement from west of Shamrock Road to east of Stoney Gap Road. Includes westbound Rte. 50 from west of Maries River to east of Mari Osa Delta Lane and from west of Oasage River to Moreau River. Includes High Friction Surface Treatment. R O W Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name:Pavement Improvement on US 50 E N G MoDOT Funding Total Project Cost: $3,328,000 MoDOT Funding Total Project Cost: $1,238,000 Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name:Pavement Resurfacing on US 54 E N G Description & Location: Pavement resurfacing from west of Stadium Drive to Missouri River bridge. R O W C O N S T Comments: CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 26 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $800 $800 $9,600 $11,200 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 $2,400 $2,800 TIP #2023-08 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0040 FHWA $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $140,800 $140,800 MoDOT STATE $35,200 $35,200 Local $0 FHWA $0 Total $0 $1,000 $1,000 $188,000 $0 $0 $0 $190,000 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $800 $8,000 $49,600 $58,400 MoDOT STATE $200 $2,000 $12,400 $14,600 TIP #2023-09 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0043 FHWA $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $784,800 $784,800 MoDOT STATE $196,200 $196,200 Local $0 Other $0 Total $0 $1,000 $10,000 $1,043,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,054,000 R O W C O N S T Comments: Total Project Cost: $1,054,000 MoDOT Funding Description & Location: Pavement improvement from Rte. E to end of state maintenance. Includes Rte. BB from Rte. 17 to Rte. H and Rte. CC from Rte. C to Rte. 54. Total Project Cost: $190,000 MoDOT Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name:Pavement Improvement on RT E E N G Description & Location: Pavement improvement from Rte. 54 to Rte. B.R O W C O N S T Comments: Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name: Pavement Improvement on RT H, RT BB, and RT CC E N G CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 27 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $43,200 $800 $2,400 $46,400 MoDOT STATE $10,800 $200 $600 $11,600 TIP #2013-16 Local $0 MoDOT#5S2234 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 Total $54,000 $1,000 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $58,000 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $187,200 $40,000 $40,000 $267,200 MoDOT STATE $46,800 $10,000 $10,000 $66,800 TIP #2022-27 Local $0 MoDOT#5P3588 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 Total $234,000 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $334,000Total Project Cost: $334,000 MoDOT Funding Description & Location: Scoping for Interchange Improvements at Truman Blvd and Country Club Drive. R O W MoDOT Funding C O N S T Comments: Comments: State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name: Scoping for Interchange Improvements at Truman Blvd and E N G Total Project Cost: $58,000 Prior Funding Description & Location: Scoping for intersection improvements at Route M and Route W in Wardsville. R O W C O N S T Prior Funding Other Projects State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name:Scoping Routes M, B & W E N G CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 28 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $160,000 $160,000 $160,000 $480,000 MoDOT STATE $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $120,000 TIP #2022-28 Local $0 MoDOT#5P3589 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 Total $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $600,000 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA SAFTEY $800 $800 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 TIP #2023-10 Local $0 MoDOT#5P3495 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA SAFTEY $50,400 $50,400 MoDOT STATE $12,600 $12,600 Local $0 Other $0 Total $0 $64,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $64,000 Comments: MoDOT Description & Location: Scoping for interchange improvements at Ellis Boulevard.R O W C O N S T Description & Location: On-call work zone enforcement at various locations in the Central District. R O W C O N S T Total Project Cost: $600,000 Project Name:On-Call Work Zone Enforcement E N G Total Project Cost: $64,000 State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name: Scoping for Interchange Improvements at Ellis Boulevard E N G Comments: Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 MoDOT Funding Prior Funding CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 29 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA SAFTEY $800 $800 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 TIP #2023-11 Local $0 MoDOT#5P3521 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA SAFTEY $50,400 $50,400 MoDOT STATE $12,600 $12,600 Local $0 Other $0 Total $0 $0 $64,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $64,000 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA SAFTEY $800 $800 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 TIP #2023-12 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0006 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA SAFTEY $50,400 $50,400 MoDOT STATE $12,600 $12,600 Local $0 Other $0 Total $0 $0 $0 $64,000 $0 $0 $0 $64,000 Project Name:On-Call Work Zone Enforcement MoDOT Description & Location: On-call work zone enforcement at various locations in the Central District. R O W C O N S T Comments: Total Project Cost: $64,000 Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 E N G MoDOT Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name:On-Call Work Zone Enforcement E N G Comments: Total Project Cost: $64,000 R O W C O N S T Description & Location: On-call work zone enforcement at various locations in the Central District. CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 30 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $132,000 $291,200 $423,200 MoDOT STATE $33,000 $72,800 $105,800 TIP #2022-18 Local $0 MoDOT#5P3490 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $15,200 $15,200 MoDOT STATE $3,800 $3,800 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $1,168,000 $1,168,000 MoDOT STATE $292,000 $292,000 Local $0 Other $0 Total $184,000 $1,824,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,008,000 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $2,471,200 $2,575,200 $5,046,400 MoDOT STATE $617,800 $643,800 $1,261,600 TIP #2020-16 Local $0 MoDOT#5S3369 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $502,400 $502,400 MoDOT STATE $125,600 $125,600 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $11,499,200 $11,499,200 MoDOT STATE $2,874,800 $2,874,800 Local $0 Other $0 Total $3,089,000 $18,221,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,310,000Total Project Cost: $21,310,000 MoDOT Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name:Updating Pedestrian Facilities E N G Description & Location: Upgrade pedestrian facilities to comply with the ADA Transition Plan and adress nonstandard ADA facilities in various counties in the Central District. R O W C O N S T Comments: $9,578,000 Statewide Transportation Alternatives funds. Comments: Updating Pedestrian Facilities Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30MoDOT Project Name: E N G Total Project Cost: $2,008,000 Description & Location: Upgrade pedestrian facilities at various locations in Jefferson City, Columbia, Fulton, Holts Summit, Steelville, Eldon, Latham, Jamestown, Stover, Rich Fountain, Rolla and St. James. R O W C O N S T Pedestrian & Bicycle Projects CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 31 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 TIP #2023-14 Local $0 MoDOT#Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA RTP $146,200 $146,200 MoDOT St. Martins $72,335 $72,335 Local $0 Other $0 Total $0 $218,535 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $218,535 Comments: Total Project Cost: $218,535 St.Martins Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name:St. Martins Trail O P E R Description & Location: Recreational Trails Grant, phase 2, bike-ped lanes along business 50. R O W C O N S T CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 32 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals Other Pass. Fares $464,692 $459,692 $468,886 $478,264 $487,829 $497,585 $2,856,948 MoDOT State Operating $11,500 $11,500 $11,500 $11,500 $11,500 $11,500 $69,000 TIP #2011-04 Local City of Jefferson $1,147,753 $0 $1,035,000 $1,705,000 $1,739,100 $1,773,882 $7,400,735 MoDOT#FTA 5307 $821,916 $838,354 $863,505 $889,410 $916,092 $943,575 $5,272,851 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 Total $2,445,861 $1,309,546 $2,378,890 $3,084,173 $3,154,521 $3,226,542 $0 $15,599,534 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals Other $0 MoDOT $0 TIP #2022-21 Local General Fund $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $168,000 MoDOT#FTA 5310 $112,000 $112,000 $112,000 $112,000 $112,000 $112,000 $672,000 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 Total $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $0 $840,000 Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name:JEFFTRAN Operating Assistance O P E R Description & Location: Section 5310 Grant Program for acquiring new paratransit buses. Providing mobility needs for seniors and persons with disabilities. R O W C O N S T Comments: City of Jefferson - JEFFTRAN Funding Prior Funding City of Jefferson - JEFFTRAN Public Transportation Projects Description & Location: Operating Assistance for JEFFTRAN service w ithin city limits for Jefferson City (A 3% annual inflation factor applied.) R O W C O N S T Comments: State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name:JEFFTRAN Operating Assistance O P E R Total Project Cost: $15,599,534 Total Project Cost: $840,000 CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 33 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals Other Pass. Fares $0 MoDOT State Operating $0 TIP #2020-17 Local General Fund $20,000 $20,000 MoDOT#FTA 5339 $80,000 $80,000 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 Total $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals Other Pass. Fares $0 MoDOT State Operating $0 TIP #2020-18 Local General Fund $35,500 $35,500 MoDOT#FTA 5339 $131,553 $131,553 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 Total $0 $167,053 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $167,053 State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name:Update Bus Wash Facility O P E R City of Jefferson - JEFFTRAN Description & Location: This project would replace JEFFTRAN's antiquated bus wash facility. Jefferson City, MO. R O W C O N S T Comments: Total Project Cost: $167,053 City of Jefferson - JEFFTRAN Funding Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name:Transit Farecard System Replacement O P E R Description & Location: This project would supplant JEFFTRAN's current paper and cash- based systems. Jefferson City, MO. R O W C O N S T Comments: Total Project Cost: $100,000 Prior Funding CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 34 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals Other Pass. Fares $0 MoDOT State Operating $0 TIP #2020-22 Local General Fund $8,000 $2,544 $10,544 MoDOT#FTA 5339 $32,000 $10,175 $42,175 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 Total $0 $40,000 $12,719 $0 $0 $0 $0 $52,719 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals Other Pass. Fares $0 MoDOT State Operating $0 TIP #2022-24 Local General Fund $57,600 $57,600 MoDOT#FTA 5339 $230,400 $230,400 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 Total $0 $288,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $288,000 Description & Location: This project would replace outdated security cameras and entry systems in transit facilities. Jefferson City, MO. And add solar lighting to select bus shelters. R O W C O N S T Comments: Total Project Cost: $52,719 City of Jefferson - JEFFTRAN Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name: Replacement of Two Low-Floor Buses O P E R Description & Location: This project would purchase 2 replacement low-floor buses.R O W C O N S T Comments: Total Project Cost: $288,000 Project Name: Replace Security Systems in Transit Facilities O P E R City of Jefferson - JEFFTRAN Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 35 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals Other Pass. Fares $0 MoDOT State Operating $0 TIP #2023-13 Local General Fund $50,000 $50,000 MoDOT#FTA 5339 $200,000 $200,000 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 Total $0 $0 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals Other Pass. Fares $0 MoDOT State Operating $0 TIP #2022-26 Local General Fund $7,000 $7,000 MoDOT#FTA 5339 $28,000 $28,000 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 Total $0 $35,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 City of Jefferson - JEFFTRAN Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name:Repair Bus Barn Roof O P E R Description & Location: This project would repair the bus barn roof, which is leaking.R O W C O N S T Comments: Description & Location: This project would replace the bus hoist in Central Maintenance. Total Project Cost: $35,000 Total Project Cost: $250,000 City of Jefferson - JEFFTRAN R O W C O N S T Comments: Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name:Bus Hoist Replacement O P E R Funding CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 36 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FTA 5307 $1,053,363 $1,053,363 MoDOT $0 TIP #2022-30 Local General Fund $115,000 $115,000 MoDOT#FTA 5339 $293,000 $293,000 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 Total $0 $0 $1,461,363 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,461,363 Description & Location: This project would allow the purchase of 2 hybrid gillig buses.R O W C O N S T Comments: Total Project Cost: $1,461,363 Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name:JEFFTRAN Hybrid Gillig Buses O P E R City of Jefferson - JEFFTRAN CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 37 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FTA 5310 $60,000 $60,000 $120,000 MoDOT $0 TIP #2018-10 Local $0 MoDOT#Other OATS $15,000 $15,000 $30,000 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 Total $0 $0 $75,000 $0 $75,000 $0 $0 $150,000 Source Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Future Totals FTA 5310 $40,000 $60,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $310,000 MoDOT $0 TIP #2018-11 Local City of Jefferson $37,400 $56,500 $66,000 $66,000 $66,000 $291,900 MoDOT#Other OATS $2,600 $3,500 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $18,100 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 Total $0 $80,000 $120,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $0 $620,000 OATS Description & Location: Requesting replacement/expansion vehicles to provide service in Jefferson City and surrounding area. R O W C O N S T Comments: Other Funding - OATS, Inc. Total Project Cost: $150,000 OATS Operating Assistance O P E R Description & Location: Within the Jefferson City MPO Region-Section 5310-Seniors and Individuals w ith Disabilities. R O W C O N S T Comments: Other Funding - OATS, Inc. Total Project Cost: $620,000 Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name: Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name:OATS Operating Assistance O P E R OATS CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 38 Figure 7 - Map of Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 39 Figure 8 - Program of Projects - JEFFTRAN Item Description Est. Total Funding by Others Local 1 Replace paratransit widebody cutaway buses 600,000$ $ 480,000 120,000$ 2 Replace low-floor minivan support vehicle 40,000$ 32,000$ 8,000$ 3 Upgrade/replace fare card system 150,000$ 120,000$ 30,000$ 4 Transit facility repairs & improvements 50,000$ 40,000$ 10,000$ 5 Security upgrades for transit facilities 30,000$ 24,000$ 6,000$ 6 Update/revise Transit facilities feasability study 50,000$ 40,000$ 10,000$ 7 Upgrade transit transfer facilities 150,000$ 120,000$ 30,000$ 8 Purchase and install bus shelters and amenities at various locations in Jefferson City 30,000$ 24,000$ 6,000$ 9 Update Bus Wash facility 175,000$ 140,000$ 35,000$ 10 Add JEFFTRAN lighted signs for exterior of transit facilities 25,000$ 20,000$ 5,000$ 11 Purchase back-up generator & switches for transit and CM facilities 200,000$ 160,000$ 40,000$ 12 Replace low-floor route buses 6,000,000$ 5,400,000$ 600,000$ 13 Construct replacement transit/central maintenace/bus barn/bus wash facilities 10,000,000$ 8,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 14 Transit admin facility rehab 50,000$ 40,000$ 10,000$ 15 Purchase and install additional transit traveler kiosks (each)15,000$ 12,000$ 3,000$ 16 Add bike racks/benches at passenger transfer facilities and selected bus stops 25,000$ 20,000$ 5,000$ 17 Charging systems/electrical upgrades for buses 600,000$ 480,000$ 120,000$ 18 Add crosswalks and supporting bike/ped amenities to transit bus shelters 60,000$ -$ 60,000$ 19 Rehabilitate/replace bus wash components 100,000$ 80,000$ 20,000$ 20 Add solar lighting/occupancy indicators for selected bus shelters 35,000$ 28,000$ 7,000$ 21 Replace floor scrubber for bus barn 10,000$ 8,000$ 2,000$ 22 Replace bus hoists 260,000$ 208,000$ 52,000$ 23 Replace mobile column lifts for buses 100,000$ 80,000$ 20,000$ 24 Add vehicle electric charging stations and associated infrastructure 30,000$ 24,000$ 6,000$ 25 Time-tracking software for transit employees 15,000$ 12,000$ 3,000$ 26 Upgrade/replace AVL/AVA/APC systems on fixed routes 300,000$ 240,000$ 60,000$ 27 Passenger Engagement/Bus infotainment system, including digital displays 250,000$ 200,000$ 50,000$ 28 Pre-trip inspection software 30,000$ 24,000$ 6,000$ JEFFTRAN 2023 Program of Projects Illustrative Projects CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 40 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. Regionally Significant Projects In 2020, MoDOT secured funding for the replacement of the Rocheport Bridge. This bridge is located along Interstate 70 and crosses the Missouri River between Boone and Howard Counties. For the duration of this project, travel inside the CAMPO region may see some minor impacts. I-70 and the Rocheport Bridge are at the heart of National and Regional distribution, carrying approximately 100 million tons of freight, worth more than $154 billion, annually. More than 20 percent of this freight is through-traffic traveling from rural areas in the west to regions such as New York, New England, and the Mid-Atlantic. Rocheport Bridge carries 12.5 million vehicles per year, of that, 3.6 million are trucks. While the surrounding area is rural, there are a number of mid-sized cities within close proximity to the bridge – including Columbia and Jefferson City – and it serves as a connector between Missouri’s two largest metropolitan areas, St. Louis and Kansas City. Rocheport Bridge is 60 years old and will only last 10 more years, thus, under the current proposal a new bridge will be built over the Missouri River replacing the existing 60-year-old structure. The new bridge structure will be built to accommodate six lanes, therefore increasing capacity for future growth and reducing the restrictions over the Missouri River. During the construction of the new bridge, the old bridge structure will remain open in an effort to limit traffic delays in the area. Under the current proposal, construction is funded through FY2022. This project may cause minor increases in volume on US Routes 40, 36, 63, and 50, but the proposed effects are minimal. CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 41 Appendix 1 – Amendments and Administrative Modifications Amendments TIP No. Project Description Project Sponsor Project Cost Board Approval OneDOT Approval TIP Amendments Administrative Modifications TIP No. Project Description Project Sponsor Project Cost Date CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 42 Appendix 2 – Federal Funding Sources FHWA Programs Eligible Activities National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/nhppfs.pd f The NHPP provides support for the condition and performance of the National Highway System (NHS), for the construction of new facilities on the NHS, and to ensure that investments of Federal-aid funds in highway construction are directed to support progress toward the achievement of performance targets established in a State's asset management plan for the NHS. Surface Transportation Program (STP) https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/stbgfs.pdf The Surface Transportation Program (STP) provides flexible funding that may be used by States and localities for projects to preserve and improve the conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway, bridge and tunnel projects on any public road, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects, including intercity bus terminals. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/ Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is to support a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-State-owned public roads and roads on tribal lands Transportation Alternatives (TA) https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/transporta tionalternativesfs.pdf The FAST Act eliminates the MAP-21 Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) and replaces it with a set-aside of Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) program funding for transportation alternatives (TA). These set-aside funds include all projects and activities that were previously eligible under TAP. Railway-Highway Crossings (set-aside from HSIP) https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/railwayhw ycrossingsfst.pdf This program funds safety improvements to reduce the number of fatalities, injuries, and crashes at public grade crossings. FTA Programs Eligible Activities Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grants https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/urbanized- area-formula-grants-5307 This program provides grants to Urbanized Areas (UZA) for public transportation capital, planning, job access and reverse commute projects, as well as operating expenses in certain circumstances. Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/enhanced- mobility-seniors-individuals-disabilities-section-5310 This program is intended to enhance mobility for seniors and persons with disabilities by providing funds for programs to serve the special needs of transit-dependent populations beyond traditional public transportation services and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit services. Section 5311 Formula Grants for Rural Areas https://www.transit.dot.gov/rural-formula-grants-5311 This program provides capital, planning, and operating assistance to states to support public transportation in rural areas with populations less than 50,000, where many residents often rely on public transit to reach their destinations. Section 5329 Transit Safety & Oversight https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs /5329_Safety_Program_Fact_Sheet.pdf This section requires FTA to implement and maintain a national public transportation safety program to improve the safety of all public transportation systems that receive federal funding. The safety program includes a national public transportation safety plan, a safety certification training program, a public transportation agency safety plan, and a state safety oversight program. Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/busprogram Provides capital funding to replace, rehabilitate and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities. CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 43 Appendix 3 – 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, they 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. Board members 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 emergency situation, a special Board of Directors meeting may be called and proceed as outlined in the Public Participation Plan. CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 44 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 1 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 MTP. 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. 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 CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 45 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 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. CAMPO 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program 46 Appendix 4 – Definitions Attainment area means any geographic area in which levels of a given criteria air pollutant (e.g., ozone, carbon monoxide, PM10, PM2.5, and nitrogen dioxide) meet the health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for that pollutant. An area may be an attainment area for one pollutant and a nonattainment area for others. A maintenance area (see definition below) is not considered an attainment area for transportation planning purposes. Available funds means funds derived from an existing source dedicated to or historically used for transportation purposes. For Federal funds, authorized and/or appropriated funds and the extrapolation of formula and discretionary funds at historic rates of increase are considered available. A similar approach may be used for State and local funds that are dedicated to or historically used for transportation purposes. Conformity means a Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) requirement that ensures that Federal funding and approval are given to transportation plans, programs and projects that are consistent with the air quality goals established by a State Implementation Plan (SIP). Conformity, to the purpose of the SIP, means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. The transportation conformity rule (40 CFR part 93) sets forth policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of transportation activities. Cooperation means that the parties involved in carrying out the transportation planning and programming processes work together to achieve a common goal or objective. Coordination means the cooperative development of plans, programs, and schedules among agencies and entities with legal standing and adjustment of such plans, programs, and schedules to achieve general consistency, as appropriate. Design concept means the type of facility identified for a transportation improvement project (e.g., freeway, expressway, arterial highway, grade separated highway, toll road, reserved right-of-way rail transit, mixed-traffic rail transit, or busway). Design scope means the aspects that will affect the proposed facility’s impact on the region, usually as they relate to vehicle or person carrying capacity and control (e.g., number of lanes or tracks to be constructed or added, length of project, signalization, safety features, access control including approximate number and location of interchanges, or preferential treatment for high occupancy vehicles). Financial Plan means documentation required to be included with a metropolitan transportation plan and TIP (and optional for the long-range statewide transportation plan and STIP) that demonstrates the consistency between reasonably available and projected sources of Federal, State, local, and private revenues and the costs of implementing proposed transportation system improvements. Financially Constrained or Fiscal Constraint means that the metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, and STIP includes sufficient financial information for demonstrating that projects in the metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, and STIP can be implemented using committed, available, or reasonably available revenue sources, with reasonable assurance that the federally supported transportation system is being adequately operated and maintained. For the TIP and the STIP, financial constraint/fiscal constraint applies to each program year. Additionally, projects in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas can be included in the first two years of the TIP and STIP only if funds are available or committed. Illustrative Project means an additional transportation project that may (but is not required to) be included in a financial plan for a metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or STIP if reasonable additional resources were to become available. Maintenance Area means any geographic region of the United States that the EPA previously designated as a nonattainment area for one or more pollutants pursuant to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and subsequently redesignated as an attainment area subject to the requirement to develop a maintenance plan under section 175A of the Clean Air Act, as amended. Major Projects - These transportation improvements are defined as projects receiving Federal financial assistance 1) with an estimated total cost of $500 million or more or 2) that have been identified by the FHWA as being a Major Project. The designated projects may include those: 1) that require a substantial amount of a State Transportation Agency's program resources, 2) that have a high level of public or congressional attention, or 3) that have extraordinary implications for the national transportation system. Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) means the geographic area determined by agreement between the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the area and the Governor, in which the metropolitan transportation planning process is carried out. Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) means the official multimodal transportation plan addressing no less than a 20-year planning horizon that is developed, adopted, and updated by CAMPO through the metropolitan transportation planning process. Nonattainment area means any geographic region of the United States that has been designated by the EPA as a nonattainment area under section 107 of the Clean Air Act for any pollutants for which an NAAQS exists. Obligated projects means strategies and projects funded under title 23 U.S.C. and title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 for which the supporting Federal funds were authorized and committed by the State or designated recipient in the preceding program year, and authorized by the FHWA or awarded as a grant by the FTA. Program of Projects (POP) is a list of projects to be funded in a grant application submitted to FTA by a designated recipient. The POP lists the subrecipients and indicates whether they are private non-profit agencies, governmental authorities, or private providers of transportation service, designates the areas served (including rural areas), and identifies any tribal entities. In addition, the POP includes a brief description of the projects, total project cost, and Federal share for each project. Project selection means the procedures followed by MPOs, States, and public transportation operators to advance projects from the first four years of an approved TIP and/or STIP to implementation, in accordance with agreed upon procedures. Project sponsor must be a city, county, state, or other transportation related government agency eligible to receive federal funding from the Federal Highway or Federal Transit Administrations. All other entities must partner with a city, county, or state agency to apply for and/or administer a transportation project. Public transportation operator means the public entity which participates in the continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 and 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304, and is the designated recipient of Federal funds under title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 for transportation by a conveyance that provides regular and continuing general or special transportation to the public, but does not include school bus, charter, or intercity bus transportation or intercity passenger rail transportation provided by Amtrak. Regionally significant project means a transportation project (other than projects that may be grouped in the TIP and/or STIP or exempt projects as defined in EPA’s transportation conformity regulation (40 CFR part 93)) that is on a facility which serves regional transportation needs (such as access to and from the area outside the region; major activity centers in the region; major planned developments such as new retail malls, sports complexes, or employment centers; or transportation terminals) and would normally be included in the modeling of the metropolitan area’s transportation network. At a minimum, this includes all principal arterial highways and all fixed guideway transit facilities that offer a significant alternative to regional highway travel. Statewide transportation improvement program (STIP) means a statewide prioritized listing/program of transportation projects covering a period of four years that is consistent with the long-range statewide transportation plan, metropolitan transportation plans, and TIPs, and required for projects to be eligible for funding under title 23 U.S.C. and title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a document prepared by a metropolitan planning organization that lists projects to be funded with FHWA/FTA funds for the at least next one- to three-year period. Unified Planning Work Plan (UPWP) is the management plan for the (metropolitan) planning program. Its purpose is to coordinate the planning activities of all participants in the planning process. CAMPO Technical Committee Staff Report FY2023 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) April 7, 2022 Summary Staff has developed a draft FY2023 UPWP. This annual process starts very early due to the City of Jefferson’s budget process. The FY2023 UPWP is anticipated to be adopted by May 2022. The UPWP is CAMPO’s annual statement of work identifying the budget, planning priorities, and activities to be carried out for the year (November 1 to October 31). The UPWP contains many ongoing activities required to perform the essential functions of CAMPO, as well as, periodic and one-time activities. The UPWP serves as the basis for funding agreements with the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT). The estimated draft budget for FY2023 is approximately $292,939 with $234,351 (80%) funded through the Consolidated Planning Grant (CPG) and $58,588 (20%) funded through local match. The 20% local match is provided by Jefferson City (75%) and Cole County (25%). In FY 2022 and FY 2023 local match funding for the update of the Capital Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan (up to $25,000) will be provided by JC Parks. Based on the anticapated FY2022 expenditure and estimated FY2023 draft budget, it is projected that CAMPO will have a balance of approximately $360,349 in unprogrammed CPG funds at the end of FY2023. The following chart details the estimated trajectory of the CAMPO Consolidated Planning Grant balance. All of these totals are subject to change during the development of the UPWP. It should be noted that the Capital Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan was programmed for update in FY 2022 at a cost of approximately $125,000. It is estimated that approximately 50% of the consultant activities, as illustrated in Appendix A of the draft UPWP, will be rolled over into FY 2023 due to project start delays. This will result in less funding being spent in FY 2022 and a higher CPG balance at the end of FY 2023. Staff is requesting the Technical Committee please review the objectives and activities outlined in the attached draft document and provide comments. Input from the Technical Committee, Board of Directors, stakeholders, and the general public will be used throughout the process. These activities are categorized into six work elements: • Work Element 521 - Program Support & Administration - This task covers the activities necessary to carry out the daily activities of CAMPO in support of the transportation planning process (meeting preparation, UPWP, public outreach, reporting, and professional development). • Work Element 522 - General Development and Comprehensive Planning Coordination - This task includes the development and maintenance of related spatial and non-spatial data collection and analysis (land use, demographic data, housing, environmental/natural resources, and public facilities). • Work Element 524 - Short Range Transportation Planning & Programming - This task addresses immediate or short-term transportation needs which may include planning activities related to non- motorized, freight, bicycle/pedestrian, safety, operations, transportation security, or wayfinding. • Work Element 525 - Long Range Transportation Planning - This work task addresses transportation planning activities, studies, and other plans supporting a minimum 20-year planning process. • Work Element 526 - Public Transportation Planning – This task addresses assistance to public transportation and transit providers in fulfilling State, Local, and Federal requirements for coordination and cooperative planning (plan development, technical assistance, mapping, data, and GIS functions). CPG Balance for end of FY2021 $500,058 FY 2022 CPG Allocation*$162,623 FY 2022 UPWP CPG Expenditure - Anticipated* -($252,359) CPG Balance for end of FY2022 - Anticipated* Subtotal $410,322 $0 FY 2023 CPG Allocation - Estimated per MoDOT's FY22 SPR Work Program $184,378 FY 2023 CPG Programmed Expenditure - Anticipated*-($234,351) Remaining Unprogrammed CPG Funds Anticipated at end of FY 2023 $360,349 • Work Element 527 - Safe and Accessible Transportation Planning o The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) requires each MPO to use at least 2.5% of its PL funds (and each State to use 2.5% of its State Planning and Research funding under 23 U.S.C. 505) on specified planning activities to increase safe and accessible options for multiple travel modes for people of all ages and abilities. This requirement is currently being met. Anticipated major activities in FY2023, developed thus far, include: • Development of the FY2024 UPWP (Annual) • Development of the 2024-2028 Transportation Improvement Program (Annual) • Technical assistance (i.e mapping, data development/management, grants) (Continuous) • Title VI Program, Public Participation Plan, and Language Assistance Plan - FY2023-FY2024 (3 Years) • Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update - FY2023-FY2024 (5 years) • Capital Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan Update - FY2022-FY2023 • Urbanized Area/Planning Area review • Functional Classification review A draft 2022 UPWP is attached to this staff report. Please refer questions or comments to Katrina Williams at 573-634-6536 or by email at kawilliams@jeffcitymo.org. Public Comment A 25-day public comment period will be opened by April 20th and closed by the Board of Directors at a meeting on May 18th. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approving and forwarding the Draft FY2023 Unified Planning Work Program to the Board of Directors for review and approval. Recommended Form of Motion: Motion to forward the Draft FY2023 Unified Planning Work Program to the Board of Directors for review and approval. Agenda Item 6B DRAFT Unified Planning Work Program 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. FY 2023 November 1, 2022 to October 31, 2023 Adopted May 18, 2022 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 http://www.jeffersoncitymo.gov/campo DRAFT Table of Contents Introduction......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Major Tasks Completed in FY 2022 ............................................................................................................. 2 Tasks Carried Over from FY 2022 ............................................................................................................... 2 UPWP Development ......................................................................................................................................... 2 UPWP Modification and Amendment Process ............................................................................................. 2 Public Participation ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Air Quality Planning ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Safe and Accessible Transportation Planning ............................................................................................. 3 Financial Support for CAMPO ....................................................................................................................... 3 Transportation Planning Factors ..................................................................................................................... 4 Required Documents Timeline ......................................................................................................................... 4 Work Element 521 - Program Support & Administration ......................................................................... 6 Work Element 522 - General Development and Comprehensive Planning Coordination ................. 7 Work Element 524 - Short Range Transportation Planning & Programming ....................................... 8 Work Element 525 - Long Range Transportation Planning ...................................................................... 9 Work Element 526 - Public Transportation Planning ............................................................................... 10 Work Element 527 - Safe and Accessible Transportation Planning ..................................................... 11 Appendix A – Financial Summary ............................................................................................................... 12 Anticipated Expenditures & Revenue ...................................................................................................................... 12 Table 1: FY 2023 CAMPO Budget* ...................................................................................................................... 12 Table 2: FY2023 Work Element Funding Summary - Consolidated Planning Grant and Local Funds .... 13 Table 3: FY 2023 Local Match by Jurisdiction .................................................................................................... 13 Table 4: Anticipated Available Federal Consolidated Planning Grant (CPG) Balance Revenue ............ 13 Appendix B – CAMPO Boundary Map ...................................................................................................... 14 Appendix C - Modifications and Amendments ......................................................................................... 15 DRAFT DRAFT Insert Adoption Resolution DRAFT Insert Planning Process Certification DRAFT Insert Certification of Restrictions on Lobbying Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Board of Directors Chairman – Ron Fitzwater, City Council Member, City of Jefferson Vice-Chairman – Jeff Hoelscher, Eastern District Commissioner, Cole County City of Jefferson Jon Hensley, City Council Member Mike Lester, City Council Member Hank Vogt, City Council Member Matt Morasch, PE, Director, Public Works Mark Mehmert, Director, Transit Division Sonny Sanders, AICP, Director, Planning & Protective Services Cole County Eric Landwehr, PE, Director, Public Works Doug Reece, City Administrator, St. Martins Callaway County Roger Fischer, Western District Commissioner Holts Summit Hanna Thomas, City Administrator, Holts Summit Missouri Department of Transportation Machelle Watkins, PE, District Engineer Ex-Officio Members Luke Holtschneider, Jefferson City Regional Economic Partnership Vacant, Callaway County Economic Development Brad McMahon, Federal Highway Administration, Missouri Div. Michael Henderson, AICP, MoDOT, Transportation Planning Eva Steinman, Federal Transit Administration, Region VII Christy Evers, MoDOT, Transit Section Vacant, Missouri Office of Administration Technical Committee Chairman – Sonny Sanders, AICP, Director, Planning and Protective Services, City of Jefferson Vice-Chairman – David Bange, PE, Engineering Supervisor, Dept. of Public Works, City of Jefferson City of Jefferson Todd Spalding, Director, Parks, Recreation & Forestry Matt Morasch, PE, Director of Public Works Mark Mehmert, Director, Transit Division Eric Barron, AICP, Planning Manager Britt Smith, PE, Operations & Maintenance Cole County Matt Prenger, PE, Engineer Shannon Kliethermes, Senior Planner Callaway County Paul Winkelmann, PE, County Highway Administrator Small City Representative - Callaway Mark Tate, Streets Department, City of Holts Summit Small City Representative – Cole Paul Stonner/Brian Schrimpf, Wardsville Missouri Department of Transportation Steve Engelbrecht, PE, District Planning Manager Michael Henderson, AICP, Transportation Planning Specialist Bob Lynch, PE, Area Engineer Private Transportation Interest Joe Scheppers, N.H. Scheppers Distributing Company. Pedestrian or Biking Interest Kevin Schwartz, JC Parks, Outdoor Recreation Manager Ex-Officio Members: Eva Steinman, Federal Transit Admin. - Region VII Brad McMahon, Federal Highway Admin. - Missouri Div. CAMPO Staff and FTE (Full-Time Employee) apportionment Sonny Sanders, AICP, GISP, PTP – Director, Planning & Protective Services FTE – 0* Eric Barron, AICP - Planning Manager FTE - 0.3 Katrina Williams, GISP, AICP –Planner II FTE – 1 Lee Bowden – Planner I FTE – 1** Kortney Bliss – Planner I FTE – 0** Beth Sweeten – Administrative Assistant FTE - .015 * The MPO Executive Director is also the Director of the Jefferson City Department of Planning and Protective Services. This full-time position is not funded by the MPO and does not appear in the CAMPO Budget. MPO activities are only a portion of the Director’s job duties. **The Planner I position may work on MPO and/or City of Jefferson planning activities depending on work flow. Both Planner I salaries are the same and CAMPO will not seek reimbursement for more than the equivalent of one full-time Planner I. DRAFT Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2023 UPWP 1 Introduction The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) is responsible for long-range transportation planning for the defined Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA), which includes the Jefferson City urbanized area. Planning activities are carried out in a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive manner. The Fiscal Year 2023 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) defines tasks and anticipates funding requirements for the metropolitan planning activities performed by the CAMPO with federal funds provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) under title 23 U.S.C . and title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. CAMPO Staff, unless otherwise identified, performs all work. The UPWP defines activities for all public officials and agencies that contribute resources to the transportation planning process. The UPWP covers one fiscal year, November 1 to October 31, and outlines activities funded through the Consolidated Planning Grant and local funds and serves as the basis for funding agreements with the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT). The UPWP also serves as a management tool for scheduling, budgeting, and monitoring the local planning activities. The MPA boundary was delineated by the CAMPO Board of Directors and approved by the Governor in 2013 (see Appendix B). The MPA includes the jurisdictions of Holts Summit, Jefferson City, St. Martins, Taos, Wardsville, and portions of unincorporated, non-urbanized areas within Cole and Callaway Counties. The CAMPO Board of Directors is composed of elected and appointed officials from local jurisdictions, selected state agencies, and Federal transportation representatives serving as ex-officio members. The CAMPO Technical Committee consists of representatives from member agencies’ professional staffs and acts in an advisory capacity to the Board of Directors. A memorandum of understanding between members identifies the City of Jefferson as the administrator of CAMPO, and as such, provides staffing. For FY2023, the City of Jefferson will provide staff consisting of a full-time Planner I, full-time Planner II, and part time support from the Director of Planning and Protective Services, a Planning Manager, and an Administrative Assistant. Priorities for FY 2023 • Implementation of the goals and strategies outlined in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. • Provide technical assistance in mapping, data development, and land use planning to local jurisdictions. • Continue implementation of FAST Act performance measures and targets. • Review of Urbanized Area/Planning Area boundary and Federal Functional Classification pending release of 2020 US Decennial Census Data. • Update of the following plans and programs: o CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan o Capital Area Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan o Title VI Program, including Language Assistance Plan and Public Participation Plan as federally required. DRAFT Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2023 UPWP 2 Major Tasks Completed in FY 2022 • Annual update of the Unified Planning Work Program and the Transportation Improvement Program. • Staff assistance in planning the 2022 Active Transportation Summit. • Update of System Performance Report. • Update of a Crash Analysis Report for the CAMPO area. • Completion of the JEFFTRAN Transit Feasibility Study. • Update of regional databases, including; sidewalks, greenway, bike trails/lanes and local roads. Tasks Carried Over from FY 2022 Several projects will carry over from FY 2022, including: • Update of the Title VI Program, including the Public Participation Plan, and Language Assistance Plan. • Review of US Census Bureau update of Urbanized Area data. • Update of the Capital Area Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan • Update of the CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan Staff will continue work on any technical assistance projects as they arise. UPWP Development The UPWP is developed in accordance with 23 CFR 450.308 and 23 CFR part 420. CAMPO staff reviewed previous years’ time required for activities to determine time allocations for this UPWP. Because the MPO is administered by the City of Jefferson, CAMPO accommodates the city’s budgeting process/schedule and execution of the Consolidated Planning Grant agreement and must begin the development of the UPWP several months prior to the fiscal year for which the UPWP covers. CAMPO presents a draft UPWP to the Board of Directors in April, 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. UPWP Modification and Amendment Process Modification: A change in language or content that does not result in a budget increase. This change may consist of a change to a Work Element’s objectives, activities, or products. Modifications are communicated by staff to the Technical Committee and Board of Directors at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Amendment: A change in language or content which results in a budget increase or major change in a work element. An amendment is necessary if a budget increase is needed which impacts the funding reimbursement agreed upon between the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission and the City of Jefferson. Amendments must be approved by the Board of Directors, FTA, and FHWA. Some modifications may also go through an official approval by the Board of Directors as deemed appropriate by staff. Modifications and Amendments are documented in Appendix C. 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 CAMPO Public Participation Plan. During the development of the FY 2023 UPWP, the document is scheduled to be discussed at monthly Board of Directors and Technical Committee meetings from February to May, 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. In accordance with the CAMPO Title VI Policy, any and all documents produced by CAMPO, may be requested in other formats by contacting CAMPO staff at City Hall or by calling (573)634-6410. DRAFT Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2023 UPWP 3 Air Quality Planning According to 23 CFR 420.111(e), State DOTs and MPOs also are encouraged to include cost estimates for transportation planning, research, development, and technology transfer related activities funded with other Federal or State and/or local funds; particularly for producing the FHWA-required data specified in paragraph (b) of §420.105, for planning for other transportation modes, and for air quality planning activities in areas designated as non-attainment for transportation-related pollutants in their work programs. The MPOs in TMAs must include such information in their work programs. Federal standards have been established through extensive scientific review, that set allowable concentrations and exposure limits for certain pollutants. Air quality standards have been established for six criteria pollutants: • ozone (or smog) • carbon monoxide • particulate matter • nitrogen dioxide • lead, and • sulfur dioxide The CAMPO Planning Area is in “attainment”. A geographic area with monitored levels that meet or do better than the primary standard for each of these pollutants is called an attainment area; areas that do not meet the primary standard for any one or more of these pollutants are called nonattainment areas. In Missouri, MoDOT is responsible for implementing the conformity regulation for transportation actions in attainment and nonattainment areas. Safe and Accessible Transportation Planning § 11201; 23 U.S.C. 134 - The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) requires each MPO to use at least 2.5% of its PL funds (and each State to use 2.5% of its State Planning and Research funding under 23 U.S.C. 505) on specified planning activities to increase safe and accessible options for multiple travel modes for people of all ages and abilities. [§ 11206(b)] A State or MPO may opt out of the requirement, with the approval of the Secretary, if the State or MPO has Complete Streets standards and policies in place, and has developed an up-to-date Complete Streets prioritization plan that identifies a specific list of Complete Streets projects to improve the safety, mobility, or accessibility of a street. [§ 11206(c) and (e)] For the purpose of this requirement, the term “Complete Streets standards or policies” means standards or policies that ensure the safe and adequate accommodation of all users of the transportation system, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation users, children, older individuals, individuals with disabilities, motorists, and freight vehicles. [§ 11206(a)] CAMPO, as detailed in this UPWP, is in the process of developing a new Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan that will incorporate complete streets standards and policies and result in a prioritized list of projects. CAMPO adopted the Capital Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan in 2016, which includes the CAMPO Livable Streets Policy. The term “Livable Streets” will be converted to “Complete Streets” in the next update cycle. Financial Support for CAMPO CAMPO receives 80% of funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 5303 funds through the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) via the Consolidated Planning Grant (CPG) and 20% via local funding. The 20% in local matching funds is provided by the City of Jefferson and Cole County. Of the 20% local funding, Jefferson City contributes 75% and Cole County contributes 25%. The total CAMPO budget for FY 2023 is $292,939. Appendix A provides more detailed breakdown of financial details. DRAFT Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2023 UPWP 4 Transportation Planning Factors The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), passed into law in 2015, identifies ten planning factors required for consideration in any MPO planning activities, including in the development of the UPWP, MTP, and TIP. Figure 1 provides an overview of those planning factors and how they are addressed by each work element in the UPWP. A detailed overview of each work element is provided in the following pages. Figure 1: Planning Factors as addressed by work elements Planning Factor Work Program Element Work Element 1 - Program Support & Administration Work Element 2 - General Development and Comprehensive Planning Coordination Work Element 3 - Long Range Transportation Work Element 4 - Short Range Transportation Planning & Programming Work Element 5 - Public Transportation Planning 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.      J. Enhance travel and tourism.      Required Documents Timeline Figure 2 outlines the general timeline for updating most of the federally required MPO plans and documents. The fiscal year runs from November 1 through October 31 and quarters are as follows: Quarter 1 – November 1 – January 31 Quarter 2 – February 1 – April 30 Quarter 3 – May 1 – July 31 Quarter 4 – August 1-October 31 DRAFT Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2023 UPWP 5 Figure 2: Timeline for updating required MPO plans and documents MTP - Metropolitan Transportation Plan Expires May 2024 TIP – Transportation Improvement Program Approved in May (Expires in June) UPWP – Unified Planning Work Program Approved in May (Expires in October) CPTHSTP – Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan Update Required December 2024 or 2025 Title VI Program –Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Update Required February 2023 LAP – Language Assistance Plan Update Required February 2023 PPP – Public Participation Plan Update Required February 2023 Year Qtr MTP TIP UPWP CPTHSTP Title VI LAP PPP 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 2027 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 DRAFT Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2023 UPWP 6 Work Element 521 - Program Support & Administration This 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. 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 with approval from the necessary authority. • Facilitate 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 program update and reporting requirements related to Title VI, Public Participation Plan, Language Assistance Plan, 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. FY 2022 Accomplishments • Facilitation of Board of Directors and Technical Committee monthly meetings as required. • FY 2023 UPWP updated. • Quarterly progress reports, billings, and invoices completed. • Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Commitments Semi-Annual reports completed. • Staff participated in various professional development activities, including MoDOT sponsored events, webinars, and other training opportunities. • Began review and update of Title VI Program, including Language Assistance Plan and Public Participation Plan as federally required. FY 2023 Products • Board of Directors and Technical Committee meetings administration/facilitation support. • Meeting agendas, minutes, presentations, reports, and other support material. • FY 2024 UPWP. • End of year report, quarterly progress reports, billings, and invoices. • DBE Commitments Semi-Annual reports. • Participation in professional development activities. • Complete review and update of Title VI Program, including Language Assistance Plan and Public Participation Plan as federally required. Responsible Party: CAMPO staff Funding: This work element includes labor costs and all direct costs. Local Match Funds (20%) $9,352 $5,272 (labor) + $4,080(direct costs) Federal CPG Funds (80%) $37,408 $21,088 (labor) + $16,320(direct costs) Total $46,760 DRAFT Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2023 UPWP 7 Work Element 522 - General Development and Comprehensive Planning Coordination 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. Objectives / Activities • Provide technical planning assistance to CAMPO members in the development of the transportation component of comprehensive and other planning documents, including geospatial analytical support, local ordinances, and databases. • Assist jurisdictions in the acquisition and use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and other data for use in plans, transportation grant applications, measuring performance, and forecasting provided by the US Census, MoDOT and others. FY 2022 Accomplishments • Technical assistance in various grant application processes in the CAMPO area. • Provided assistance in the development of local comprehensive plans of member organizations. • Provided geospatial analysis/data (elevations, demographic, sidewalk, bicycle facilities, street right-of-way, etc.) to support development, and grant application activities. FY 2023 Products • 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. • Assist member jurisdictions with development of local ordinances that may facilitate corridor preservation and improve efficient network connectivity. Responsible Party: CAMPO staff and local jurisdictions. Local jurisdictions have ultimate responsibility for the development and publishing of their planning documents. Funding: This work element includes only labor costs. Local Match Funds (20%) $3,325 Federal CPG Funds (80%) $13,299 Total $16,624 DRAFT Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2023 UPWP 8 Work Element 524 - Short Range Transportation Planning & Programming Identify and address immediate or short-term transportation needs which may include non-motorized planning activities, complete streets planning, freight planning, bicycle/pedestrian planning, safety planning, operations and management planning, transportation security planning, or wayfinding activities. 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. • Review and maintain the goals and strategies outlined in adopted CAMPO plans: o CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Major Thoroughfare Plan o Capital Area Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan o Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan o Public Participation Plan o Regional Wayfinding Plan • Maintain the current TIP through the Amendment and Modifications process that meets statutory requirements, maintain fiscal constraint, and support changing priorities and project scope. • Continue analysis of safety data to be used in the implementation of recommended improvements and strategies as outlined in the MTP. • Be a resource for local jurisdictions seeking to develop an ADA Transition Plan or seeking to improve mobility and access. • Develop and adopt the FY2024-2028 TIP. • Develop and publish the Annual List of Obligated Projects (ALOP) for the prior year TIP. • Update the Capital Area Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan through use of a consultant. FY 2022 Accomplishments • Participated in activities, meetings and conferences including Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety Conference, MoDOT Unfunded Needs List, and STIP project review/discussions. • Completed Program Year 2022 – 2026 TIP and any necessary amendments. • Developed 2023-2027 TIP. • Provided assistance to member jurisdictions in the completion of grant applications. • Update of a Crash Analysis Report. • Continued update of Capital Area Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan. FY 2023 Products • TIP amendments and administrative modifications as necessary • Development of the Program Year 2024-2028 TIP. • Update Crash Data Report. • Provide guidance and assistance to local jurisdictions in the transportation component of their ADA Transition Plan development work efforts. • Annual List of Obligated Projects from the previous program year. • Assist with planning and possibly hosting of Active Transportation Summit in cooperation with Missouri Bicycle and Pedestrian Federation. • Complete update of Capital Area Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan (New plan title TBD) Responsible Party: CAMPO staff and consultant. Funding: This work element includes only labor costs. Local Match Funds (20%) $16,791 $4,191 (labor) + $12,600 (direct costs) Federal CPG Funds (80%) $67,165 $16,765 (labor) + $50,400 (direct costs) Total $83,956 Note: The Capital Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan was programmed for update in FY 2022 at a cost of approximately $125,000. It is estimated that approximately 50%, as illustrated above, will be rolled over into FY 2023 due to project delays. DRAFT Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2023 UPWP 9 Work Element 525 - Long Range Transportation Planning Provide 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. 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. • Implement the recommendations and strategies as identified in the MTP. • Update the CAMPO 2045 & Beyond MTP. This activity may include the use of consultant services in the review of project specific components of the Illustrative List and/or Travel Demand Model (TDM) FY 2022 Accomplishments • Staff, working with MoDOT, continued setting federal performance measures for the TIP and MTP. Performance measures and targets are included in the System Performance Report. • Worked with the Technical Committee and Board of Directors to implement the MTP strategies. • Began update of the CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan • Update of the Crash Analysis Report. • Staff continues development of GIS data and resources to assist jurisdictions with plan development and implementation. FY 2023 Products • Implementation of the MTP strategies and improvements • Assist member jurisdictions in implementing recommended improvements outlined in the MTP. • Maintain the Thoroughfare Plan. • Amendments to the MTP as necessary. • Report MTP and TIP performance measures and targets. • Annual Review of Illustrative List of Projects • Review of Urbanized Area/Planning Area Boundary and Federal Functional Classification Responsible Party: CAMPO staff and consultant. Funding: This work element includes direct costs and labor costs. Local Match Funds (20%) $19,546 $13,546 (labor) + $6,000 (direct costs) Federal CPG Funds (80%) $78,185 $54,185 (labor) + $24,000 (direct costs) Total $97,731 DRAFT Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2023 UPWP 10 Work Element 526 - Public Transportation Planning 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. 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 transit and mobility management planning activities that support the goals and objectives laid out in the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan. • Continue collaboration with other regional transit providers to improve efficiency and access in Mid-Missouri. • Update and maintain the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan. FY 2022 Accomplishments • Provided assistance to JEFFTRAN in the update of route guides. • Completed update of the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan. • Completion of JEFFTRAN Transit Feasibility Study FY 2023 Products • Update route and schedule guide as needed. • Maps, demographics, GIS analytics. • Improved service to patrons of JEFFTRAN. • Collaboration with regional transit providers and human service agencies to meet shared goals. Responsible Party: CAMPO staff. Funding: This work element includes only labor costs. Local Match Funds (20%) $8,099 Federal CPG Funds (80%) $32,397 Total $40,496 DRAFT Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2023 UPWP 11 Work Element 527 - Safe and Accessible Transportation Planning Engage in specified planning activities to increase safe and accessible options for multiple travel modes for people of all ages and abilities, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation users, children, older individuals, individuals with disabilities, motorists, and freight vehicles. Objectives / Activities • Implement CAMPO Complete Streets standards and policies as defined in the adopted Livable Streets (Complete Streets) Policy. • Developed and maintain a Complete Streets prioritization plan that identifies projects to improve the safety, mobility, or accessibility of a street. • Participation in the Missouri Complete Streets (MOCS) Advisory Committee • Educate jurisdictions and stakeholder about Complete Streets standards and policies. FY 2022 Accomplishments • Participated in activities, meetings and conferences including Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety. • Began development of a prioritized list of projects as part of the update of the Capital Area Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan. • Facilitated stakeholder meetings to develop a bicycle education program within Jefferson City Public Schools. • Provided assistance to Missouri Pedestrian and Bicycle Federation in planning and/or hosting the 2022 Active Transportation Summit. FY 2023 Products • Host a Complete Streets Training or other similar safety/accessibility training that meets the requirements outlined in 23 U.S.C. 134 §11201 and §11206. • Adopt a prioritized list of projects as part of the update of the Capital Area Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan (New plan title TBD). • Provide assistance to Missouri Pedestrian and Bicycle Federation in planning and/or hosting the 2023 Active Transportation Summit. Responsible Party: CAMPO staff. Funding: This work element includes only labor costs. Local Match Funds (20%) $1,474 Federal CPG Funds (80%) *$5,898 Total $7,372 * The 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) requires each MPO to use at least 2.5% of its PL funds on specified planning activities related to Safe and Accessible Transportation Planning (Work Element 527). PL funds constitute ~80% of CPG funds and the FY 2023 2.5% estimate is $4,610. DRAFT Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2023 UPWP 12 Appendix A – Financial Summary Anticipated Expenditures & Revenue CAMPO receives funding from the FHWA and FTA 5303 funds through the Consolidated Planning Grant (CPG) administered by MoDOT. Funding consists of 80% federal and 20% local matching funds; Jefferson City contributes 75% and Cole County contributes 25% except where noted differently. Table 1: FY 2023 CAMPO Budget* *Rounded to the nearest whole number. ** The City of Jefferson covers all the Utility and Capital Purchases expenses, except for some specific software licenses used for publishing or mapping. Federal - CPG (80%) Local (20%) Total (100%) Advertising $2,080 $520 $2,600 Postage $240 $60 $300 Printing $160 $40 $200 Copies $160 $40 $200 Office Supplies $800 $200 $1,000 Food $240 $60 $300 Operational Supplies $800 $200 $1,000 Subtotal $4,480 $1,120 $5,600 Dues & Publications $1,200 $300 $1,500 Training and Education $3,600 $900 $4,500 Tuition Reimbursement $2,400 $600 $3,000 Professional Services - MTP Update $24,000 $6,000 $30,000 Professional Services - Pedestrian/Bicycle Plan $50,400 $12,600 $63,000 Subtotal $81,600 $20,400 $102,000 Equipment Maintenance $0 $0 $0 Vehicle Wash $0 $0 $0 Maintenance Agreement $1,920 $480 $2,400 Subtotal $1,920 $480 $2,400 Equipment/software $2,720 $680 $3,400 Subtotal $2,720 $680 $3,400 Total Direct Costs $90,720 $22,680 $113,400 Salaries plus benefits $143,631 $35,908 $179,539 Total Labor Costs $143,631 $35,908 $179,539 Total MPO Budget $234,351 $58,588 $292,939 Labor Costs Direct Costs Materials & Supplies Other Contracted Services Equipment Repair and Maintenance Capital Purchases and Utilities** DRAFT Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2023 UPWP 13 Table 2: FY2023 Work Element Funding Summary - Consolidated Planning Grant and Local Funds * Numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number. Staff salaries are based on an hourly rate (base + fringe). Staff time allocations are subject to change as planning activities fluctuate. The MPO Executive Director position is full-time, but is not funded by the MPO and does not appear in the table above. The MPO Director is the Director of the Jefferson City Department of Planning and Protective Services, MPO activities are only a portion of the Director’s job duties. ** The Capital Area Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan was programmed for update in FY 2022 at a cost of approximately $125,000. Due to project delays, is estimated that approximately 50% will be rolled over into FY 2023. JC Parks will pay $25,000 of local match associated with the Pedestrian/Bicycle Plan update. Note: The 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) requires each MPO to use at least 2.5% of its PL funds on specified planning activities related to Safe and Accessible Transportation Planning (Work Element 527). PL funds constitute ~80% of CPG funds and the FY 2023 estimate is $4,610. Table 3: FY 2023 Local Match by Jurisdiction * JC Parks will pay $25,000 of local match associated with the Pedestrian/Bicycle Plan update spanning FY 2022 and FY2023. Table 4: Anticipated Available Federal Consolidated Planning Grant (CPG) Balance Revenue *The final amount of the FY 2022 CPG Allocation will not be released by MoDOT until May of 2022. This UPWP will have been adopted before this information is made available. Additionally, the MoDOT FY2022 SPR Work Program is also not available until after adoption of this document. CAMPO staff may make modifications to totals in Table 4 after these allocation amounts are made available. CAMPO may over-program or under-program annual CPG allocations in order to maintain a CPG balance to provide flexibility in accommodating large scale planning efforts that may require added staff or consultant services. Some years may require more funding than others in order to meet MPO planning goals and federal requirements. Work Element Planning Manager (.30 FTE)Planner II (1 FTE)Planner I (1 FTE)Admin. Asst. (.015 FTE)Sub-Total Total Federal CPG Funds 80% Total Local Match 20%Total Percent of Work Program Budget521-Program Support & Administration $25,675 $685 $26,360 $21,088 $5,272 $26,360 9% 522-General Develop. and Comp. Planning $8,148 $8,476 $16,624 $13,299 $3,325 $16,624 6% 524-Short Range Transportation Planning $4,656 $16,300 $20,956 $16,765 $4,191 $20,956 7% 525-Long Range Transportation Planning $4,668 $37,636 $25,428 $67,732 $54,185 $13,546 $67,732 23% 526-Public Transportation Planning $22,892 $17,604 $40,496 $32,397 $8,099 $40,496 14% 527-Safe/Accessible Transportation Planning $7,372 $7,372 $5,898 $1,474 $7,372 3% Labor Costs (Base + Fringe) Subtotal $30,343 $80,704 $67,807 $685 $179,539 $143,631 $35,908 $179,539 61% $20,400 $16,320 $4,080 $20,400 7% $63,000 $50,400 $12,600 $63,000 22% $30,000 $24,000 $6,000 $30,000 10% $113,400 $90,720 $22,680 $113,400 39% $234,351 $58,588 $292,939 100% Direct Costs Subtotal Total* 521-Direct Costs - Program Support and Administration 524-Direct Costs - Pedestrian/Bicycle Plan (50% roll over estimate from FY 2022)** 525-Direct Costs - Metropolitan Tranpsortaiton Plan Update Direct Costs* Labor Costs* Category JC Parks Jefferson City 75%Cole County 25%Total Labor Costs $0 $26,931 $8,977 $35,908 521-Direct Costs $0 $3,060 $1,020 $4,080 524-Direct Costs - Ped./Bicycle Plan* $12,600 $0 $0 $12,600 525-Direct Costs - MTP Update $0 $4,500 $1,500 $6,000 Total $12,600 $34,491 $11,497 $58,588 CPG Local Match CPG Balance for end of FY2021 $500,058 FY 2022 CPG Allocation*$162,623 FY 2022 UPWP CPG Expenditure - Anticipated* -($252,359) CPG Balance for end of FY2022 - Anticipated* Subtotal $410,322 $0 FY 2023 CPG Allocation - Estimated per MoDOT's FY22 SPR Work Program $184,378 FY 2023 CPG Programmed Expenditure - Anticipated*-($234,351) Remaining Unprogrammed CPG Funds Anticipated at end of FY 2023 $360,349 DRAFT Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2023 UPWP 14 Appendix B – CAMPO Boundary Map The CAMPO Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) Boundary was approved by the CAMPO Board of Directors January 16, 2013 and was approved by the Governor of Missouri March 12, 2013. The MPA includes the jurisdictions of Holts Summit, Jefferson City, St. Martins, Taos, Wardsville, and portions of unincorporated, non-urbanized areas within Cole and Callaway Counties. DRAFT Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2023 UPWP 15 Appendix C - Modifications and Amendments CAMPO Technical Committee Staff Report JEFFTRAN Transit Feasibility Study April 7, 2022 Summary In July 2021 the City of Jefferson hired the firms of CFS Engineers and Dake | Wells Architecture to develop a feasibility study to investigate improvements and possible relocation of divisional facilities. The primary facilities studied were the JEFFTRAN building (administrative facility with a possible adjacent transfer point), a Bus Barn to house the public transit fleet, and a Central Maintenance facility to service all municipal vehicles. The consultants visited the existing facilities along East Miller Street to understand their condition, assess needs, and gather information from the current employees utilizing the spaces. The consultants then took this information and conducted a programming exercise to determine the recommended spaces and sizes of the studied facilities taking into consideration operational best practices, customer experience, and projected growth. The consultants, working closely with Jefferson City Public Works staff, then developed a list of project imperatives that served as a guide while developing the program: 1. Design for change. 2. Design for customer experience. 3. Design for worker health and well-being. 4. Design for achievability. 5. Design for public safety and accessibility. 6. Design to improve operational functionality. 7. Embrace Sustainable Design. 8. Design for Resiliency. The programming exercise resulted in the development of a range of test fits at four potential sites; East Miller Street, Hyde Park Road, Stonecreek Drive, and Heisinger Road. The study lays out pros and cons for each one of these sites. A copy of the finalized study is attached to this staff report. If you have any questions or concerns specifically regarding the study contents, please contact David Bange, City Engineer, at 634-6433. Agenda Item 8A Transit Facilities Feasibility Study City of Jefferson Final Report 16 March 2022 1City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Table of Contents | Table of Contents Introduction 1 Executive Summary 3 2 Background Information 4 3 Critical Facility Issues 4 4 Project Imperatives 5 Programming 5 Divisional Connections 7 6 Site Flow 8 7 JEFFTRAN Facility Needs Analysis 9 8 Bus Barn Needs Analysis 11 9 Central Maintenance Needs Analysis 13 10 Fueling Station Needs Analysis 16 11 Wash Bay Needs Analysis 17 Site Analysis 12 East Miller Site 19 13 Hyde Park Road Site 20 14 Stonecreek Drive Site 21 15 Heisinger Road Site 22 Initial Test Fits 16 East Miller + Hyde Park Split Build-Out 24 Alternate Test Fits & Cost Implications 17 East Miller Full Build Out 27 18 Stone Creek + East Miller Split Build-Out 31 19 Heisinger Road + East Miller Split Build-Out 35 Space Standards 20 Offices and Amenities 40 21 Vehicle and Equipment Bays 53 INTRODUCTION 3City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Introduction | 1 - Executive Summary 1.1 Programming The first task in the feasibility study was a programming exercise to determine the recommended spaces and sizes of the studied facilities taking into consideration operational best practices, customer experience, and projected growth. During this phase, the design team developed a list of project imperatives with insight from Jefferson City Public Works that served as a guide while developing the program. 1.2 Initial Test Fits Following programming, the design team began developing test fits for the established program. In the initial stages of this task, a site along East Miller Street that currently houses the facilities under investigation in this study was provided to the design team as the desired location for the new facilities. Included in this site is a lot to the north currently operated by the Streets Division of Jefferson City Public Works. Using the established program, the design team applied the total recommended square footage areas for the proposed facilities and developed diagrams with initial layouts of each facility to explore different placement options along East Miller. It was determined during this initial test fit phase that due to the programmed overall size of the new facilities, and other challenges of the existing site, the full build-out could not fit within the given boundaries of the East Miller site. Following this, a secondary site at Hyde Park Road, where the facilities for several Public Works divisions not explored in this study are located, was proposed as a location for the Central Maintenance facility. Specifically, an area that is currently used as part of the fire department’s training grounds was proposed as the site for this facility. The design team proceeded to explore test fits making use of this land as well as the site at East Miller and developed a diagram placing the full build-out of the proposed facilities split between these two sites. Included in this document are diagrams illustrating the result of this initial test fit exploration. However, following internal discussions about the feasibility of these test fits, it was determined that the city would not be able to relocate the fire department training grounds/ facility located at Hyde Park. Cost implications for this option were therefore not explored. Following this, alternate sites for the facilities were provided to the design team for further investigation. 1.3 Alternate Test Fits Following the decision that the initial test fits were not feasible, a second round of test fits were explored. Three alternate site options were provided to the design team, with preliminary options showing how the facilities could be distributed throughout the sites. One site, along Stonecreek Drive just west of the Hyde Park Municipal Site was suggested as a potential location for all of the program items. Another site, east of the Hyde Park Site, along Heisinger Road was also studied, with the additional need to place a new transit transfer point at another location. Lastly, the East Miller Site was reexamined with additional property northeast of the site added to the studied area. Information about the sites studied is included in this document. The design team developed test fits in the three proposed sites and developed individual site diagrams and summaries for each, including rough order of magnitude development costs, turn radius studies, landscaping plans, and civil diagrams. 1.4 Recommendations Following the second round of test fit explorations, the design team met with Jefferson City Public Works department to evaluate the three options. In summary, it is feasible to house all of the proposed new facilities on each of the sites, but none of the proposed test fits results in ideal conditions for all of the facilities simultaneously. Each site has pros and cons associated with developing the land for the full build-out of each facility proposed in the programming phase. The Stonecreek Site is well suited for the bus transfer point, Bus Barn, and JEFFTRAN admin building due to its close proximity to popular destinations for customers, and its adjacency to commercial zoning, but it is not well suited for the Central Maintenance facility, as its use is more industrial, and would be better located closer to other public works divisions and other similar uses. In contrast, the Heisinger Road site is ideal for the Central Maintenance facility, due to its proximity to other industrial use facilities surrounding it. The Heisinger road site is also the most efficient land to develop, due to its flat grade, in comparison to the Stonecreek and East Miller sites which would require significant retaining walls to develop the full build- out of the program. However, placing the JEFFTRAN administration building on this site would separate it from the most used transfer points within the city, and points of interest of bus riders, therefore requiring a new transfer point to be developed elsewhere, or for the existing transfer station at East Miller site to be significantly renovated and improved. As previously stated, two of the sites, Stonecreek and East Miller would require significant site development costs. Most drastically, the East Miller site would require extensive excavation and a significant retaining wall on the north east side of the property that would be costly to construct. This would also result in the Streets DIvision uses along that side of the site being relocated, and encroaching upon the site of a historic sturcture-Lodge No. 9 of the Capital City Lodge of the Ancient Free and Accepted Masons. For these reasons, locating all the facilities at East Miller is not recommended as the final development solution. Due to the unique nature of each of the proposed sites, the final recommendation of the design team is to place the JEFFTRAN administration facility coupled with a new bus transfer point along the west side of the Stonecreek site. The design team then suggests developing the Heisinger road site for the Central Maintenance facility and associated equipment. The Bus Barn is recommended to go on the east portion of the Stonecreek site, although it could also be located on the Heisinger Road site. This approach creates ample circulation and storage space for vehicles on both of the sites. Given that the city has expressed a desire to have the bus transfer point adjacent to the JEFFTRAN facility, and that the Heisinger Road site is not well suited for this adjacency, the design team recommends the approach described above as the primary development strategy. While this strategy would require two separate properties to be acquired, both sites give the City flexibility and allow for future development and growth. Alternately, if it is the desire of Jefferson City Public Works to place all of the facilities on one site, the site that is most recommended from a development cost standpoint is the Heisinger Road site. This site has the necessary space for all of the programs with sufficient circulation space remaining. This option should be coupled with the renovation and expansion of the East Miller JEFFTRAN Facility as an improved transfer point. These split options were not cost estimated as part of the design team’s scope, but could be further developed and estimated in the future. Beginning in July 2021 through to March of 2022, the design team led by CFS Engineers and Dake Wells Architecture worked alongside the Jefferson City Public Works Department to develop a feasibility study to investigate improvements and possible relocation of divisional facilities. The primary facilities studied were the JEFFTRAN building (administrative facility with a possible adjacent transfer point), a Bus Barn to house the public transit fleet, and a Central Maintenance facility to service all municipal vehicles. To kick off the feasibility study, the design team visited the existing facilities along East Miller Street to understand their condition, assess needs, and gather information from the current employees utilizing the spaces. 4City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Introduction | The City of Jefferson’s Public Works Department serves the residents of the Jefferson City metropolitan area. As a State Capitol with a population of 43,079 (2010 census) in 17,278 households, Jefferson City combines the lifestyle of a smaller community with the municipal expectations of a much larger city. The Public Works Department is comprised of four main Divisions: Engineering, Wastewater Utilities, Operations and Transit. In February 2021, the City released an RFQ for a Transit Facilities Feasibility Study, to explore Field Operations improvements in two of these Divisions: Operations and Transit. A team led by Cook, Flatt and Strobel Engineers and Dake Wells Architecture was retained to complete the Transit Facilities Feasibility Study. The ultimate goal of the Study was to improve the operation of the Transit Division facilities, the Central Maintenance Garage, and two Municipal facilities (Fueling Island and Wash Bay) all of which currently occupy a challenging site at the intersection of E. Miller Street and Chestnut Street. Administration Building. The facility is undersized and aging, with ADA issues. Spaces inside do not communicate the values of JEFFTRAN, or support an efficient operational flow. 2 - Background Information PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS DIVISIONENGINEERING DIVISION WASTEWATER DIVISION CENTRAL MAINTENANCE AIRPORT TRANSIT DIVISION STREETS PARKING Scope of the Transit Facilities Feasibility Study The Transit Division — otherwise known as JEFFTRAN — has been providing fixed-route transportation since 1974. It also offers Handi-wheels, an origin to destination service. The Central Maintenance Garage provides service and repair to the entire fleet of City owned equipment — including JEFFTRAN’s fleet. Maintenance Staff are responsible for day to day preventative maintenance services, as well as detailed large scale repairs, including repairs of specialized equipment. The scope of work included in the Transit Facilities Feasibility Study included needs analysis and concept design for five new structures: - Transit Division Administration Building, incorporating a few spaces currently located outside the existing facility, including a waiting area for riders and a support area for drivers. - Transit Division Bus Barn - Central Maintenance Garage - Municipal Wash Bay (serving multiple Divisions) - Municipal Fueling Island (serving multiple Divisions) Not covered in this study. Matt Morasch, PE, Director Britt E. Smith, PE, Division Director Shawn Stumpe, Supervisor Mark Mehmert, Division DirectorDavid Bange, City Engineer Point of contact for study Public Works Org. Chart 1.Administration Building. The facility is undersized and aging, with ADA issues. Spaces inside do not communicate the values of JEFFTRAN, or support an efficient operational flow. 2.Transit shelter. The waiting area for riders lacks basic amenities found in typical municipal waiting areas in Transfer Facilities. 3.Transfer area. Buses for the 5 fixed routes queue up at the curb, but there is no way-finding to help riders know what routes the different buses serve. 4.Bus Barn. The facility is undersized for the current fleet, and lacks proper infrastructure and support facilities to safely shelter the fleet into the future. It’s size results in some buses needing to be stored in the garage at times. Additionally, site restraints require tight turns to get into the facility. 5.Fuel Island. The Fuel Island serves vehicles from multiple Divisions — not just Transit. As is the case with other structures on site — its current size and layout are inefficient, and do not align with best practices. It’s location on the site contributes to overall traffic congestion and increases the likelihood of accidents. 6.Wash Bay. Similar to the Fuel Island, the Wash Bay serves multiple Divisions. It is currently undersized, and it’s location and operation result in over-spray affecting adjacent areas. Aside from being a nuisance to mechanics at the Central Maintenance Garage and riders waiting for buses, the over-spray can freeze during cold temperatures, creating safety issues. 7.Central Maintenance Garage. The garage is undersized and does not allow for pass-through operation, resulting in vehicles needing to back up. It’s size and location on the site is not in alignment with best practices for such a key municipal operation. 8.Municipal Yard. The site north of E Miller St serves multiple uses, including bulk material storage for the Streets Division, and operational storage for multiple other Jefferson City Divisions. Unless a new location can be found for the bulk materials, this site is off limits to development for Transit Division needs. 9.Historic Lodge. On the west edge of the site is an historic structure that once served as a mason lodge. This building must be protected. It is currently in a state of disrepair and will require significant improvements, but has recently been re-roofed. 10.Pedestrian Traffic. The current site design has created several unsafe pedestrian traffic conditions. Workers often travel from the admin. facility across the street to the parking lot to the west to park, and often travel across Miller Street during breaks, crossing in front of bus traffic. Also, the current arrangement of the transit facility does not have protected pedestrian routes away from the path of the buses. 0 50 100 200 400’ 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 5 E Miller Site 10 3 - Critical Facility Issues 5City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Introduction | 4 - Project Imperatives On July 1, 2021 the design team met with the divisional leadership of the Jefferson City Public Works Department to kickoff the Transit Facilities Feasibility Study. At this meeting, the design team surveyed the needs, wants and goals for master- planning study and the individual facilities studied within. From the information and insight collected from the Jefferson City Public works leadership, a set of 8 project imperatives was developed that will serve as guiding principles for the feasibility study. Throughout the study, the project imperatives will be referenced to ensure the project is following the overall wants, needs, and goals established by the city and design team. 1.Design for change. Consider current needs in context of predicted future industry trends and design to create facilities that are flexible enough to adapt. Consider trends in city population growth and its affect on vehicle counts and types. 2.Design for customer experience. Designing with the customer in mind will allow the facility to serve as an amenity for the community that will greatly improve their commuting experience. 3.Design for worker health and well-being. Design facilities with an awareness that the occupants are essential workers. Focus on glare free daylighting, acoustic controls, access to ventilation and fresh air, and offer environmental components and spaces that contribute to workers feeling healthy and productive. 4.Design for achievability. Design pragmatically with solutions to programmatic needs that take into consideration implications on cost, operability, and time frame to ensure a realistic, achievable development. 5.Design for public safety and accessibility. Consider the diversity and different abilities of the community that the transit facilities serve and create inclusive spaces that are easy, enjoyable, and intuitive to access and use. Ensure that pedestrians are protected from vehicular traffic and other facility operations. 6.Design to improve operational functionality. Conditions of the current facilities and their site arrangements do not meet current standards in regard to operation, ventilation, safety, and size. It is imperative that the project provides spaces and site arrangements that allow the functions of the transit facility, bus barn, and central maintenance garage staff to operate in an efficient and safe way. Design spaces with everyday practicality in mind, and provide intuitive spaces that contribute to the efficiency of the staff. 7.Embrace Sustainable Design. Understand the implications of baseline and “code minimum” thinking and consider strategies that prioritize resource efficiency and carbon reduction. Plan spaces that are prepared for the change to electric vehicles and other alternative energy sources. 8.Design for Resiliency. Design to maintain continuous operation in the midst of the aftermath of disasters. Design to adapt should future emergencies dictate temporary uses for the facilities. Design spaces within the facility that can be used as storm shelters, and provide spaces that can be adapted to meet the requirements of future pandemics. PROGRAMMING 7City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Programming | If CM is located at a different site than the Transit facilities, it should have access to an adjacent wash bay PUBLIC STAFF JEFFTRAN Routes JEFFTRAN BUILDING 5.1 Divisional Connections The current location of the facilities being studied is well suited to their operations it is just too tight to allow for proper, safe operation and future expansion to respond to growth or new needs. The Transit Facilities Feasibility Study will look into which operations must remain adjacent, and which can be relocated to another site. Existing facilities will be studied to see if they can be effectively re-purposed. The goal is that the operation of JEFFTRAN and Central Maintenance reflect current and projected future best practices, and that the facilities are located in strategic locations with regard to inter-divisional connectivity. 5 - Divisional Connections 5.2 Divisional Adjacency Diagram If CM is located at a different site than the Transit facilities, it should have access to an adjacent wash bay PUBLIC STAFF JEFFTRAN Routes JEFFTRAN BUILDING Demarcation between public and staff spaces Direct adjacency preferred (i.e. single campus) Direct adjacency optional Prefered groupings for optional operational flow. Per exectutive summary, if separate sites are utilized and located relatively close to each other, the Transit Bus Barn and Central Maintenance Garage could be co-located to a separate site, apart from the JEFFTRAN building. If CM is located at a different site than the Transit facilities, it should have access to an adjacent wash bay PUBLIC STAFF JEFFTRAN Routes JEFFTRAN BUILDING 8City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Programming | 6 - Site Flow 6.1 Site Flow Summary Initial flow analysis of fleet vehicles and public interaction suggest that locating the Administration Building, Bus Barn, Fuel Island and Wash Bay on a single campus is beneficial. It is not critical that the Central Maintenance be located on the same campus provided that they have access to a Wash Bay of their own. 6.2 Divisional Site Flow Diagram JEFFERSON CITY PUBLIC STAFF JEFFTRAN Routes JEFFTRAN BUILDING JEFFERSON CITY PUBLIC STAFF JEFFTRAN Routes JEFFTRAN BUILDING Public flow — purchasing bus passes, waiting, and outdoor Bus Transfer. Transit daily flow — leaving Bus Barn, picking up riders at Bus Transfer Area, running routes, returning at end of day, fueling, washing and storage in Bus Barn. Transit maintenance flow — buses’ intermittent trips to the Central Maintenance Garage. Municipal Fueling / Washing flow — municipal vehicles requiring fueling and/or washing. Municipal Maintenance flow — municipal vehicles receiving maintenance/repairs (many times after a wash.) 9City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Programming | 7.1 Operational Summary Transit Division leadership and key staff were interviewed to determine the needs of a new Administration Building. It will house critical staff operations functions, as well as serving as the public interface for JEFFTRAN by combining the existing Administrative and Transfer Facilities’ functions . Spaces will include administrative offices, staff gathering and training spaces, support spaces, a drivers’ “day room”, public restroom, ticketing and waiting spaces. These last two will focus on creating a comfortable environment for customers to purchase bus passes, transfer from one route to another, and wait for the bus. Bringing this function into the Administration Building will give it a sense of permanence, predictability and comfort. Clear lines of sight from the public windows through the space are critical for the safety and security of JEFFTRAN’s passengers. The needs analysis factored in growth projections to allow for future flexibility. 7 - JEFFTRAN Facility Needs Analysis View of administrative facility from E Miller St. JEFFTRAN BUILDING TRANSIT BUS BARN CENTRAL MAINTENANCE GARAGE MUNICIPAL FUEL ISLAND WASH BAY(S) PUBLIC STAFF JEFFTRAN Routes Break room / meeting room / fitness area.Transit Division Director’s office. Front office.Dispatch office 7.2 Images of Existing Facility View of public restroom and transfer shelter from E Miller Street.Vestibule and public windows. Page| 83 The main transfer point is at 820 Miller Street adjacent to the Administrative office (Figure 5-5). This amenity includes an enclosed climate controlled shelter with Wi-Fi access. Additional transit shelters are found in various locations throughout the City, as shown in Figure 5-6. Figure 5-5: Transfer Shelter (10’ X 21’ glass-enclosed shelter) Figure 5-6: Bus Shelters throughout Jefferson City 10City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Programming | 7.3 Space Needs Summary Administrative Spaces # Size Idiv. SF TOTAL SF Notes Vestibule 1 10'x10' 100 100 Transit Director's Office 1 12'x16' 192 192 Operations Supervisor Office 1 10'x15' 150 150 Operations Assistant Office 1 10'x12' 120 120 Future Supervisor Office 1 10'x12' 120 120 Training Shared Office 1 14'x16' 224 224 Dispatch Office / Window 1 12'x16' 192 192 for 2 people; one public, one private Admin Assistant Office / Window 1 12'x15' 180 180 adjacent to disp., but sound separated Small Conference/ Meeting Room 1 12'x16' 192 192 up to 6 people Training Room 1 24'x32' 768 768 seats 24-30 Break Room 1 24'x32' 768 768 up to 36 people General Storage 1 10'x20' 200 200 Wellness Room 1 10'x15' 150 150 with excercise equipment Mother's Room 1 10'x10' 100 100 Driver Break Room 1 16'x25' 400 400 with tv, computer work area, seating It Room 1 10'x10' 100 100 desk for cameras Spare Uniform Storage 1 10'x10' 100 100 Secure File Storage 1 10'x10' 100 100 Office Storage 1 10'x10' 100 100 Work Room 1 10'x12 120 120 copier, central but quiet location Janitor Closet 1 8'x8' 64 64 with mop sink, cleaning supplies, shelving Mens Locker and Restroom 1 TBD 800 800 one locker per worker, next to restrooms, 30 Total workers Womens Locker and Restroom 1 TBD 800 800 one locker per worker, next to restrooms, 30 total workers Universal Locker/ Shower Room 2 10'x10' 100 200 Mechanical/ Stormsafe area 1 Flexible 1,331 1,331 with generator, must hold more than staff Transfer Facility Spaces # Size Idiv. SF TOTAL SF Notes Public Waiting Room 1 25'x20' 750 750 for up to 12 people Public Restrooms 2 9'-3"x18' 135 270 8,591 2,148 10,739 Outdoor Areas # Size Idiv. SF TOTAL SF Notes Outdoor Waiting Area 1 25'x30' 750 750 for up to 12 (per owner) up to 50 (per route max totals) Outdoor Break Area 1 Flexible 500 500 near offices, sf based on area available Bus Parking 5 70'-8 1/2" X 8' + 30' lane 2,371 11,855 with canopy and signage, saw tooth recommended Employee Parking 40 9' x 18' + 1/2 of 27' drive 270 10,800 1 per each employee on largest shift Trash / Recycling Area 1 15'x15' 225 225 size may vary 24,130 36,195 60,325 71,064 TOTAL AREA SF Interior Subtotal SF Grossing Factor 25% INTERIOR TOTAL SF Exterior Subtotal SF Site circulation @ 150% EXTERIOR TOTAL SF TRANSIT DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE BUS DRIVERSOPERATIONS SERVICE WORKERS JANITOR Mark Mehmert, Director Gerry Stegeman, Supervisor Maurice Burnley, Assistant Britt E. Smith, PE, Division Director Glenna Vernon, Assistant 20 Bus Drivers 3 Bus Barn Staff 2 Dispatchers, Comm Operators CENTRAL MAINTENANCE MECHANICS PARTS STORAGE Shawn Stumpe, Supervisor Keith Haslag,Lead Mechanic 5 - 6 Mechanics Keith Rademan,Parts Clerk OPERATIONS DIVISION Transit Division Org. Chart 7.4 Adjacency Diagram Transit Stops (x5) TBD Outdoor WaitingTBD Public Waiting750 sf Public Womens RR135 sf Public Mens RR135 sf Mech/ StormTBD Office Sto.100 sf TrainingOffice225 sf Small Conf.200 sf Super.150 sf Asst.Super120 sf FutureOffice120 sf Dispatch A100 sf Dispatch B100 sf WorkRoom120 sf Admin. Assist180 sf IT100 sf Break Room750 sf Training Room750 sf Wellness150 sf Driver Lounge400 sf Univ.Stor.100 sf Jan.100 sfWomens Locker800 sf Secure Outdoor BreakTBD Connection Between Offices and Worker Areas shown diagramatically - actual adjacency will be determined in design.Public Entry ToBus Barn OFFICESSTAFF AMENITIESTRANSFERGen. Stor.200 sf Director’s Office200 sf Mens Locker800 sf Jan.64 sf File100 sf Univ.Shower100 sf Univ.Shower100 sf PUBLIC STAFF Public Windows Mother’s100 sf Bus Driver Access- See Section 11: Space Standards for key room plan examples 11City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Programming | JEFFTRAN BUILDING TRANSIT BUS BARN CENTRAL MAINTENANCE GARAGE MUNICIPAL FUEL ISLAND WASH BAY(S) PUBLIC STAFF JEFFTRAN Routes 8.1 Operational Summary Transit Division leadership and key staff were interviewed to determine the needs of a new Bus Barn, which will remain dedicated to the Transit Division. The interviewees expressed a need for the facility to be upsized by 20% and for a secure office for counting fares; needs analysis revealed that more storage and support space is needed to properly house the fleet and provide minor maintenance. Final recommendations were determined using growth projections and industry standards / best practices. The new facility should be flexible enough to allow for shifting vehicle sizes and eventual adoption of electric vehicles. 8 - Bus Barn Needs Analysis View from the southeast.Interior view looking east. View from the north. Interior view looking southwest. Interior view looking southeast. 8.3 Images of Existing Facility 8.2 Vehicle Inventory Summary Bus Barn Storage Vehicle Count ( Number based on growth projections ) Vehicle Type 0 yr/ Current 10 year 30 year 50 year Large Vehicles (15'x40') (12) (13) (13) (13) Medium Vehicles (15'x32')10 11 11 11 Small Equipment (10'x20')8 8 8 8 Total 30 32 32 32 12City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Programming | 8.4 Bus Barn Space Needs Summary Bus Barn Interior # Size Idiv. SF TOTAL SF Notes Secure Office (1) 10'x12' (120) (120) for fare count and repairs Secure Storage (2) 10'x20' (200) (400) Restrooms (2) 10'X10' (100) (200) Mechanical/ Storm Safe Room (1) 10'x20' (200) (200) Storm Shelter (1) 10'x10' (100) (100) Bus Storage - Large Spaces (13) 15'x40' (600) (7,800) 20% more, currently have 20 spaces, 24 desired Bus Storage - Medium Spaces (11) 15'x32' (480) (5,280) Bus Storage - Small Spaces (8) 10'x20' (200) (1,600) Mezzanine Storage (1) TBD TBD TBD Maximum 1/3 of open storage area (IBC) Interior Subtotal SF (15,700) Circulation @ 25% (3,925) INTERIOR TOTAL SF (19,625) Bus Barn Exterior # Size Idiv. SF TOTAL SF Notes Storage Tanks (3) 10'x20' (200) (600) Fuel Island (1) 30'X50' (1,500)(1,500) Wash Bay (1) 52'x136' (7,072)(7,072) Employee Parking (10) 9' x 18' +1/2 of 24' Drive (270) (2,700) Trash/ Recyling Area (1) 15'x15' (225) (225) Exterior Subtotal SF (12,097) Site circulation @ 150% (18,146) EXTERIOR TOTAL SF (30,243) TOTAL AREA SF (49,868) TRANSIT DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE BUS DRIVERSOPERATIONS SERVICE WORKERS JANITOR Mark Mehmert, Director Gerry Stegeman, Supervisor Maurice Burnley, Assistant Britt E. Smith, PE, Division Director Glenna Vernon, Assistant 20 Bus Drivers 3 Bus Barn Staff 2 Dispatchers, Comm Operators CENTRAL MAINTENANCE MECHANICS PARTS STORAGE Shawn Stumpe, Supervisor Keith Haslag,Lead Mechanic 5 - 6 Mechanics Keith Rademan,Parts Clerk OPERATIONS DIVISION Transit Division Org. Chart 8.5 Adjacency Diagram Secure Office120 sf Mezzanine Storage Above BUS STORAGE Service bays shown diagramatically. All bays shall have drive thru capability. General Stor.200 sf Secure Stor.200 sf A Large Vehicle Parking @ 600 sf ea. x 13= 7,800 sf total Medium Vehicle Parking @ 480 sf ea x 11= 5,280 sf total Small Vehicle Parking @ 200 sf ea x 8= 1,600 sf A: B: C: To Employee Parking Univ. RR100 sf Univ. RR100 sf Mech.TBD To Fuel Island A A A A A A A A A A A AB B B B B B B B B B B C C C C C C C C C C Storm100 sf 13City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Programming | JEFFTRAN BUILDING TRANSIT BUS BARN CENTRAL MAINTENANCE GARAGE MUNICIPAL FUEL ISLAND WASH BAY(S) PUBLIC STAFF JEFFTRAN Routes 9.1 Operational Summary Central Maintenance is a highly specialized operation that services vehicles from multiple Jefferson City Divisions, including Transit, Fire, Police, Streets and others. Interviews were completed with Central Maintenance leadership to determine current and future needs. The operation has been performing admirably in its existing location, but a number of factors related to the facilities location on the site are counter to best practices. Central Maintenance has a need for large and small vehicle service bays. The number of each bay and final size would be based on workflow and maintenance practices, number of maintenance staff and organization of those staff, and overall count of serviced vehicles. Specialized equipment storage, parts and material storage, as well as personal tool storage, is required to support the primary activity of each service bay. Certain specialized bays such as welding and tire service are also needed. Final recommendations were determined using growth projections and industry standards / best practices. See Section 12 for methodology calculating number and sizes of vehicle bays. Central Maintenance staff need to be provided with administrative and personnel support spaces. These include private offices and a tech desk area, a break room with training facilities, restrooms and locker rooms based on current and projected staff make-up, and other function support spaces such as IT closet, general storage, janitorial and building mechanical equipment room that may double as a storm safe room. 9 - Central Maintenance Needs Analysis View of garage from the northwest. Interior view of CM garage.CM garage mezzanine CM supervisor’s office.Tech Service desk CM parts tech’s office.CM Parts room. Misc. CM storage.CM break room / meeting room. 9.2 Images of Existing Facility 14City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Programming | 9.3 Requested Adjacency Diagram PartsOffice180 sf Super180 sf BreakRoom360 sf Indoor Wash Bay7,072 sf Mezzanine Storage Above OutdoorBreakTBD Locker Room470 sf OFFICESSHOPService bays shown diagramatically. All bays shall have drive thru capability. IT48 sf Shower Rooms67 sf x6Jan.100 sf Office Sto.100 sf All office spaces to be fully conditioned Tool Stor.200 sf General Stor.200 sf Loading Dock General Stor.200 sf AA A A A A A A BCLarge Service Shops @ 1,456 sf ea. x 8= 11,648 sf total Tire Service Bay= 800 sf Welding & Service Bay = 2,560 sf Total building sf = 68,008 sf A: B: C: To Employee Parking To Vehicle Staging Drive ThruDrive Thru Parts Storage1500 sf Tire Storage800 sf Fluids Storage375 sf Tech Desk120 sf Mech/ Storm Safe RoomTBD 9.4 Recommended Adjacency Diagram Indoor Wash Bay7,072 sf Mezzanine Storage Above OutdoorBreakTBD OFFICESSHOPService bays shown diagramatically. All bays shall have drive thru capability. All office spaces to be fully conditioned Tool Stor.200 sf General Stor.200 sf Loading Dock General Stor.200 sf A A A A A A A A B B B B B B C D Large Service Shops @ 1,456 sf ea. x 10= 14,560 sf total Small Service Shops @ 704 sf ea x 8= 5,632 sf total Tire Service Bay= 800 sf Welding & Service Bay = 2,560 sf Total building sf = 79,621 A: B: C: D: To Employee Parking To Vehicle Staging A A B B Drive ThruDrive Thru PartsOffice180 sf Super180 sf Break Room360 sf Locker Room470 sf IT48 sf Shower Rooms67 sf x6Jan.100 sf Office Sto.100 sf Parts Storage1500 sf Tire Storage800 sf Fluids Storage375 sf Tech Desk120 sf Mech/ Storm Safe RoomTBD 15City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Programming | TRANSIT DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE BUS DRIVERSOPERATIONS SERVICE WORKERS JANITOR Mark Mehmert, Director Gerry Stegeman, Supervisor Maurice Burnley, Assistant Britt E. Smith, PE, Division Director Glenna Vernon, Assistant 20 Bus Drivers 3 Bus Barn Staff 2 Dispatchers, Comm Operators CENTRAL MAINTENANCE MECHANICS PARTS STORAGE Shawn Stumpe, Supervisor Keith Haslag,Lead Mechanic 5 - 6 Mechanics Keith Rademan,Parts Clerk OPERATIONS DIVISION 9.5 Central Maintenance Requested Space Needs Summary Central Maintenance Org. Chart Administrative Spaces # Size Idiv. SF TOTAL SF Notes Vestibule 1 10'x10' 100 100 Supervisor Office 1 12'x15' 180 180 up to 4 people in office Parts Room 1 30'x50' 1,500 1,500 with loading dock to outside and fork lift access Parts Office 1 10'X12' 120 120 potentially with tech service desk Tech Service Area 1 10'x12' 120 120 could be in parts office or separated area Janitor 1 10'x10' 100 100 IT 1 8'x6' 48 48 Break Room 1 18'x20' 360 360 up to 16 people, training, muster ect. with kitchenette Locker Room 1 TBD 470 470 max 24 lockers Shower Rooms 6 9'6"x7' 61 366 General Storage/ Supply 1 10'x10' 100 100 Service Bays # Size Idiv. SF TOTAL SF Notes Large Service Bays 8 28'x52' 1,456 12,368 5 drive thru, 14'-16' doors, 2 bays w/ stationary lifts, 1 w/ pit lift Welding and Fabrication Bay 1 32'x80' 2,560 2,560 Tire Service Bay 1 20'x40' 800 800 Indoor Wash Bay 1 52'x136' 7,072 7,072 power washer, degreaser, parts cleaner, solvent barrel capture Shop Storage # Size Idiv. SF TOTAL SF Notes Bulk Fluids Storage 1 15'x25' 375 375 adjacent to parts room Tire Storage 1 20'x40' 800 800 could be in mezzanine, adjacent to parts room and dock Tool Storage 1 10'x20' 200 200 General Storage 2 10'x20' 200 400 jack storage, AC machine storage Mezzanine Storage 1 TBD TBD TBD w/ compressors; max. 1/3 of open storage area (IBC) Mechanical / Stormsafe area 1 TBD TBD 5,329 15% of supported 33,368 8,342 41,710 Exterior Areas # Size Idiv. SF TOTAL SF Notes Outdoor Break Area 1 TBD TBD 500 near offices, sf based on area available Employee Parking 15 9' x 18' +1/2 of 24' Drive 270 4,050 1 per each employee on largest shift + 5 visitor Staging Parking - Large Spaces 4 20'x45' 900 3,600 Staging Parking - Medium Spaces 4 12'x24' 288 1,152 Staging Parking -Pick-up Spaces 4 10'x20' 200 800 Trash/ Recyling Area 1 15'x15' 225 225 sf can vary 10,327 15,491 25,818 67,528 EXTERIOR TOTAL SF TOTAL AREA SF Interior Subtotal SF Circulation @ 25% INTERIOR TOTAL SF Exterior Subtotal SF Site circulation @ 150% 9.6 Central Maintenance Recommended Space Needs Summary Administrative Spaces # Size Idiv. SF TOTAL SF Notes Vestibule 1 10'x10' 100 100 Supervisor Office 1 12'x15' 180 180 up to 4 people in office Parts Room 1 30'x50' 1,500 1,500 with loading dock to outside and fork lift access Parts Office 1 10'x12' 120 120 potentially with tech service desk Tech Service Area 1 10'x12' 120 120 could be in parts office or separated area Janitor 1 10'x10' 100 100 IT 1 8'x6' 48 48 Break Room 1 18'x20' 360 360 up to 16 people, training, muster ect. with kitchenette Locker Room 1 TBD 470 470 max 24 lockers Shower Rooms 6 9'6"x7' 67 399 General Storage/ Supply 1 10'x10' 100 100 Service Bays # Size Idiv. SF TOTAL SF Notes Large Service Bays 10 28'x52' 1,456 14,560 5 drive thru, 14'-16' doors, 2 bays w/ stationary lifts, 1 w/ pit lift Small Service Bays 8 22'x32' 704 5,632 Welding and Fabrication Bay 1 32'x80' 2,560 2,560 Tire Service Bay 1 20'x40' 800 800 Indoor Wash Bay 1 52'x136' 7,072 7,072 power washer, degreaser, parts cleaner, solvent barrel capture Shop Storage # Size Idiv. SF TOTAL SF Notes Bulk Fluids Storage 1 15'x25' 375 375 adjacent to parts room Tire Storage 1 20'x40' 800 800 could be in mezzanine, adjacent to parts room and dock Tool Storage 1 10'x20' 200 200 General Storage 2 10'x20' 200 400 jack storage, AC machine storage Mezzanine Storage 1 TBD TBD TBD w/ compressors; max. 1/3 of open storage area (IBC) Mechanical / Stormsafe area 1 TBD TBD 6,796 15% of supported 42,692 10,673 53,365 Exterior Areas # Size Idiv. SF TOTAL SF Notes Outdoor Break Area 1 TBD TBD 500 near offices, sf based on area available Employee Parking 15 9' x 18' +1/2 of 24' Drive 270 4,050 1 per each employee on largest shift + 5 visitor Staging Parking - Large Spaces 4 20'x45' 900 3,600 Staging Parking - Medium Spaces 4 12'x24' 288 1,152 Staging Parking -Pick-up Spaces 4 10'x20' 200 800 Trash/ Recyling Area 1 15'x15' 225 225 sf can vary 10,327 15,491 25,818 79,183 EXTERIOR TOTAL SF TOTAL AREA SF Interior Subtotal SF Circulation @ 25% INTERIOR TOTAL SF Exterior Subtotal SF Site circulation @ 150% 16City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Programming | JEFFTRAN BUILDING TRANSIT BUS BARN CENTRAL MAINTENANCE GARAGE MUNICIPAL FUEL ISLAND WASH BAY(S) PUBLIC STAFF JEFFTRAN Routes 10 - Fueling Station Needs Analysis View from the southeast. 10.1 Operational Summary Jefferson City has two fueling stations, one at the E. Miller site and one at the Hyde Park Road site. A needs analysis revealed that a new Fueling Station would benefit from longer spacing between pumps. Further discussion in future phases will inform whether tanks are above or below-ground, and what types of products will be made available, i.e. unleaded gasoline, diesel, clean diesel, biodiesel and DEF. 10.2 Image of Existing Facility Typical Notes: •Fuel accommodated on both sides of the island. •Tank venting integrated into canopy. •All piping and connections are underground. •Leak detection and spark protection fully integrated. •Electrical power source from main building. •Emergency shut off no closer than 20’, no further than 100’. Typical Notes: •Location must be reviewed with fire authority. •If located within 20’ of a building, double wall rated tanks and building rated walls are required. •Emergency shut off is integrated with tanks, unless tanks are more than 100’ from dispensing. Below Ground Above Ground D D D D D D D D 30'-0"48'-8"48'-8"28'-0" 28'-0"4'-0"31'-4"8'-6"6'-6"8'-6"Fuel canopy with lighting above Dual product dispenser 600 gallon self contained DEF distribution System operation pedestals and controls 10’ diameter, 12,000 gallon double wall/ dual product capable fiberglass tank Raised concrete curb and fuel island Heavy duty concrete pavement Future tank or separate tank for second fuel type Above ground double wall steel tanks. 10,000 gallon capacity Below Ground Above Ground D D D D D D D D 30'-0"48'-8"48'-8"28'-0" 28'-0" 4'-0"31'-4"8'-6" 6'-6" 8'-6" Fuel canopy with lighting above Dual product dispenser 600 gallon self contained DEF distribution System operation pedestals and controls 10’ diameter, 12,000 gallon double wall/ dual product capable fiberglass tank Raised concrete curb and fuel island Heavy duty concrete pavement Future tank or separate tank for second fuel type Above ground double wall steel tanks. 10,000 gallon capacity Below Ground Tank Above Ground Tank 10.3 Fuel Storage Tank Diagrams 17City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Programming | JEFFTRAN BUILDING TRANSIT BUS BARN CENTRAL MAINTENANCE GARAGE MUNICIPAL FUEL ISLAND WASH BAY(S) PUBLIC STAFF JEFFTRAN Routes 11 - Wash Bay Needs Analysis 11.1 Operational Summary The needs analysis for the Wash Bay revealed that a new facility will need to be constructed to properly wash vehicles. The Wash Bay will serve multiple Divisions, and will need to have controlled access. Future discussions will help determine if additional functionality should be included, including an area for minor maintenance and fluids check. If Central Maintenance is located at a different site than the Transit facilities, both shall need a dedicated wash bay. View from the northwest. 11.2 Image of Existing Facility 11.3 Wash Bay Space Needs Diagram Spaces Legend A.Pre-Wash: Critical space if utilized by any vehicles other than buses. Allows for hand washing and large volume / high pressure to clear off ice and dirt. Dual wash, trolley guided washing in this area. 45’ pre-wash recommended to accommodate buses, but can be shortened if only for other vehicles. This space will include a wide and deep trench drain to collect sediment before flammable waste trap and sanitary exit. B.Wash Equipment Room: Location for wash equipment and building equipment with in floor heat boilers, pressure wash units, and dedicated electrical panels. Automated wash equipment shown. C.Automated Wash system: Touchless system illustrated, a touchless system is required if accommodating multiple vehicles. Length can be reduced if driving directly into storage. Equipment Legend 1.Automated wash activation or in floor loop 2.Automated wash overhead rinse and detergent dispensing arch 3.Automated secondary arch activation wand or in floor loop 4.Automated undercarriage/ chassis wash 5.Automated secondary arch activation wand or in floor loop 6.Automated wash rinse arch 7.Automated wash tire guides 8.Automated dryer 1.2.3.136'-0"30'-0"54'-6"12'-3"4.5.7.8.6.ABC1. 2. 3.136'-0"30'-0"54'-6"12'-3" 4. 5. 7. 8. 6. A B C 1. 2. 3.136'-0"30'-0"54'-6"12'-3" 4. 5. 7. 8. 6. A B C 1. 2. 3.136'-0"30'-0"54'-6"12'-3" 4. 5. 7. 8. 6. A B C 1. 2. 3.136'-0"30'-0"54'-6"12'-3" 4. 5. 7. 8. 6. A B C 1. 2. 3.136'-0"30'-0"54'-6"12'-3" 4. 5. 7. 8. 6. A B C 1. 2. 3.136'-0"30'-0"54'-6"12'-3" 4. 5. 7. 8. 6. A B C 1. 2. 3.136'-0"30'-0"54'-6"12'-3" 4. 5. 7. 8. 6. A B C 1. 2. 3.136'-0"30'-0"54'-6"12'-3" 4. 5. 7. 8. 6. A B C 1. 2. 3.136'-0"30'-0"54'-6"12'-3" 4. 5. 7. 8. 6. A B C 1. 2. 3.136'-0"30'-0"54'-6"12'-3" 4. 5. 7. 8. 6. A B C 1. 2. 3.136'-0"30'-0"54'-6"12'-3" 4. 5. 7. 8. 6. A B C 1. 2. 3.136'-0"30'-0"54'-6"12'-3" 4. 5. 7. 8. 6. A B C SITE OPTIONS 19City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Site Surveys | 12 - East Miller Street Site East Miller Street cuts through the site splitting it into north and south lots. On the southern lot, the existing Administrative Facility, Central Maintenance Garage, Transit Shelter, Transfer Waiting area, and fuel island are all housed. Just south of the street and sidewalk is a large retaining wall that surrounds the yard and drive for the Central Maintenance Garage and Bus Barn, and their accessory functions, resulting in ground level being 10’ -15’ below the grade of the sidewalk and street. The Administrative Facility is connected to the Maintenance Garage, and can be accessed through it or via E. Miller street (it is below street grade and must be accessed by ramp or stair.) The current grades prevent easy street access, and belittle the facilities’ street presence. The land to the northeast of East Miller Street (not shown) serves as a municipal yard for multiple divisions of Jefferson City Public Works including bulk material storage for the Streets Division, and operational storage for other Jefferson City Divisions. However, the east portion of this area is under-utilized, and if all the storage bins and other streets functions could be relocated to a proposed location approved by the city, the site could be utilized for this study. This portion of the site is mostly flat, and is bordered by a retaining wall to the north and east. On the western edge of this area is a historic structure that once served as a mason lodge. This building must be protected and has been proposed to be remodeled and used for municipal administrative functions. Existing Site / Grading Plan (southwest lot only)0 20 50 100’ 20City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Site Surveys | 1 2 3 4 6 5 1 1 4 5 The site at Hyde Park Road houses multiple municipal division spaces including the Streets Division facilities, the Sewer Division facilities, and Fire Department training and storage facilities. The north of this site is dedicated to the Streets and Sewer division buildings and their site storage, and those facilities are newer and well suited to their needs. The site is located in a strategic area of the city, and is effective for the divisions that use it. The southern part of the site is a large concrete pad that the fire department uses for training, with a large 2 story brick burn tower at the edge. Adjacent to this pad are several zones of training equipment, such as simulated trenches and confined space simulators. While this site is currently used by the fire department, the large concrete pad was initially suggested as a potential location for the Central Maintenance Garage if it were to be relocated away from the E. Miller site. Legend 1.Concrete Pad - Used for fire department training, but was initially suggested as a possible location for Central Maintenance Garage 2.Streets Division Facility - This facility houses the various divisional operation spaces for the Streets Division. It is a newer facility, and well suited for their needs. 3.Wastewater Division Facility - This facility houses the various divisional operation spaces for the Sewer Division. It is a newer facility, and well suited for their needs. 4.Fire Department Apparatus Storage Building 5.Fire Department Burn Tower - This building is a 2 story brick building that is used for training by the fire department. It was initially suggested that this could be removed and relocated. 6.Retention Basin - This area currently serves as a retention area, but can be regraded and reused for other functions. 7.Greenway Trails 8.Fire Department Training Zones 9.Flood Plain Note: after this initial test fit, the fire department established that the site cannot be intevened. 2 3 8 7 7 8 6 9 1 13 - Hyde Park Road Site Existing Site Plan0 100 200 400’ 21City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Site Surveys | 14 - Stonecreek Drive Site 215489-Contours-StoneCreek-Test.dgn 3/1/2022 11:43:18 AM 0 20 50 100’ After the first round of test fits were evaluated by the city, it was determined that a split buildout between the Hyde Park and East Miller sites would not be a feasible option. The area being allocated to the Central Maintenance Facility in the initial test fit is currently dedicated to the Fire Department’s activities, and cannot be replaced. Therefore, a set of secondary sites were selected by Jefferson City as potential alternatives for the design team and the City Engineering Department’s investigation. One alternate site investigated was an undeveloped site between Stonecreek Drive to the West, West Stadium Blvd to the East, and a future expansion of Hyde Park Road to the south. The site is located a few blocks west of the Hyde Park Municipal Site investigated in the initial rounds of test fits. Just to the east of the site are Menards and Walmart, popular destinations for travelers of the Jefferson City Transit System, making it a favorable site for a potential transfer station. The grade of the eastern portion of the site is mostly flat, however there is a significant grade change to the west that would need to be taken into consideration for any buildout on the site. Similarly, there is a retention stream at the northern portion of the site that may require a retaining wall to be developed along that edge of the site. Legend 1.Stonecreek Drive Site 2.Hyde Park Municipal Site 3.Walmart 4.Menards 5.Target 6.Flood PlainSTONECREEK DRIVEHYDE PARK ROAD WEST STADIUM BLVD . 3D Aerial View View from Stonecreek Dr. looking East View from W. Stadium Blvd. looking West Aerial Context View 1 2 3 4 6 5 22City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Site Surveys | 15 - Heisinger Road Site 0 20 50 100’ 15 - Heisinger Road Site During the second round of test fits, an empty site along Heisinger Road was suggested as an alternate location for the buildouts of the new JEFFTRAN Admin, Bus Barn, and Central Maintenance facilities. The site is just east of the existing Hyde Park Municipal site that was studied in the initial test fits, sharing the benefit of being in a strategic central location within the city. Although it is a former drive-in theater, the site is now surrounded by other industrial and civic uses. Just to the south, runs the greenway trail that stretches through the city and toward the Hyde Park site. The proximity to the existing Hyde Park site creates operational efficiencies for vehicles that would be served at the new Central Maintenance Facility. However, if the JEFFTRAN Administration Facility were to also be built on this site, transfer stations would likely be necessary at another location, such as the East Miller Site or the Stonecreek Site. This would, in turn, create some inefficiencies by having the Bus Barn separated from any potential new transfer station. Legend 1.Heisinger Road Site 2.Hyde Park Municipal Site 3.Walmart 4.Menards 5.Target 6.Flood Plain 3D Aerial View View from Heisinger Rd. looking SoutheastHEISINGER ROADAerial Context ViewView from Heisinger Rd. looking Northeast 1 2 3 4 6 5 INITIAL TEST FITS 24City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Initial Test Fits | 16 - East Miller + Hyde Park - Split Build Out 16.1 Background At the beginning of the Feasibility Study, two sites were provided to the design team as potential locations for the facilities. These were the existing East Miller Street and Hyde Park Road sites. Using the previously developed program, the design team studied test fit options at these sites — land that is already owned by the city. Initially, several iterations attempted to locate the entire program on the East Miller Street site (including the north lot which houses a municipal yard) were explored. It was determined that the area of land on East Miller Street currently owned by the city is insufficient for the full build out without reducing program needs. The design team, along with city leadership, in order to achieve the project goals and maintain the previously developed program, proceeded to explore options where one or more of the facilities would be relocated to another site. With the other municipal divisions on the Hyde Park Road site already housing a significant portion of the vehicles serviced by Central Maintenance, locating this facility on Hyde Park Road, seemed the most operationally beneficial. The design team then pursued test fits that placed the Bus Barn, JEFFTRAN building, Fueling Station, and Wash Bay at the East Miller Street site, and Central Maintenance, along with an additional Wash Bay and Fueling Station, on the existing concrete pad at Hyde Park — which is currently used for Fire Department training. 16.2 East Miller Street Site Approach The test fit shown here — that city management and the design team recommend for operational efficiency — maintains the JEFFTRAN Facility where it is currently located and increases its overall footprint. The Bus Barn also remains in a similar location to its existing placement with an increased footprint. The Fueling Station and Wash Bay would be moved to the northeast lot by removing the existing garage and relocating the existing bulk bins to the east of the lot. The existing Central Maintenance facility would be entirely removed from this site to be relocated at the Hyde Park Road site. Due to a lack of streetfront space, this layout would only include up to 6 new sawtooth bus parking spaces which is lower than the desired amount. Similarly, to provide the necessary employee parking, the lower level of the JEFFTRAN building would need to be developed as a parking garage. Pros: •The full program is feasible, if Central Maintenance can go to Hyde Park. •The historic lodge is maintained. •The current streets sheds are maintained. •Existing traffic patterns are maintained. •Minimal grade manipulation. Cons: •Lack of public parking for transfer station riders. •Central Maintenance is off site. •Streets bulk bins need to be relocated. •Existing garage needs to be removed. •Fewer than requested bus parking spots. •Power lines need to be buried.East Miller Street Site - Split Build Out 0 20 50 100’ 25City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Initial Test Fits | Hyde Park Road Site - Split Build Out 0 20 50 100’ 16.3 Hyde Park Road Site Approach At the Hyde Park Road site, the full buildout of the Central Maintenance Facility, including the proposed central drive aisle can be housed. The recommended test fit for this location places the building centered on the site, where the fire training apparatus currently sits. Vehicles to be serviced at the facility enter from Hyde Park Road and turn directly into the bays, providing ample turning space. A new Wash Bay is located to the north, requiring some employee parking to be relocated. The Fueling Station is placed over an area that currently serves as overflow retention, but could be regraded and reduced to maintain its purpose and provide an area for the Station to sit. Pros: •Full build out of the Central Maintenance facility can be constructed. •Central Maintenance facility located adjacent to other municipal functions provides increased efficiency. Cons: •Fire department functions need to be relocated. 16.4 Summary At the end of this round of investigation, the test fit and recommendations were presented to the project stakeholders. Following internal discussion about the feasibility of these test fits, it was determined that the city would not be able to relocate the fire department training grounds/ facility. Thus, the Central Maintenance Facility cannot be located at the Hyde Park Road site. Cost implications for this option were therefore not explored. Following this, alternate sites for the facilities were provided to the design team for further investigation. ALTERNATE TEST FITS + COST IMPLICATIONS 27City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Alternate Test Fits + Cost Implications | 17 - East Miller - Full Build Out East Miller Street Site - Full Build Out 0 20 50 100’ 17.1 Expanded East Miller Street Site Approach After determining that the Hyde Park Road site was not a viable option, alternate sites for the facilities were investigated by the design team and the City Engineer’s Office. One option explored was expanding the East Miller Street site by purchasing land to the northeast of what is currently owned by the city to provide the necessary room for the full program build out. The recommended test fit on this site places a new JEFFTRAN building in approximately the same location it currently occupies, and pushes the Bus Barn, Central Maintenance, Fueling Station, and Wash Bay over to the northeast side of East Miller Street. This option would require all the municipal yard functions currently housed on this lot to be relocated to another site. Moreover, as previously stated, the property to the northeast would need to be purchased; it currently sits on a hill at significantly higher elevation than the existing site which would require a substantial amount of excavation and retaining in order for the buildings to exist on a similar grade necessary for vehicle site navigation. The unbuilt surface created after removing the existing Bus Barn, Central Maintenance, Fueling Station and Wash Bay is allocated as a new bus parking area. The only caveat is that this requires passengers to circulate downward several feet below the sidewalk grade, to reach the buses. Alternately, the grade needs to be built up to a similar elevation as that of East Miller Street. Employee parking is located below the JEFFTRAN facility, which creates intersecting circulation paths between the buses and employee vehicles. Pros: •Full build out of the entire program covered by this study on the same site. •Total desired amount of bus parking is feasible. Cons: •Significant excavation and retaining walls are required. •Land northeast of the East Miller Street site needs to be acquired. •Tight circulation patterns around the new Central Maintenance Facility. •Regrading and fill of former Bus Barn area required to make bus parking level with street, or pedestrians will need to travel down to reach the buses. •Intersecting circulation paths between buses and employee vehicles. •Area around historic lodge is reduced, limiting its future usability. •The Municipal yard functions currently housed in the northeast portion of the lot would need to be relocated; new location unknown. 28City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Alternate Test Fits + Cost Implications |215489-Contours-Miller.dgn 2/16/2022 11:49:12 AM0 40 100 200’ 0 40 100 200’ Turn Radius Study Site Contours Study SITE DEVELOPMENT COST OPINION - DOES NOT INCLUDE LANDSCAPE OR BUILDING COSTS 17.2 Civil Narrative The Miller Street site requires excavation of material along the northeast side of the property to create a level area for siting the buildings. Retaining walls will be required to stabilize the area of the cut. There will be excess material that will have to be disposed of offsite. It is also recommended that some geotechnical borings be taken to estimate the amount of rock that will need to be excavated. Turning movements were modeled to ensure adequate space exists for the mix of vehicles that will use the site (see turning movement study exhibit to the left). In the model, bus size WB-40 was used. Based on the bus size, the minimum left/right turn radius is 28 ft and the minimum U-turn radius is 32 ft. There are areas within the site where movements will be tight but still acceptable. Site elevations and contours were obtained from USGS data available online. Quantities have been estimated for the site construction utilizing this information and a conceptual cost estimate for the civil/site improvements is provided below. A conceptual landscape plan was developed for the site to help demonstrate how the site can look upon completion. A conceptual cost estimate for the landscaping shown on the next page has also been provided for planning purposes. E.MILLER ST. Item Description Quantity Units Unit Price Total 1 Mobilization 1 L.S.$3,134,481 $3,134,481 2 Clearing, Grubbing, and Demolition 1 L.S.$3,134,481 $3,134,481 3 Unclassified Excavation 89,641 C.Y.$18 $1,613,529 4 Fill 7,430 C.Y.$30 $222,909 5 Curb & Gutter 5,314 L.F.$50 $265,909 6 Asphalt Pavement 10,473 S.Y.$40 $418,911 7 Milling and Overlay 2718 S.Y.$18 $48,929 8 Concrete Sidewalk 7,023 S.F.$8 $56,183 9 ADA Ramps, 6" Thick 7 EACH $2,500 $17,500 10 Retaining Wall 1,636 L.F.$300 $490,800 TOTAL 9,403,444 29City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Alternate Test Fits + Cost Implications | Sheet Revisions Sheet Number Date:Comments Init.EngineerSeal CLIENT NAMESheet Revisions ____________________ PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION Sheet Number Date:Comments Init.EngineerSeal PROJECT NUMBER 102 S. Cherry St. Olathe, KS 66061 Phone: 913-780-6707 www.landworksstudio.com 00 60'120' GRAPHIC SCALE 60' NORTH MILLER SITE DECIDUOUS TREES CODE QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL SIZE AJ 15 JOHN PAIR SUGAR MAPLE / ACER SACCHARUM 'JOHN PAIR'B & B 2"CAL AG 6 AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY / AMELANCHIER X GRANDIFLORA `AUTUMN BRILLIANCE`B & B 2"CAL CE 4 EASTERN REDBUD MULTI-TRUNK / CERCIS CANADENSIS #15 MULTI 5`-6` TALL QS 4 SHUMARD OAK / QUERCUS SHUMARDII B & B 2"CAL EVERGREEN TREES CODE QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL SIZE JE 6 EASTERN REDCEDAR / JUNIPERUS VIRGINIANA B & B SHRUBS CODE QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME CONT JS 35 SEA GREEN PFITZER JUNIPER / JUNIPERUS X PFITZERIANA `SEA GREEN`5 GAL GROUND COVERS CODE QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME CONT TE 31,104 SF TURF SEED / DROUGHT TOLERANT FESCUE BLEND SEED PLANT SCHEDULE 19.4 Landscaping Strategy LANDSCAPING COST OPINION E.Miller Site Landscape Item Quantity Units Unit Price Total Excavation 0 C.Y.$25 $0 Deciduous Tree, 2" Caliper 19 EACH $800 $15,200 Ornamental Tree 10 EACH $450 $4,500 Evergreen Tree 6 EACH $550 $3,300 Shrub, 5 Gallon 35 EACH $70 $2,450 Seed 32,000 S.F.$0.35 $11,200 Topsoil 50 C.Y.$40 $2,000 Planting Bed Prep 50 S.Y $22 $1,100 Steel Edging 120 L.F.$10 $1,200 Hardwood Mulch, No Color 10 C.Y.$100 $1,000 Construction Subtotal 41,950 Contingency 4,195 Total Landscape Cost for E. Miller Site 46,145 30City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Alternate Test Fits + Cost Implications | 17.5 Summary While it is technically feasible to place all of the desired facilities at the expanded East Miller Street site, doing so would require significant excavation that could be prohibitively costly. Additionally, the resulting site layout is too rigid and limiting for it to be considered as a worthwhile strategy, mainly due to tight vehicular circulation pathways. Moreover, the municipal yard functions the northeast lot is currently serving would need to be relocated, and there isn’t currently a strategy in place to do so. This site strategy is not recommended. OVERALL COST OPINION ** ** RIGHT OF WAY COSTS NOT INCLUDED. Facilities sq. ft.unit price cost Central Maintenance Administration/ Service 3,400 $325/ sq.ft.$1,105,000 Service Bays/ Storage ( including equipment)36,600 $250/ sq.ft $9,150,000 Total 40,000 $10,255,000 Transit Offices Admin+Transit 10,500 $325/ sq.ft $3,412,500 Bus Barn Offices + Bays 17,500 $175/ sq.ft $3,062,500 Wash Bay Shell Construction 5,000 $175/ sq.ft.$875,000 Fully Equipment Automated w/ Dryer $225,000 $225,000 Total $1,100,000 Fuel Island Canopy $125,000 $125,000 2 pump stations $150,000 $150,000 Total $275,000 Site Costs Site Development Cost $9,403,444 Landscaping $46,145 Total $9,449,589 Construction Cost $27,554,589 Contingency 10%$2,755,459 Total East Miller Site Cost $30,310,048 31City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Alternate Test Fits + Cost Implications | 18 - Stonecreek Full Build Out* Stonecreek Drive Site 0 20 50 100’ 18.1 Stonecreek Site Approach Another option explored as a potential site for the full buildout of all of the proposed program is the Stonecreek Drive Site. The site is bordered by Stonecreek Drive to the west, West Stadium Boulevard to the east, and a potential future extension of Hyde Park Road that would bisect the site. City leadership targeted this site based on the affordability of the land, proximity to the Hyde Park site, and to common destinations of Transit patrons, e.g. Walmart and Menards. The design team and the City Engineer’s Office therefore explored multiple site layout iterations locating all facilities here. A challenge that arose is the 15’ drop in grade change that occurs at the western edge of the site, east of Stonecreek Drive. This requires the buildings to sit at different elevations with retaining walls framing buildable areas. The roads connecting the building pads would slope, creating potential visibility and accessibility challenges. The final iteration of this site layout places a small transfer station with 4 bus parking spots on the west portion of the site, connected to an upper level JEFFTRAN administration building with employee and patron parking below. A large retaining wall is planned to surround the building. Central on the site is the full buildout of the Central Maintenance facility which vehicles would enter along the planned extension of Hyde Park Road. The Bus Barn and Wash Bay sit along the west of the site. While this test fit includes the transit offices and a small transfer point, a larger transfer station at the East Miller Street site is recommended to go along with this option to serve patrons that currently rely on that facility. Pros: • Affordability of the land. • Proximity to the Hyde Park Municipal site. • Proximity to popular transit destinations. Cons: • Transit offices are separated from the larger transfer station proposed on East Miller Street. • Increased operational time for buses (deadhead miles). • Circulation space between buildings is limited, creating little flexibility to future use or growth. • Lack of staging areas and employee parking space. • Large retaining and multi level buildings required on west portion of the site to navigate grade change. • Central Maintenance and the Bus Barn have more idustrial functions than the surrounding building uses.WEST STAD IUM BLVD . * a larger transfer station at the East Miller Street site is recommended to go along with this option 32City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Alternate Test Fits + Cost Implications | 215489-Contours-StoneCreek.dgn 2/16/2022 11:48:24 AM 0 40 100 200’ 0 40 100 200’WEST STAD IUM BLVD . Turn Radius Study Site Contours Study SITE DEVELOPMENT COST OPINION - DOES NOT INCLUDE LANDSCAPE OR BUILDING COSTS 18.2 Civil Narrative The Stone Creek site, as presented in the previous section, is fairly level. To accommodate the design shown providing a transfer site along Stone Creek Drive, it will be necessary to bring in some fill and use retaining walls to create an area large enough to support the bus drop off and pick up site. A second retaining wall is proposed to support some fill needed to create the parking lot and building pad for the Jefftran building. This site will require material to be brought in from an outside source. Along the northern edge of this site is Wears Creek which carries storm runoff through town to the Missouri River. Care will need to be taken to ensure the streambank is not compromised with construction of this site. Turning movements were modeled to ensure adequate space exists for the mix of vehicles that will use the site (see turning movement study exhibit to the left). In the model, bus size WB-40 was used. Based on the bus size, the minimum left/right turn radius is 28 ft and the minimum U-turn radius is 32 ft. There are areas where movements will be tight but still acceptable. Site elevations and contours were obtained from USGS data available online. Quantities have been estimated for the site construction utilizing this information and a conceptual cost estimate for the civil/site improvements is provided below. A conceptual landscape plan was developed for the site to help demonstrate how the site can look upon completion. A conceptual cost estimate for the landscaping shown on the next page has also been provided for planning purposes. STONE CREEK DR. ( NEW ROADWAY INCLUDED) Item Description Quantity Units Unit Price Total 1 Mobilization 1 L.S.$2,834,301 $2,834,301 2 Clearing, Grubbing, and Demolition 1 L.S.$2,834,301 $2,834,301 3 Unclassified Excavation 15,535 C.Y.$18 $279,634 4 Fill 38,829 C.Y.$30 $1,164,840 5 Curb & Gutter 5,296 L.F.$50 $264,795 6 Asphalt Pavement 13,746 S.Y.$40 $549,838 7 Milling and Overlay 1,717 S.Y.$18 $30,899 8 Concrete Sidewalk 4,049 S.F.$8 $32,395 9 ADA Ramps, 6" Thick 10 EACH $2,500 $25,000 10 Retaining Wall 1,623 L.F.$300 $486,900 TOTAL 8,502,903 33City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Alternate Test Fits + Cost Implications | Sheet Revisions Sheet Number Date:Comments Init.EngineerSeal CLIENT NAMESheet Revisions ____________________ PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION Sheet Number Date:Comments Init.EngineerSeal PROJECT NUMBER 102 S. Cherry St. Olathe, KS 66061 Phone: 913-780-6707 www.landworksstudio.com DECIDUOUS TREES CODE QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL AJ 7 JOHN PAIR SUGAR MAPLE / ACER SACCHARUM 'JOHN PAIR'B & B 2"CAL AG 6 AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY / AMELANCHIER X GRANDIFLORA `AUTUMN BRILLIANCE`B & B 2"CAL QS 8 SHUMARD OAK / QUERCUS SHUMARDII B & B 2"CAL EVERGREEN TREES CODE QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL JE 5 EASTERN REDCEDAR / JUNIPERUS VIRGINIANA B & B SHRUBS CODE QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME CONT PO 44 AMBER JUBILEE NINEBARK / PHYSOCARPUS OPULIFOLIUS `JEFAM`5 GAL TD 18 DENSE JAPANESE YEW / TAXUS CUSPIDATA `DENSIFORMIS`5 GAL GRASSES & PERENNIALS CODE QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME CONT SP 33 PRAIRIE MUNCHKIN LITTLE BLUESTEM / SCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM `PRAIRIE MUNCHKIN`1 GAL GROUND COVERS CODE QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME CONT TE 35,962 SF TURF SEED / DROUGHT TOLERANT FESCUE BLEND SEED PLANT SCHEDULE 00 60'120' GRAPHIC SCALE 60' NORTH STONE CREEK SITE 19.4 Landscaping Strategy 34City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Alternate Test Fits + Cost Implications | 18.5 Summary This site could be developed effectively to house the proposed facilities. However, to provide the ample circulation space between the buildings in order to reduce risk to the vehicles and facilities, it is recommended to reduce the overall square footage of the facilities. There is also a challenge in navigating the grade changes on the north of the site, creating a compartmental site buildout with challenges to employee and patron parking. Lastly, developing the transit offices on this site creates logistical challenges to the JEFFTRAN division by separating the offices from the largest transfer point envisioned at the East Miller Street Site. Some of these challenges could be overcome by considering splitting up the facilities on different sites, and allowing the Stonecreek Drive site to be developed solely for JEFFTRAN needs. i.e. transit offices, transit station, Bus Barn, Fueling Station and Wash Bay; or for solely Central Maintenance needs, i.e. CM facility, Fueling Station and Wash Bay; and using another site for the remaining program. LANDSCAPING COST OPINION 19.4 Landscaping Strategy (continued)OVERALL COST OPINION ** ** RIGHT OF WAY COSTS NOT INCLUDED. Stone Creek Site Landscape Item Quantity Units Unit Price Total Excavation 0 C.Y.$25 $0 Deciduous Tree, 2" Caliper 15 EACH $800 $12,000 Ornamental Tree 6 EACH $450 $2,700 Evergreen Tree 5 EACH $550 $2,750 Shrub, 5 Gallon 62 EACH $70 $4,340 Perennial, 1 Gallon 33 EACH $30 $990 Seed 36,000 S.F.$0.35 $12,600 Topsoil 50 C.Y.$40 $2,000 Planting Bed Prep 50 S.Y $22 $2,200 Steel Edging 250 L.F.$10 $2,500 Hardwood Mulch, No Color 15 C.Y.$100 $1,500 Construction Subtotal 42,480 Contingency 4,248 Total Landscape Cost for Stone Creek Site 46,728 Facilities sq. ft.unit price cost Central Maintenance Administration/ Service $3,400 $325/ sq.ft.$1,105,000 Service Bays/ Storage ( including equipment)$36,600 $250/ sq.ft $9,150,000 Total $40,000 $10,255,000 Transit Offices Admin +Transfer Point $10,500 $325/ sq.ft $3,412,500 Bus Barn Offices + Bays $17,500 $175/ sq.ft $3,062,500 Wash Bay Shell Construction $5,000 $175/ sq.ft.$875,000 Fully Equipment Automated w/ Dryer $225,000 $225,000 Total $1,100,000 Fuel Island Canopy $125,000 $125,000 2 pump stations $150,000 $150,000 Total $275,000 Site Costs Site Development Cost $8,502,903 Landscaping $46,728 Total $8,549,631 Construction Cost $26,654,631 Contingency 10%$2,665,463 Total Stone Creek Cost $29,320,094 35City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Alternate Test Fits + Cost Implications | 19 - Heisinger Full Build Out* Heisinger Road Site 0 20 50 100’ * a larger transfer station at the East Miller Street site is recommended to go along with this option 19.1 Heisinger Site Approach The final site investigated as part of the Feasibility Study is a currently undeveloped, former drive-in theater just east of the Hyde Park Road municipal campus. It sits along the transition of Hyde Park Road to Heisinger road, and is adjacent to other industrial and civic facilities. Just to the south of the proposed site is the city’s Greenway Trails. The main advantages of this site are its proximity to the Hyde Park municipal site, and its flat grade. On the other hand, it’s disconnected from any of the existing and potential locations for JEFFTRAN transfer facilities. The design team explored the full program build out minus the transfer facility on this site, however if it’s selected for development, additional renovations to the East Miller site transfer station will be necessary, and/or a new transfer facility at the Stone Creek site will need to be constructed. The exact extents of the usable land was not provided prior to the investigation of the site; the design team proceeded with advice from the City that the current northern property line could be pushed farther north if necessary. Multiple iterations on this site were explored, with the final version shown here placing the Bus Barn, Wash Bay, and Central Maintenance facility at the western street front of the property, and the JEFFTRAN administration offices to the back of the property. The Fueling Station is placed just behind Central Maintenance, away from the street. Shared employee parking is at the eastern edge of the site between the different facilities, with overflow parking surrounding Central Maintenance as additional employee parking and vehicle storage. In the future, there is potential for a campus expansion or additional parking if the property line were to move further north. Pros: • Affordability of the land. • Flat grade. No excavation or retaining walls are necessary. • Proximity to the Hyde Park Municipal site. • Full Buildout without the transfer point is feasible on the site if part of the north property is included • Sufficient circulation room for vehicles. • Surrounded by other facilities of similar uses. Cons: • Transit offices are separated from the larger transfer station proposed on East Miller Street. • Increased operational time for buses (deadhead miles). • No transfer point on site. 36City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Alternate Test Fits + Cost Implications | 215489-Contours-HydeParkRoad.dgn 2/16/2022 11:47:46 AM 0 40 100 200’ 0 40 100 200’ Turn Radius Study Site Contours Study SITE DEVELOPMENT COST OPINION - DOES NOT INCLUDE LANDSCAPE OR BUILDING COSTS 0 40 100 200’Transfer Point at the Stonecreeek Site 18.2 Civil Narrative The Heisinger Road site provides the greatest amount of space to maneuver vehicles that need to access the site. Some fill and small retaining walls will be needed along the east edge of the site to accommodate the proposed layout. Turning movements were modeled for the mix of vehicles that will use the site (see turning movement study exhibit to the left). In the model, bus size WB-40 was used. Based on the bus size, the minimum left/right turn radius is 28 ft and the minimum U-turn radius is 32 ft. This site will require material to be brought in from an outside source. Along the southern edge of this site is the Greenway Trail that borders Wears Creek which carries storm runoff through town to the Missouri River. Site elevations and contours were obtained from USGS data available online. Quantities have been estimated for the site construction utilizing this information and a conceptual cost estimate for the civil/site improvements is provided below. A conceptual landscape plan was developed for the site to help demonstrate how the site can look upon completion. This landscaping plan takes into account the Greenway Trail along the southern edge of the site and incorporates landscaping that will complement the trail experience. A conceptual cost estimate for the landscaping shown on the next page has also been provided for planning purposes. Heisinger Road Item Description Quantity Units Unit Price Total 1 Mobilization 1 L.S.$2,417,193 $2,417,193 2 Clearing, Grubbing, and Demolition 1 L.S.$2,417,193 $2,417,193 3 Unclassified Excavation 348 C.Y.$18 $6,264 4 Fill 45,736 C.Y.$30 $1,372,092 5 Curb & Gutter 4,174 L.F.$50 $208,715 6 Asphalt Pavement 13,080 S.Y.$40 $523,182 7 Milling and Overlay 1,766 S.Y.$18 $31,793 8 Concrete Sidewalk 6,838 S.F.$8 $54,707 9 ADA Ramps, 6" Thick 6 EACH $2,500 $15,000 10 Retaining Wall 684 L.F.$300 $205,440 TOTAL 7,251,580 37City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Alternate Test Fits + Cost Implications | Sheet Revisions Sheet Number Date:Comments Init.EngineerSeal CLIENT NAMESheet Revisions ____________________ PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION Sheet Number Date:Comments Init.EngineerSeal PROJECT NUMBER 102 S. Cherry St. Olathe, KS 66061 Phone: 913-780-6707 www.landworksstudio.com 00 60'120' GRAPHIC SCALE 60' NORTH HYDE PARK SITE DECIDUOUS TREES CODE QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL SIZE AJ 10 JOHN PAIR SUGAR MAPLE / ACER SACCHARUM 'JOHN PAIR'B & B 2"CAL AG 5 AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY / AMELANCHIER X GRANDIFLORA `AUTUMN BRILLIANCE`B & B 2"CAL CE 7 EASTERN REDBUD MULTI-TRUNK / CERCIS CANADENSIS #15 MULTI 5`-6` TALL QS 11 SHUMARD OAK / QUERCUS SHUMARDII B & B 2"CAL EVERGREEN TREES CODE QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL SIZE JE 5 EASTERN REDCEDAR / JUNIPERUS VIRGINIANA B & B SHRUBS CODE QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME CONT JS 50 SEA GREEN PFITZER JUNIPER / JUNIPERUS X PFITZERIANA `SEA GREEN`5 GAL PO 43 AMBER JUBILEE NINEBARK / PHYSOCARPUS OPULIFOLIUS `JEFAM`5 GAL GROUND COVERS CODE QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME CONT TE 69,917 SF TURF SEED / DROUGHT TOLERANT FESCUE BLEND SEED PLANT SCHEDULE 19.4 Landscaping Strategy LANDSCAPING COST OPINION *** LANDSCAPING COULD BE SCALED IN THIS OPTION. Heisinger Road Site Landscape Item Quantity Units Unit Price Total Excavation 0 C.Y.$25 $0 Deciduous Tree, 2" Caliper 21 EACH $800 $16,800 Ornamental Tree 12 EACH $450 $5,400 Evergreen Tree 5 EACH $550 $2,750 Shrub, 5 Gallon 93 EACH $70 $6,510 Seed 70,000 S.F.$0.35 $24,500 Topsoil 80 C.Y.$40 $3,200 Planting Bed Prep 80 S.Y $22 $1,760 Steel Edging 400 L.F.$10 $4,000 Hardwood Mulch, No Color 20 C.Y.$100 $2,000 Construction Subtotal 66,920 Contingency 6,692 Total Landscape Cost for Heisinger Road Site 73,612 38City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Alternate Test Fits + Cost Implications | 19.5 Summary The Stone Creek site provides the most cost-efficient land development for the campus, and has sufficient space for the full buildout of the facilities programmed in the feasibility study. However, the site is not well located for a transfer facility, resulting in the transit offices being separated from a new transfer point located off-site. Placing the transit offices on this site also forgoes the potential for the building to serve as a public interface point since it would be located in an industrial/civic area of the city that is separated by common transit destinations. Therefore, it would be operationally beneficial to remove the transit offices from the Heisinger site build-out and group it with a transfer facility be it at the existing East Miller site or elsewhere. However, if the Bus Barn is to be included on this site, it would create deadhead miles traveling from the barn to the transfer facility. While the site has the necessary area to construct the JEFFTRAN offices, the design team suggests locating the transit offices adjacent to a transfer point on another site such as Stonecreek, or East Miller. OVERALL COST OPINION ** ** RIGHT OF WAY COSTS NOT INCLUDED. Facilities sq. ft.unit price cost Central Maintenance Administration/ Service $3,400 $325/ sq.ft.$1,105,000 Service Bays/ Storage ( including equipment)$36,600 $250/ sq.ft $9,150,000 Total $40,000 $10,255,000 Transit Offices Admin Only $9,500 $325/ sq.ft $3,087,500 Bus Barn Offices + Bays $17,500 $175/ sq.ft $3,062,500 Wash Bay Shell Construction $5,000 $175/ sq.ft.$875,000 Fully Equipment Automated w/ Dryer $225,000 $225,000 Total $1,100,000 Fuel Island Canopy $125,000 $125,000 2 pump stations $150,000 $150,000 Total $275,000 Site Costs Site Development Cost $7,251,580 Landscaping $73,612 Total $7,325,192 Construction Cost $25,105,192 Contingency 10%$2,510,519 Total Stone Creek Cost $27,615,711 SPACE STANDARDS 40City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Space Standards | 20 - Space Standards: Office and Amenities Following the interviews that were conducted with Public Works leaders, as well facilities tours and needs analyses, some of the spaces needed were noted as typical between facilities. Standardizing such spaces is a key component of the programming process for the City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study. Sizes are based on factors such as, code based requirements and industry standards/ best practices. The standards shown are a good baseline for future design of the facilities although there may be certain unique requirements based more specific needs that will be determined later on. 20.01 Building Entry / Vestibule Area: 100 Net SF Size: 10’ x 10’ Description: A primary or secondary environmentally controlled entry point that provides an airlock separation between exterior and interior spaces, or separation between two building uses that need air separation. Floor: Concrete (polish); traffic mat Walls: CMU or steel framing / gypsum board (paint); Glass (windows) Ceiling: ACT/ gypsum / decorative Doors/Windows: Secure commercial entry door; exterior aluminum windows Lighting: Direct / indirect LED lay-in fixtures Mechanical: Airlock from exterior to interior; standard air distribution; cabinet unit heater Electrical: Standard electrical power distribution. Technology Requirements: Key fob access; Buzzer / communication from reception 41City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Space Standards | 20.02 Director’s Office Area: 192 Net SF Size: 12’ x 16’ Description: Private office for the director of the division. Key Adjacencies: Supervisor’s Office; Staff Offices; Conference Room FFE: L-shaped workstation with task chair; confirm file/drawer units under workstation; small conference table with four guest chairs; credenza/filing unit; small magnetic whiteboard. Floor: Concrete (carpet) Walls: Steel framing / gypsum board (paint) Ceiling: ACT/ gypsum Doors/Windows: Hollow metal frames; wood doors; exterior aluminum windows Acoustical Requirements: STC 52+ Lighting: Standard office lighting levels; task lighting; daylighting control Mechanical: Standard HVAC Electrical: Standard outlet locations Special Criteria: Lockable / securable Office120 sq ftSharedOffice256 sq ft Dispatch Office192 sq ft Training Office224 sq ft Director'sOffice192 sq ft SupervisorOffice150 sq ft WHITEBOARDS PUBLIC WINDOW 20.03 Supervisor’s Office Office120 sq ftSharedOffice256 sq ft Dispatch Office192 sq ft Training Office224 sq ft Director'sOffice192 sq ft SupervisorOffice150 sq ft WHITEBOARDS PUBLIC WINDOW Area: 150 Net SF Size: 10’ x 15’ Description: Private office for a supervisor of specific divisional operations. Key Adjacencies: Division Manager Office; Staff Offices / Field Staff Open Office; Conference Room FFE: L-shaped workstation with task chair and two guest chairs; confirm file/drawer units under workstation; credenza/filing unit; small magnetic whiteboard. Floor: Concrete (carpet) Walls: Steel framing / gypsum board (paint) Ceiling: ACT/ gypsum Doors/Windows: Hollow metal frames; wood doors, exterior aluminum windows Acoustical Requirements: STC 52+ Lighting: Standard office lighting levels; task lighting; daylighting control Mechanical: Standard HVAC Electrical: Standard outlet locations Special Criteria: Lockable / securable 42City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Space Standards | 20.04 Other Staff Office Office120 sq ftSharedOffice256 sq ft Dispatch Office192 sq ft Training Office224 sq ft Director'sOffice192 sq ft SupervisorOffice150 sq ft WHITEBOARDS PUBLIC WINDOW Area: 120 Net SF Size: 10’ x 12’ Description: Private office for staff such as an assistant or other working staff member requiring a private workspace. Key Adjacencies: Director’s Office; Supervisor’s Office; Conference Room; Break room FFE: L-shaped workstation with task chair and two guest chair; confirm file/drawer units under workstation; credenza/filing unit Floor: Concrete (carpet) Walls: Steel framing / gypsum board (paint) Ceiling: ACT/ gypsum Doors/Windows: Hollow metal frames; wood doors; exterior aluminum windows Acoustical Requirements: STC 52+ Lighting: Standard office lighting levels; task lighting; daylighting control Mechanical: Standard HVAC Electrical: Standard outlet locations Special Criteria: Lockable / securable 20.05 Shared Office Office120 sq ftSharedOffice256 sq ft Dispatch Office192 sq ft Training Office224 sq ft Director'sOffice192 sq ft SupervisorOffice150 sq ft WHITEBOARDS PUBLIC WINDOW Area: 36 SF / staff Size: Varies Description: Shared office that can be utilized by a staff requiring a dedicated workstation. Key Adjacencies: Director’s Office; Supervisor’s Office; Conference Room; Break room FFE: L-shaped workstations with task chairs; confirm file/drawer units under workstation; credenza/filing unit. Floor: Concrete (carpet) Walls: Steel framing / gypsum board (paint) Ceiling: ACT/ gypsum Doors/Windows: Hollow metal frames; wood doors; exterior aluminum windows Acoustical Requirements: STC 52+ Lighting: Standard office lighting levels; task lighting; daylighting control Mechanical: Standard HVAC Electrical: Standard outlet locations Special Criteria: Lockable / securable 43City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Space Standards | 20.06 Dispatch Office Office120 sq ftSharedOffice256 sq ft Dispatch Office192 sq ft Training Office224 sq ft Director'sOffice192 sq ft SupervisorOffice150 sq ft WHITEBOARDS PUBLIC WINDOW Area: 192 Net SF Size: 12’ x 16’ Description: Office shared by two transit dispatch staff; one station should have a public access window and one should be private. The workstations need to be accessible to one another for ease of communication between staff. Key Adjacencies: Director’s Office; Supervisor’s Office; Public Waiting Room FFE: L-shaped workstations with task chair; confirm file/drawer units under workstation; credenza/filing unit Floor: Concrete (carpet) Walls: Steel framing / gypsum board (paint) Ceiling: ACT/ gypsum Doors/Windows: Hollow metal frames; wood doors; exterior aluminum windows; hollow metal interior window. Acoustical Requirements: STC 52+ Lighting: Standard office lighting levels; task lighting; daylighting control Mechanical: Standard HVAC Electrical: Standard outlet locations Special Criteria: Lockable / securable Office120 sq ftSharedOffice256 sq ft Dispatch Office192 sq ft Training Office224 sq ft Director'sOffice192 sq ft SupervisorOffice150 sq ft WHITEBOARDS PUBLIC WINDOW 20.07 Administrative Assistant Office / Window Area: 180 Net SF Size: 12’ x 15’ Description: An interior space inside the primary entry that provides a workstation for the administrative assistant. Requires separation from the public areas while providing a public window. Not fully enclosed on the private side. Key Adjacencies: Work Room, Director’s Office; Supervisor’s Office; Public Waiting Room FFE: Workstation with task chair; file/drawer units under workstation; built-in cabinetry: lowers and uppers for additional storage Floor: Concrete (carpet) Walls: Steel framing / gypsum board (paint) Ceiling: ACT/ gypsum Doors/Windows: Hollow metal frames; wood doors; exterior aluminum windows; hollow metal interior window. Lighting: Standard office lighting levels; task lighting; daylighting control Mechanical: Standard HVAC Electrical: Standard outlet locations Special Criteria: Lockable storage Admin. AssistantOffice180 sq ft PUBLIC WINDOW TO WORK ROOM Admin. AssistantOffice180 sq ft PUBLIC WINDOW TO WORK ROOM 44City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Space Standards | 20.08 Small Conference Room Area: 192 Net SF Size: 12’ x 16’ Description: Small meeting room for 4-8 person meetings. Typically, adjacent to private offices. Key Adjacencies: Office Spaces FFE: Conference table for 8 people; 8 conference chairs; screen with integrated presentation technologies; magnetic whiteboard; built in base cabinets with drawers/doors/solid surface counter top. Floor: Concrete (carpet) Walls: Steel framing / gypsum board (paint) Ceiling: ACT/ gypsum Doors/Windows: Hollow metal frames; wood doors; exterior aluminum windows Acoustical Requirements: STC 52+ Lighting: Direct / indirect LED lay-in fixtures; dimmable; occupant timer ; daylighting control Mechanical: Standard HVAC Electrical: Standard outlet locations; floor box; A/V equipment Special Criteria: Accommodation for computer; teleconferencing Vestibule64 sq ft Small Conference192 sq ft Work Room120 sq ft Admin. AssistantOffice120 sq ft NEW TV WHITEBOARDS LOWERCASEWORK NEW MODULARTABLE (8)PUBLIC WINDOW Vestibule64 sq ft Small Conference192 sq ft Work Room120 sq ft Admin. AssistantOffice120 sq ft NEW TV WHITEBOARDS LOWERCASEWORK NEW MODULARTABLE (8)PUBLIC WINDOW Vestibule64 sq ft Small Conference192 sq ft Work Room120 sq ft Admin. AssistantOffice120 sq ft NEW TV WHITEBOARDS LOWERCASEWORK NEW MODULARTABLE (8)PUBLIC WINDOW Vestibule64 sq ft Small Conference192 sq ft Work Room120 sq ft Admin. AssistantOffice120 sq ft NEW TV WHITEBOARDS LOWERCASEWORK NEW MODULARTABLE (8)PUBLIC WINDOW 20.09 Training Shared Office Area: 768 SF Size: 24’ x 32’ Description: Shared office for training staff with a small conference table for small group training sessions. Key Adjacencies: Entry; Reception; Office Spaces FFE: Rectangular workstations with task chair; confirm file/drawer units under workstation; Conference table for 4 people; 4 conference chairs; screen with integrated presentation technologies; magnetic whiteboard; built in base cabinets with drawers/doors/solid surface counter top. Floor: Concrete (carpet) Walls: Steel framing / gypsum board (paint) Ceiling: ACT/ gypsum Doors/Windows: Hollow metal frames; wood doors; exterior aluminum windows Acoustical Requirements: STC 52+ Lighting: Direct / indirect LED lay-in fixtures; dimmable; occupant timer ; daylighting control Mechanical: Standard HVAC Electrical: Standard outlet locations; floor box; A/V equipment Special Criteria: Accommodation for computer; teleconferencing Office120 sq ftSharedOffice256 sq ft Dispatch Office192 sq ft Training Office224 sq ft Director'sOffice192 sq ft SupervisorOffice150 sq ft WHITEBOARDS PUBLIC WINDOW Office120 sq ftSharedOffice256 sq ft Dispatch Office192 sq ft Training Office224 sq ft Director'sOffice192 sq ft SupervisorOffice150 sq ft WHITEBOARDS PUBLIC WINDOW 45City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Space Standards | 20.10 Work Room Area: 120 Net SF Size: 10’ x 12’ Description: An area for processing and preparation of documents, copy machine and printer location. Includes a work desk and general office storage. Size can vary based on number of staff it serves. Key Adjacencies: Office Spaces; Training Spaces FFE: Copiers; printers; document assembly equipment; work table; verify all storage, equipment, and work spaces. Floor: Concrete (carpet) Walls: CMU or steel framing; gypsum board (paint) Ceiling: ACT/ gypsum Doors/Windows: Hollow metal frames; wood doors; exterior aluminum windows Lighting: Standard lighting levels; task lighting; daylight control Mechanical: Standard HVAC Electrical: Specifically located outlets Vestibule64 sq ft Small Conference192 sq ft Work Room120 sq ft Admin. AssistantOffice120 sq ft NEW TV WHITEBOARDS LOWERCASEWORK NEW MODULARTABLE (8)PUBLIC WINDOW 20.11 Drivers’ Break Room Wellness Room150 sq ftDriver's Lounge400 sq ftTraining Room768 sq ftBreak Room768 sq ftFDWvvArea: 400 Net SF Size: 16’ x 25’ Description: Dedicated space for bus drivers who have a long commute home and need a place of respite between shifts. Key Adjacencies: Transfer station; Locker Room; Wellness Room; Break Room. FFE: Soft seating, coffee table, built-in countertop and stools. Floor: Concrete (carpet) Walls: CMU or steel framing; gypsum board (paint) Ceiling: ACT/ gypsum Doors/Windows: Hollow metal frames; wood doors; exterior aluminum windows Lighting: Direct / indirect LED lay-in fixtures; dimmable; occupancy timer; daylighting control Mechanical: Standard HVAC Electrical: Standard outlet spacing 46City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Space Standards | 20.12 Tech Service Area Area: 120 Net SF Size: 10’ x 12’ Description: A workspace for vehicle maintenance staff to review technical service documents via printed manuals or computer documents. Can be located in shop space, parts room, or its own dedicated room. Key Adjacencies: Maintenance bays; parts room FFE: Work tables; chairs; computers; printer Floor: Concrete Walls: Steel framing / gypsum board (paint) Ceiling: ACT/ gypsum/ open structure Doors/Windows: Hollow metal frames; wood doors; exterior aluminum windows (if dedicated room) Mechanical: Standard HVAC with AC if within office space; standard shop ventilation and fans if within shop space. Electrical: Specifically located outlets Special Criteria: Accommodation for computers. Break Room500 sq ftParts Room1,500 sq ft Tech Service Area180 sq ft FDWvv20.13 Break Room Area: 1536 Net SF Size: 18’ x 20’ Description: A dual purpose break room and muster/ meeting room for the central maintenance facility for up to 16 people. Includes dedicated area for food preparation and storage. Key Adjacencies: Office Spaces; Maintenance Bays; Storage FFE: Flexible tables and chairs; multiple microwaves; television; verify all kitchen appliances and storage Floor: Concrete (carpet) Walls: Steel framing / gypsum board (paint) Ceiling: ACT/ gypsum Doors/Windows: Hollow metal frames; wood doors; exterior aluminum windows Acoustical Requirements: STC 52+ Lighting: Direct / indirect LED lay-in fixtures; dimmable; occupant timer; daylighting control Mechanical: Standard HVAC Electrical: Standard outlet locations; floor box; A/V equipment Break Room360 sq ft F DWv v 47City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Space Standards | 20.14 Training / Break Room Area: 1536 Net SF Size: 24’ x 64’ Description: 2 separate rooms, 768 sq. ft. each with a retractable partition wall to create a single larger space as needed. When separated, one space serves as a training room for up to 25 people, another as a break room for up to 25 people. When combined, it can host large training sessions of up to 50 people. Key Adjacencies: Office Spaces; Locker Rooms; Outdoor Break Area; Wellness Room FFE: Flexible tables (30” x 60”); flexible seating multiple microwaves; refrigerator; vending machines; televisions; radio equipment; verify all kitchen appliances and storage. Floor: Concrete (carpet) Walls: Steel framing / gypsum board (paint) Ceiling: ACT/ gypsum Doors/Windows: Hollow metal frames; wood doors; exterior aluminum windows Acoustical Requirements: STC 52+ Lighting: Direct / indirect LED lay-in fixtures; dimmable; occupant timer; daylighting control Mechanical: Standard HVAC Electrical: Standard outlet locations; floor box; A/V equipment Special Criteria: Accommodation for computer; teleconferencing Wellness Room150 sq ft Driver's Lounge400 sq ft Training Room768 sq ft Break Room768 sq ft FDWvv 48City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Space Standards | 20.15 Locker/Shower Room Area: 26 SF / per user Size: Varies Description: Locker facility for personal storage locker per each staff member. Space includes dedicated 2’ x 2’ nominal, secure personal storage locker. Locker facilities also include gender specific restroom facilities, with number of fixtures based on code based calculations for use/occupancy and interviews conducted, and personal shower and changing areas. Key Adjacencies: Break room; Egress; Janitorial FFE: 2’x2’x6’ lockers (verify count); plumbing fixtures, clothing hooks, benches, built in countertops, verify all required fixtures and furniture. Floor: Concrete (hard floor finish) Walls: CMU or steel framing; gypsum board (paint) Ceiling: ACT/ gypsum Doors/Windows: Hollow metal frames; wood doors; exterior aluminum windows Lighting: Standard lighting levels Mechanical: Standard HVAC Electrical: Standard outlet spacing 843 sq ft 49City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Space Standards | 20.15 Locker Room 20.15 Shower Room Area: 20 SF / per user Size: Varies Description: Locker facility for personal storage locker per each staff member. Space includes dedicated 2’ x 2’ nominal, secure personal storage locker. Locker facilities also sinks and benches. Key Adjacencies: Shower rooms; Break room; Egress; Janitorial FFE: 2’x2’x6’ lockers (verify count); plumbing fixtures, clothing hooks, benches, verify all required fixtures and furniture. Floor: Concrete (hard floor finish) Walls: CMU or steel framing; gypsum board (paint) Ceiling: ACT/ gypsum Doors/Windows: Hollow metal frames; wood doors; exterior aluminum windows Lighting: Standard lighting levels Mechanical: Standard HVAC Electrical: Standard outlet spacing Area: 9’-6” x 7’ Size: 67 sf Description: Dedicated changing, shower and restroom facility. Key Adjacencies: Locker room; Break room; Egress; Janitorial FFE: plumbing fixtures, grab bars, clothing hooks, verify all required fixtures and furniture. Floor: Concrete (hard floor finish) Walls: CMU or steel framing; gypsum board (paint) Ceiling: ACT/ gypsum Doors/Windows: Hollow metal frames; wood doors; exterior aluminum windows Lighting: Standard lighting levels Mechanical: Standard HVAC Electrical: Standard outlet spacing 61 sq ft 470 sq ft 61 sq ft 470 sq ft 50City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Space Standards | 20.16 Wellness Room Wellness Room150 sq ft Driver's Lounge400 sq ft Training Room768 sq ftBreak Room768 sq ft FDWvv Area: 150 Net SF Size: 10’ x 15’ Description: Dedicated space for staff to engage in physical activity. Key Adjacencies: Office Spaces; Locker Room. FFE: Treadmill, exercise bike, weight set, et. al. Floor: Concrete (carpet) Walls: CMU or steel framing; gypsum board (paint) Ceiling: ACT/ gypsum Doors/Windows: Hollow metal frames; wood doors; exterior aluminum windows Lighting: Direct / indirect LED lay-in fixtures; dimmable; occupancy timer; daylighting control Mechanical: Standard HVAC Electrical: Standard outlet spacing 20.17 Storage Room Area: Varies Size: Varies Description: Storage of various shop / office needs Key Adjacencies: Office Spaces; Shop Spaces FFE: Shelving; verify size and count Floor: Concrete Walls: CMU or steel framing; gypsum board (paint) Ceiling: ACT/ gypsum Doors/Windows: Hollow metal frames; wood doors Lighting: Standard lighting levels Mechanical: Standard HVAC requirements Electrical: Specifically located outlets Technology Requirements: A/V and voice/date connections 51City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Space Standards | 20.18 Janitor’s Closet Area: 63 Net SF Size: 7’ x 9’ Description: General, minimal size for the storage of facility cleaning supplies, wet sink and building maintenance items. Key Adjacencies: Work Bays; Office Spaces; Break room; Conference Rooms FFE: Standard washer and dryer; shelving and storage cabinets, service sink Floor: Concrete (hard floor finish) Walls: CMU or steel framing; gypsum board (paint) Ceiling: ACT/ gypsum Doors/Windows: Hollow metal frames and doors Lighting: Standard lighting levels Mechanical: Standard HVAC requirements Electrical: Standard outlet spacing W20.19 IT Room Area: 48 Net SF Size: 6’ x 8’ Description: Minimum size for the inclusion of IT distribution systems for a divisional use facility. Larger space is required for large administrative work purposes (large number of computers), or multiple locations when facilities are large enough to require additional signal infrastructure. Key Adjacencies: Office Spaces FFE: IT racking provided by owner Floor: Concrete (static sensitive flooring) Walls: Steel framing; gypsum board or concrete (paint) Ceiling: ACT/ gypsum Doors/Windows: Hollow metal frames; wood doors Lighting: Standard lighting levels; task lighting Mechanical: Standard HVAC requirements Electrical: Specifically located outlets Technology Requirements: A/V and voice/date connections 52City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Space Standards | 20.20 Parts Room Area: 1500 Net SF Size: 30’ x 50’ Description: A large room for storage of vehicle parts with substantial shelving. Parts room needs access to an exterior dock with an overhead door for delivery of parts Key Adjacencies: Parts Office; Tech Service Desk; Maintenance Bays; Fluids Storage; Tire Storage FFE: Flexible multi level shelving. Floor: Concrete (hard floor finish) Walls: Steel framing / gypsum board (paint) Ceiling: ACT/ gypsum Doors/Windows: Hollow metal frames; wood doors; exterior aluminum windows Lighting: Standard lighting levels ; daylighting control Mechanical: Standard HVAC Electrical: Standard outlet locations; floor box; A/V equipment Special Criteria: Large overhead door with exterior dock access and forklift capabilities Break Room500 sq ftParts Room1,500 sq ft Tech Service Area180 sq ft FDWvv 53City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Space Standards | 21 - Space Standards: Vehicle Service Bays There are two methodologies of planning how much space and work load a single service technician should be allocated: Bays to Technician. This method is more flexible, in that the bays may be dedicated for certain services, while the technicians are not. This is more typical of larger departments, that may or may not incorporate personnel shifts. Fleet make-up can still dictate the ratio of bays to technician. Industry standards are typical at an absolute minimum of two bays per technician ratio (2:1). Trends in fleet sizes and available technicians have increased that ratio to 2.25:1 or 2.5:1. The rationale is that for every bay that has a dedicated repair taking place, there is at least one bay dedicated to back-log, rotation, and staging indoors for preparation of service. If fleet maintenance activities include dedicated specialized equipment maintenance, such as fire apparatus, police squad set-up or sanitation hydraulics, then a higher ratio of approaching 3:1 might be necessary to accommodate possible delays in parts availability and the inherent complications typical on larger projects Departments with three or fewer mechanics, should also trend on the higher side of the ratio to provide flexible workspace for large repairs. Departments that contract some activities, such as squad set-up, major overhaul or specialized equipment repair, can trend closer to the 2:1 ratio. Equipment to Technician. This requires a distinct definition of each technician’s role. One may specialize in police squad oil changes, while another is responsible for all large vehicle hydraulics. In that case, a ratio of equipment type per technician is going to range from 12-18 pieces of equipment per technician for large vehicles and major services, and 18-24 for small and standard services. This is variable, based on total fleet make-up and number of vehicle maintenance staff. 21.1 Equipment to Technician/ Bays to Technician Ratio 21.2 Central Maintenance Bay Count Summary Central Maintenance Bay Needs Summary - Mechanic Based Count Bay Type 0 yr/ Current 10 year 30 year 50 year Large Bays (12) (14) (14) (16) Medium/ Small Bays 6 6 6 7 Total Bays 18 20 20 23 Total SF 21,896 24,608 24,608 24,608 Central Maintenance Bay Needs Summary - Vehicles Per Mechanic Bay Type 0 yr/ Current 10 year 30 year 50 year Large Bays (9) (9) (9) (9) Medium/ Small Bays 7 7 7 7 Total Bays 15 16 16 16 Total SF 16,701 16,927 16,927 16,927 Central Maintenance Bay Needs Summary - Vehicle Service EQ to Vehicle Size Bay Type 0 yr/ Current 10 year 30 year 50 year Large Bays (10) (11 ) (11 ) (11 ) Medium/ Small Bays 8 8 8 8 Total Bays 18 19 19 19 Total SF 20,646 20,927 20,927 20,927 Central Maintenance Bay Needs Summary - Mechanic Based Count Bay Type 0 yr/ Current 10 year 30 year 50 year Large Bays (12) (14) (14) (16) Medium/ Small Bays 6 6 6 7 Total Bays 18 20 20 23 Total SF 21,896 24,608 24,608 24,608 Central Maintenance Bay Needs Summary - Vehicles Per Mechanic Bay Type 0 yr/ Current 10 year 30 year 50 year Large Bays (9) (9) (9) (9) Medium/ Small Bays 7 7 7 7 Total Bays 15 16 16 16 Total SF 16,701 16,927 16,927 16,927 Central Maintenance Bay Needs Summary - Vehicle Service EQ to Vehicle Size Bay Type 0 yr/ Current 10 year 30 year 50 year Large Bays (10) (11 ) (11 ) (11 ) Medium/ Small Bays 8 8 8 8 Total Bays 18 19 19 19 Total SF 20,646 20,927 20,927 20,927 Bays to Technician Count Calculation This methodology calculates the total number of bays based on allocating 2.5 bays per mechanic. The number of mechanics, currently 5, was based on current and projected employee counts supplied by the Public Works department. The ratio of large to small vehicles was determined by evaluating the current total fleet breakdown provided by the Central Maintenance Department. Equipment to Technician Bay Count Calculation This methodology calculates the total number of bays based on allocating each mechanic a set number of vehicles, and dedicating bays for those technicians based on the vehicles they service in ratio to the overall fleet. 54City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Space Standards | 21.3 Single Large Vehicle Service Bays Area: 1456 Net SF Size: 28’ x 52’ Description: A single bay for vehicle repair and service. Ceiling height 24’-26’ clear minimum. Can be used for servicing a single large vehicle, up to tandem size, medium vehicles, and small vehicles. Key Adjacencies: Parts Office; Tech Service Desk; Tool Storage; Fluids Storage; Tire Storage FFE: Vehicle Lifts, mobile tool storage. Verify equipment. Floor: Concrete (hard floor finish) Walls: Steel framing / gypsum board (paint)/ CMU Ceiling: Open Structure Doors/Windows: Hollow metal frames; wood doors; exterior aluminum windows Lighting: Standard lighting levels ; daylighting control Mechanical: Large fans and ample ventilation Electrical: Electrical outlets dedicated to specific equipment Special Criteria: Large overhead door14’-16’ clear. Trench Drains; Vehicle lifts ( in ground or above ). WB = Work Bench TB = Tool Bench VER = Vehicle Exhaust Bench LR = Lube Reel TD = Trench Reel IGVL = In Ground Vehicle Lift MPL = Mobile Post Lift 21.4 Single Small Vehicle Service Bays Area: 704 Net SF Size: 22 x 32’ Description: A single bay for vehicle repair and service. Ceiling height 24’-26’ clear minimum. Can be used for servicing a single large vehicle, up to tandem size, medium vehicles, and small vehicles. Key Adjacencies: Parts Office; Tech Service Desk; Tool Storage; Fluids Storage; Tire Storage FFE: Vehicle Lifts, mobile tool storage. Verify equipment. Floor: Concrete (hard floor finish) Walls: Steel framing / gypsum board (paint)/ CMU Ceiling: Open Structure Doors/Windows: Hollow metal frames; wood doors; exterior aluminum windows Lighting: Standard lighting levels ; daylighting control Mechanical: Large fans and ample ventilation Electrical: Electrical outlets dedicated to specific equipment Special Criteria: Large overhead door14’-16’ clear. Trench Drains; Vehicle lifts ( in ground or above ). WB = Work Bench TB = Tool Bench VER = Vehicle Exhaust Bench LR = Lube Reel TD = Trench Reel IGVL = In Ground Vehicle Lift MPL = Mobile Post Lift 55City of Jefferson Transit Facilities Feasibility Study Space Standards | 21.5 Double Service Bay Sizes Final bay sizes will be determined with adjacency in mind. While single bay spaces have specific dimensions, if multiple bays are placed adjacent to each other space can be saved by sharing common work spaces. Double Large Service Bays - End to End Area: 2,880 sf Size: 30’x96’ Large bays are placed end to end to allow longer vehicles to be serviced within. This is typical for departments which service fire department apparatus, in which case, the bay width is also increased to accommodate the apparatus movement and additional support required for the equipment size. These bays can accommodate two tandem vehicles without attachments (plows/rear brine tanks). Vehicle Lifting options, include in-ground and mobile column lifts. In-ground capacity choices may limit bay capacity for a second large vehicle, without an increase in bay length. Double Large Service Bays - Side by Side Area: 2,912 sf Size: 52’ x 56’ When planning for multiple large bays, side by side placement of single bays can find space economy in width if structural design allows free span. Bays get slightly longer to accommodate work bench placements. Bays are always drive in – back out. Vehicle Lifting capacity requirements, may require longer bays, to accommodate larger infrastructure. Double Small Service Bays - End to End Area: 1,408 sf Size: 22’ x 64’ Double Small Service Bays -Side by Side Area: 1,408 sf Size: 44’x32’ These bays are two smaller bays placed end to end or side by side to be able to service multiple vehicles by one service technician at one time. They are typically planned for a specialized service technician in charge of a specific fleet segment, such as police squads or parks maintenance equipment. One bay typically includes an integrated lift (in-ground or bolt-down), while the other is flat service area for flexible use. The bay is not simply doubled from the single bay scenario. Additional length or width may be needed to accommodate special vehicle lifting methods (platform lifts) and specialized work bench / toolbox / digital diagnostic podium placements between bays. 21.6 Specialty Service Bays Welding and Fabrication Bays Area: 2,560 Net SF Size: 32’x80’ Description: These bays need to have enough space for large vehicle to be serviced, as well as flexible use space for equipment such as presses, grinding tables, and work benches that allow for smaller service projects off-vehicle. They also need to be large enough to provide adequate lay-down space for plow and wing attachments that cannot be removed, as they may be for service in a typical bay. Key Adjacencies: Parts Office; Tech Service Desk; Tool Storage. FFE: Metal storage racks; work benches. Verify Equipment and storage needs. Floor: Concrete (hard floor finish) Walls: Steel framing / gypsum board (paint)/ CMU Ceiling: Open Structure Doors/Windows: Hollow metal frames; wood doors; exterior aluminum windows Lighting: Standard lighting levels ; daylighting control Mechanical: Large fans and ample ventilation Electrical: Electrical outlets dedicated to specific equipment Special Criteria: Large overhead door14’-16’ clear. Trench Drains; Vehicle lifts ( in ground or above ). Tire Service Bays Area: 960 Net SF Size: 24’x40’ Description: Tire balancing and brake service bays are typically adjacent to main service bays and behave more like independent workshops rather than a traditional service bay. Equipment for service is permanently installed around a perimeter wall or stored within a smaller dedicated area and rolled into this bay or a dedicated small vehicle bay when service is required. These bays resemble typical small service bays but require slightly larger space for specialized equipment and tool storage dedicated to this task. Key Adjacencies: Parts Office; Tech Service Desk; Tool Storage; Tire Storage FFE: Tire storage racks; tire balancing and brake equipment. Verify Equipment and storage needs. Floor: Concrete (hard floor finish) Walls: Steel framing / gypsum board (paint)/ CMU Ceiling: Open Structure Doors/Windows: Hollow metal frames; wood doors; exterior aluminum windows Lighting: Standard lighting levels ; daylighting control Mechanical: Large fans and ample ventilation Electrical: Electrical outlets dedicated to specific equipment Special Criteria: Large overhead door14’-16’ clear. Trench Drains; Vehicle lifts ( in ground or above ). CAMPO Technical Committee Staff Report Status of Current Work Tasks April 7, 2022 Summary The following list includes work tasks that are currently in progress or have been completed since the previous meeting: • FY 2023 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) development. See staff report, including draft document. • 2023-2027 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) development. See staff report, including draft document. • JEFFTRAN Transit Facility Feasibility Study. See staff report, including final document. • GIS Assistance. Staff continues providing technical assistance regarding GIS data and mapping to member jurisdictions for various projects. This includes review of recently released US Census data products. • Capital Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan update. An RFQ with scope of services soliciting a consultant for the update was posted in January and closed in February. Of the six submissions received, the selection committee gave Crafton Tull + LaneShift the highest score. The CAMPO Board of Directors approved the selection and directed staff to begin the negation process. A draft contract is expected in April. Agenda Item 8B