The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About2024-04-17 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. CAMPO Board of Directors Wednesday, April 17, 2024 at 12:00 p.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=m4333336d8bed8437d8645fadef5c5012 CALL-IN AVAILABLE AT: 1-404-397-1516 MEETING NUMBER: 2493 543 2112 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 20, 2024 5. Communications Received 6. Old Business 7. New Business A. CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan Action Requested: Review, discussion, and opening of 25-day public comment period. Staff Report: Staff have begun the update of the CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). The MTP assesses regional transportation needs over a twenty-year planning horizon by outlining goals, strategies, and projects for the CAMPO region. The MTP is federally required to be updated every five years and was last updated in 2019. Products and materials pertaining to the update of the MTP are reviewed and vetted by the Technical Committee. See attached staff report and draft document. B. 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Action Requested: Review, discussion, and opening of 25-day public comment period. 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. See attached staff report and draft document. C. FY 2025 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) Action Requested: Review, discussion, and opening of 7-day public comment period. 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). See attached staff report and draft document. 8. Other Business A. Status of Current Work Tasks B. Member Updates 9. Next Regular Meeting Date Wednesday, May 15, 2024 at 12:00 p.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 1 Minutes/Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Board of Directors March 20, 2024 MINUTES Board of Directors CAPITAL AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION March 20, 2024 12:00 p.m. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Jeff Hoelscher, Chairman, Cole County Scott Spencer, Vice Chairman, Jefferson City Jack Deeken, Jefferson City Matt Morasch, Jefferson City Clint Smith, Jefferson City Eric Landwehr, Cole County Doug Reece, St. Martins, Small Cities Representative Jon Hensley, Jefferson City BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Brandon Ruediger, Holts Summit Jeff Ahlers, Jefferson City Gerry Stegeman, Jefferson City Machelle Watkins, MoDOT Roger Fischer, Callaway County EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT (Non-Voting) Luke Holtschnieder CAMPO STAFF PRESENT (Non-Voting) Katrina Williams, Senior Planner Eric Barron, Planning Manager Kortney Bliss, Planner Tiphanie Pearson, Administrative Assistant GUESTS Paul Samson, Jefferson City Regional Economic Partnership Stephi Smith, News Tribune 1. Call to order, roll call, and determination of a quorum. Chairman Hoelscher called the meeting to order at 12:01 p.m. Ms. Pearson took roll call. A quorum was present with 8 of 13 members present. 2. Public Comment None. 3. Adoption of the agenda as printed or amended Mr. Landwehr moved and Mr. Spencer seconded to approve the agenda as printed. The motion passed unanimously. 4. Approval of the minutes from the meeting of January 17, 2024 AND January 24, 2024 • Mr. Spencer moved and Mr. Landwehr seconded to approve the minutes of the meeting of January 17, 2024. The motion passed unanimously. • Mr. Reece moved and Mr. Landwehr seconded to approve the minutes of the meeting of January 24, 2024. The motion passed unanimously. 2 Minutes/Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Board of Directors March 20, 2024 5. Communications Received None. 6. Old Business None. 7. New Business A. Traffic Study of US 54/63/50 Tri-Level Interchange – RFQ Selection Committee • Mr. Barron stated that a formation of a selection committee is necessary, and that the committee selected will choose who will complete the study for the interchange. Mr. Barron then gave a list of names that had been given for the committee, which included:  David Bange, City Engineer  Howard Thomas, County Engineer  Melissa Scheperle, Environmental and Historic Preservation Manager  Trent Brooks, Central District Traffic Engineer  Representation from Cole County was not selected o Mr. Spencer motioned and Mr. Landwehr seconded to approve the RFQ Selection Committee list provided.  The motion passed unanimously. • Mr. Barron then gave an update on where the process is on the timeline. He stated that they received comments on the RFQ from MoDOT, who gave a good review, and that they are awaiting a federal reply. There were no further questions. 8. Other Business A. 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) – Annual Update of the TIP is underway • Ms. Williams gave an overiew of the TIP and stated that the Technical Committee has been provided a draft document for review and that she is incorporating MoDOT and ONE DOT comments into the draft. She then went over the 48 projects and their respective categories. She then went on to say that the draft is under review by the CAMPO Technical Committee currently, and that they will make recommendations to the Board of Directors at their April 4th meeting. B. FY 2025 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) – Annual development of the UPWP is underway • Ms. Williams stated that a draft document was submitted to the Technical Committee for review. She went on to provide an overview of the documents said that the UPWP is a full budgetary layout for next fiscal year. She stated that the FY24 budget was amended to include the Tri-Level study and that it is also included in the FY25 budget. She then asked if the Board had any other major studies that staff should be thinking about. Mr. Barron added that staff time is stretched but they would like to hear ideas on what projects should be looked into for the future. He went on to mention that the County Wide study, completed in the early 2000’s, could potentially be re-done. Mr. Landwehr stated that that study was completed in 2003 and that the county paid for it. He went on to say that the study was solely for transportation. Mr. Morasch added that they have checked off some of the needs in that study, but he would like to see how the study would look as a CAMPO-wide project, since CAMPO did not exist at that time. 3 Minutes/Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Board of Directors March 20, 2024 Mr. Samson stated that it should be done sooner rather than later. Mr. Spencer stated that micro transit should be brought to attention. Mr. Morasch stated that MoDOT and FTA are doing a literature review as part of a transit pilot project. He stated that the Technical Committee should start a conversation about an updated thoroughfare plan. Mr. Landwehr stated that it would be helpful to have an updated plan prior to the sales tax approval. He stated that it would be helpful to have the Technical Committee review this topic. The Board discussed the history and cost of the Cole County County-Wide Transportation Study and then decided that the final course of action was to move this to the Technical Committee for discussion. C. CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan – 2023-2024 Update • Ms. Williams gave details on the plan and gave an update on the changes that had been made. She stated that there were changes to the BIL language, there were new state and local plans, changes to and reorganization of the illustrative list, and minor changes to the goals and strategies. She went on to state that there will be a more complete draft in the next meeting in April. In April, staff will ask the Technical Committee for approval to move on to the Board of Directors. Ms. Williams then went over the aspects of the plan, which included; vision and plan development, regional overview, the transportation system, implementation and financial plan, and the appendix. Ms. Williams went on to state that the survey garnered 268 responses and she went over the results; briefly stating some of the most common areas of concern. She then asked if there were any questions. Mr. Landwehr asked if the Greenway Trail on Wildwood was included in the plan. Ms. Williams stated that it was in there in the long-range future projects. D. Status of Current Work Tasks • Ms. Williams stated that she had touched on most of the status updates throughout the meeting, but that there was a modification to the TIP, as a project was starting earlier than anticipated. She then stated that the Active Transportation Plan had been adopted by the City of Jefferson. She also stated that it had been adopted by St. Martins, and that she was hoping for it to be adopted by Holts Summit in April. She went on to state that TAP grants are open, and the deadline for them is April 26th. There were no questions. E. Member Updates None. 9. Next Meeting Date – Wednesday, April 17, 2024 at 12:00 p.m. in the Boone-Bancroft Room, City of Jefferson City Hall 10. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 12:49 p.m. • Motion to adjourn by Mr. Landwehr and seconded by Mr. Reece. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully Submitted, Tiphanie Pearson, Administrative Assistant Agenda Item 7A Page 1 of 2 CAMPO Board of Directors Staff Report CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan – 2023-2024 Update April 17, 2024 Summary The update of the CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) began in mid-2023. The MTP, is a long-range plan that assesses regional transportation needs over a twenty-year planning horizon. The MTP sets goals and defines policies, programs, strategies, and projects to meet the transportation needs of the CAMPO region. The MTP is federally required to by updated every 5 years and utilize a minimum 20-year planning horizon. The MTP was last updated in 2019. Progress Report February/March Staff focused on research, mapping, and writing the draft plan during the months of February and March. The draft document, provided in the link below, includes updates to several sections of the previous plan. Updates from the 2019 iteration of the MTP include integration of survey results, text updates, and changes to several charts, maps and graphics. New requirements stemming for the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) have been added to meet regulations. Staff will provide an update on these changes and recommendations for edits to the illustrative list and implementation strategies, stemming from public/stakeholder input and analysis of new GIS data. Draft MTP Document: https://cms4files.revize.com/jeffersoncitymo/CAMPO2045_MTP_2024_Draft%2004.11.2024.pdf Note: This draft does not include Appendices E through I. Those can be found on of the MTP webpage December/January Staff focused on public engagement, research, and writing the draft plan during the month of January. Staff closed the public survey January 12th. Survey results were reviewed and integrated into the plan. Staff and Technical Committee have produced a draft Illustrative Projects Section using input provided by the Technical Committee, Jurisdiction Staff, and stakeholders. October/November In October and November staff worked with the Technical Committee and local jurisdictions to review and update the Goals and Strategies, MTP Illustrative List, and Major Thoroughfare Plan. This process included discussion of new projects, completed projects, and the tier system used to categorize road and bridge projects. The Major Thoroughfare plan was updated and has been moved from the appendix to the Illustrative List section of the MTP. Public Engagement - In October a meeting for local jurisdictions was held with discussion focused on projects outside of Jefferson City. In November three general stakeholder meetings were held requesting in put on the Goals and Strategies, Illustrative List, and Major Thoroughfare Plan. Two public meeting were held in December; one in Jefferson City and one in Holts Summit. In November a public survey was released via email, social media, and during public presentations. As of December 14th, 190 responses have been received. Survey results will be presented at future CAMPO meetings and will inform that updates to the MTP goals and strategies. The survey will remain open through January 12th. Staff will continue presenting to all local jurisdictions in the CAMPO region throughout December and January. Additional presentations to other stakeholder groups will happen during this time. Agenda Item 7A Page 2 of 2 Background The MTP is central to the MPO planning process and defines policies, programs, projects to meet regional needs for all transportation modes, including: • Surface Transportation (roads and bridges) • Pedestrian and Non-Motorized • Transit • Air • Waterways & Ports • Freight • Rail The planning process will consider and incorporate several local and regional topics including transportation system development, land use, employment, economic development, human and natural environment, and housing and community development. Per federal regulation, the MTP addresses the following ten planning factors: 1. Economic Vitality 2. Safety 3. Security 4. Accessibility and Mobility 5. Environmental Protection and Quality of Life 6. System Integration and Connectivity 7. System Management and Operation 8. System Preservation 9. Resiliency and Reliability 10. Travel and Tourism The 2019 MTP utilized an in-depth Scenario Planning process that analyzed how transportation, land use, resources, demographics, and other factors may affect connectivity, mobility, and resiliency throughout the region. A preferred scenario was chosen and then used in the development of a Travel Demand Model (TDM). The TDM took the preferred land use scenario and analyzed the impacts of development on the transportation system, highlighting points of congestion, capacity, and increased demands on the road network. CAMPO staff then worked with the general public and stakeholders to develop a list of illustrative projects, combining public comments and the TDM outputs. The 2023-2024 planning process used the preferred scenario and TDM from the 2019 planning process. This data, along with outreach to member jurisdictions, stakeholders, and the general public was used in the update of the MTP. Technical Committee Recommendation The Technical Committee recommended the Draft CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan for review and approval to the Board of Directors at their April 4th meeting. Public Comment A 25-day public comment period will be opened April 17th and closed by the Board of Directors at a meeting on May 15th. Public Meeting (Open House): April 24th, 2024 – 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Jefferson City - City Hall, City Council Chambers 320 E. McCarty Street, Jefferson City, MO 65101 Please refer questions or comments to Katrina Williams at 573-634-6536 or at kawilliams@jeffersoncitymo.gov. A draft document is attached. Note: This draft does not include Appendices E through I. Those can be found on of the MTP webpage. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN The Long-Range Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Adopted May 15, 2024 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. DRAFT 04.11.2024 DRAFT 04.11.2024 DRAFT 04.11.2024 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: CAMPO staff wishes to thank those who participated in the development of the plan. A large number of people took the time and effort to attend public meetings, respond to questions and surveys, and attend working meetings. Without the dedication of local stakeholders, the CAMPO Board of Directors, the CAMPO Technical Committee, and the residents of the CAMPO Region this plan would not be possible. CREDITS: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan was written and compiled by CAMPO staff. Consultants were utilized for components of the 2019 MTP Update, including scenario planning and travel-demand modeling: Thank you to City Explained, Inc. and HDR Engineering, Inc. The 2022-2023 Capital Area Active Transportation Plan was fully produced through consultant services: Thank you to Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. and LaneShift. The MTP is heavily reliant on accurate data and planning products from the Missouri Department of Transportation, thank you. Note: Updates to the MTP occur annually. These updates can be found on our website at www.jeffersoncitymo.gov/campo. Plan Produced by the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Consultant services for the development of the Travel Demand Model provided by HDR, Inc. and City Explained, Inc. MPO Administration is provided by the City of Jefferson Department of Planning and Protective Services/ Planning Division Room 120 John G. Christy Municipal Building 320 East McCarty Jefferson City, Missouri Telephone 573-634-6410 http://www.jeffersoncitymo.gov/campo/ DRAFT 04.11.2024 Adoption Resolution DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO Board of Directors Chair – Jeff Hoelscher, Eastern District Commissioner, Cole County Vice-Chair – Scott Spencer, City Council Member, City of Jefferson City of Jefferson: Jack Deeken, City Council Member Jon Hensley, City Council Member Jeff Ahlers, City Council Member Clint Smith, AICP, Director, Planning & Protective Services Gerry Stegeman, Transit Manager Matt Morasch, PE, Director, Public Works Cole County: Eric Landwehr, PE, Director, Public Works Doug Reece, City Administrator, St. Martins Callaway County: Roger Fischer, Western District Commissioner Holts Summit: Brandon Ruediger, City Administrator, City of Holts Summit MoDOT: Machelle Watkins, PE, District Engineer Ex-Officio Members: Luke Holtschnieder, Jefferson City Regional Economic Partnership Daniel Nguyen, Federal Transit Administration, Region VII Christy Evers, MoDOT Transit Administrator Vacant, Missouri Office of Administration Michael Henderson, AICP, MoDOT, Transportation Planning Dan Weitkamp, Federal Highway Administration, Missouri Div. Tamara Tateosian, Callaway County Economic Development Technical Committee Chair – David Bange, PE, City Engineer, Public Works, City of Jefferson Vice-Chair – Matt Prenger, PE, County Engineer, Public Works, Cole County City of Jefferson: Clint Smith, AICP, Director, Planning & Protective Services Aaron Grefrath, Director, Parks, Recreation & Forestry Matt Morasch, PE, Director of Public Works Gerry Stegeman, Transit Manager Eric Barron, AICP, Planning Manager Britt Smith, PE, Operations & Maintenance Cole County: Matt Prenger, PE, County Engineer Shannon Kliethermes, Senior Planner Callaway County: Howard Thomas, PE, County Highway Administrator MoDOT: Steve Engelbrecht, PE, District Planning Manager Michael Henderson, AICP, Transportation Planning Specialist Daniel Roeger, PE, Area Engineer Private Transportation Interest: Vacant Pedestrian or Biking Interest: Kevin Schwartz, JC Parks Outdoor Recreation Program Manager Small City Representative (Callaway): Mark Tate, Streets Department, City of Holts Summit Small City Representative (Cole): Rachel Busche, Wardsville Ex-Officio Members: Daniel Nguyen, Federal Transit Administration, Region VII Daniel Weitkamp, Federal Highway Administration, Missouri Div. Jason Branstetter, Heartland Port Authority Representative CAMPO Staff: Clint Smith, AICP– Director, Planning & Protective Services Eric Barron, AICP - Planning Manager Katrina Williams, GISP, AICP –Planner, Senior Vacant – Planner Kortney Bliss – Planner Tiphanie Pearson – Administrative Assistant DRAFT 04.11.2024 CONTENTS 1 - Introduction & Federal Compliance ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 What is the MTP? .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................3 What Is CAMPO? ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................3 Federal Compliance ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Performance-Based Planning and Programing ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 MoDOT’s Long-Range Transportation Plan .............................................................................................................................................................. 10 Progress since 2019 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11 2 - Planning Factors ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Federal Planning Factors ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Safety & Security ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Accessibility, Mobility, & Connectivity .......................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Environment & Quality of Life ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 System Management, Preservation, & Resileincy ................................................................................................................................................... 26 Economic Vitality, Travel & Tourism .............................................................................................................................................................................. 29 Housing Coordination ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 30 Planning Emphasis Areas (PEAs) .................................................................................................................................................................................... 31 3 – Visioning & Plan Development ............................................................................................................................................................................ 32 The Vision ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 33 The Planning Process ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 34 Updating the MTP................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 38 Incorporation Of Other Plans And Studies................................................................................................................................................................. 39 Scenario Planning ................................................................................................................................................................................................................40 Travel Demand Model (TDM) Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................................... 43 4 – Regional Overview ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 46 Population Trends ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 47 Economic Activity .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 58 Land Use .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 67 5 - The Transportation System .................................................................................................................................................................................. 70 Roads and Bridges ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 71 Pedestrian & Non-Motorized ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 83 Transit ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 89 Air Travel .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 93 Waterways & Ports ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 95 Freight & Intermodal Facilities ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 98 Rail (Freight) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 101 Rail (Passenger) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 102 Trends In transportation .................................................................................................................................................................................................104 6 - Implementation & Financial Plan ...................................................................................................................................................................... 107 Implementation ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 108 Illustrative Projects .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 112 The Financial Plan .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 130 Fiscal Constraint 2025-2029 .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 131 Fiscal Constraint 2029-2045 .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 152 Cost & Revenue Estimates ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 153 Local Funding Sources ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 156 State Funding Sources ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 158 Federal Funding sources ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 160 DRAFT 04.11.2024 APPENDICES Appendix A MTP Planning Requirements - §450.324 CFR Appendix B Amendments & Modifications Appendix C System Performance Report Appendix D Surveys and Public Comments Appendix E Transportation Improvement Program Appendix F 2023 Capital Area Active Transportation Plan Appendix G 2021 Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan Appendix H Travel Demand Model Report Appendix I 2015 CAMPO Regional Wayfinding Plan LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS BIL Bipartisan Infrastructure Law CAMPO Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAST Act Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration 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 HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program IIJA Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 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 ONE DOT Collaboration between FHWA and FTA PBPP Performance Based Planning and Programming POP Program of Projects 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 DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), updated every five years, is the Long- Range Transportation Plan for CAMPO. Looking to a 2045 planning horizon, and utilizing a large amount of stakeholder and public input, the MTP anticipates transportation trends and needs throughout the CAMPO Region and includes goals and strategies to meet those needs. The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) is responsible for long range multimodal transportation planning in an area encompassing five communities; Holts Summit, Jefferson City, St. Martins, Taos, and Wardsville. Portions of two counties, Cole and Callaway are also included in the CAMPO Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA). With a population of 73,693 (2020), the CAMPO MPA encompasses the US Census designated Holts Summit Urban Area and Jefferson City Urban Area and portions of surrounding areas that may become urban in the next 20 years. The MTP utilizes a Travel Demand Model and Scenario Planning to anticipate regional growth and transportation demands across all modes. The development of the MTP was conducted through adherence to all federal requirements including incorporation of federal planning factors, federal performance measures and targets, and planning emphasis areas. Other plans, such as the Capital Area Active Transportation Plan, the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan, CAMPO Regional Wayfinding Plan have been incorporated into the planning process used in the development of this iteration of the MTP. The MTP contains tools and resources to assist CAMPO and member jurisdictions with implementation of the plan’s goals and strategies. The Implementation Plan, outlined in Section 6, includes a schedule for addressing strategies and provides staff with guidance in the development of an annual work program. VISION Maintain and support a resilient multi-modal network that improves quality of life and promote economic vitality through planning for smart community growth. GOALS • Improve safety and security for all travel modes • Support economic development and tourism throughout the region • Support regional partnerships and planning continuity across the region • Improve efficiency in system management, operations, and movement of people/freight • Support land use practices that promote quality of life and economic vitality • Seek secure and reliable funding • Improve accessibility and mobility • Maintain a resilient transportation system • Provide a platform for multi-modal transportation education DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2 1 - Introduction & Federal Compliance DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 3 WHAT IS THE MTP? The Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), also referred to as a Long-Range Transportation Plan, assesses regional transportation needs over a twenty-year planning horizon. The MTP sets goals and defines policies, programs, strategies, and projects to meet the transportation needs of the CAMPO region. The MTP is central to the MPO planning process and addresses all transportation modes, including the following: • Surface Transportation (roads and bridges) • Pedestrian and Non-Motorized • Transit • Air • Waterways & Ports • Rail The MTP also includes other plans and reports specific to these modes: • System Performance Report - Appendix C • 2023 Capital Area Active Transportation Plan - Appendix F • 2021 Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan - Appendix G • Travel Demand Model Report - Appendix H • 2015 CAMPO Regional Wayfinding Plan - Appendix I WHAT IS CAMPO? CAMPO was formally established in March of 2003 and is the designated metropolitan planning organization for the Jefferson City urbanized area. The CAMPO Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA), see Figure 1.1, has an estimated population of more than 73,000 and includes the jurisdictions of Holts Summit, Jefferson City, St. Martins, Taos, Wardsville, and portions of unincorporated, non-urbanized Cole and Callaway Counties. The boundary, based on US Census data, was created by the CAMPO Board of Directors and approved by the Governor. The most recent boundary was approved in 2024. CORE FUNCTIONS OF AN MPO • To establish and manage a fair and impartial setting for effective regional decision-making in the metropolitan planning area. • Evaluate transportation alternatives, scaled to the size and complexity of the region, to the nature of its transportation issues, and to the realistically available options. • Develop and update a Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the planning area covering a planning horizon of at least 20 years that fosters (1) mobility and access for people and goods, (2) efficient system performance and preservation, and (3) quality of life. • Develop a Transportation Improvement Program based on the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and designed to serve the area’s goals, using spending, regulating, operating, management, and financial tools. • Involve the general public and all the significantly affected sub-groups in the four essential functions listed above. Metropolitan transportation planning is the process of examining travel and transportation issues and needs in metropolitan areas. It includes a demographic analysis of the community in question, as well as an examination of travel patterns and trends. The planning process includes an analysis of alternatives to meet projected future demands, and for providing a safe and efficient transportation system that meets mobility while not creating adverse impacts to the environment. In metropolitan areas over 50,000 in population, the responsibility for transportation planning lies with designated Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO).” – Federal Highway Administration DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 4 Figure 1.1 CAMPO Metropolitan Planning Area Source: CAMPO CAMPO BOARD OF DIRECTORS & TECHNICAL COMMITTEE CAMPO is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of representatives from jurisdictions within the planning area, Federal and State transportation agencies, and economic development representatives, with some serving as ex-officio (non-voting) members. The Board of Directors is responsible for providing official action on federally required plans, documents, and programs. The Board is also responsible for changes in the bylaws and changes to the MPO boundary. The Technical Committee consists of representatives from the member jurisdictions’ professional staff and act in an advisory capacity. A full list of members of the Board of Directors and Technical Committee can be found at the front of this document. Board of Directors Voting Members (13) Jefferson City (7) Cole County (3) Callaway County (1) MoDOT (1) Holts Summit (1) Non-Voting Ex-Officio Members (6) MoDOT (1) FTA (1) FHWA (1) Other Federal Agency (1) Jefferson City Economic Develop.Rep. (1) Callaway Co. Economic Development Rep. (1) DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 5 THE CAMPO PLANNING AREA In 2023, CAMPO adopted new boundaries for Jefferson City Adjusted Urban Area and the Holts Summit Adjusted Urban Area. The new Adjusted Urban Area boundaries are slightly larger than the previous single boundary, and includes all of the previous 2010 Adjusted Urban Area boundary. In 2024, CAMPO adopted the new Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) boundary. An MPA is the area in which the metropolitan transportation planning process is carried out. The boundaries of an MPA must encompass the Adjusted Urban Area, US Census Urban Area, and contiguous geographic area likely to become urbanized within the next 20 years. No significant changes were made to the MPA boundary in 2024. WHAT IS THE URBAN (URBANIZED) AREA? “an Urban Area (UA) represents densely developed territory, and encompasses residential, commercial, and other nonresidential urban land uses. Each urban area must encompass at least 2,000 housing units or at least 5,000 people. This is a change from the previous minimum of 2,500 people which had been in place since the 1910 Census.” “Urban areas are defined primarily based on housing unit density measured at the census block level.” - US Census Bureau The Urban Area boundary designation informs many federal transportation and funding programs and supports the determination of Federal-Aid Eligibility for roadways, bridge, and transit funding, including: • Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG), formerly STP • Local Agency Programs (LAP) • Federal Transit Administration Apportionments • Federal Transportation System Designations • Designation of Transportation Management Areas (TMAs) and MPOs WHAT DOES THE URBAN AREA MEAN FOR MPOS? MPOs are designated in Urban (Urbanized) Areas over 50,000 in population. This designation is used in the distribution of formula grant funding to urbanized vs. non-urbanized areas. To this point, the Jefferson City Urban Area, with a population of 50,775, qualifies as “urbanized”. The Holts Summit Urban Area, with a population of 5,184, is not “urbanized”. The total combined 2020 Urban Area population within CAMPO is 55,959. WHAT IS THE “ADJUSTED” URBAN AREA? The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Census Bureau differ in defining urban and rural areas. The Census Bureau defines Urban Areas solely for the purpose of tabulating and presenting Census Bureau statistical data. Federal transportation legislation allows for the outward adjustment of Census Bureau defined urban boundaries as the basis for development of adjusted urban area boundaries for transportation planning purposes. The Adjusted Urban Area boundary must encompass the entire Census-designated Urban Area and is subject to federal approval. More information can be found here: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/urbanized_areas_and_mpo_tma/ As a result of the 2020 Decennial Census, the “Urban Area” boundary(ies) within the CAMPO Metropolitan Planning Area changed. Due to changes in the federal criteria for delineating Urban Areas, what was the 2010 Jefferson City Urban Area is now split into two geographically smaller Urban Areas; one named the “Jefferson City Urban Area” and one named the “Holts Summit Urban Area”. CAMPO is the designated MPO for the Jefferson City UA. Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) Adjusted Urban Area (AUA) Urban Area (UA) DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 6 WHAT IS THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA (MPA) The CAMPO Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA), which encompasses the Jefferson City UA and Holts Summit UA, is depicted in Figure 1.2. The MPA encompasses 153 square miles, with MPA population of 73,693 and a total urban population of 55,959. The MPA must encompass the entire Adjusted Urban Area, which contains the Census Bureau defined urban area, and contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period. The CAMPO MPA Boundary, per federal requirement, must align with the approved 2023 Adjusted Urban Area Boundary. Figure 1.2 CAMPO Metropolitan Planning Area and Urbanized Area Source: CAMPO DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 7 FEDERAL COMPLIANCE Development and maintenance of an MTP is a requirement for all Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO). The MTP is prepared in accordance with federal statute 23 CFR Part §450.324, 49 CFR 613, and 49 USC 5303(i), which require CAMPO to develop and update the MTP at least every 5 years to maintain validity and consistency with current and forecasted transportation and land use conditions. The MTP must be compliant with federal regulations issued by the United States Department of Transportation (Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration), which governs the development of transportation plans and programs for Urbanized Areas (UA). CAMPO must prepare a Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), in accordance with federal law, to accomplish the objectives outlined by the MPO, the state, and the public transportation providers with respect to the development of the metropolitan area’s transportation network. The MTP identifies how the metropolitan area will manage and operate a multi-modal transportation system (including transit, highway, bicycle, pedestrian, and accessible transportation) to meet the region’s economic, transportation, development and sustainability goals – among others – for a 20+-year planning horizon, while remaining fiscally constrained. An outline of the MTP requirements as stated in §450.324 CFR and how they are addressed in the MTP can be found in Appendix A. REGIONAL COORDINATION As a regional organization, CAMPO coordinates and collaborates with a number of partners, including: Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Chambers of Commerce, Convention and Visitors Bureaus, the Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission, and other various public and private groups. Several meetings are held throughout the year at the MoDOT Central District level to encourage collaboration between regional planning partners. Collaboration with the partner agencies shown in Figure 1.3 is important in achieving CAMPO’s core functions and responsibilities as listed above. This collaboration provides the opportunity to coordinate planning and implementation activities. Thus, efficiency is improved and funding is maximized. FIGURE 1.3 PLANNING PARTNERS - MODOT CENTRAL DISTRICT SOURCE: CAMPO DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 8 PERFORMANCE-BASED PLANNING AND PROGRAMING Performance-based Planning and Programing (PBPP) is a requirement of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act and impacts both the MTP and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). PBPP refers to the application of transportation performance management (TPM) principles within the planning and programming processes of transportation agencies to achieve desired performance outcomes for the multimodal transportation system. CAMPO is required to use a performance-based approach to transportation decision making to support the national federal highway performance goals listed below. SOURCE: FHWA NATIONAL FEDERAL HIGHWAY PERFORMANCE GOALS • Safety - To achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. • Infrastructure Condition - To maintain the highway infrastructure asset system in a state of good repair. • Congestion Reduction - To achieve a significant reduction in congestion on the National Highway System. • System Reliability - To improve the efficiency of the surface transportation system. • Freight Movement and Economic Vitality - To improve the national freight network, strengthen the ability of rural communities to access national and international trade markets, and support regional economic development. • Environmental Sustainability - To enhance the performance of the transportation system while protecting and enhancing the natural environment. • Reduced Project Delivery Delays - To reduce project costs, promote jobs and the economy, and expedite the movement of people and goods by accelerating project completion through eliminating delays in the project development and delivery process, including reducing regulatory burdens and improving agencies' work practices. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 9 FEDERAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES The FAST Act continued a federal requirement for annual target setting collaboration between State DOTs and planning partners on national performance measures. The System Performance Report, part of the federal performance requirements, presents the condition and performance of the transportation system with regard to performance measures, records performance targets, and marks progress achieved in meeting the targets. MPOs may choose between programing projects (1) in support of all the State targets, (2) establishing specific numeric targets for all of the performance measures, or (3) establishing specific numeric targets for one or more individual performance measures and supporting the State target on other performance measures. The CAMPO Board of Directors has voted to support state targets and measures in four areas listed below. Please note that there are several additional targets MoDOT has adopted that CAMPO was not required to support that are not listed below. CAMPO’s performance measures and targets are outlined in detail in the System Performance Report located in Appendix C. •Number of Fatalities; •Rate of Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles traveled (VMT); •Number of Serious Injuries; •Rate of Serious Injuries per 100 Million VMT; and •Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and Non-motorized Serious Injuries. Safety (PM1) •Percentage of pavements on the National Highway System (NHS) in Good condition (excludes Interstate System) •Percentage of pavements on the NHS in Poor condition (excludes Interstate System) •Percentage of NHS bridges in Good condition •Percentage of NHS bridges in Poor condition Pavement & Bridge (PM2) •A measure that will assess the percent of reliable person-miles traveled on the non-Interstate NHS. Travel Time Reliability & Freight Reliability (PM3) •Asset Inventory •Condition Assessment •Management Approach –Decision Support Tools •Investment Prioritization Transit Asset Management (TAM) •Establishment of a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan (PTASP). Transit Safety (PTASP) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measure –Final Rule This final rule amends FHWA's regulations governing national performance management measures and establishes a method for the measurement and reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with transportation (GHG measure). It requires State departments of transportation (State DOT) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) to establish declining carbon dioxide (CO2) targets for the GHG measure and report on progress toward the achievement of those targets. The rule does not mandate how low targets must be. Rather, State DOTs and MPOs have flexibility to set targets that are appropriate for their communities and that work for their respective climate change and other policy priorities, as long as the targets aim to reduce emissions over time. The FHWA will assess whether State DOTs have made significant progress toward achieving their targets. -FHWA December 2023 Per a March 2024 US District Court judgement, reporting for this rule has halted. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 10 MODOT’S LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN The current MoDOT Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) was updated and approved by the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission and adopted on June 6, 2018. In addition to collecting comments from stakeholders and the general public, the 2018 update included a large amount of outreach and coordination with planning agencies around the state. Like the CAMPO 2045 MTP, MoDOT’s LRTP is a 25-year vision for the state's transportation system; establishing goals, objectives and performance management metrics. The LRTP analyzes existing and emerging trends, both nationally and in Missouri. These trends included aging populations, increases in urbanization, advancing technologies, and a younger population that isn’t as interested in driving. The LRTP also included an analysis of emerging technology, such as autonomous and connected vehicles (AV/CV), and their potential impact. Statewide system needs and revenue forecasts are also identified in the LRTP. Figure 1.4, taken from the LRTP, demonstrates the many high-priority unfunded annual needs. Figure 1.4 Missouri High-Priority Unfunded Annual Transportation Needs 2018 2023 SOURCE: CITIZEN’S GUIDE TO TRANSPORTATION FUNDING IN MISSOURI (NOVEMBER 2018 AND 2023) In order to meet transportation needs the LRTP outlines the following goals: • Take care of the transportation system and services we enjoy today • Keep all travelers safe, no matter the mode of transportation • Invest in projects that spur economic growth and create jobs • Give Missourians better transportation choices • Improve reliability and reduce congestion on Missouri’s transportation system The goals, as well as data and public input collected during the update of the LRTP have been considered in the update of the CAMPO MTP. Most of the needs identified in the State’s LRTP are identified in the CAMPO MTP and the MTP’s goals are reflective of those in the LRTP. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 11 PROGRESS SINCE 2019 The previous MTP was adopted in May of 2019. Since that time many projects, programs, and activities have taken place throughout the region. Many of these achievements were outlined as strategies or projects in the previous 2013-2035 MTP and the CAMPO 2045 & Beyond MTP adopted in 2019. It is important to highlight these achievements when discussing long-range planning with the general public and stakeholders in the region. Between July of 2019 and June 2024 more than $162 Million in in transportation projects have been completed using federal transportation funding, see Figure 1.5. This total does not include local projects using local revenue. Figure 1.5 Federally Funded Transportation Projects and Activities Completed Since July 1, 2019 Project Type Total Road, Bridge, and Safety Projects $139,338,000 Pedestrian, Multi-Modal, and other Non-Motorized Projects $20,117,897 Consultant services for CAMPO studies, modeling, and planning $183,000 Scoping $2,731,000 Total $162,369,897 SOURCE: DATA COMPILED FROM TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS BETWEEN JULY 1, 2018 AND JUNE 30, 2024. The construction projects include rehabilitation of bridges and roads, pavement upgrades, shoulders, new and updated sidewalks and trails. Planning projects, listed below, were completed by both in-house staff and consultants. Federal funds have also been used for scoping and engineering projects such as looking at new configurations for intersections or traffic studies. PLANNING PROJECTS COMPLETED SINCE 2019 • 2021 Coordinated Plan Update • 2023 Title VI Program (including Public Participation Plan and Language Assistance Plan) • 2022 Transit Feasibility Study • 2023 Active Transportation Plan • Crash Reports • System Performance Report • Planning Boundary Review and Update: o Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA), Adjusted Urban Area (AUA) • Functional Class Update • Annual products – TIP, UPWP, and various reports DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 12 SCOPING PROJECTS COMPLETED SINCE 2019 Several projects on the CAMPO Illustrative List (Section 6) have been scoped or partially designed by MoDOT, local engineering staff, or consultants. Pending funding these projects may be pursued for funding the near future. • US 50 / Truman Blvd – Conceptual Interchange Study (May 2022) - The study area (Figure 1.6) includes a 0.6- mile-long segment along West Truman Boulevard/South Country Club Drive between West Truman Place to the north and Missouri Boulevard to the south. The study area also includes a 0.8-mile segment of Country Club Drive and one outlying intersection at Country Club Drive and Rainbow Drive. Figure 1.6 Study area for US 50/Truman Blvd Scoping Study SOURCE: US ROUTE 50 AT TRUMAN BLVD – CONCEPTUAL INTERCHANGE STUDY MAY 2022 • US 54 / Simon Blvd Interchange – This project was scoped in 2022 and constructed in 2023. A new project has been added to the Illustrative List reflecting the desire by Holts Summit for more enhancements to Simon Blvd east of US 54, including access management and pedestrian accommodations. • US 54 / 63 north of the Missouri River – This project includes adding lanes and other improvement to both eastbound and westbound segments of the highway between the Missouri River and US 63 / MO 94 interchange. Eastbound construction began in 2024 and westbound construction is anticipated in 2026. • US 54 / Ellis Blvd / Stadium Blvd - Conceptual Interchange Studies (2022) - The purpose of these studies was to examine the US 54 interchanges at Ellis Boulevard and Stadium Boulevard to address the existing capacity, mobility, and safety issues at the interchanges and provide MoDOT with improved interchange configurations.  The Stadium Boulevard study area consists of the intersection of Stadium Boulevard and Christy Drive as well as mainline US 54 between Stadium Boulevard and Missouri Boulevard.  The Ellis Boulevard study area consists of Ellis Boulevard between Southridge Drive and Lorenzo Greene Drive as well as mainline US 54 between Missouri Route 179 and Stadium Boulevard. • US 50/63 / Clark Ave. Interchange - The 2018-2019 study included assessing the Clark Avenue corridor from McCarty Street to Atchison Street. Thirteen options were developed ranging from basic solutions to those that would significantly alter traffic movements at the interchange. • W. Edgewood Corridor - Stadium Blvd. to MO 179 – The City of Jefferson contracted with GBA Engineering to complete a corridor in 2016; including current conditions and future impacts of nearby commercial development. • US 54 / 50 / 63 Tri-Level Interchange – The CAMPO Board of Directors approved funding to pursue a study the interchange in January 2024. The RFQ would include an engineering study to identify the problem areas within the interchange and neighboring portions of the Rex Whitton Expressway, and to identify potential solutions to the problem areas with cost estimates. The study would provide information that could be used to pursue federal funding / grant opportunities, and serve as a preliminary step to identifying engineering solutions for the interchange. JC REP estimates a study would cost in the range of $500,000, and proposed a funding package of $200,000 from CAMPO, $150,000 from the City of Jefferson, and $150,000 from Cole County. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 13 2 - PLANNING FACTORS DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 14 FEDERAL PLANNING FACTORS The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), otherwise known as Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), was signed into law in November 2021. The BIL continues the requirements of the previous transportation bill, which included 10 planning factors that are required to be considered as part of the MTP development process. These planning factors are reflected in the goals, strategies, and projects contained in this plan and are addressed in greater detail throughout this section. The degree of consideration and analysis of the factors should be based on the scale and complexity of many issues, including transportation systems development, land use, employment, economic development, human and natural environment (including Section 4(f) properties as defined in 23 CFR 774.17), and housing and community development. - 23 CFR 450.206 The following pages illustrate how the MTP goals align with the federal planning factors to ensure recommendations contained in the plan conform to federal guidelines. Economic Vitality Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area Safety Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users Security Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users Accessibility & Mobility Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight Environmental Protection & Quality of Life Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve the quality of life System Integration & Connectivity Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight System Management & Operations Promote efficient system management and operations System Preservation Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system Resilency & Reliability Improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or mitigate stormwater impacts of surface transportation Travel & Tourism Enhance travel and tourism Housing Coordination With the passage of BIL in 2021, new planning factor language increases emphasis on housing, and requires MPOs to consult with affordable housing organizations as part of transportation planning process. This creates an optional “housing coordination process” that MPOs can integrate into long-range transportation planning processes to address integrated housing, transportation, and economic development strategies. Planning Emphasis Areas (PEAs) Updated by FTA and FHWA in 2022, PEAs are intended to be used by MPOs, state departments of transportation, transit agencies, and federal land management agencies in their Unified Planning Work Programs and State Planning and Research Work Programs. There is considerable flexibility in how metropolitan planning organizations and State DOTs can incorporate the PEAs into the transportation planning process. Recognizing the variability and timing of transportation planning processes, FTA and FHWA encourage incorporation as programs are updated. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 15 SAFETY & SECURITY Planning for the safety and security of the transportation network is central to several agencies and organizations at the local, regional, state, and federal levels. The CAMPO Region is home to more than 73,000 people and includes a complicated network of infrastructure, utilities, services, and employment centers. The safety and security of people and resources is addressed cooperatively and collaboratively by several planning partners throughout the region, including transportation, public safety, and emergency management. Their relevant plans and responsibilities are detailed further in this section. SAFETY PERFORMANCE MEASURES The FAST Act requires target setting collaboration between State DOTs and planning partners on national performance measures such as safety. Targets were required to be set in 2017 for five safety performance measures. Annual targets must be set by State DOTs, then by each MPO, with the choice of adopting state targets and/or establishing their own for: • Number of Fatalities • Rate of Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles traveled (VMT) • Number of Serious Injuries • Rate of Serious Injuries per 100 Million VMT • Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and Non-motorized Serious Injuries More information on safety performance measures can be found in the System Performance Report (Appendix C). 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 PLANNING FACTORS: 2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users; 3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users; CAMPO 2045 GOALS: Goal 1: Improve safety and security for all travel modes. Goal 3: Support regional partnerships and planning continuity across the region. Goal 4: Improve efficiency in system management, operations, and movement of people and freight. Goal 6: Seek secure and reliable funding. Goal 7: Improve accessibility and mobility. Goal 8: Maintain a resilient transportation system. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 16 disabilities, motorists, and freight vehicles. [§ 11206(a)] The term “Livable Streets” and “Complete Streets” are used interchangeably in CAMPO products. CAMPO has an adopted Active Transportation Plan that incorporates Complete Streets standards and/or policies and includes a prioritized list of projects. CAMPO adopted a Livable Streets Policy with the 2016 adoption of the Capital Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan. The 2024 Adoption of the Capital Area Active Transportation Plan further emphasizes CAMPO’s continued commitment to complete streets standards and policies. CRASH STATISTICS The Missouri State Highway Patrol and MoDOT cooperate to report state-system roadway crash statistics. Figures 2.1 - 2.3 provide a breakdown of crashes in the CAMPO region and compare them to state-wide numbers. Figure 2.1 Fatal and Disabling Injury Crashes 2013-2017 SOURCE: MODOT, MSHP DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 17 Figure 2.2 Crashes by Type: 2018-2022 SOURCE: MODOT, MSHP 2022 DATA 0%2% 22% 0% 76% CAMPO 2018-2022 CRASHES (7,254) Fatal (30) Suspected Serious Injury* (127) Minor Injury (1,582) Injury** (0) Property Damage (5,515 1%3% 20% 0% 76% CENTRAL DISTRICT MODOT 2018-2022 CRASHES (59,890) Fatal (549) Suspected Serious Injury* (2,112) Minor Injury (11,821) Injury** (3) Property Damage (45,408) 0%3% 22% 0% 75% MISSOURI 2018-2022 CRASHES (727,485) Fatal (44,777) Suspected Serious Injury* (19,730) Minor Injury (159,185) Injury** (35) Property Damage (544,058) DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 18 Figure 2.3 Missouri Traffic Fatalities 2019-2024 SOURCE: MODOT – MARCH 2024 MISSOURI COALITION FOR ROADWAY SAFETY (MCRS) The Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety (MCRS) is a wide-ranging group of safety advocates who originally came together in 2004 to create Missouri's Blueprint for Safer Roadways. Planning partners include law enforcement, educators, emergency responders, and engineers who have launched statewide efforts to reduce fatalities and create safer roads in Missouri. The Coalition is responsible for the implementation of several safety campaigns, including: • Seatbelt Use • Work Zone Awareness • Impaired Driving • Pedestrian Safety Awareness • Distracted Driving • Commercial Motor Vehicle Awareness • Motorcycle Awareness • Youth Alcohol Enforcement • Child Passenger Safety THE BLUEPRINT, MISSOURI’S STRATEGIC HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN (HSP) Missouri’s Blueprint – A partnership Toward Zero Deaths is a collective effort of the MCRS and safety professionals throughout the state. The MCRS leads the charge to implement the Blueprint and encourages safety partners to DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 19 focus their activities and programs in support of the “Focused Five” and subsequent emphasis areas, focus areas, and strategies. The state is divided into seven regional coalitions that develop annual safety plans. These coalitions meet on a regular basis to discuss their concerns, review how their countermeasures are working, and consider ways to improve their efforts. Approximately $2 million of state road funds is dedicated to this effort. The Blueprint is an overarching strategic highway safety plan for the State of Missouri while the state’s Highway Safety Plan serves as one of the implementation components in support of the Blueprint efforts. According to the HSP, Missouri’s ultimate Blueprint goal is that no lives are lost due to a traffic crash. However, an interim goal of 700 or fewer fatalities must be met in order to reach zero deaths. CAMPO staff participates in MCRS meetings and provides support to planning partners as needed to assist in meeting the above goal. Staff receives crash data annually from MoDOT and uses this and other datasets to provide regional partners with maps and statistics as requested. Additionally, staff provides a quarterly crash report to the CAMPO Technical Committee and Board of Directors. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SAFETY There are several plans, documents, or initiatives in the CAMPO Region in addition the strategies in the MTP that address the infrastructure and safety needs of pedestrians and bicyclists: • Capital Area Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan • Jefferson City Area Greenway Master Plan • Holts Summit Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Plan • Missouri Boulevard Safety Assessment • Jefferson City Sidewalk Plan • Healthy Schools Healthy Communities Program In 2021, there was an increase in the number of fatalities for vulnerable roadway users (VRU) in Missouri, according to MoDOT. Pedestrian and bicycle fatalities decreased by 8% and 2% respectively, however motorcycle fatalities increased by 34%. Figure 5.39 depicts an increase in Missouri VRU deaths. CAPITAL AREA ACTIVE TRANSORTATION PLAN The Capital Area Active Transportation Plan, adopted in January 2024, is intended as a resource to improve safety, connectivity, and mobility for pedestrian and bicycle users in the CAMPO planning area. The Plan integrated several local plans into one regional plan; the Capital Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan (2016), Jefferson City’s Sidewalk Plan (2010) and Greenway Master Plan (2007), and the Holts Summit Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Plan (2014). The Capital Area Active Transportation Plan covers all CAMPO communities and generally includes the following: • Analysis of previous and recent plans and current conditions. • Goals and strategies aimed at addressing user preferences, factors affecting route choices, walking and bicycling behaviors. • Categorization and prioritization of infrastructure improvements based on public and stakeholder feedback. • Recommendations for new policies, processes, and programs. The goals, recommendations, and strategies outlined in the plan can be used by jurisdictions and local stakeholders to develop an individualized implementation strategy to fit the unique needs of that community. The plan is also intended to be a guide for future growth by recommending strategies, policies, and procedures to guide future development and improve existing infrastructure. Funding for the Plan was provided via the CAMPO Consolidated Planning Grant, with the required 20% local match provided by JC Parks. The Capital Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan can be found in Appendix F. The CAMPO Region had 3 non-motorized fatalities between 2018 and 2022; one fatality was a pedestrian, while the other two were bicycle riders. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 20 MISSOURI BOULEVARD SAFETY ASSESSMENT In September 2014, United States Department of Transportation Secretary, Anthony Foxx, launched “Safer People, Safer Streets” with the goal of reducing the growing number of pedestrians, transit user, and bicyclist injuries and fatalities across the United States. As part of this ongoing initiative, US Department of Transportation field offices are convened transportation agencies to conduct road safety assessments in every state, launching a Mayors' Challenge for Safer People and Safer Streets, and working with University Transportation Centers (UTCs) and other stakeholders to identify and remove barriers to improving non-motorized safety. In 2016, Jefferson City joined Kansas City in being the first two cities in the State of Missouri to have conducted this type of safety assessment as part of the Safer People, Safer Streets initiative. The 3.4-mile assessment of Missouri Boulevard qualitatively estimated and reported on potential safety issues and identified opportunities for improvement. The assessment followed a model used by federal partners who had conducted similar assessments across the United States. The project was a collaborative effort by CAMPO and several planning partners, including; Jefferson City Police Department, Jefferson City Public Works, JEFFTRAN, MoDOT, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and Capital Region Medical Center. Mid-America Regional Council, MPO for Kansas City, provided support to CAMPO staff in facilitating the event. The Missouri Boulevard Safety Assessment has been cited by Jefferson City staff in seeking funding for or planning for improvements to the corridor. The assessment is available on the CAMPO website at www.jeffersoncitymo.gov/campo. MODOT VULNERABLE ROAD USERS PLAN Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs) are defined as nonmotorized road users, such as pedestrians and bicyclists, who do not have the protection of a vehicle shell. A recent increase in VRU injuries and fatalities has led to efforts to assess and improve VRU safety. The Missouri VRU safety assessment plan includes “systemic analysis of intersection and segments, high-crash analysis of statewide facilities, examination of various contributory factors such as equity, unhoused pedestrians, transit, and lighting, and review of low-cost proven VRU countermeasures.” The VRU Plan can be accessed on the www.MODOT.org website. HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING Hazard mitigation is the effort to reduce loss of life and property by lessening the impact of disasters. It is most effective when implemented under a comprehensive, long-term mitigation plan. The plans identify risks and vulnerabilities associated with natural disasters, and develop long-term strategies for protecting people and property from future hazard events. Mitigation plans are key to breaking the cycle of disaster damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage. Developing hazard mitigation plans enables state, tribal, and local governments to: • Increase education and awareness around threats, hazards, and vulnerabilities; • Build partnerships for risk reduction involving government, organizations, businesses, and the public; • Identify long-term, broadly-supported strategies for risk reduction; • Align risk reduction with other state, tribal, or community objectives; • Identify implementation approaches that focus resources on the greatest risks and vulnerabilities; and • Communicate priorities to potential sources of funding. Moreover, a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-approved hazard mitigation plan is a condition for receiving certain types of non-emergency disaster assistance, including funding for mitigation projects. Ultimately, hazard mitigation planning enables action to reduce loss of life and property, lessening the impact of disasters. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 21 Both Callaway and Cole Counties have approved Hazard Mitigation Plans. These plans include data and strategies that address the impacts of natural and man-made disasters on the transportation system. In addition to evaluating eleven natural hazards, the plan evaluates risks associated with major rail or air transportation incidents, mass casualty events, and hazardous materials release. All of these hazards can impact the transportation network and the people and resources dependent upon that network. The plans include a mitigation strategy that lays out prioritized actions and incorporates benefits and costs associated with implementation of those actions. The plans can be found on the Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission website at www.midmorpc.org. RAIL SAFETY There is only one Class I double track rail line and a short spur that runs through the CAMPO region, supporting both passenger and freight service. Owned by Union Pacific, the rail line connects St. Louis and Kansas City. Safety concerns in the CAMPO Region include at-grade crossings, pedestrian access to tracks, and general rail car safety. While CAMPO has minimal interaction with rail activity and safety, this mode has addressed the goals and strategies of the MTP. CAMPO may provide support to regional planning partners or member jurisdictions in accessing data or applying for grants to meet these strategies. MISSOURI HIGHWAY-RAIL CROSSING SAFETY PROGRAM Under MoDOT’s Multimodal Operations Division-Railroad Section, Missouri’s Highway-Railroad Crossing Safety Program aims to improve highway-rail grade crossings throughout the state. The program is funded by a combination of federal and state funds. The FHWA Section 130 Program is a Federal-Aid program authorized by United States Code Title 23, Section 130, and administered through the state by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The state Grade Crossing Safety Account is funded by a 25-cent assessment on all Missouri motor vehicle registrations or renewals authorized by Section 389.612, RSMO. According to MoDOT, Missouri receives $6 million in Section 130 funds and another $1.2 million per year through the state’s Grade Crossing Safety Account. These funds can only be spent on improvements at public crossings for safety devices like flashing lights, gates or warning bells; pavement markings; or the closure of a crossing. Every year public crossings are reviewed, considering factors like train and vehicle traffic counts, speed, sight distance, and accident history to select crossings for improvements. Missouri has seen dramatic reduction in rail related safety accidents and injuries since the late 1970’s: • Rail Collisions – reduced by 87% • Rail Fatalities – reduced by 98% • Rail Injuries – reduced by 82% MoDOT’s Multimodal Operations Division-Railroad Section also administers a Rail Safety Inspection Program and conducts railroad safety outreach activities. AIR SAFETY Jefferson City Memorial Airport is the sole airport in the CAMPO region. It is a general aviation facility with no commercial airline passenger services. CAMPO has been only minimally involved in airport planning but is available if contacted for any type of data or planning assistance. Jefferson City Memorial Airport completed an Airport Master Plan in 2018. This plan addresses a wide range of needs and opportunities including improvements to the control tower, added lighting, and firefighting and rescue support. MoDOT’s Aviation Section performs airport safety inspections at all public use general aviation airports in Missouri; inspecting them once every three years. Inspections focus on identifying safety concerns such as obstructions in the runway protection zones, nonstandard lighting and pavement markings, and poor pavement conditions. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 22 ACCESSIBILITY, MOBILITY, & CONNECTIVITY Increasing accessibility and mobility options in the region has been identified as a need by residents and stakeholders in the region. It is important to understand the various transportation needs of the region and acknowledge the balance necessary to provide accessibility for both people and freight. Land use and transportation policies are important tools used to create more compact development patterns at activity centers that enhance the efficient movement of people and freight through the system. CAMPO has been involved in several projects and programs aimed at improving accessibility and mobility in the region. Many of these activities have been highlighted in other sections of the MTP. In addition to the goals set in the MTP to address these planning factors, CAMPO has been involved in the following activities: • Capital Area Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan • Missouri Boulevard Safety & Transit Assessment • Support of the Heartland Port Authority • Funding support for traffic studies and support of scoping activities to improve intersections • Mapping and publication support to JEFFTRAN • Staff attendance at ADA compliance training ACCESS MANAGEMENT According to FHWA, Access Management is the proactive management of vehicular access points to land parcels adjacent to all manner of roadways. Good access management promotes safe and efficient use of the transportation network. Access Management encompasses a set of techniques that state and local governments can use to control access to highways, major arterials, and other roadways. These techniques including; Access Spacing, Driveway Spacing, Safe Turning Lanes, Median Treatments, and Right-of-Way Management. No jurisdiction within the CAMPO region has an Access Management Plan. That being said, Jefferson City does have language in city code requiring traffic impact studies to be completed for high peak-traffic developments. Access management may also be addressed further in the development of the CAMPO thoroughfare plan. PLANNING FACTORS: 4. Increase accessibility and mobility of people and freight 6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight CAMPO 2045 GOALS: Goal 1: Improve safety and security for all travel modes. Goal 6: Seek secure and reliable funding. Goal 7: Improve accessibility and mobility. Goal 8: Maintain a resilient transportation system. Goal 9: Provide a platform for multi- modal transportation education. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 23 ENVIRONMENT & QUALITY OF LIFE The MTP’s vision of improving quality of life is complimented by addressing the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system as it relates to the preservation and conservation of the environment. The MTP includes many goals and strategies that provide for consideration of environmental impacts such as supporting tourism, improving accessibility to recreational and cultural opportunities, improving transit, regional collaboration, congestion improvements, and providing opportunities for public engagement. SOURCE: USGS JULY, 1993 - AERIAL VIEW OF THE MISSOURI RIVER FLOODING ON JULY 30, 1993 NORTH OF JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI, LOOKING SOUTH. The CAMPO region and Mid-Missouri as a whole is home to several important natural resources, open spaces, outdoor recreational opportunities, and cultural and historic attractions. The transportation system should support these resources and attractions in order to improve quality of life throughout the region. The Missouri River bisects the CAMPO region and flooding stemming from upstream dam releases, upstream seasonal rains, and localized rainfall are a constant concern in the region. Additional issues with flash flooding also present challenges when planning for changes in land use and transportation improvements. Figure 2.4 depicts the 100-year floodplain in the CAMPO region. The 100-year floodplain represents areas with a 1% annual chance of flooding. The areas shown in the map have experienced varying amounts of flooding throughout recorded history. Major floods in 1993, 1995, 2007, 2011, and 2019 produced major impacts on the transportation system. CAMPO invites comment from environmental agencies and groups in the region and continues to encourage comment and participation from these stakeholders. PLANNING FACTORS: 5. 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 CAMPO 2045 GOALS: Goal 1: Improve safety and security for all travel modes. Goal 2: Support economic development and tourism throughout the region. Goal 3: Support regional partnerships and planning continuity across the region. Goal 4: Improve efficiency in system management, operations, and movement of people and freight. Goal 5: Support land use practices that promote quality of life and economic vitality. Goal 6: Seek secure and reliable funding. Goal 7: Improve accessibility and mobility. Goal 8: Maintain a resilient transportation system. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 24 Figure 2.4 100-year Floodplain SOURCE: FEMA NATIONAL FLOOD HAZARD DATA DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 25 2019 TORNADO AND MISSOURI RIVER FLOODING On May 22, 2019 an EF3 tornado cut across northern Miller County, Cole County, and Jefferson City for almost an hour. The 32-mile tornado path started west of the Eldon in Miller County, damaging numerous homes across the southern and eastern sections of the community. The tornado moved northeast, parallel to Highway 54 twice, uprooting and snapping numerous trees as it moved across rural areas in northeastern Miller County before entering Cole County west of Shipman Road. The tornado strengthened from an EF-2 to an EF-3 as it moved into a subdivision off of Heritage Highway just west of U.S. Highway 54 in Cole County. As the tornado moved into downtown Jefferson City, it caused severe damage to commercial and residential structures as well as the historic Missouri State Penitentiary Site and Simonsen Ninth Grade Center. After crossing the Missouri River into Callaway County the tornado quickly dissipated. Figure 2.5 depicts the path of the 2019 tornado across Jefferson City. Figure 2.5 2019 Tornado Path Jefferson City was already experiencing a natural disaster, major river flooding, at the time the tornado struck the area. The severe flooding also lasted until August of 2019, with flood waters cresting on June 5th at 33.44 ft, only 5.21 feet short of the notorious 1993 flood. Both natural disasters created an acute strain on community resources and underlined existing needs; housing needs, disaster preparedness, and communication. While the tornado impacts on transportation infrastructure were minimal, flooding impacts resulted in closures of major roadways in low lying areas. Sections of Broadway Street, McCarty Street (Figure 4.6), and Missouri Boulevard were underwater and closed for varying amounts of time during the flood. Impacts to the Jefferson City Memorial Airport resulted in a complete loss and replacement of the terminal building as well as a 92- day closure of the airport. SOURCE: NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE The City of Jefferson maintains an Action Plan for Missouri River Flood Events, outlining affected infrastructure as flood levels increase. The document is updated regularly and used to prepare for flood response and mitigation. The Jefferson City News Tribune reported the 2019 flood was the 4th deepest flood in the City’s history. Figure 4.6 Closure of McCarty Street over Wears Creek (looking west) SOURCE: JEFFERSON CITY STAFF PHOTO DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 26 SYSTEM MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, & RESILEINCY CAMPO works closely with staff from member jurisdictions, MoDOT, and Federal Partners to develop plans and projects that seek to enhance system management, preservation, & resiliency. Efforts are made for early collaboration between CAMPO, local jurisdictions, and the state to ensure that plans and projects are implemented as efficiently as possible. While CAMPO does not have funding to implement projects at this time, staff is available to assist with facilitation, education, and planning. MODOT’S TRANSPORTATION ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN (TAMP) Federal legislation has required each state to complete a Transportation Asset Management Plan that includes inventory, condition, life cycle cost, and a financial plan to maintain its system. Transportation asset management is a strategic framework for making cost-effective decisions about allocating resources and managing infrastructure. It is based on a process of monitoring the physical condition of assets, predicting deterioration over time and providing information on how to invest in order to maintain or enhance the performance of assets over their useful life. MoDOT’s Transportation Asset Management Plan is a crucial element in achieving MoDOT’s strategic goal of keeping roads and bridges in good condition. The TAMP ensures MoDOT is using taxpayer money wisely by: • Minimizing life cycle costs • Maximizing system performance • Supporting an objective decision-making process • Balancing public expectations with limited funding to create a sustainable plan The TAMP is updated annually with the assistance of planning partners such as CAMPO. CAMPO integrates data from the TAMP into planning documents and studies. LOCAL SYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING Local jurisdictions regularly collect data on system condition and track condition and capacity. This is done through collecting traffic counts on road segments, bridges, and intersections; or by conducting studies on traffic flow, pavement condition, or material strength. This locally collected data is utilized by CAMPO staff, MoDOT staff, and others to facilitate projects and program that will improve system performance and resiliency. PLANNING FACTORS: 7. Promote efficient system management and operation 8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system 9. Improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or mitigate stormwater impacts of surface transportation CAMPO 2045 GOALS: Goal 3: Support regional partnerships and planning continuity across the region. Goal 4: Improve efficiency in system management, operations, and movement of people and freight. Goal 7: Improve accessibility and mobility. Goal 8: Maintain a resilient transportation system. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 27 LOWER MISSOURI RIVER FLOOD RESILIENCY STUDIES In 2019, after experiencing unprecedented flooding durations in the previous ten years, the states of Missouri, Kansas, Iowa and Nebraska came together with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to explore options to improve flood protection. In Missouri, three study areas were identified to investigate flood control systems; Holt County, Brunswick and Jefferson City. The full extent of the study area is seen in Figure 4.7. The Jefferson City Study will “identify causes and impacts of recurring flooding along Capital View Levee and the unconstructed, but authorized, Missouri River Levee System (MRLS) L-142 project in Callaway County near Jefferson City, Missouri.” In addition to the protection of farm land in this area, the levees protect major infrastructure such as sections of US 54, US 63, Missouri River accesses, the Jefferson City Memorial Airport, Jefferson City Waste Water Facility, park land, several commercial structures, and a small number of residences. The study is expected to be completed in 2027 and will inform mitigation activities for local, state, and federal agencies. Figure 4.8 Jefferson City Study Area SOURCE: US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Figure 4.7 Lower Missouri River Basin Flood Risk & Resiliency SOURCE: US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 28 THE STRATEGIC HIGHWAY NETWORK (STRAHNET) The Strategic Highway Network is critical to the Department of Defense's (DoD's) domestic operations. According FHWA, The STRAHNET is a 62,791-mile system of roads deemed necessary for emergency mobilization and peacetime movement of heavy armor, fuel, ammunition, repair parts, food, and other commodities to support U.S. military operations. Even though DoD primarily deploys heavy equipment by rail, highways play a critical role. The Surface Deployment and Distribution Command Transportation Engineering Agency (SDDCTEA) is the DoD designated agent for public highway matters, including STRAHNET and STRAHNET Connectors. The SDDCTEA identified STRAHNET and the Connector routes in coordination with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the State transportation departments, the military Services and installations, and the ports. Together, STRAHNET and the Connectors define the total minimum defense public highway network needed to support a defense emergency. While the CAMPO Region does not include any STRAHNET routes or connectors, it does include the intersection of three US Highways that provide additional connectivity to these routes. Interstate 70, which lies 25 miles north, is a designated STRAHNET route. Fort Leonard Wood and Whiteman Air Force Base are both located within 80 miles of the CAMPO Region and are directly connected to the STRAHNET. Jefferson City is also home to the Missouri National Guard Headquarters, which uses the network for the movement of certain equipment and would be dependent upon it during certain types of activation. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 29 ECONOMIC VITALITY, TRAVEL & TOURISM According to the Missouri Division of Tourism, travel supports 3,680 tourism jobs in Cole County and visitor expenditures in Cole County’s tourism-related industries were $144,254,234 in 2018. The CAMPO region includes 88% of Cole County’s population and the Missouri State Capital, Jefferson City. An efficient transportation system is an integral part of the regional economy and, in turn, travel and tourism. CAMPO partners with member jurisdictions, state agencies, and private industry to ensure transportation is supportive of broader economic development initiatives. Annually, CAMPO coordinates with MoDOT and other regional planning partners to prioritize and program transportation projects as part of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process. A transportation system is a crucial component of facilitating travel and tourism throughout the area and CAMPO works closely with partners such as the Jefferson City Area Chamber of Commerce, Convention and Visitors Bureau, Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission and other local organizations to promote awareness of regional concerns. The CAMPO region is home to several important historic sites, annual events, and recreational opportunities that draw many visitors from around the state and the nation, including: • Missouri State Capitol • Missouri State Museum • Missouri Supreme Court • Missouri State Penitentiary Historic Site • Governor’s Mansion • Katy Trail State Park • Annual festivals in local communities MISSOURI STATE PENITENTIARY REDEVELOPMENT Authorized in 1832 and approved by the General Assembly in 1833, the Missouri State Penitentiary was the first prison built west of the Mississippi River. A portion of this historic site is owned by the Missouri State Office of Administration and another portion by the City of Jefferson. The tourist site had more than 33,000 visitors in 2016 according to the Jefferson City News Tribune. The site is a focal point for tourism and economic development in the region. Future development of the site will likely include housing, office space, restaurants, new roads and pedestrian access that will be developed in coordination with local stakeholders. PLANNING FACTORS: 1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency 10. Enhance travel and tourism CAMPO 2045 GOALS: Goal 1: Improve safety and security for all travel modes. Goal 2: Support economic development and tourism throughout the region. Goal 3: Support regional partnerships and planning continuity across the region. Goal 4: Improve efficiency in system management, operations, and movement of people and freight. Goal 5: Support land use practices that promote quality of life and economic vitality. Goal 6: Seek secure and reliable funding. Goal 7: Improve accessibility and mobility. Goal 8: Maintain a resilient transportation system. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 30 HOUSING COORDINATION The BIL made several changes to include housing considerations in the metropolitan transportation planning process. These changes included improving connections between affordable housing planning and transportation planning, improving engagement with housing stakeholders, and incorporating housing and employment data into future scenario planning activities. CAMPO already incorporates most of these new housing considerations. Data on distribution of housing, employment, and population is used in the development of this MTP and other CAMPO planning products and processes. The CAMPO Travel Demand model, used to develop CAMPO growth scenarios, integrates these data points. Section 3 of the MTP lists several plans, studies, and assessments that have influenced the development of the MTP and guide decision making within the MPO. Further, CAMPO relies on input from stakeholders and representatives from housing and employment sectors during the planning process. There are always opportunities for improvement in engagement and participation with these groups and others in the community. The CAMPO Public Participation Plan, outlines goals and strategies utilized to encourage an inclusive planning process. SURVEY RESULTS The 2023 public survey used to develop the MTP specifically asked the following: • What trends do you see affecting the future of the Capital Area, and how? (Examples might include aging population, employment, rural depopulation, on-line retailing, redevelopment, etc.) • What is important to you in considering an overall vision for our region? (Examples might include ways to use land, such as more affordable housing, developing vacant or undeveloped, more parks, more sidewalks/trails, more roadway capacity, improved schools, attracting more jobs, etc.) Approximately 25% of the responses to these questions site housing needs, with many of those responses specifically requesting improvements to “affordable housing” and housing choices. These responses are in line with other recent planning efforts aimed at addressing housing needs in the area. Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) changes: •updating the policy to include, as items in the national interest, encouraging and promoting the safe and efficient management, operation, and development of surface transportation systems that will better connecting housing and employment; [§ 11201(d)(1); 23 U.S.C. 134(a)(1)] •adding officials responsible for housing as officials with whom the Secretary shall encourage each MPO to consult; [§ 11201(d)(2); 23 U.S.C. 134(g)(3)(A)] •requiring the metropolitan transportation planning process for a metropolitan planning area to provide for consideration of projects and strategies that will promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local housing patterns (in addition to planned growth and economic development patterns); [§ 11201(d)(3); 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(1)(E)] •adding assumed distribution of population and housing to a list of recommended components to be included in optional scenarios developed for consideration as part of development of the metropolitan transportation plan; [§ 11201(d)(4)(A); 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(4)(B)] •adding affordable housing organizations to a list of stakeholders MPOs are required to provide a reasonable opportunity to comment on the metropolitan transportation plan; and [§ 11201(d)(4)(B); 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(6)(A)] •within a metropolitan planning area that serves a transportation management area, permitting the transportation planning process to address the integration of housing, transportation, and economic development strategies through a process that provides for effective integration, including by developing a housing coordination plan. [§ 11201(d)(5); 23 U.S.C. 134(k)] Note: CAMPO does not qualify as a “transportation management area”. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 31 PLANNING EMPHASIS AREAS (PEAS) In 2022, FTA and FHWA issued updated Planning Emphasis Areas (PEAs). The following PEAs are intended to be used by MPOs, state departments of transportation, transit agencies, and federal land management agencies in their Unified Planning Work Programs and State Planning and Research Work Programs: • Tackling the Climate Crisis – Transition to a Clean Energy, Resilient Future • Equity and Justice40 in Transportation Planning • Complete Streets • Public Involvement • Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET)/U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) Coordination • Federal Land Management Agency (FLMA) Coordination • Planning and Environment Linkages (PEL) • Data in Transportation Planning There is considerable flexibility in how metropolitan planning organizations and State DOTs can incorporate the PEAs into the transportation planning process. Recognizing the variability and timing of transportation planning processes, FTA and FHWA encourage these PEAs to be incorporated as programs are updated. Full consideration of the PEAs was utilized in the development of the MTP. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 32 3 – VISIONING & PLAN DEVELOPMENT DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 33 THE VISION GOALS & STRATEGIES The CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan is supported by nine goals and that provide a foundation and plan of action for achieving The Vision. The accompanying strategies, found in the Implementation Section (6), provide guidance for developing work programs, policies, and projects. These goals and strategies result from input received from stakeholder and public surveys and connect that input with established performance measures and targets. 1. Improve safety and security for all travel modes 2. Support economic development and tourism throughout the region 3. Support regional partnerships and planning continuity across the region 4. Improve efficiency in system management, operations, and movement of people/freight 5. Support land use practices that promote quality of life and economic vitality 6. Seek secure and reliable funding 7. Improve accessibility and mobility 8. Maintain a resilient transportation system 9. Provide a platform for multi-modal transportation education MAINTAIN AND SUPPORT A RESILIENT MULTI-MODAL NETWORK THAT IMPROVES QUALITY OF LIFE AND PROMOTES ECONOMIC VITALITY THROUGH PLANNING FOR SMART COMMUNITY GROWTH. MTP Planning Factors National Transportation Goals Performance Measures Stakeholder/ Public InputState Goals Data Analysis Scenario Planning DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 34 THE PLANNING PROCESS The MTP was developed through the use of inclusive public outreach, integration of federal planning factors, and scenario planning resulting in the development of the goals and strategies listed in the previous section. The development process followed a national policy of facilitating a “continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive performance-based multimodal” process. In the summer of 2023, the CAMPO Board of Directors moved forward with an update of the 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. The growth scenario from the 2019 update process was utilized in the 2023 update due to minimal growth reflected it the 2020 Decennial Census. The Technical Committee members were the key reviewers during in the update of the plan. A full list of Technical Committee members is located at the front of this plan. SOURCE: CAMPO STAFF – DECEMBER 2022 WALK-AUDIT PUBLIC OUTREACH From Fall 2023 to Spring of 2024 several meetings, presentations, and public outreach events were held to collect input, including; three stakeholder meetings, one jurisdiction meeting, and three open house events. Presentations were given to all the jurisdictions’ Boards, Councils, and Commissions. Regular updates were provided at Technical Committee meetings and Board of Directors meetings. All of these meetings and events are listed below. • Technical Committee Meetings – September 2023 through May 2024 • Board of Directors Meetings – September 2023 through May 2024 • Jurisdiction Staff Meeting – October 18, 2023 • Stakeholder Meetings (3) – November 7 & 8, 2023 • Cole County Justice Stakeholder Group – November 9, 2023 • Jefferson City Planning and Zoning Commission – November 9, 2023 • Jefferson City Public Works and Planning Committee– November 9, 2023 • Jefferson City Council – November 20, 2023 • Cole County Commission - November 28, 2023 • Taos Board of Alderman - December 4, 2023 • Open House (Jefferson City) – December 5, 2023 • Wardsville Board of Alderman – December 6, 2023 • Open House (Holts Summit) – December 12, 2023 • Holts Summit City Council Meeting – December 12, 2023 • Callaway County Commission - December 12, 2023 • Chamber of Commerce Transportation Committee – January 24, 2024 • Cole County Communities Meeting – February 1, 2024 • St. Martins Board of Alderman- March 12, 2024 • Historic Southside/Old Munichburg Community Development Corporation – April 3, 2024 • Open House (Jefferson City) – April 24, 2024 DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 35 Topics at these meetings or events included discussion and identification of problem areas, opportunities for improvement, and gaps in connectivity. Meeting participants provided staff with data and insight that facilitated the development of goals, strategies, projects, programs, and policies that would further the MTP vision. In addition to the public meetings and committee meetings CAMPO also invited comment and participation of several other stakeholders including: • Local Law Enforcement • State and Federal Agencies • Freight Representatives • Private Schools • Tourism Promoters • Local Non-Profits and Advocacy Groups 2019 STAKEHOLDER SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES In 2019, a survey was sent to all member jurisdictions, board members, and technical committee members requesting input on short term and long term needs throughout the region. The questionnaire was used to identify high-priority needs and possible solutions. Stakeholders were asked to think about these needs in two categories; Near-Term (<5 years) and Long-Term (beyond 5 years). This survey process provided information for the update of the Travel Demand Model and the Illustrative List. 2023 SURVEYS AND COMMENTS In 2023, stakeholders and the public were asked to review the illustrative projects, goals, and strategies that resulted from the 2019 MTP planning process and provide CAMPO staff with additional comments or areas of concern. More than 300 survey responses or comments were received during the 2023-2024 MTP planning process. A public survey opened October 30th, 2023 and closed January 11th 2024. The survey was disseminated via email, social media, and via handouts and flyers. In addition to basic demographic, household, and behavior questions, the survey asked people what they saw as needs and trends in the region. The survey was given to residents and non- residents alike. 44% of survey respondents live in Jefferson City, 26% live in Wardsville, with the remainder living in other nearby comminutes inside and outside the CAMPO region. 76% stated that they work in the CAMPO area, with 62 % living inside Jefferson City. This is consistent with the large number of commuters that work in Jefferson City and drive in from the surrounding rural areas. 2023 PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER RESPONSE HIGHLIGHTS While many of the survey responses were consistent with surveys conducted in the past by CAMPO, some new items emerged. New technology, such as Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations, scooter use, microtransit, and housing needs were new to the 2023 survey. When asked “How would you like to see money spent in our region?” (Please rank the following, with 1 as your highest priority and 8 as your lowest priority.) 1. Safety - Reduce the amount and severity of crashes for all transportation users. 2. Equity and Accessibility -Directly address the transportation needs of the elderly, people with disabilities and low- income. 3. Innovation - Implement new technology to improve traffic flow, roadway maintenance and overall transportation system efficiencies. 4. System Preservation - Preserve existing transportation assets, such as roadway pavement and bridges. 5. Community Development - Implement land-use and transportation policies that enhance communities, create connections to jobs, and promote tourism. 6. Alternatives to Driving - Promote alternative transportation modes including bus, biking, walking, passenger rail and ride-sharing. 7. Economic Prosperity - Improve infrastructure along regional transportation corridors, supporting current and future economic development 8. Environmental Protection - Protect environmental, cultural and historic sites, and mitigate negative impacts. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 36 When asked “What sort of improvements would make you feel safer?” (when walking biking or using transit) - Summarized • More bike lanes/infrastructure • Improved driver behavior • Improved lighting • More and better maintained sidewalks • Decreased speed limits • More hours of transit operation • Driver education about • Increased law enforcement presence “What trends do you see affecting the future of the Capital Area, and how?” - Summarized • Transportation o Increases use of bikes and scooters o Public Transit for employment o 2nd and 3rd shift transportation options o Inadequate amount of transit service o Lack of trails and recreation in some areas o High speed rail o Commuting population o Aggressive driving o Distracted driving • Economy o Online retail o Decline in local shopping options o New business attraction o More investment in downtown development o Redevelopment of existing spaces o Employment opportunities o Stagnant tax base o Inflation o Underpaid government workers o Lack of professional jobs to attract young people o Aging building stock o Homelessness increasing • Tourism o Katy Trails tourism / Bike tourism o Ecotourism on Missouri River o Not keeping pace with Columbia and Lake of the Ozarks entertainment options o Lack of sports plex o Outdoor recreation interests • Public Policy/Planning o Planning for development o Lack of investment in arts and entertainment o More disabled parking needed o More need for accessible infrastructure o Downtown parking o Local and state politics o Lack of fiber internet o Lack of public participation o Poorly funded schools, lowest paid teachers o Maintain current infrastructure o Intergovernmental cooperation (City, state, county) • Demographic Changes o Aging Population o Blair Oaks School District growth o Population growth in unincorporated areas (Cole Co.) o Population growth in surrounding counties o Population growth within JC school district North of Missouri River o Population decrease within Jefferson City o Young people not staying in community • Housing o More affordable housing needed o Lack of housing options o Aging housing stock “What is important to you in considering an overall vision for our region?” - Summarized • Attracting more jobs and diverse employment opportunities • Improvement in public policies, zoning, and planning that supports commercial and residential development • Investment improved safety for vehicles and pedestrians (lighting, signals, sidewalks, speed limit enforcement, public education) • Investment in parks and trails • Investment in dilapidated/blighted buildings and neighborhoods • Investment in schools and the library • Clean-up of public spaces and natural areas • Community partnerships • Redevelopment of downtown Jefferson City • Attractions for tourism • Attractions to draw/keep young people and families • Improving programs supporting unhoused populations • Affordable housing options and diverse housing choices • Improved wages and benefits • Investment in greenspaces and native landscaping DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 37 • Repair and maintenance of the current transportation network o Eastland o Route W o Sidewalk maintenance o Jefferson St. Sidewalks crumbling o Repair/replace High St viaduc. o Turkey Creek on Oil Well Rd. bridge repair o Make city streets smoother (improve overlays) o Moreau Dr. • Intersection/Corridor capacity and safety improvements (vehicles/ped): o Tri-level (50/63/54/) and Missouri River Bridge o Truman Blvd / Hwy 50 o South Country Club / Rainbow Drive o Green Berry and Seven Hills o Wardsville - B/M/W/Falcon/Ashbury/Old Wardsville Rd o MO 179/Truman/Industrial and MO 179/US 50 o Tanner Bridge and Highway 54 turning lanes o Rex Whitton expressway o Missouri Blvd to Truman Blvd./Hwy 50 Interchange o Stadium Blvd./W. Edgewood Intersection o E. Dunklin, US 50, Elm, and Clark Ave intersection o Signal timing at multiple intersections o Broadway St. flooding o Dix Road/Industrial Dr. and Main intersections o Stadium Blvd. improvements near Walmart and Target. o Country Club Dr./Emerald Ridge/ Rainbow intersections. o Dix Rd./Missouri Blvd/Williams St. o Dix Rd Exit ramp.to HWY 54 • Pedestrian/Bicycle accessibility: o Pedestrian crossings needed o Greenways, bike lanes, sidepaths needed o Ellis Blvd/Green Berry/Tanner Bridge o Ellis over US 54 o Industrial Dr. o Jefferson St. o Route C bike/ped improvements o Route C/Idlewood/Veith o Moreau Dr o Riverside Dr., Riviera St., Polk St. (North & South), Hough St. o Rainbow/Paradigm/West Truman/S. Country Club o Fairgrounds Rd and London Way o More Sidewalks – Jefferson City, Holts Summit, and Wardsville o Sidewalks to multiple schools – Need new or repaired o Missouri Blvd pedestrian improvement o Public education o Re-evaluate placement of bike lanes o Encourage alternate transportation options o Route M bicycle safety improvements o Bike lanes connecting communities and business throughout region • Transit o Extend hours/days of operation o downtown shuttles o Mass transit/shuttle - Fulton, Ashland, Columbia with major employers. o Pursue micro transit o smaller busses o Need taxi / Uber services o Create park & ride into Jeff from Holts Summit and New Bloomfield o Free Handiwheels access for those with developmental disabilities. • Safety / Enforcement: o Public education/safety presentations needed o Speeding enforcement in small towns o EB 54 to WB 50 ramp dangerous. o Marina Road, Big Meadows / Hwy 50 o Route B Guard rails and speed reduction o Moreau Dr. o Missouri Blvd speeding/light timing o Widening/shoulders - Route W and B o Wayfinding improvements o Railroad crossing on Militia Drive o Address high crash corridors. o Adding lanes, stripping and marking lanes o Rt B/Lorenzo Greene/Tanner Bridge – add overpass o Widening of roads/rumble strips in rural areas o Improve reflectivity of paint and signage o Traffic light timing on Rex Whitton, MO Blvd, Ellis/US54 o Re-evaluate us of flashing traffic signals downtown o AA and OO shoulders o Options for elderly, disabled and low-income o Public education for new infrastructure • New connections/infrastructure: o Connecting Rt. B to Militia Dr. Extension o MO 179 - Continue the loop around JC o Additional Missouri River Bridge o S. Summit Drive Ramps to US 54 o Passenger Rail improvements o Public EV charging stations • Parking o More options for downtown/business owners o Evaluate codes/ordinances for commercial/residential parking o Re-evaluate parking time limits • Address population growth impacts outside Jefferson City – Wardsville, Taos, Cole County “What do you see as transportation needs in our region?” - Summarized DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 38 UPDATING THE MTP The MTP is federally mandated to be updated every five years to reflect the changing needs and capacities of the region. The next update of this plan will take place in 2027-2029. That being said, if there are significant changes to growth patterns, demographics, technology or the transportation network, modifications or amendments may be made. New funding sources, changes in legislation, or shifts in revenue may also trigger modifications to the plan. For these reasons, routine review of the plan is necessary. AMENDMENTS & MODIFICATIONS The process for amending the MTP and all other CAMPO products is detailed in the CAMPO Public Participation Plan (part of the CAMPO Title VI Program). An amendment to the MTP is subject to a 7-day public comment period after being reviewed by the Technical Committee and before being approved by the Board of Directors. If staff conducts an administrative modification, notice will be provided to the Technical Committee and Board of Directors either prior to or immediately following the modification. Appendix B contains a list of amendments and administrative modifications. Definitions of an amendment or administrative modification, according to 23 CFR §450.104, are as follows: Administrative modification means a minor revision to a long-range statewide or metropolitan transportation plan, Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), or Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) that includes 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 does not require public review and comment, a redemonstration of fiscal constraint, or a conformity determination (in nonattainment and maintenance areas). Amendment means a revision to a long-range statewide or metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or STIP that involves a major change to a project included in a metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or STIP, including the addition or deletion of a project or a major change in project cost, project/project phase initiation dates, or a major change in design concept or design scope (e.g., changing project termini or the number of through traffic lanes or changing the number of stations in the case of fixed guideway transit projects). Changes to projects that are included only for illustrative purposes do not require an amendment. An amendment is a revision that requires public review and comment and a redemonstration of fiscal constraint. If an amendment involves “non-exempt” projects in nonattainment and maintenance areas, a conformity determination is required. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 39 INCORPORATION OF OTHER PLANS AND STUDIES The Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) takes into consideration several local and regional planning efforts and studies. Many of these previous planning efforts have identified projects, strategies, and activities that are aligned with the goals outlined in the MTP. PLANS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE CAMPO Transportation Improvement Program (updated annually) Appendix E Capital Area Active Transportation Plan - 2023 Appendix F CAMPO Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan – 2021 Appendix G CAMPO Travel Demand Model Report - 2019 Appendix H CAMPO Wayfinding Plan – 2016 Appendix I OTHER IMPORTANT PLANS AND STUDIES The following list includes several other plans, studies, and assessments that have influenced the development of the MTP and guide decision making within the MPO. • Callaway County Hazard Mitigation Plan • Callaway County Emergency Management Plan • Central Missouri Multimodal Port Feasibility Study • Cole County Master Plan • Cole County Hazard Mitigation Plan • Cole County Emergency Management Plan • Cole County/Jefferson City, County-Wide Transportation Study (2003) • Holts Summit Transportation Plan • Jefferson City Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice • Jefferson City Central East Side Neighborhood Plan • Jefferson City CDBG Program Consolidated Plan • Jefferson City Comprehensive Plan • Jefferson City Historic Preservation Plan • Jefferson City Memorial Airport Master Plan • Jefferson City Parking Study Update (2017) • Jefferson City Sewerage Master Plan • Jefferson City Southside Redevelopment Plan • Jefferson City Transit Feasibility Study • Jefferson City Transit System Wide Assessment (2017) • Jefferson City Transit System Wide Assessment (2017) • JEFFTRAN Transit Facility Feasibility Study • Missouri River Freight Corridor Assessment & Development Plan • Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission Regional Transportation Plan • Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Trans. Plan • MoDOT Long-Range Transportation Plan DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 40 SCENARIO PLANNING Scenario planning is a way to achieve a shared vision for the future by analyzing various factors that can impact the way in which a region develops. A framework is developed to assist stakeholders in making decisions to reach a shared vision. Transportation planning utilizes scenarios by considering how changes in transportation, land use, resources, demographics, or other factors may affect connectivity, mobility, and resiliency throughout the region. For the 2045 MTP, four land use scenarios were created and a preferred scenario was chosen as the most likely scenario for future development. The preferred scenario was then used as part of a Travel Demand Model (TDM). The TDM takes the preferred land use scenario and analyzes the impacts of development on the transportation system, highlighting points of congestion, capacity, and increased demands on the road network. CAMPO staff worked with City Explained, Inc. and used their scenario planning software, CommunityViz, to develop the land use scenarios. THE FOUR SCENARIOS Figure 3.1 provides a comparison of the four scenarios, including future residential density and traffic impacts. Trend This scenario reflects an anticipated development based on current trends. The Trend Scenario looked at current land use, 20-30 years of population growth, adopted plans and policies, zoning, and stakeholder input. Central City Development This scenario uses the Trend Scenario as a base and then imagines more infill in downtown Jefferson City. A filling in of vacant or abandoned properties with residential and commercial development that is consistent with recent neighborhood plans and changes in zoning. Unincorporated Growth This scenario uses the Trend Scenario as a base and then imagines more intensive development of the unincorporated portions of the CAMPO region just west of Jefferson City and just outside of Holts Summit. Aggressive Growth This scenario assumes much more aggressive growth rates, more than double those of the other scenarios and stands as a “stress test” on metro-area systems over the coming decades. Strategies, Policies, Projects ForecastingData Analysis DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 41 Figure 3.1 Scenario Comparisons SOURCE: COMMUNITYVIZ 2019 OUTPUT DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 42 THE PREFERRED SCENARIO After evaluating the four scenarios and gathering public and stakeholder input the “Trend Scenario” was chosen as the preferred scenario. The Trend Scenario represented a middle ground between the Central City Scenario and the Unincorporated Growth Scenario. These scenarios both reflect current trends seen in the community with larger amounts of new housing developments occurring in unincorporated areas, and neighborhood plans and rezoning occurring in the central part of Jefferson City and Holts Summit. Both scenarios are reflected in the Trend. The Aggressive Growth Scenario provided staff and stakeholders with an opportunity to better identify weak points in the transportation network that may be exacerbated during peak times, special events, or potentially larger than expected growth were to occur. In the development of the scenarios, housing and residential growth were the focus of analysis. Figure 3.2 illustrates the projected residential density for the 2045 planning horizon. • 20% of new residential growth and 16% of commercial/ industrial growth will occur north of the Missouri River in the Holts Summit area, while 80% of new residential growth and 84% of commercial/ industrial growth will occur south of the river in Jefferson City and Unincorporated Cole County. • Currently, over 75% of existing housing in the region is detached, single family residences and approximately 25% of housing occurs either as multi-family housing, typically either townhomes or apartments. In the preferred scenario, this pattern continues with 88% of new housing expected to be detached, single family housing. • While all communities in the area will experience some growth in the preferred scenario, some communities will grow more than others. Approximately 22% of new residential growth will occur in Jefferson City, followed by Holts Summit with 10%. Most other communities will experience between 3-5% of new growth with the remainder in the unincorporated areas. • While most of the region’s housing stock is within existing incorporated communities, 61% of the residential growth in the preferred scenario occurs in areas that are currently in unincorporated Cole or Callaway Counties. Figure 3.2: Preferred Scenario – 2045 Projected Future Residential Density SOURCE: COMMUNITYVIZ 2019 OUTPUT DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 43 TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL (TDM) ANALYSIS Using land use data and other demographic data the TDM provides an analysis of current and projected transportation demands on the transportation system over a 25-year planning horizon. The modeling process is a system-level effort. Although individual links of a highway network can be analyzed, the results are intended for determination of system-wide impacts. The TDM provides a list of recommended improvements that are then incorporated into the MTP’s Illustrative Project List. CAMPO contracted with HDR, Inc. to develop the 2045 TDM and subsequent report, located in Appendix H. METHOD The TDM forecasts include current travel demand using a 2015 base year and models demand out to the 2045 long term planning horizon. The model uses current population and development information, based on census data and parcel data to determine existing generalized land use, and forecasted future population and land use development to 2045 as inputs. The following methods were used to determine residential and commercial development out to year 2045. • The functional classification of the road network had been developed earlier, so traffic counts on roadway links, and turning movements at selected intersections were conducted for calibration purposes. • 2010 census population data formed the baseline population. • 2010 to 2020 growth rates were identified for CAMPO area, and then future growth rates for Callaway and Cole County portions of CAMPO area were calculated. • Municipal populations within CAMPO area were calculated, along with the urban and rural portions of CAMPO. • Parcel data for Cole and Callaway Counties, from County Assessor files were used to help determine an initial land use classification and specific facility size and class of properties. • Properties were defined using both general land use classification codes and ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) land use classifications codes. • GIS data was used to evaluate development potential for currently undeveloped areas within CAMPO. Development constraints, such as flood plains, steep slopes, and provision of sewers and utilities were used to identify physical limitations to future development. • Significant identifiable commercial and residential developments, (within 5-10 years) were included in the future land use map. Other less identifiable development (15-25 years out) was added to the future land use map later, but with less detail. • New roads were added to the network first, as projects that clearly were going on the network such as interchanges, arterials, and corridors for arterial roads. SOURCE: CAMPO 2045 TDM REPORT APRIL 2019 Figure 3.3: 2045 Congested Roadways DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 44 PROJECTED TRAVEL DEMAND FOR PEOPLE AND FREIGHT The number of vehicle miles of travel (or VMT) is an indicator of the roadway system travel levels by motor vehicles and is an estimate, based upon traffic volume counts and roadway lengths, for a specific point in time. Regional daily VMT in 2010 was 1.75 Million and the 2045 projected daily VMT is 2.56 Million, doubling over a 35-year period. PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES TO CAPACITY (V/C) Generally, intersections are the congestion points in the roadways. Intersections generate conflicts with turning movements, differences in vehicle speeds, and cross traffic requirements for stoplights. Intersections that have reached their maximum ability to move traffic through that point are said to have reached 100% of their capacity and the result is traffic backup, delays, and possible “gridlock” during peak hours in the morning and evening. Figures 3.3-3.5 depict congested and over capacity roadways and intersections throughout the CAMPO Region. Figure 3.4: 2045 PM Peak Hour Intersection Analysis (Table 4-6 in TDM Report) SOURCE: CAMPO 2045 TDM REPORT MAY 2019 DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 45 Figure 3.5: 2045 PM Peak Hour Intersection Analysis (Table 4-6 in TDM Report) SOURCE: CAMPO 2045 TDM REPORT APRIL 2019 DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 46 4 – REGIONAL OVERVIEW DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 47 POPULATION TRENDS In 2019, the 25-year growth projection for the CAMPO region was calculated at approximately 0.8% annually. As of 2023, based on 2020 Decennial Census data, the CAMPO region grew by 2.79%. In 2027, CAMPO will again go through growth scenario process to project future growth of the region. Updated growth projections are important for understanding where and when transportation improvements are needed and to help prioritize those needs. Figure 4.1 depicts percent of population change within the CAMPO region. The CAMPO region has historically been a fairly slow growth area with pockets of more intense growth outside of the Jefferson City core. This has held true with the 2020 census. Based on 2010 and 2020 decennial census data the fastest growing communities in the CAMPO region are Holts Summit, with a 37% population increase, and Taos at 31%. The previous 2010 census had shown 50% growth for Wardsville, now it is shown as slowing to 8% in 2020. Figure 4.2 depicts population change between 2010 and 2020 in the CAMPO region. Western areas of the CAMPO region (dark green and dark blue) experienced a 6% to 16% increase in population. Much of this area is in unincorporated Cole County. Figure 4.2 Population Change 2010-2020 SOURCE: 2020 DECENNIAL CENSUS Figure 4.1 2010-2020 Change Population by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction 2010 Decennial Census 2020 Decennial Census % Change Holts Summit 3,247 4,458 +37.30% Jefferson City 43,079 43,228 +0.35% St. Martins 1,140 1,191 +4.47% Taos 878 1150 +30.98% Wardsville 1,506 1,599 +6.18% Cole County 75,990 77,279 +1.70% Callaway County 44,332 44,283 -0.11% Urban Area(s)* 58,533 55,959 -4.3% CAMPO MPA 71,695 73,693 +2.79% SOURCE: 2010 AND 2020 US DECENNIAL CENSUS * PRIOR TO 2020 THE JEFFERSON CITY URBAN AREA (UA) INCLUDED HOLTS SUMMIT. IN 2020 TWO UA AREAS WERE DESIGNATED (JEFFERSON CITY UA AND HOLTS SUMMIT UA), BOTH ARE IN THE 2020 TOTAL. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 48 Figure 4.3 Population Change in US Counties 2010-2020 SOURCE: US CENSUS BUREAU - 2010 AND 2020 REDISTRICTING DATA SUMMARY FILES – WWW.CENSUS.GOV Figure 4.3 shows percent change across all counties in the US. According to the US Census Bureau, between 2010 and 2020 the nation grew at its slowest rate since 1930. While the map depicts a loss of population in Callaway County, that decrease was less than 1%, and the City of Holts Summit grew in population by 37%. Cole County experienced a 1.5% population increase, while Jefferson City grew by 0.3%., Wardsville (6%), Taos (31%), and St. Martins (4.4%); all grew at a much higher rate than the rest of Cole County. Population density, shown in Figure 4.4, is highest in central Jefferson City and unincorporated areas (Apache Flats) between Jefferson City and St. Martins. This density map is very similar to the map produced in 2010. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 49 Figure 4.4 Population Density (Persons Per Square Mile) SOURCE: 2020 DECENNIAL CENSUS DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 50 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Environmental Justice, in terms of transportation planning, means identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse effects of transportation projects, programs, and policies on minority populations and low-income populations to achieve an equitable distribution of benefits and burdens across the region. Environmental Justice is important because it helps to ensure full and fair participation by potentially affected communities in every phase of the transportation decision-making process. When this is accomplished, the development, construction, operation and maintenance of transportation projects should reflect an equitable distribution of benefits and burdens. In 1994 an Executive Order, by President Clinton, was issued directing federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable, to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. In 1997, the Department of Transportation issued an Order to address Environmental Justice in minority populations and low- income populations to summarize and expand upon the previous 1994 Order. The Federal Highway Administration then issued its own Order in 1998 in an effort to address the effects of their programs, policies, and activities. Another Executive Order in 2000, expanded protection against national origin discrimination, by ensuring programs are accessible by people with limited English proficiency. Recipients of federal funding are to ensure that there are no disproportionate adverse impacts in the above- mentioned communities, or those considered transportation dependent due to age or physical limitations, when allocating or spending federal funds. The MTP identifies the locations of the following groups in order to better understand impacts of transportation programs, policies, and activities. • low-income • elderly and youth • disabled • minority • limited English proficiency Federal guidance identifies significant areas as those which contain more of the vulnerable population than the average for the region. The location of these populations has been compared to the location of the constrained projects included in the Transportation Improvement Program once they are determined. Most state-system projects and local-system projects generally occur in these higher population areas with greater concentrations of vulnerable populations. Recent transportation improvements in these areas consist of improved capacity for vehicles and improved access for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 51 LOW-INCOME The official poverty measure, in use since the 1960s, defines poverty by comparing pretax money income to a poverty threshold that is adjusted by family composition. According to the FHWA National Highway Travel Survey (NHTS), studies have shown that rising transportation costs have a disproportionate impact on low income households and individuals. • Households in poverty spend a higher proportion of their income on transportation expenses and are disproportionately represented by race/ethnicity with African-Americans and Hispanics experiencing the highest poverty rates. Limited vehicle availability and fewer affordable transportation options afflict this cost-sensitive group. • Households in poverty are limited to a shorter radius of travel compared to higher income households. They have the lowest rates of single occupancy vehicle use and the highest usage of less costly travel modes: carpool, transit, bike and walk. • Households in poverty have lower vehicle ownership rates, which has led to an increased use of alternative modes of transportation and higher vehicle occupancy rates. Figure 4.5 depicts the percent of low-income populations within the CAMPO planning area. The inner core of Jefferson City has tracts with significantly higher percentages, 17% to 28% of persons living below the poverty line as compared to the outlying areas. Figure 4.5 Population in Poverty SOURCE: 2018-2022 AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY 5-YEAR ESTIMATES DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 52 ELDERLY Figure 4.6 shows the distribution of the elderly population, 65 years of age or older, within the CAMPO planning area. As the “Baby Boomer” generation (individuals born in the United States between mid-1946 and mid-1964) continues to reach retirement age, municipalities across the country will be faced with the transportation needs of an increasing aging population. The western portion of the planning area and much of the surrounding rural area has higher percentages of elderly individuals. While individuals in this demographic are fairly well spread across the CAMPO region, the west-central core of Jefferson City is home to higher concentrations of elderly individuals living in senior housing, public housing, and assisted living facilities. Figure 4.6 Population Over the Age of 65 SOURCE: US CENSUS BUREAU - 2020 DECENNIAL CENSUS DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 53 MINORITY POPULATIONS The updated DOT and FHWA environmental justice orders define five minority groups as follows: • Black (a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa); • Hispanic or Latino (a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race); • Asian American (a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent); • American Indian and Alaskan Native (a person having origins in any of the original people of North America, South America, including Central America, and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition); and • Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (people having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands). Figure 4.7 shows the distribution of minority population within the CAMPO planning area. The core, and historically oldest sections of Jefferson City, has the highest density of minorities. In general, minority populations are dispersed throughout the planning area. Figure 4.7 Minority Populations SOURCE: 2020 DECENNIAL CENSUS DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 54 POPULATIONS WITH DISABILITIES Transportation is critical to individuals with disabilities in accessing employment, recreation, resources and full participation in community life. The majority of individuals with disabilities depend on public transit to be mobile in their communities. The U.S. Census Bureau has identified people with disabilities as a hard-to-count population, which means they are at a greater risk of being undercounted in the 2020 census. It is critically important for people with disabilities to be fully and accurately counted in order to better ensure their voices are heard by elected officials at all levels of government, federal, state, and local. The number of members of Congress and even state and local legislators are determined by the number of all residents in a geographic area. In addition, the amount of money many federally funded programs receive depends on a full census count. Key programs important to people with disabilities include the Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities program, Statewide Independent Living Councils, State Councils on Developmental Disabilities, Education Grants to States for Students with Disabilities, and the Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants Program. Unfortunately, the 2020 census did not have questions directly related to disabilities, but disability-related questions are asked in the American Community Survey (ACS), a more detailed survey which is sent only to a small sample of the population every month every year. Figure 4.8 provides an overview of Callaway and Cole county populations with a disability. Figure 4.8 Percent of Population with a Disability Callaway County Cole County State of Missouri Total civilian noninstitutionalized population 13.4% 12.1% 14.5% SEX Male 14.3% 12.2% 14.5% Female 12.6% 12.0% 14.5% RACE AND HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN White alone 13.8% 12.6% 14.7% Black or African American alone 6.5% 7.9% 15.6% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 0.0% 2.4% 20.2% Asian alone 0.0% 2.0% 6.4% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 0.0% 0.0% 12.8% Some other race alone 18.7% 18.7% 9.4% Two or more races 12.6% 15.4% 13.1% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 13.9% 12.8% 14.9% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 11.8% 8.0% 9.5% AGE Under 5 years 1.2% 0.0% 0.7% 5 to 17 years 3.1% 5.7% 6.3% 18 to 34 years 5.8% 7.1% 8.1% 35 to 64 years 14.4% 11.5% 14.8% 65 to 74 years 27.5% 22.3% 26.8% 75 years and over 47.5% 41.2% 47.2% Percent of Total Population by DISABILITY TYPE With a hearing difficulty 4.6% 3.8% 4.2% With a vision difficulty 2.3% 1.5% 2.6% With a cognitive difficulty 4.9% 5.3% 6.0% With an ambulatory difficulty 6.9% 5.3% 7.7% With a self-care difficulty 2.5% 1.9% 2.7% With an independent living difficulty 5.3% 4.5% 6.5% SOURCE: 2022 5-YEAR ACS DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 55 TITLE VI It is the policy of CAMPO that no person is excluded from participation in, denied the benefit of, or subjected to, discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance on the basis of race, color, or national origin under Title VI and related nondiscrimination statutes. To certify compliance with environmental justice requirements, CAMPO incorporates the following activities into the planning processes and works towards the following: 1. Enhancement of analytical capabilities to ensure that the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) comply with Title VI. 2. Identify residential, employment, and transportation patterns of low-income and minority populations so that their needs can be identified and addressed, and the benefits and burdens of transportation investments will be fairly distributed. 3. Evaluate, and where necessary, improve public involvement processes to eliminate participation barriers and engage minority and low-income populations in transportation decision-making. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requires funding recipients to report certain general information to determine compliance with Title VI. The collection and reporting of this information constitutes a recipient’s Title VI Program. To ensure compliance with 49 CFR Section 21.9 (b), the FTA requires that all recipients document their compliance with this chapter by submitting a Title VI Program to the FTA’s regional civil rights officer once every three years. As subrecipients, CAMPO submits a Title VI Plan to the primary recipient (MoDOT). The most recent Title VI Program was produced in 2023. The 2023 City of Jefferson Title VI Program changed in format from previous versions, and is now a joint JEFFTRAN/CAMPO product. The document contains the Limited English Proficiency Plan for both agencies, separate Public Participation Plans due to the difference in the nature of work between a transit agency and MPO. LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENY The Limited English Proficiency Plan (LEP) provides an analysis of LEP populations in the region and addresses responsibilities of the City of Jefferson (including CAMPO and JEFFTRAN) as recipients of federal financial assistance as they relate to the needs of individuals with limited English language skills. The plan has been prepared in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Federal Transit Administration Circular 4702.1B, dated October 1, 2012, which states that the level and quality of transportation service is provided without regard to race, color, or national origin. Executive order 13166, titled “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency,” indicates that differing treatment based upon a person's inability to speak, read, write or understand English is a type of national origin discrimination. It directs each federal agency to publish guidance for its respective recipients clarifying their obligation to ensure that such discriminations do not take place. This order applies to all state and local agencies which receive federal funds. City of Jefferson Title VI Nondiscrimination Policy The City of Jefferson 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, 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). DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 56 FOUR FACTOR ANALYSIS The LEP Plan is developed to help identify reasonable steps for providing language assistance to persons with limited English proficiency who wish to access services. The plan outlines how to identify a person who may need language assistance, and the ways in which assistance may be provided. In order to prepare this plan, a four-factor LEP analysis was used, considering the following factors: 1. The number or proportion of LEP persons served or encountered in the eligible service population ("served or encountered" includes those persons who would be served or encountered by the recipient if the persons received adequate education and outreach and the recipient provided sufficient language services). 2. The frequency with which LEP persons come into contact with the program. 3. The nature and importance of the program, activity, or service provided by the program. 4. The resources available and costs to the recipient. A significant majority of people in both the CAMPO and JEFFTRAN service area are proficient in the English language. Based on 2020 Decennial Census data, 2.5% of the Jefferson City population and 1.47% of the CAMPO population, five years of age and older speak English “less than very well” – a definition of LEP. Figure 4.9 and Figure 4.10 depict the number of LEP population in the City of Jefferson and the CAMPO Planning Area. FIGURE 4.9 - Jefferson City, MO LEP Populations LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME POPULATION % POPULATION 5 YEARS AND OVER Population 5 years and over 40,033 100% English only 37,924 94.7% Language other than English 2,109 5.3% Speak English less than "very well" 997 2.5% Spanish 908 2.3% Speak English less than "very well" 285 0.7% Other Indo-European languages 600 1.5% Speak English less than "very well" 324 0.8% Asian and Pacific Islander languages 475 1.2% Speak English less than "very well" 348 0.9% Other languages 126 0.3% Speak English less than "very well" 40 0.1% SOURCE: 2020 DECENNIAL CENSUS DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 57 Figure 4.10 – CAMPO Planning Area LEP Populations SOURCE: 2020 DECENNIAL CENSUS POPULATION 5 YEARS AND OLDER BY LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME Callaway County Cole County Holts Summit Jefferson City St. Martins Taos Wardsville Total Service Area Percentage of Population 5 years and older Population 5 years 42,575 72,087 4,197 40,033 1,128 1,319 1,612 162,951 100.00% English only 41,867 69,364 4,144 37,924 1,116 1,298 1,609 157,322 96.55% Language other than English 708 2,723 53 2,109 12 21 3 5,629 3.45% Speak English less than "very well"284 1,086 16 997 5 14 0 2,402 1.47% Spanish 281 1,283 4 908 3 5 0 2,484 1.52% Speak English less than "very well"135 308 1 285 0 5 0 734 0.45% Other Indo-European languages 149 824 22 600 5 16 3 1,619 0.99% Speak English less than "very well"47 390 15 324 5 9 0 790 0.48% Asian and Pacific Islander languages 244 479 27 475 4 0 0 1,229 0.75% Speak English less than "very well"95 348 0 348 0 0 0 791 0.49% Other languages 34 137 0 126 0 0 0 297 0.18% Speak English less than "very well"7 40 0 40 0 0 0 87 0.05% DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 58 ECONOMIC ACTIVITY The CAMPO region lies in the center of the Jefferson City Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The Jefferson City MSA includes the counties of Callaway, Cole, Moniteau, and Osage. Defined by the US Office of Management and Budget, the MSA is anchored by the city of Jefferson City and had a 2021 population of approximately 150,956. Generally, an MSA is an economically and socially connected region with concentrated population center (Jefferson City). The Columbia, MO MSA in neighboring Boone County shares a boundary with the Jefferson City MSA. The Columbia MSA has an estimated population of 209,714, 39% more than the Jefferson City MSA. There are strong economic ties between these neighboring MSAs. Jefferson City and the CAMPO region as a whole is heavily impacted by and connected to the larger MSA region. This section will include data and statistics provided at the MSA level. Figure 4.11 provides a comparison between the Jefferson City MSA and the State of Missouri. Figure 4.11 Comparison of Jefferson City MSA to State of Missouri SOURCE: CAMPO, DATAUSA.IO DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 59 EMPLOYMENT The largest industries in the MSA are Office & Administrative Support Occupations, Management Occupations, and Sales & Related Occupations. Within the CAMPO region, state government is by far the largest employer. All state agency headquarters are located in Jefferson City. Figure 4.12 provides a list of major employers in the CAMPO region. Figure 4.13 provides a breakdown of jobs by sector within the Jefferson City MSA using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Figure 4.12 Major Employers Employer Industry # Employed State of Missouri Government 15,356 Jefferson City School District Education 1,557 Capital Region Medical Center Healthcare 1,495 Scholastic Inc. Book Distribution 1,366 Central Bancompany Financial 1,286 Hitachi Energy Manufacturing 1,060 SSM Health – St. Mary’s Hospital Healthcare 982 City of Jefferson City Government 708 Walmart Supercenter (2) Retail 695 Jefferson City Medical Healthcare 629 Unilever Home & Personal Care Manufacturing 467 WIPRO Infocrossing Information Technology 461 Hy-Vee Food Stores Retail 455 SOURCE: JEFFERSON CITY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 2023 Figure 4.13 Jobs by Industry Sector 2021 Jefferson City, MO MSA Jobs by NAICS Industry Sector 2021 Count Share Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 389 0.5% Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 153 0.2% Utilities 1,490 1.9% Construction 4,336 5.6% Manufacturing 6,883 8.9% Wholesale Trade 2,053 2.6% Retail Trade 8,230 10.6% Transportation and Warehousing 2,084 2.7% Information 966 1.2% Finance and Insurance 2,697 3.5% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 404 0.5% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 2,525 3.3% Management of Companies and Enterprises 1,054 1.4% Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation 3,444 4.4% Educational Services 5,234 6.7% Health Care and Social Assistance 8,958 11.5% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1,013 1.3% Accommodation and Food Services 4,676 6.0% Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 1,968 2.5% Public Administration 19,108 24.6% SOURCE: HTTPS://ONTHEMAP.CES.CENSUS.GOV/ DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 60 JOB DENSITY & COMMUTING The Census Bureau produces two complementary data products, the American Community Survey (ACS) commuting and workplace data and the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES), which can be used to answer questions about spatial, economic, and demographic questions relating to workplaces and home-to-work flows. The products are complementary in the sense that they measure similar activities but each has important unique characteristics that provide information that the other measure cannot. – US Census Bureau CAMPO uses both the “OnTheMap” tool, utilizing LEHD data, and “ACS Commuting Flows” data to analyze commuting patterns in the CAMPO region and beyond. The following data and figures depict both data sets. Of the 77, 665 jobs reported in the Jefferson City MSA in 2021 by the US Census Bureau, 51,626 (66%) were located within the Jefferson City municipal limits. Most jobs in the CAMPO region are located in Jefferson City and many people commute to the CAMPO region for employment opportunities. The City of Fulton, located 25 miles north in Callaway County, is within the Jefferson City MSA and also has high concentrations of employment opportunities. The City of Columbia, located 30 miles north in Boone County, within its own MSA, is the largest city in Mid-Missouri and has the largest concentration jobs in the Mid-Missouri area. Figure 4.14 depicts jobs density - where people work within 25 miles of Jefferson City. Figure 4.15 depicts jobs density - where people live within 25 miles of Jefferson City. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 61 Figure 4.14 Jefferson City MSA Jobs Density by where people work within 25 miles of Jefferson City SOURCE: HTTPS://ONTHEMAP.CES.CENSUS.GOV/ DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 62 Figure 4.15 Jefferson City MSA Jobs Density by where people live within 25 miles of Jefferson City SOURCE: HTTPS://ONTHEMAP.CES.CENSUS.GOV/ DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 63 Approximately 56% (43,471) of workers live and work within the Jefferson City MSA, while 44% (34,194) live outside the area and commute to work daily. Approximately 35.4% (23,844) of working age people, those 16 or older, who live in the Jefferson City MSA commute to other areas outside the region for work. The same analysis within the Jefferson City municipal limits shows a lower percentage of 22% (11,415) of workers live and work within the City, while 77.9% (40,211) live outside the area and commute to work daily. Approximately 40.7% (7,828) of working age people, those 16 or older, who live within the municipal limits of Jefferson City commute to other areas outside the region for work. Figures 4.16 and 4.17 depicts the inflow and outflow of workers in the Jefferson City MSA and the municipal limits of Jefferson City proper. Figure 4.16 Inflow/Outflow Counts of All Jobs for Jefferson City MSA in 2021 SOURCE: HTTPS://ONTHEMAP.CES.CENSUS.GOV/ DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 64 Figure 4.17 Inflow/Outflow Counts of All Jobs for Jefferson City in 2021 SOURCE: HTTPS://ONTHEMAP.CES.CENSUS.GOV/ DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 65 AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY (ACS) COMMUTING FLOWS According to 2016-2020 ACA data, it is estimated that of the 70,247 workers that commute daily within the Jefferson City MSA, 86% (60,781) commute from a residence within the Jefferson City MSA. 60% (42,787) of Jefferson City MSA residents are estimated to commute into Cole County daily. Figures 4.18 depicts Commuting Flows by residence within the Jefferson City, MO MSA. Figure 4.18 Residence County to Workplace County Commuting Flows within the Jefferson City, MO MSA by Residence Geography Commuting within the Jefferson City MSA counties. Residence Commuting To Workers in Commuting Flow Total Workers % of Total Workers Callaway County Callaway County 9,575 19,655 48.7% Cole County 5,581 28.4% Moniteau County 32 0.2% Osage County 37 0.2% All other counties 4,430 22.5% Cole County Callaway County 1,109 37,403 3.0% Cole County 32,249 86.2% Moniteau County 409 1.1% Osage County 462 1.2% All other counties 3174 8.5% Moniteau County Callaway County 117 6,611 1.8% Cole County 2,409 36.4% Moniteau County 2,916 44.1% Osage County 0 0.0% All other counties 1169 17.7% Osage County Callaway County 152 6,578 2.3% Cole County 2,548 38.7% Moniteau County 9 0.1% Osage County 3,176 48.3% All other counties 693 10.5% Total 70,247 SOURCE: U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, 2016-2020 AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 66 Columbia, MO, which lies in Boone County and within the Columbia MSA, contributes a fair amount of commuter traffic for those living or working the Jefferson City MSA. It is estimated that 6,032 people commute daily from their residence in the Jefferson City MSA to jobs in the Columbia MSA and 6,242 people commute from their residence in the Jefferson City MSA to jobs in Jefferson City MSA. The Columbia MSA is a regional draw in Mid-Missouri for educational and services and healthcare resources. Figure 4.19 depicts Commuting Flows by workplace within the Jefferson City, MO MSA. Figure 4.19 Residence County to Workplace County Commuting Flows between Jefferson City, MO MSA and Columbia, MO MSA by Residence Geography Commuting between Jefferson City MSA and Columbia MSA counties. Residence Commuting Flow Jefferson City MSA County Columbia MSA County Workers in Commuting Flow Total Workers % of Total Workers Callaway County Boone County 3,317 19,655 0.01% Cooper County 1 0.00% Howard County NA NA Cole County Boone County 2,087 37,403 5.58% Cooper County NA NA Howard County 22 0.06% Moniteau County Boone County 361 6,611 5.46% Cooper County 170 2.57% Howard County 5 0.08% Osage County Boone County 69 6,578 1.05% Cooper County NA NA Howard County NA NA Total 6,032 70,247 8.59% Columbia MSA County Jefferson City MSA County Workers in Commuting Flow Total Workers % of Total Workers Boone County Callaway County 2,366 93,315 2.54% Cole County 3,458 3.71% Moniteau County 22 0.02% Osage County 0 0 Cooper County Callaway County 27 7,459 0.36% Cole County 183 2.45% Moniteau County 158 2.12% Osage County 0 0 Howard County Callaway County 0 4,683 0 Cole County 25 0.53% Moniteau County 3 0.06% Osage County 0 0 Total 6,242 105,457 5.92% SOURCE: U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, 2016-2020 AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 67 LAND USE In 2018, CAMPO staff undertook a full review and update of land use codes across not just the CAMPO region, but expanded this analysis across all of Cole County. The analysis involved coding parcels with ITE trip generation land use codes. ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) codes are used by planners and engineers to estimate traffic impacts and parking needs based on land use types. The resulting land use data was one of multiple variables used to develop growth scenarios for the CAMPO region during the development of the MTP in 2018 and 2019. Figure 4.20 and 4.21 provide a general overview of land use in the CAMPO region. Figure 4.20 Proportions of 2018 land use by category Linking transportation and land use refers to the process of guiding development and expansion of communities with the goal of better coordination of land use and transportation that accommodates pedestrian and bike safety, mobility, enhances public transportation service, improves road network connectivity, and includes a multi-modal approach to transportation. Typically, this is accomplished through supporting land- use development patterns to create a variety of transportation options. - FHWA Several trends emerged from the land use study and travel demand modeling conducted in 2018. These trends include: • Residential unit numbers are decreasing in the downtown areas as redevelopment occurs, but residential development is occurring at high rates south and west of Jefferson City and north into Callaway County around Holts Summit. • Commercial redevelopment is occurring along Missouri Boulevard and in the central part of Jefferson City. • New schools, Pioneer Trails Elementary and the completion of Capital City High School (opened in 2019) will prompt more residential development. Since 2018, a few other changes to land use have occurred, adding some pressure to the transportation system. Major developments that have occurred include: • Special Olympics Training Center – Located on 16 acres on the southern edge of Jefferson City, this site used to train athletes from around the state and host athletic and community events. • Capital City High School – Located in west-central Jefferson City next to St. Mary’s Hospital, the site was completed in 2019. The new site is home to one of two high schools in the Jefferson City School District, complete with a new football field, soccer field, and tennis courts. • Jefferson City High School Athletic Fields - After the 2019 Tornado, many damaged residences along Jackson Street and streets near the Jefferson City High School were demolished and replaces with athletic fields. • Jefferson City Airport – After major Missouri River flooding in 2019 the Jefferson City airport terminal and was demolished and replaced with a new facility, including a restaurant and offices. Commercial 3%Commercial /Residential1% Agriculture 64% Industrial 2% Institutional3% Public Use 4% Residential23% SOURCE: CAMPO 2018 LAND USE A DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 68 • Industrial development in the Algoa Industrial area: o Break Time Truck Stop – Completed in 2023, the truck stop provides expanded capacity for overnight parking and resources for tractor trailers. Prior to 2023, The CAMPO region did not have a similar facility. o CART – The Capital Area Rail Terminal site will complete Phase One in 2024. The 20-acre site will hold a public rail-truck transload facility. • Residential Development has occurred in small areas around the CAMPO region in mostly unincorporated subdivisions outside of Jefferson City, Wardsville, St. Martins, and Holts Summit. A more robust review of land use in the CAMPO region will be conducted in the next MTP iteration, likely starting with a land use analysis in 2027. Figure 4.21 2018 Current Land Use SOURCE: CAMPO 2018 LAND USE ANALYSIS DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 69 ACTIVATE JEFFERSON CITY 2040 The Jefferson City Comprehensive Plan (Activate Jefferson City 2040), completed in 2021, utilized some of the 2018 CAMPO MTP land use analysis in the City’s land use plan. The Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan highlighted existing land use, past development patterns, zoning impacts, future land use, and illustrated how the City plans to move forward with strengthening the built environment. Figure 4.22 depicts current land use (2020) in Jefferson City and Figure 4.23 depicts anticipated development areas in and around the city. Figure 4.22 Jefferson City Current Land Use SOURCE: ACTIVATE JEFFERSON CITY 2040 Figure 4.23 Anticipated Areas for Development in Jefferson SOURCE: ACTIVATE JEFFERSON CITY 2040 DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 70 5 - THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 71 ROADS AND BRIDGES The CAMPO planning area consists of an extensive network of roadways and bridges, from local neighborhood streets to highways and expressways serving national and regional trip purposes. This road network is the primary system used to support the efficient movement of people and goods within and through the region. The network includes over 1,018 lane miles of roads and 157 bridges. ROAD NETWORK Of the 1018 lane miles of roads in the CAMPO Region, 43% (447 lane miles) are off-system (non-MoDOT) roads, mostly maintained by municipalities (cities or counties). The major routes into and through the region are US highways 54, 50, and 63, intersecting directly south of the Missouri River bridge, near the center of Jefferson City. In 2022 the Missouri River bridge crossing carried an estimated Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) of 56,913 vehicles. Jefferson City is one of only four state capital cities without an interstate. As seen in Figure 5.1, some intersections and corridors along the US highways carry more than 20,000 vehicles per day, with some segments carrying more daily traffic than segments of Interstate 70, which lies 30 miles north of the CAMPO region. Figure 5.1: 2022 MoDOT Traffic Volume and Commercial Vehicle Counts for the Jefferson City Urbanized Area SOURCE: MODOT 2022 DATA. AADT = ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 72 THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM (NHS) The NHS consists of roadways important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility. NHS Routes in the CAMPO planning area consist of US 50, Bus 50 (Missouri Boulevard), US 54, US 63, and MO 179. The National Highway System (NHS), seen in Figure 5.2, includes the following subsystems of roadways: 1. Interstate: The Eisenhower Interstate System of highways retains its separate identity within the NHS. The CAMPO region does not include any Interstate roadways. 2. Other Principal Arterials: Highways in rural and urban areas that provide access between an arterial and a major port, airport, public transportation facility, or other intermodal transportation facility. 3. Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET): A highway network important to the United States' strategic defense policy, providing defense access, continuity and emergency capabilities for defense purposes. 4. Major Strategic Highway Network Connectors: Highways that provide access between major military installations and highways that are part of the Strategic Highway Network. 5. Intermodal Connectors: These highways provide access between major intermodal facilities and the other four subsystems making up the National Highway System. Figure 5.2 National Highway System – CAMPO Region SOURCE: MODOT 2022 DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 73 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Functional classification, governed by federal guidelines, is the process by which roads, streets and highways are grouped into classes according to the character of service they are intended to provide. It defines the role that any particular road or street should play in serving the flow of trips through a highway network. Functional classification progresses from a lower classification handling short, local trips to a higher classification as the trips become longer and connect regional and inter-regional traffic generators. Functional classification changes are submitted to FHWA every year for review and approval. Functional classifications are periodically reviewed by MoDOT and local representatives, but are usually updated every ten years, coinciding with U.S. Census revisions of urban boundaries. The CAMPO functional classification system was last reviewed and revised in January 2024. Functional classification is used in transportation planning, roadway design and determining the funding eligibility of transportation projects. Private roads are not included in the CAMPO functional classification network nor are interstate highways, tribal lands roadways, or federal lands roadways. Functionally classed roadways in the CAMPO network include US highways, state highways, county roads, and some municipal roads/streets. These roadways are divided into urban and rural, and are further classified as local, collector, or arterial as seen in Figures 5.3 and 5.4. Figure 5.3 Federal System for Functional Classifications SOURCE: FHWA FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION GUIDELINES DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 74 Figure 5.4 Functional Classifications of CAMPO Roadways SOURCE: CAMPO, MODOT 2022 DATA FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM The Federal-Aid Highway Program supports State highway systems by providing financial assistance for the construction, maintenance, and operations of the Nation's 3.9 million-mile highway network, including; Interstates, primary highways and secondary local roads. FHWA is charged with implementing the Federal-Aid Highway Program in cooperation with the States and local governments. Nationally, local governments own and operate about 75 percent of the Nation's highway network. The Program applies to all “functionally classed” roads, with the exception of Minor Collectors or Local. Figure 5.4 provides a map of functionally classed roadways In the CAMPO region. Figure 5.4 provides a breakdown of miles of federal-aide eligible roadways. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 75 CONDITION There are approximately 571 lane miles of Federal-Aid eligible roadway in the CAMPO region. This total includes both MoDOT maintained (on-system) roads and locally maintained (off-system) roads. MoDOT maintains 64% of Federal-Aid eligible lane miles within the region, with local governments maintaining the remaining 36%. Condition of Federal-Aid eligible roadways is defined by the pavement condition measures set be the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Roadway condition ratings use factors such as smoothness and physical distress to determine quality. According to 2022 MoDOT pavement data, 29% of all Federal-Aid eligible roadways in the CAMPO region are in “good” condition, 42% are in “fair” condition, and 6% are in “poor” condition; 24% had were labeled “no data”. Roadway condition has been calculated based on MoDOT’s “FHWA Condition”, with good condition suggesting no major investment is needed and poor condition suggesting major reconstruction investment is needed. Figure 5.5 provides an overview of system condition. Figure 5.5: CAMPO Federal-Aide Eligible Lane Miles by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Federal -Aide Eligible Lane Miles Ineligible Local Lane Miles Total State System Off-System (Local) Callaway 33 11 50 94 Cole 121 28 310 459 Holts Summit 18 14 3 35 Jefferson City 171 143 62 375 St. Martins 11 4 5 20 Taos 9 0 10 18 Wardsville 8 0 8 15 Total 370 201 447 1018 SOURCE: CAMPO, MODOT 2022 DATA DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 76 BRIDGES Missouri has 10,424 bridges - the sixth most bridges in the US. Based on a data provided by MoDOT’s Transportation Management System (TMS), there are 157 bridges (1.5%) in the CAMPO planning area. Of these, 97 are “state-system” bridges that are inspected, maintained, and rehabilitated by MoDOT. The other 60 bridges are “off-system” structures that are the responsibility of local jurisdictions, although MoDOT may provide some support in inspection. Figure 5.6 – Jefferson City Missouri River Bridges – looking southeast. SOURCE: CAMPO STAFF 2019 MISSOURI FOCUS ON BRIDGES In 2019, a proposal to repair or replace hundreds of the state’s worst bridges was passed by the 2019 General Assembly and signed by the Governor; $50 million was appropriated from State General Revenue to replace or repair 45 bridges in Fiscal Year 2020. This appropriation, along with a $301 bonding program, and $81.2 million INFRA Grant funding to construct a new I-70 Missouri River Bridge at Rocheport, enabled MoDOT to fix or start addressing hundreds of poor bridges throughout the state. Additionally, these funds freed up other funding for use on other high-priority projects across the State. Figure 5.7 provides a breakdown of bridges by jurisdiction. Figure 5.7 Distribution of Off-System and State-System Bridges SOURCE: MODOT 2022 BRIDGE INVENTORY DATA Callaway County 2 Cole County23 Taos2 Jefferson City33 60 OFF-SYSTEM BRIDGES Callaway County 15 Cole County 11 Holts Summit 2 Jefferson City 68 St. Martins1 97 STATE-SYSTEM BRIDGES DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 77 THE MISSOURI RIVER BRIDGES The Missouri River Bridge in Jefferson City carries US 54 and US 63 and consists of two separate bridge structures. The westbound bridge, opened in 1955, is 3,093 feet long and a deck spanning 38 feet. The eastbound bridge, opened in 1991, is 3,124 feet long and deck spanning 47 feet. These bridges lie just upstream from the site of the original bridge, built in 1896 and demolished in 1958. The Missouri River crossing has been identified as part of the regional critical transportation infrastructure with almost 57,000 vehicles crossing the river on an average day, see Figures 5.8 through 5.11. The nearest alternative Missouri River bridge crossing is at Hermann (60 miles to the east) or at Rocheport (45 miles to the northwest) on Interstate 70. Both Jefferson City bridges had some rehabilitation in 2016 and 2021. The bridges are inspected regularly. An eight-foot wide pedestrian bridge, opened in April 2011, is located on the East side of the eastbound bridge. Only open to bicycle and foot traffic, the bridge provides connectivity between Jefferson City and the Katy Trail and parks north of the river. The pedestrian bridge includes two look out points. Figure 5.9 – Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) Volumes at the Missouri River Bridge – 2023 SOURCE: MODOT - INTERACTIVE AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC MAP (2023) Figure 5.8 –AADT Volumes – Westbound (WB) and Eastbound (EB) US 54 at the Missouri River Bridge WB US54 / SB US63 EB US54 / NB US63 AADT 29147 27766 AAWDT 30678 29099 Volumes by type MOTORCYCLE 119 245 PASSENGER CAR 19186 14800 PU/PANEL TRUCK 5230 7708 BUS VOLUME 101 445 SINGLE UNIT TRUCK 923 1931 COMB SEMI TRAILER 3588 2637 PEAK HOUR AM 3719 3436 PEAK HOUR PM 3922 NA SOURCE: MODOT-INTERACTIVE AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC MAP (2023) DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 78 Figure 5.10 – Missouri River Bridge Traffic Daily Volumes (Westbound US54 / Southbound US63) SOURCE: MODOT - INTERACTIVE AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC MAP (2023) Figure 5.11 – Missouri River Bridge Traffic Daily Volumes (Eastbound US54 / Northbound US63) SOURCE: MODOT - INTERACTIVE AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC MAP (2023) DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 79 WIDENING OF US 54/63 IN NORTH JEFFERSON CITY In 2024, construction began on US 54/63 to add lanes for eastbound and westbound traffic between the Missouri River bridges and the convergence of US 63 and Route 94. The project had been on the CAMPO Illustrative List for several years, and was also identified on the MoDOT High Priority Unfunded Needs list. Improvements were needed to create a safer, more efficient, and more reliable flow for the high volume of traffic using US 54/63 north of the Missouri River. The eastbound project, with a budget of $3 Million, includes: • Restriping eastbound US 54 over the Missouri River to four lanes. • Adding a third continuous lane of travel to eastbound US 54 from the Missouri River bridge to US 63. • Adding auxiliary lanes to the eastbound ramp terminal at the US 54/63 interchange. • Realigning the intersection of Wehmeyer Drive and Route 94 to the entrance of Hitachi Energy, LLC. SOURCE: MODOT TRAFFIC CAMERA LOOKING SOUTHWEST AT CONSTRUCTION – APRIL 11, 2024 WESTBOUND U.S. ROUTE 54 In August 2023, the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission voted to separate widening U.S. Route 54 into two projects: eastbound and westbound. Moving forward with widening the westbound traveled way will require additional steps and a prolonged timeframe. The project will generally include an added westbound lane and reconfiguration of the Cedar City Drive ramps. Construction is planned to start in 2026. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 80 BRIDGE CONDITION MoDOT inspects state-system bridges and culverts on a two-year inspection cycle. Bridges and culverts that are rated “serious” to “poor,” or other bridges with unique structural features such as major truss structures, are inspected more frequently on an annual basis. Bridges and culverts that are referred to as “Off- System Bridges” may be inspected by a variety of personnel. These personnel include MoDOT staff, city and county staff, and some by consultant. According to the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS), condition ratings are used to describe an existing bridge or culvert compared with its condition if it were new. The ratings are based on the materials, physical condition of the deck (riding surface), the superstructure (supports immediately beneath the driving surface) and the substructures (foundation and supporting posts and piers). General condition ratings range from 0 to 9. Through periodic safety inspections, data is collected on the condition of the primary components of a bridge structure. Condition ratings are collected and ratings of 4 or less on one of the following items classifies a bridge as structurally deficient: • The bridge deck, including the wearing surface • The superstructure, including all primary load-carrying members and connections • The substructure, considering the abutments and all piers The deck, superstructure and substructure are each rated separately. If any of the three structures rate a 2 or lower, the bridge is typically closed. The overall condition of the bridge is the lowest rating of the three structures. Figure 5.12 depicts the rating system used to inspect bridge decks. OFF-SYSTEM BRIDGES Of the 60 Off-System bridges in the CAMPO region, nine are considered to be in “Poor” condition as of 2022. Seven of the nine poor condition bridges are actively being addressed as of April 2024. Two bridges are now listed on the CAMPO Illustrative List. Figures 5.13 and 5.14 depicts the location and condition of off-system (local) bridges and information about the status of “poor” condition bridges in the CAMPO Planning Area. Figure 5.12: Bridge Condition Ratings CODE DESCRIPTION De f i c i e n t 0 FAILED CONDITION - out of service - beyond corrective action. 1 "IMMINENT" FAILURE CONDITION - major deterioration or section loss present in critical structural components or obvious vertical or horizontal action may put back in light service. 2 CRITICAL CONDITION - advanced deterioration or primary structural elements. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present or scour may have removed substructure support. unless closely monitored it may be necessary to close the bridge until corrective action is taken. 3 SERIOUS CONDITION - loss of section, deterioration, spalling or scour have seriously affected primary structural components. Local failures are possible. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present. 4 POOR CONDITION - advance section loss, deterioration, spalling or scour. No t D e f i c i e n t 5 FAIR CONDITION - all primary structural elements are sound buy may have minor section loss, cracking, spalling or scour. 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - structural elements how some minor deterioration. 7 GOOD CONDITION - some minor problems noted. 8 VERY GOOD CONDITION - no problems noted. 9 EXCELLENT CONDITION Source: MoDOT DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 81 Figure 5.13: CAMPO Off-System Bridges and Condition Ratings SOURCE: MODOT 2022 TMS Figure 5.14: Poor Condition Off-System Bridges “POOR” CONDITION BRIDGE LOCATION # YEAR BUILT DECK RATING SUPERSTRUCTURE RATING SUBSTR RATING FUNCTIONAL CLASS STURBRIDGE RD over BR OF GRAYS CREEK 3010001 1997 5-FAIR 4-POOR 6-SATISFAC R LOCAL Status: BRO Grant awarded in 2022 for repair HEMSTREET RD over N MOREAU CREEK 2290010 1930 3-SERIOUS 4-POOR 4-POOR R LOCAL Status: Closed – Removal pending OHIO ST over WEARS CREEK 2180020 1970 3-SERIOUS 3-SERIOUS 4-POOR U LOCAL Status: Closed TANNER BRIDGE RD over MOREAU RIVER 780025 1960 3-SERIOUS 4-POOR 6-SATISFAC R LOCAL Status: BRO Grant awarded in 2023 for repair MISSOURI BLVD over WEARS CREEK 2180004 1900 4-POOR 6-SATISFAC 7-GOOD U MINART Status: Pending BIP Grant application in 2024 HIGH ST over WEARS CREEK, MISSOURI BLVD 2180003 1949 4-POOR 4-POOR 5-FAIR U MAJCOL Status: Pending BIP Grant application in 2024 FRIENDSHIP RD over HERBRANDT CREEK 790010 1955 NA NA NA R LOCAL Status: Repair expected in 2024 ALGOA RD over RISING CREEK 2180037 1955 / 1988 4-POOR 5-FAIR 6-SATISFAC U LOCAL Status: Listed in CAMPO MTP Illustrative List SCOTT STATION RD over UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 540012 1991 4-POOR 7-GOOD 5-FAIR R MAJCOL Status: Listed in CAMPO MTP Illustrative List SOURCE: MODOT 2022 TMS DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 82 STATE-SYSTEM BRIDGES Figures 5.15 and 5.16 depicts the location of “Poor Condition” and “Weight Restricted” state-system bridges within the State of Missouri and CAMPO Planning Area. As of May 2023, four bridges were listed as poor condition; all of these bridges are slated to be addressed by 2025. The only weight restricted bridge in the CAMPO Planning Area is a permanently closed bridge within the US 50/54/63 tri-level and is scheduled for removal by 2026. Figure 5.15 MoDOT State-System Poor Bridges SOURCE: MODOT POOR AND WEIGHT-RESTRICTED BRIDGES WEBPAGE– APRIL 2023 REPORT Figure 5.16 MoDOT State-System Weight-Restricted Bridges SOURCE: MODOT POOR AND WEIGHT-RESTRICTED BRIDGES WEBPAGE– MAY 2023 REPORT DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 83 PEDESTRIAN & NON-MOTORIZED Walking and bicycling are important aspects of a community’s public health, economic vitality, safety, environmental sustainability, and mobility. These modes of transportation are especially important for children, the elderly, the disabled, and those with fixed or low incomes. Walkability and bikeability are important to attracting tourists and attracting or retaining residents alike. The CAMPO planning area encompasses both urban and rural areas. The communities of Holts Summit, Jefferson City, and St. Martins are generally walkable with sidewalks, greenways, trails, and connectivity to Katy Trail State Park. The smaller communities of Taos and Wardsville have limited connectivity and have little to no public sidewalks. The need for greater connectivity, access, and safety are important. Improving connectivity and access will provide more direct, convenient, and safe travel routes for walking and bicycling while also providing more travel choices, reduce dependency on automobiles, and improve general quality of life. EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE There are almost 200 miles of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in the CAMPO Region. In addition to many miles of sidewalks and greenways, the CAMPO region also has a public transit system, JEFFTRAN, that is supplemented by this pedestrian and bicycle network. JEFFTRAN operates a 280 stop, six fixed route, system that operates Monday through Friday inside Jefferson City. JEFFTRAN riders are dependent on the pedestrian network to access bus stops and resources in the City. Bicycle riders are also able to place their bikes on the bus’s front bike racks. The Katy Trail, part of the 240-mile-long Katy Trail State Park, which crosses northern Jefferson City, has over 400,000 visitors a year. Katy Trail riders frequently visit the Capital region and rely on a well- maintained network to access hotels, food, and other resources. Figures 5.17 and 5.18 provide an overview of existing infrastructure in the CAMPO region. Figure 5.17 Inventory of Active Transportation Infrastructure Type Miles Sidewalks 152 Greenways 20 Sidepaths 3.2 Complete Streets 0.5 Bicycle Lanes 1.5 Sharrows 11.2 Super Sharrows 1.3 Walk & Bike Lanes 2.4 SOURCE: 2023 CAPITAL AREA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND CAMPO DATABASE MARCH 2024 SOURCE: JULY 2016 SALUTE TO AMERICA “RED, BIKE, AND BLUE” BICYCLE EVENT DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 84 Figure 5.18 Sidewalks and Trails in the CAMPO Region SOURCE: CAMPO CAPITAL AREA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (ATP) Adopted in 2024, the Capital Area Active Transportation Plan (ATP) replaced the Capital Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan (2017) and is discussed in multiple sections of this document. The Plan is intended as a resource to improve safety, connectivity, and mobility; integrating several local plans into one regional plan. Those previous plans include the Capital Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan (2016), Jefferson City’s Sidewalk Plan (2010) and Greenway Master Plan (2007), and the Holts Summit Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Plan (2014). The ATP, produced by Crafton Tull, Inc. and LaneShift, covers all CAMPO communities and generally includes the following: • Analysis of previous and recent plans and current conditions. • Goals and strategies aimed at addressing user preferences, factors affecting route choices, walking and bicycling behaviors. • Categorization and prioritization of infrastructure improvements based on public and stakeholder feedback. • Recommendations for new policies, processes, and programs. The goals, recommendations, and strategies outlined in the plan can be used by jurisdictions and local stakeholders to develop an individualized implementation strategy to fit the unique needs of that community. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 85 Infrastructure projects identified in the ATP include: • 69 bike/ped projects (sidewalks, sidepaths, greenways, trails) – Arranged in Tiers and Phases • 15 priority sidewalk projects • 45 signed route projects • 13 long-range projects – projects to be completed in 10 years or more due to scope and funding The projects were categorized into “packages” and prioritized through the use of public meetings, surveys, and steering committee meetings. Figure 5.19 depicts the results of that process. The ATP can be found in Appendix F and is also referenced in Section 2 and Section 6 of this plan. Figure 5.19 – Network prioritization SOURCE: CAPITAL AREA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2023 DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 86 PROGRESS ON SIDEWALKS, GREENWAYS, AND TRAILS As part of the development of the ATP, a detailed “Background and Existing Conditions” section was compiled. This section highlighted active transportation infrastructure and other resources and metrics across the CAMPO region, including: • Greenways, Trails, Sidewalks, Sidepaths, Crosswalks, Bike Lanes, Complete Streets, and Signed routes • Intersections and Crossings • Existing planned Improvements • Transit Infrastructure • Tourism and Recreation Resources • Demographic, Health, and Commuting Analyses Figure 5.20 shows existing infrastructure and previously planned infrastructure from previous plan. A full list of the 2023 ATP Illustrative Projects list, look at Section 6 or reference the ATP document in Appendix F. Figure 5.20 Existing Bicycle & Pedestrian Infrastructure and Previous Plans SOURCE: 2023 CAPITAL AREA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN – CRAFTON TULL, INC. Sidewalk accessibility and connectivity is limited by gaps, obstructions, and poor conditions in some areas. That being said, there are several areas in the CAMPO region where recent improvements have increased accessibility and condition dramatically. Figure 5.21 provides a list of federally funded sidewalk and trail projects that have been completed since 2013. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 87 Figure 5.21 Active Transportation Projects Completed Using Federal Funds since 2013 Year Jurisdiction Project Type Project Name Federal Funding Category* Total Cost 2013 Jefferson City Sidewalk Missouri Blvd. Sidewalk Project Phase 2 TE $463,723 2013 Jefferson City Greenway McKay Park Area Greenway Connection RTP $260,117 2014 Jefferson City Bike Plaza Clay Street Bike Plaza TE/CDBG $163,000 2014 Jefferson City Amtrak Station AMTRAK Depot Plaza Restoration @ Historic Water St. TE $591,825 2014 Holts Summit Sidewalk Intersection & Sidewalk Improvements TE $363,865 2014 Holts Summit Greenway Trail Connector RTP $123,825 2015 Cole County Sidewalk Pioneer Trail School Safe Routes to Schools Project SRTS $707,000 2015 Holts Summit Greenway Trail Connection Project Phase 2 RTP $125,940 2015 St. Martins Greenway Niekamp Park Trailhead Phase 1 RTP $126,502 2015 Holts Summit Sidewalk North Summit Drive Sidewalk Connection Project TAP $398,100 2015 St. Martins Study Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety Analysis of Business 50 in St. Martins TEAP $10,024 2016 Jefferson City Wayfinding Wayfinding Signage TAP $267,500 2016 Jefferson City Greenway Frog Hollow Greenway Trail Extension Phase 2 RTP $502,260 2018 Jefferson City Greenway Community Park Greenway Trailhead RTP $309,000 2019 Jefferson City Sidewalk Missouri Boulevard Sidewalk – Beck to Waverly TAP $348,205 2019 St. Martins Sidewalk/ Pavement Improvements Business 50 W Bike/Ped/ADA Improvements TAP $873,530 2019 Osage Region Trail Association Trail Binder Bike Park Phase 1 RTP $49,282 2022 Holts Summit Sidewalk S. Summit Drive Sidewalk TAP $625,000 2022 Jefferson City Greenway Crosswalks Crosswalk improvements on greenway crossings at Southwest Blvd. and Lafayette St. TAP $278,430 2022 Jefferson City Greenway Wears Creek Greenway / MO 179 Bypass TAP $983,465 2022 St. Martins Sidewalk/ Pavement Improvements Business 50W Bike/Ped/ADA Improvements (Phase 2) TAP $663,748 2022 St. Martins Trail connection / ADA Trail connection and ADA improvements - Niekamp Park to Traci Drive RTP $146,200 2022 Wardsville Sidewalk Falcon Lane Sidewalks TAP $494,900 2023 Jefferson City Greenway Boggs Creek Multi-Use Trail TAP $959,703 2023 Jefferson City Sidewalk South Country Club Sidewalks TAP $212,203 2023 Cole County Sidewalk Rainbow Drive Sidewalk TAP $721,000 Total $10,768,347 SOURCE CAMPO TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DOCUMENTS – 2013-2023 *FEDERAL FUNDING CATEGORIES: TE – TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT, TAP – TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM, RTP – RECREATIONAL TRAIL PROGRAM, TEAP – TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, CDBG – COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT, SRTS – SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS All sidewalks have been assessed and inventoried in the CAMPO region, reflecting the improvements listed above. CAMPO staff maintains a sidewalk database that is regularly updated and incorporates data that has been collected in cooperation with several regional partners. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 88 ROCK ISLAND TRAIL CORRIDOR AND KATY TRAIL STATE PARK The Rock Island Corridor (in green) is a planned 144-mile-long addition to the already existing Rock Island Spur (in blue). This trail will run from Windsor to Beaufort, and will be built in sections over the next several years. Like the Katy Trail (in red) that runs directly north of Jefferson City, the Rock Island Corridor, as seen in Figure 5.22 passes approximately 20 miles south of the study area. While no alignment is proposed as part of this plan connecting to the Rock Island Corridor, recognizing these significant trails remain an important consideration when developing the active transportation plan. Figure 5.22 Rock Island Trail Corridor SOURCE: MO DNR, MISSOURI STATE PARKS See inset above DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 89 TRANSIT There are several transportation providers that operate in the Mid-Missouri are and statewide. The CAMPO region is served by many of these agencies, including fixed-route providers like JEFFTRAN in Jefferson City and rural providers like Oats, Inc., which serves users throughout northern and central Missouri or Serve, Inc. in Callaway County. COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLAN The Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan is updated every three years per federal regulation. The plan provides an overview of current conditions, capacities, and goals as they relate to transit in the CAMPO region. The Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan is found in Appendix G. FIXED ROUTE SERVICE JEFFTRAN is the public transportation provider for the City of Jefferson. Operated as a division in the Department of Public Works of the City of Jefferson, JEFFTRAN provides fixed route and paratransit services within the city limits of Jefferson City. Six fixed routes (Figure 5.23) and three commuter/school tripper routes operate during the school year. The regular fixed route service includes 280 stops, operating Monday through Friday from 6:45 AM to 5:45 PM (except holidays) using a “pulse” system, where all routes except the Capital Mall route converge on the transfer point at 40-minute intervals. Transfers occur at the Miller Street Station (820 East Miller St.) and at the Stonecreek Transfer Point at Wal- Mart (724 W. Stadium Blvd.). All buses on regular scheduled routes have bicycle racks to accommodate two bicycles and is part of the JEFFTRAN Bike 'n' Ride program. CAMPO staff continues to assist JEFFTRAN in consultation, programming, scheduling and maps as needed. CAMPO assists JEFFTRAN with their Program of Projects processes. No expansion is proposed, but increased efficiency in routes has been introduced by changing routes and schedules. Figure 5.23 JEFFTRAN Route Guide Map October 2023 SOURCE: CAMPO – JEFFTRAN ROUTE GUIDE OCTOBER 2023 DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 90 JEFFTRAN PARATRANSIT SERVICES “Handi-Wheels” complementary paratransit services are provided by JEFFTRAN, providing curb to curb service for individuals with disabilities and those unable to use fixed route transportation systems (an "origin to destination" service). Although the Handi-Wheels service operates entirely within the city limits, it provides services beyond the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 through a larger than required service area. Within this service area, eligible residents may receive services from 6:45 AM to 5:45 PM Monday through Friday. Handi-Wheels service utilizes eight vehicles, reporting 54,494 ADA qualified trips in 2023. Buses are wheelchair-lift equipped and provide transportation for those individuals who because of disability cannot travel to or from a "fixed route" bus stop or cannot get on, ride or get off a "fixed route" bus. Funding is provided through a mix of sources such as passenger fares, local funding, FTA funding and contracts. Handi-Wheels can pick up clients anywhere inside the city limits and take them to any destination within the city limits. Riders must apply for and be approved in order to use this service. Applications and detailed service descriptions are available in standard print and accessible formats. 2022 TRANSIT FACILITIES FEASABILITY STUDY Between 2021 and 2022, JEFFTRAN and the City of Jefferson worked with consultants to develop a feasibility study to investigate improvements and possible relocation of certain transit and maintenance facilities. The primary facilities studied were the JEFFTRAN main 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. A new or rehabilitated transfer and maintenance facilities would improve customer service, increase maintenance capacity, and provide for better bus parking and storage. Timing of the construction of such facilities is dependent on funding availability. RURAL TRANSIT SERVICE OATS Inc. is a not-for-profit transportation service available to the general public in the rural areas of Callaway and Cole Counties with priority service to senior citizens and persons with disabilities. Anyone living in rural areas whose needs can be met by OATS’ service schedules is eligible to ride their local OATS buses. OATS, Inc. ridership numbers remain strong after 40 years of service and the service continues to grow in popularity. SERVE Inc. serves residents of Callaway County through CALTRAN a public transportation program based in Fulton. MISSOURI RIDESHARE AND CARPOOL PROGRAM The Missouri Rideshare and Carpool Program is a free service provided by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. The program organizes carpools by matching commuters who live and work in the same vicinity and serve many counties in Mid-Missouri. MoDOT supports carpooling through the “Carpool Connections” website at: www.modot.org/carpool-connections Carpool/Commuter lot locations: • By the municipal airport • Across US 54 at the Jefferson City Park • US 50/63 East at Route M and J OTHER SERVICES • Charter Service and Shuttles - D&K Bus Service, First Student Inc., Tyus Executive Transportation Service. • Greyhound Bus – Connection located in Jefferson City • Rideshare - UBER DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 91 • Taxi/ limousine - Checker Cab of Jefferson City LLC., Capitol City Limousine, and Sedan Inc. and Chase Limousines. • Public Transit, Paratransit, and Human Service Transportation Providers – CAMPO maintains a list of transportation providers as part of the maintenance of the Coordinated Public Transit – Human Services Transportation Plan. The CAMPO Transportation Providers Directory is available on the CAMPO website (www.jeffersoncitymo.gov/campo). These transportation providers, some listed below, may be specific to certain demographics in the community and are subject to eligibility requirements: o 360 Quality Care and Transport Services o OATS o Medical Transport Management, Inc. (MTM) o SERVE o Cole County Residential Services, Inc. o Disabled American Veterans (DAV) Several other human service agencies also provide transportation services to eligible riders. More information on those providers can be found in the directory. MICROTRANSIT Microtransit is a technology-enabled service that uses multi-passenger vehicles to provide on-demand services with dynamically generated routing. Microtransit services are traditionally provided in designated service areas. Service models include first mile/last mile connections to fixed route services; hub to hub zone- based services; the commingling of ADA complementary paratransit services with general transit service; and point-to-point service within a specific zone or geography. – Federal Transit Administration In 2023, Mayor Ron Fitzwater appointed a citizens committee to explore microtransit use in Jefferson City. The Citizens for Transit Committee met multiple times in 2023, discussing current conditions of transit, budget, transit needs, and spoke to staff in Wilson, NC about their use of microtransit. In early 2024, the City of Jefferson began developing a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for “microtransit services to supplement three or four fixed route buses and possibly provide paratransit services in whole or in part.” If approved by City Council, the project would request the contractor manage most aspects of the operations of the service and fulfill all reporting requirements. COLUMBIA - JEFFERSON CITY EXPRESS BUS STUDY In 2023, as part of a statewide effort to improve connectivity between modes of transportation, MoDOT announced the Columbia—Jefferson City Express Bus Study. The goal of the study is to explore potential transit service between downtown Columbia, Jefferson City Amtrak, and intermediate points. According to MoDOT, as of early 2024, data was being collected on “the needs of central Missouri residents, employees, and visitors, in order to develop transit service that best matches these travel patterns. The study is a regional effort involving collaboration with local transit partners; community centers, hospitals, local attractions, and places of employment; local business organizations; and residents and visitors…” According to MoDOT, in 2022, MoDOT’s Transit division began research to develop a comprehensive transit connectivity plan, exploring the existing state of transit connections and areas for improvement on a statewide level. Specifically, research was conducted into connections from local communities into regional “hubs” (including St. Joseph, Kansas City, Springfield, Warrensburg/Sedalia, Jefferson City/Columbia, Hannibal, St. Louis, and Poplar Bluff), and between regional “hubs” (for instance, travel between Hannibal and St. Louis using public transportation). This included a statewide review of local transit agencies, Amtrak’s Missouri River Runner (which provides service to Jefferson City), Southwest Chief, and Texas Eagle trains, and intercity bus providers Greyhound, Jefferson Lines, and Burlington Trailways. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 92 Each region was identified with regards to specific strengths and areas for improvement. One potential area for improvement noted within the Jefferson City/Columbia region was the lack of public transit service between the two major population centers along the U.S. 63 corridor. This region is a fast-growing area with several cities, home to at least four major universities in addition to numerous state agencies and large employers which result in significant numbers of daily commuters between the two cities. Amtrak currently serves downtown Jefferson City four times a day, connecting visitors to the region from destinations including Kansas City, St. Louis, and points nationwide. Greyhound provides intercity bus service twice a day through downtown Columbia on its Kansas City—St. Louis route. The fast-growing Columbia Regional Airport provides direct connections to Chicago and Dallas/Fort Worth. However, despite the major population centers and nationwide travel connections, at the current time, there is only one transit provider operating between Jefferson City and Columbia. This service provides a bus connection once each month between the two cities for passengers who call at least 24 hours ahead, rendering the service ineffective for a significant share of mid-Missouri residents, commuters, and visitors. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 93 AIR TRAVEL The CAMPO Region includes one airport, the Jefferson City Memorial Airport, and a handful of helicopter landing platforms. While there are no commercial airlines operating within the region, Columbia Regional Airport is located 20 miles away and does provide this service. Private aircraft, the Missouri National Guard, medical transport, private, or other government agencies represent the majority of aircraft use in the region. Other aviation facilities in the region include a small Missouri National Guard aviation facility near the Jefferson City Memorial Airport, two heliports located at the Missouri National Guard Ike Skelton Training Site east of Jefferson City, and helipads for medical transport at MU Health Care Capital Region Medical Center and SSM Health St. Mary’s Hospital. JEFFERSON CITY MEMORIAL AIRPORT Jefferson City Memorial Airport is a general aviation facility with no commercial airline passenger services. Constructed in 1948, the facility is located north of the Capitol, in Callaway County, in the Missouri River floodplain and is occasionally affected by flooding. The original construction consisted of one paved runway that was 2,500 feet long, and two grass strips (each also 2,500 feet long). Improvements were made to the runways in 1956, 1963, 1972, and 1985, resulting in the configuration that we have today, see Figure 5.24. Currently, the main runway (12-30) is 6,000 feet long by 100 feet wide. The crosswind runway (9-27) is 3,400 feet long by 75 feet wide. Both runways have parallel taxiways. Additional facilities include the Airport Terminal Building, reconstructed in 2021 after major flooding, and the Air Traffic Control Tower which was commissioned in 1973. Air traffic control services are available from 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m., daily. Radar approach control services are provided 24-hours a day by Mizzu Approach, located in Springfield, MO. On-site services include a restaurant, fuel services and flight products and a full service fixed base operator. Figure 5.24 Existing Facilities at Jefferson City Memorial Airport SOURCE: FAA AIRPORT DIAGRAM, GOOGLE EARTH, JVIATION – JEFFERSON CITY MEMORIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 2020 DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 94 Approximately 81 aircraft are based at the airport either permanently or intermittently; this includes 12 jets, 9 helicopters, and 60 propeller driven aircraft. Five of the based aircraft are military. These numbers may fluctuate and are based on 2024 staff reports. Figure 5.25 shows the fluctuations in airport traffic since 2006. Figure 5.25 Airport Traffic Counts 2006-2023 SOURCE: JEFFERSON CITY AIRPORT HISTORIC TRAFFIC DATA – JEFFERSON CITY AIRPORT MASTER PLAN The Jefferson City Memorial Airport Master Plan (AMP) was adopted in 2020. The plan, which uses a 20-year planning horizon, guides the continued development of the Jefferson City Memorial Airport, ensuring safety, efficiency, and environmental compatibility. Figure 5.26 Summary of Facility Recommendations The goal of the AMP is to provide a “carefully considered, systematic approach to the Airport’s overall maintenance, development, and operation over a 20‐year period.” The plan identifies plans for future facility needs well in advance of the actual demand for those future facilities (Figure 5.26). As required by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the AMP considers phased development, specifically looking at three planning horizons: • short‐term (0‐5 years) • intermediate (6‐10 years) • long‐range (11‐20 years). Additionally, the AMP includes a current Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and Capital Improvement Programs (CIP). MODOT AND AIRPORT PLANNING Missouri is one of ten states in the State Block Grant Program, which means that MoDOT acts on behalf of the FAA in certain circumstances. MoDOT is the approving authority for all airport master planning and airport layout plans for Missouri's general aviation airports. 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Airport Activity (total traffic) SOURCE: JVIATION - JEFFERSON CITY MEMORIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 2020 DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 95 WATERWAYS & PORTS The Missouri River runs through the heart of the CAMPO region and is the only navigable waterway in the region capable of carrying commercial goods and products. The river has always played an important role in commerce and transportation by connecting the Mississippi River and points east to the west. While the current commercial use of the river has seen a strong decline over the past 30 years, some industries still use this thoroughfare for products such as sand, rock, grain and other large items that may be difficult to transport via highway or air. According to MoDOT’s Long-Range Transportation Plan, approximately 30 million tons of freight claims a Missouri port as the point of origin. The Missouri River provides commercial waterway traffic during an average of 8 months per year, during navigable water levels. According to the 2018 update to MoDOT’s Long Range Transportation Plan, river transport allows for an average of $12.5 billion in cargo annually. Freight transported this way sees an annual growth of 1.3 percent annually and is expected to increase to $15.4 billion by 2030 which amounts to a cumulative increase of 23.1 percent or 1.1 percent annually. Missouri has 1,050 miles of navigable rivers, including 500 miles of the Mississippi River and 550 miles of the Missouri River. PRIVATE PORTS The Capital Sand Company owns and operates the only private port in Mid-Missouri. Located in Jefferson City on the north side of the Missouri River, the private port and dock facility is mostly used for the movement of rock and sand. These products are shipped locally, nationally, and internationally for use in construction, landscaping, and other industrial applications. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 96 HEARTLAND PORT AUTHORITY (HPA) The Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission (MHTC) approved the formation of the Heartland Port Authority of Central Missouri (HPA) in late 2018. The HPA is governed by a nine-member board of directors consisting of three members each from Cole County, Callaway County, and the City of Jefferson. In 2017, the Jefferson City Area Chamber of Commerce, the counties of Cole and Callaway, and the City of Jefferson commissioned the Central Missouri Multimodal Port Feasibility Study. The feasibility study, completed in 2018, determined the development of a port in the region is feasible due to minimal existing port facilities between Kansas City and St Louis, adequate access to the highway system, suitable potential sites, and potential market demand. The Heartland Port Authority Comprehensive Market Study was produced in 2020, surveying potential port users to estimate annual shipments, receipts, and commodities likely to be moved. The primary commodities anticipated to utilize the port are aggregates, fertilizer, timber, and agri-bulk grains. Figure 5.27 Heartland Port Project target markets—trade areas by distance to/from the Project SOURCE: HEARTLAND PORT AUTHORITY - HEARTLAND PORT PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE MARKET STUDY 2020 Figure 5.27, taken from the 2020 Heartland Port Project Comprehensive Market Study, shows an analysis of two target trade areas - counties within a 50-mile radius of Heartland Port (Target Area 1), and counties within an 80- mile radius of Heartland Port, but excluding those within the 50-mile radius (Target Area 2). As of 2024, HPA has been awarded approximately $2 million in port capital improvement funds from MHTC to develop port infrastructure. A preferred site on the north bank of the Missouri River has been identified and HPA is currently designing initial port development infrastructure to include a 200’ multi-purpose dock, laydown/ground storage area, access road, and utility services. Construction is anticipated to be complete in 2024. Future potential improvements to the port include grain storage silos with conveyors and a dry commodity storage building. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 97 RECREATIONAL ACCESS Recreational access points along local rivers are important for recreation and tourism, as well as vital for public safety and infrastructure access. The Missouri River is generally considered to be an underutilized resource for recreation and to a lesser degree transportation. That being said, these access points are used by local and state public safety personnel for responding to emergency events and conducting training exercises (Figure 5.28). Other agencies use these access points for inspection and maintenance of nearby infrastructure, research, and educational programming. The Carl R. Noren Access, on the Missouri River in northern Jefferson City, hosts several large events throughout the year, including the Missouri River 340 Race (Figure 5.29). Jefferson City serves as a major stop, just south of the halfway point, where racers can rest and refuel. According to Missouri River Relief, the 2023 race started with 701 paddlers from 4 countries and 38 U.S. states in 469 boats. Public access to the Missouri River, Cedar Creek, Moreau River, and Osage River are provided by the Missouri Department of Conservation at the following locations: Missouri River • Carl R. Noren Access (Callaway Co.) Cedar Creek • Capital View Access (Callaway Co.) Osage River • Mari-Osa Access (Cole Co.) • Pikes Camp Access (Cole Co.) Moreau River • Access at US 50 (Cole Co.) • Access at Honey Creek (Cole Co.) DEBORAH COOPER PARK In 2022, Jefferson City opened the pedestrian bridge linking downtown to Adrian’s Island and the new Deborah Cooper Memorial Park. The park contains a greenway trail and soft surface nature trail. River access is currently only available via watercraft or pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. SOURCE: JEFFERSON CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT Figure 5.28 Water Rescue Training at Carl R. Noren Access SOURCE: CAMPO STAFF – CARL R. NOREN MISSOURI RIVER ACCESS Figure 5.29 Missouri River 340 Race Participants DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 98 FREIGHT & INTERMODAL FACILITIES Freight movement within and through the CAMPO region consists primarily of truck transport, river transport of bulk commodities, and rail transport. The 2022 Missouri State Freight and Rail Plan (SFRP) designated seven truck corridors as part of the “Missouri Priority Freight Network”. Figure 5.30 is an excerpt from the SFRP and describes the location and extent of the corridors. While not designated as national “Major Freight Corridors” as seen in Figure 5.31 the US Highways provide important connectivity between Kansas City, St. Louis, and I-44 and I-70. According to 2023 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data, the Rex Whitton Expressway (US 50/63) carries over 34,000 vehicles a day, while US 50, just west of the tri-level interchange carries over 45,000. The Missouri River bridges carry 57,000. The US 63 Corridor from Jefferson City to Rolla, just outside the CAMPO region, was listed as a “Truck Bottleneck” in the Missouri State Freight Plan in 2017. While priorities have shifted to other nationally significant bottlenecks in St. Louis and Kansas City, this corridor remains a high priority for local stakeholders in state and regional surveys. Figure 5.31 US Freight Flows by Highway, Railway, and Waterway: 2017 SOURCE: BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS AND FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Figure 5.30 Missouri Priority Freight Network Corridors - Excerpt Corridor Begin Limits End Limits BU 50 US 50 US 50 MO 179 US HWY 50 US HWY 54 RT B US HWY 54 STATE HWY 133 RT C HIGHWAY 87 US HWY 54 US 50 PETTIS COUNTY LINE FRANKLIN COUNTY LINE US 54 HICKORY COUNTY LINE AUDRAIN COUNTY LINE US 63 TEXAS COUNTY LINE US HWY 50 SOURCE: 2022 MISSOURI STATE FREIGHT AND RAIL PLAN (SFRP) DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 99 These trucking corridors facilitate the movement of freight between major sources of traffic, connecting to other freight connections such as the Union Pacific Rail Line and the Missouri River. Rail and river freight are discussed in more detail further in this section. 2022 MISSOURI STATE FREIGHT AND RAIL PLAN (SFRP) Freight movement statistics are difficult to ascertain without a more in-depth study. The most relevant freight movement data available is the 2022 Missouri State Freight and Rail Plan (SFRP). The SFRP is an integrated statewide freight and rail plan “with supporting tools to guide investments in the multimodal freight and passenger rail network that will serve Missouri today and well into the future.” The SFRP goals and objectives “will direct MoDOT’s vision and direction for the future of the freight system as well as its passenger rail system.” The goals in the SRTP generally include: • Improvement of safety and security • Improvement of connectivity and mobility • Support of equity and environmental resiliency • Improvement to customers and partnership • Improvement to regional coordination and collaboration • Maintenance of the existing system • Support of economic growth and competitiveness in Missouri • Institution of supportive policies and practices and encourage innovation Figure 5.32 depicts freight infrastructure for the State of Missouri. Figure 5.32 Missouri Multimodal Freight Network SOURCE: 2022 MISSOURI SATE FREIGHT AND RAIL PLAN DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 100 INTERMODAL SYSTEMS According to the Federal Highway Administration, the term "intermodal" refers to a transfer of a shipment from one transportation mode to another as the shipment moves from origin to destination. Intermodal facilities may move people or freight between modes such as seaports, airports, truck/rail terminals, pipeline/truck terminals and other inter-modal freight transportation facilities. The CAMPO region has three inter-modal facilities located in Jefferson City: 1. The AMTRAK station with rail and roadway connections. 2. The Jefferson City Memorial Airport, with limited general aviation passenger services, small freight transfers, and car rental services. 3. Capital Sands (a private river terminal) using truck and river transport for bulk commodities. 4. Capital Area Rail Terminal (CART) - described in more detail below, CART is a public rail-truck transload facility. Once constructed, the Heartland River Port (described in the Waterways and Ports Section) would serve as a fourth intermodal facility; with construction anticipated to be completed in the next five to ten years. CAMPO supports creation of a regional intermodal facility that would connect truck, rail, and river freight storage and transfer facilities. Creation of a true intermodal passenger facility is also desired by stakeholders in the region. Connectivity is desired between Amtrak, Columbia Regional Airport, Jefferson City Airport, city transit, and Greyhound Bus Services. CAPITAL AREA RAIL TERMINAL (CART) In 2023, Cole County acquired 20 acres of land in the Partnership Business Park, east of Jefferson City, to develop the Capital Area Rail Terminal (CART), a public rail-truck transload facility. The Partnership Business Park is next to US 50/63, with 4-lane connectivity to US 54 and I-70. According to JC REP, CART will provide access to rail transportation for regional businesses that are not on rail-served sites. Having access to rail will provide these businesses the opportunity to ship or receive goods in rail car quantities which has been shown to be more cost effective, more reliable, and more fuel efficient than transportation via truck. Figure 5.33 CART Site The CART accommodates the loading and unloading of a wide range of commodities such as asphalt oil, transformer oil, aggregates, cement, fertilizer, grain, lumber steel, and others as demand dictates. Class I rail service is provided by Union Pacific Railroad. Figure 5.33 shows the anticipated layout of the CART site. The CART is operated under an agreement with Capital Logistics and WATCO. SOURCE: HTTPS://CAPITALMO.COM/ DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 101 RAIL (FREIGHT) The CAMPO region is home to a Class I rail line carrying both freight and passenger rail services. This rail line is owned and operated by Union Pacific. Rail is a major part of the freight transportation system in Missouri and plays a significant role in the state’s economy. A substantial portion of the freight moving into, out of, and through Missouri is carried on trains. In 2018, 414 million tons of freight, valued at $552 billion, was shipped by rail in and across Missouri. Trains carry the largest share (43%) of freight moving in and through Missouri. Cargo shipped from Missouri to elsewhere include farm products, chemicals, vehicles and parts. Rail traffic carrying freight is generally through traffic on the Union Pacific Railroad. The main track is a double track line with a new second bridge crossing the Moreau River, completed in 2013, and a spur line running from the Missouri Boulevard and Water Street area to just east of MO 179/Truman Boulevard. A second branch also runs from Cole Junction Road and MO 179, while a third spur runs eastward to Militia Drive. A third spur, constructed in 2023 and 2024, connects the rail line to the CART site (see above). According to the SFRP, several of Missouri’s railroad corridors are close to or are exceeding capacity (Figure 5.34). These corridors represent segments that currently exceed capacity (LOS F) or that may exceed capacity in the future if trends continue (LOS E). The Union Pacific Line between Jefferson City and Boonville, carrying on to Kansas City, is shown as a LOS F. All other corridors in Missouri are operating at a LOS of C or better with additional capacity available for freight. Figure 5.34 Railroad existing level of service - 2022 SOURCE: 2022 MISSOURI SATE FREIGHT AND RAIL PLAN DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 102 RAIL (PASSENGER) The 283-mile Missouri River Runner Amtrak service line is only one of three national passenger train routes in Missouri, with a station located in Jefferson City. The Missouri River Runner, a state funded route, provides service, twice daily, between St. Louis and Kansas City; connecting passengers to other rail connections that go on to Chicago, Los Angeles, San Antonio, and points in between. The Missouri River Runner includes stops in Kirkwood, Washington, Hermann, Jefferson City, Sedalia, Warrensburg, Lee’s Summit and Independence (see Figure 5.35). Figure 5.35 Missouri Passenger Rail Service SOURCE: MODOT DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 103 According to the 2022 Missouri State Freight and Rail Plan (SFRP), 82% of Missourians live within 60 miles of passenger rail service. All residents within the CAMPO region live within 12 miles of the Jefferson City Amtrak Station, with the most densely populated areas of the urban core being within 5 miles. Passenger rail in Missouri is seen as a growing industry for business travelers, students and commuters alike. Given the expected population growth in some areas, passenger rail will continue to be an important option for travelers in Missouri. According to Amtrak, 2023 ridership on the Missouri River Runner returned to Pre-Covid 19 levels, with 153,181 riders. Figure 5.36 depicts ridership in the past seven years. Note the temporary decline in ridership in 2020 and 2021 during the Covid-19 pandemic. The SFRP highlighted the Missouri River Runner line, stating the following: “Notably, the Missouri River Runner provides an alternative travel mode along the heavily traveled I-70 corridor between St. Louis and Kansas City and gives rise to significant benefits in Missouri through travel/transportation, reduced energy consumption, safety and tourism/visitor spending. Additional benefits of the Missouri River Runner include cost savings for residents, businesses and government. Missouri residents and visitors enjoy $6.5 million in annual transportation cost savings each year because of the Missouri River Runner service. Other cost savings linked to the service include $1.4 million in annual savings associated with a reduced fatality rate and $160,000 in annual savings resulting from less wear and tear on Missouri roadways. Additionally, travelers on Missouri passenger rail services increase the economic development potential of station area land. Passenger service can also have a positive impact on the environment as moving trips from other modes to rail, emissions per passenger mile is reduced.” - 2022 MISSOURI STATE FREIGHT AND RAIL PLAN SOURCE: 2022 MISSOURI STATE FREIGHT AND RAIL PLAN Figure 5.36 Missouri River Runner Ridership SOURCE: RAIL PASSENGERS ASSOCIATION – AMTRAK FACT SHEET 2023 DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 104 TRENDS IN TRANSPORTATION Transportation planning integrates a wide range of topics and disciplines. As such, trends and technological advancements in varying industries are very impactful to the evolution of transportation infrastructure and future demands. According to the American Planning Association (APA), emerging trends within the transportation and infrastructure sectors are important to long-range and current planning processes, to practice strategic foresight during community visioning processes, for scenario planning, or simply to inform future decision-making. With the fast pace of technology and speed of communication, national and global trends will be felt locally in the near future. Some of the trends include the following: ELECTRIFICATION AND VEHICLE AUTONOMY Electric Vehicles (EVs) and Vehicle-to-grid Technology - Shortfalls and failures in the national electric grid are highlighting increased demand from EVs. Simultaneously, “EV batteries can be integrated into the grid and help balance peak energy times by serving as energy storage that can be charged or discharged as needed. They can also be used as backup power supplies during power outages. Volkswagen has announced it will begin a bidirectional charging pilot in Sweden in the coming months.” – APA Foresight Research 2024 In Missouri, the Electric Vehicle Task Force was established by Senate Bill 262 in 2021. According to the Missouri Department of Revenue, the goal of the task force is to bring together energy and policy leaders from both the private and public sectors to analyze and make recommendations regarding the impact of electric vehicle adoption on Missouri’s transportation funding. Figure 5.37 shows the numbers and types of vehicles registered in Missouri in 2022; 17,900 vehicles were electric and 10,400 were plugin hybrids. MaaS (Mobilty as a Service) – A MaaS platform would be an application or service that manages all the travelers needs across multiple modes; ticketing, transfers, and reservations would all be handled by the service. Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) – Avs are becoming more prevalent. According to the California Department of Motor Vehicles, 40 AV companies were licensed to drive in California in 2022. While several AV crashes have occurred in the last few years, improvements to the technology continue and the industry is growing. In 2023, The Missouri Senate Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee voted in favor of Senate Bill 188, which would allow autonomous trucking platoons to operate on Missouri roads. With an identical bill in the House, the bill could take effect soon, if approved. TRANSIT AND MICROMOBILITY Transit Impacts and Need – In a 2024 report an analysis of the economic impacts of transit showed an overall economic impact of transit in Missouri at $4.05 Billion annually. The report, Economic Impact of Public Transit in the State of Missouri (2019-2023), was produced by St. Louis University. The study, which included survey responses from JEFFTRAN, highlighted trends in ridership, transit employment, operations costs, and capital investments. For Jefferson City (JEFFTRAN), the study found that between 2019 and 2023 riders generated some $2.5 million in annual consumer spending. Moreover, JeffTran spent an annual average of $3.0 million for the combination of Figure 5.37 Types of vehicle registered Missouri - 2022 Vehicles Registered in Missouri in 2022 Electric (EV) 17,900 Plug-In Hybrid Electric (PHEV) 10,400 Hybrid Electric (HEV) 95,100 Biodiesel 61,300 Ethanol/Flex (E85) 576,700 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) 1,200 Propane 100 Hydrogen 0 Methanol 0 Gasoline 4,444,600 Diesel 176,200 Unknown Fuel 38,900 SOURCE: US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE REGISTRATION COUNTS FROM TRANSATLAS WITH DATA FROM EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 105 capital investments, labor costs, and non-labor operations. The transit services of JeffTran trigger $11.9 million in Cole County economic activity per average year; supporting $3.2 million in household earnings and 92 jobs. Micromobility and E-bikes – Locally and nationally, micromobility is increasing. These lightweight, single- person vehicles (bikes, ebikes, scooters), are impacting planning in the CAMPO region and seemingly everywhere. Demand for infrastructure supporting these modes is challenged by sharing space with pedestrians and vehicles. According to the US Department of Energy, in 2022, there were 1.1 million e-bikes sold in the United States, almost four times as many as were sold in 2019 (Figure 5.38). Comment received from public engagement during the development of the Capital Area Active Transportation Plan (ATP), points to a marked increase in e- bikes on the Jefferson City Greenway. Implementation of new policy and code recommendations from the ATP will hopefully improve overall safety. Declining Road Safety – According to the American Planning Association (APA), among industrialized nations, the U.S. is the deadliest for pedestrians. Pedestrian deaths have increased by 77% from 2010 to 2021 in the U.S., while in most other industrialized countries they have gone down. In 2022, 7,500 pedestrians were killed in traffic accidents, a 41-year high. People of color are disproportionately affected by this trend. And in 2021, almost 1,000 bicyclists died in motor vehicle crashes, a five percent increase from 2020. More needs to be done to reduce and/or eliminate these deaths. In 2021, there was an increase in the number of fatalities for vulnerable roadway users (VRU) in Missouri, according to MoDOT. Pedestrian and bicycle fatalities decreased by 8% and 2% respectively, however motorcycle fatalities increased by 34%. Figure 5.39 depicts an increase in Missouri VRU deaths. The CAMPO Region had 3 VRU fatalities between 2018 and 2022; one fatality was a pedestrian, while the other two were bicycle riders. Figure 5.38 US E-Bike Sales SOURCE: US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 106 Figure 5.39 VRU Fatalities in Missouri SOURCE: MODOT 2023 DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 107 6 - IMPLEMENTATION & FINANCIAL PLAN DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 108 Figure 6.1 Project Implementation Process SOURCE: CAMPO / MODOT IMPLEMENTATION This section outlines how the CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) can be funded and implemented, including: • Implementation of Strategies • Unfunded Illustrative Projects • Funding Resources • Fiscally Constrained Investment Plan CAMPO actively plans for and facilitates improvements to the region’s transportation system through an inclusive process, which includes the general public, city and county leaders, regional stakeholders, and the Technical Committee and Board of Directors. The Vision, Goals, and Strategies outlined in Section 2 guide implementation activities and play an integral role in the development of required plans and documents as outlined below. Figures 6.1 and 6.2 highlight the process for implementing the CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 109 Title VI Plan Public Participation Plan & Limited English Proficiency Plan Unified Planning Work Program Figure 6.2 CAMPO Planning Products Process Source: CAMPO UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM (UPWP) The UPWP in updated annually and includes a detailed budget and description of tasks and activities that CAMPO will work on during that period. The tasks and activities outline in the UPWP are directly guided by the goals and strategies outlined in the MTP. These tasks and activities are integral to CAMPO providing service to member communities and to the continued success of the planning process and state-wide planning framework. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) As stated previously in this section, the annually updated TIP is a 5-year financial program of transportation projects to be implemented within the Metropolitan Planning Area. Projects in the TIP are consistent with strategies discussed in the MTP and are developed in cooperation with the MoDOT, local jurisdictions, and public transportation operators. Projects outlined in the TIP constitute the first five years of fiscally constrained projects to be implemented in the CAMPO MPA. The TIP is located in Appendix E. CITY OF JEFFERSON/CAMPO TITLE VI PROGRAM - INCLUDING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN (PPP) & LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PLAN (LEP) The development of the MTP is consistent with the City of Jefferson Title VI Program. CAMPO is required to seek input from the public and stakeholders in the development of all planning documents. This process is outlined in the PPP and reflected in the strategies laid out in the LEP and Title VI Program. CAMPO provides the following groups a reasonable opportunity to comment on the transportation plan; individuals, affected public agencies, representatives of public transportation employees, public ports, freight shippers, providers of freight transportation services, private and public transportations providers and their representatives, representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled, and any other interested parties Metropolitan Transportation Plan Priorities (Projects and Strategies) Transportation Improvement Program DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 110 IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIES The implementation strategies (Figure 6.3) expand on goals outlined in Section 2, and include a schedule for addressing the strategies over the next five years – Short Range (1-2 years), Long Range (3-5 years), and Ongoing (Current activity that CAMPO is working on). As strategies are implemented and funding is made available, strategies or projects may be programmed into the UPWP, TIP, or as a local project. Figure 6.3 Implementation Strategies 1. Improve safety and security for all travel modes Timing a. Identify locations for safety improvements Short Range b. Improve collaboration between CAMPO and public safety agencies Short Range c. Assist with railroad related safety and access improvements such as the boarding platform, crossings, and right-of-way areas Long Range d. Encourage collaboration between law enforcement and transit agencies concerning security camera use Short Range 2. Support economic development and tourism throughout the region a. Seek funding and provide support for improvements and access to the airport, transit, and the river port Long Range b. Improve accessibility to recreational and cultural opportunities Long Range c. Expanding wayfinding throughout the region Long Range d. Support creation of shuttle services for local and regional events Short Range 3. Support regional partnerships and planning continuity across the region. a. Develop data in support of member jurisdictions’ comprehensive plans Ongoing b. Provide a forum for sharing planning best practices or processes Ongoing c. Strengthen collaboration with regional planning agencies Ongoing d. Support regional and statewide transportation needs Ongoing e. Collaborate in and support planning efforts addressing affordable housing options and housing choice Ongoing 4. Improve efficiency in system management, operations, and movement of people/freight a. Maintain and update a regional travel demand model Long Range b. Support access management programs Long Range c. Identify current or potential congestion locations or bottlenecks Short Range d. Identify potential locations for connection improvements Short Range e. Improve existing inter-modal and multi-modal facilities Long Range f. Support improvements to freight and people movement via rail, air, and river port access Long Range g. Improve inter-city and inter-regional transit operations and connectivity Long Range h. Improve parking and services specific to freight hauler needs Long Range i. Support development and implementation of local parking studies Short Range 5. Support land use practices that promote quality of life and economic vitality a. Develop and maintain land use data in support of MPO and regional planning partner needs Ongoing b. Support member jurisdictions’ plans for connectivity to parks, trails, and open space Ongoing c. Provide mapping and data development support to local communities Ongoing 6. Seek secure and reliable funding a. Assist stakeholders in seeking grants and other funding sources Ongoing b. Maintain a prioritized comprehensive list of illustrative transportation projects Ongoing c. Maintain the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) as federally required Ongoing d. Maintain a list of funding sources and opportunities Ongoing e. Alert member jurisdictions of available funding resources as they are announced Ongoing f. Collaborate with regional partners in leveraging funds or applying for grants Ongoing 7. Improve accessibility and mobility a. Identify barriers to pedestrian and bicycle accessibility and mobility Short Range b. Support development of ADA transition plans among member jurisdictions Short Range c. Support improvements to and expansion of passenger rail service Long Range d. Maintain and implement the Capital Area Active Transportation Plan Long Range e. Maintain and implement the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan Long Range f. Maintain program documents that support improvements to accessibility such as the Title VI Plan, Limited English Proficiency Plan (LEP), and Public Participation Plan (PPP) Short Range 8. Maintain a resilient transportation system a. Encourage preservation of motorized and non-motorized transportation corridors for future growth Short Range b. Maintain a database of existing infrastructure and assets for use by regional partners Ongoing c. Develop and maintain an accurate Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Ongoing d. Provide support in maintaining the MoDOT Transportation Management System (TMS) Short Range e. Support implementation of individual or collaborative pavement and bridge management systems Short Range f. Maintain an updated performance management plan Short Range Strategies continue on following page. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 111 9. Provide a platform for multi-modal transportation education a. Facilitate, promote, and participate in local and regional educational activities Ongoing b. Develop and disseminate educational tools and resources such as brochures, maps, videos, and other media Ongoing c. Maintain a consistent public outreach schedule to keep jurisdictions, planning partners, and the public informed about new innovations or transportation trends Ongoing d. Strengthen CAMPO’s social media presence Ongoing STRATEGIES FROM OTHER ADOPTED PLANS Additional strategies can be found in the other adopted CAMPO plans in the appendices. Most of the strategies found in those plans are reflected in the list above. Other plans that have identified potential illustrative projects include: • 2023 Capital Area Active Plan - Appendix F • 2021 Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan - Appendix G • 2015 CAMPO Regional Wayfinding Plan - Appendix I CAPITAL AREA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN The Capital Area Active Transportation Plan, Appendix F, was adopted in January 2024 and is intended as a resource to improve safety, connectivity, and mobility for pedestrian and bicycle users in the CAMPO region. In addition to infrastructure recommendations, the implementation strategies in the Active Transportation Plan provide guidance for network implementation, addressing issues such as wayfinding, education, programming, maintenance, multi-mobility, as well as codes, ordinances, policies, and programs. The following strategies are outlined in the Capital Area Active Transportation Plan: Implement Transformative Projects • Establish Urban Connectors, Neighborhood Connectors, and Suburban Connectors Create a Network That is Easy to Navigate • Implement CAMPO’s 2015 Regional Wayfinding Plan • Install wayfinding kiosks and local destination signage at all trailheads • Implement trail and sidepath striping Create Space for Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities • Prioritize corridor acquisition efforts • Study on-street parking need on existing streets • Implement alley conversions for shared active mobility opportunities Follow NACTO, AASHTO, and Other Best Practices • Upgrade non-standard facilities • Utilize traffic calming measures • Apply shared-street facilities appropriately Include CPTED Principles Within the Network • Provide amenities to enhance safety • Increase network activity Create a Diverse, Inclusive and Accessible Network • Provide inclusive facilities for all ages & abilities • Provide facilities & amenities for a diversity of users • Incorporate accessibility throughout the network Incorporate the JeffTran Bus System into the Network • Install bicycle racks on buses • Strategically incorporate e-bike docking stations at bus stops • Provide covered bus stops • Connect existing bus stops with active transportation infrastructure • Implement public awareness campaigns Coordinate Funding Efforts • Pursue RAISE grant funding for regional projects • Coordinate funding for all facility types • Create partnerships to fund mutually beneficial projects Maintain the Network • Sweep on-street facilities • Formalize a pavement management program • Provide and maintain shade trees Promote the Network via Education, Outreach, and Programming • Establish an Active Transportation • Committee • Establish recognition and foster awareness • Provide education & programming Measure Progress • Measure progress toward meeting plan recommendations • Document network use • Revisit and update plans Update Development Codes • Streambank protection • Trail use code • Sidewalk ordinance • Development-triggered sidewalk construction requirements • Variance criteria • Fee-in-Lieu program • Sidewalk and trail cost-sharing program • Update code standards & language Create and/or Update Policies, Programs, and Ordinances • Sidewalk survey & analysis • Complete Streets ordinance • Safe Passing ordinance • First- and last-mile connectivity • Connectivity within and between modes DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 112 ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS For illustrative purposes, the financial plan includes additional projects that could be completed were additional resources available. Some items on these lists have cost estimates or cost ranges associated with them. Projects in this list were developed through the use of a travel-demand model, stakeholder workgroup, and public input. The list was then reviewed and approved by Technical Committee and Board of Directors. The Illustrative Project List (Figures 6.4 – 6.21) includes the following: 1. ROAD AND BRIDGE MAP AND LIST – ORGANIZED IN TIERS 2. MULTI-MODAL • Rail Projects (Passenger and Freight) • Airport Projects • River Port Projects • Transit Projects o JEFFTRAN Program of Projects – An Illustrative list of transit projects that may be completed in the next 5 to 10 years dependent upon the Jefferson City annual budget and availability of federal funds. 3. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS MAP AND LIST – ORGANIZED IN TIERS Active Transportation Projects have been listed without full details. For full project information, please refer to the Capital Area Active Transportation Plan: www.jeffersoncitymo.gov/campo • Pedestrian & Bicycle Projects • Signed Routes • Sidewalks • Long-Range Pedestrian & Bicycle Projects • Intersection Projects 4. MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP AND LIST • Major Upgrades to Existing Roads • Future Roads Additional illustrative projects can be sourced from the goals and strategies outlined in this plan and found in the other adopted CAMPO plans in the appendices. Most of the illustrative items found in those plans are reflected in the following figures. Other plans that have identified potential illustrative projects include: • 2023 Capital Area Active Transportation Plan - Appendix F • 2021 Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan - Appendix G • 2015 CAMPO Regional Wayfinding Plan - Appendix I DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 113 ROAD AND BRIDGE PROJECTS These projects were developed through the use of a travel-demand model, stakeholder workgroup, and public input. The list was then reviewed, organized, and approved by Technical Committee and Board of Directors using the Tier system outlined below. NOTE: THE REFERENCE NUMBERS USED IN THE FOLLOWING TABLES AND MAPS DO NOT DENOTE PRIORITY. TIER 1 •Regionally Significant: Impacting network users from outside the region and having major impacts on freight movement moving through the region •Recognized as a high priority by Board of Directors, stakeholders, and public •Supported by the 2045 Travel Demand Model •Supports increased motorized and non-motorized safety and system performance •Location has a high level of AADT* and/or crashes TIER 2 •Recognized as a high priority by Board of Directors, stakeholders, and public •Most projects in this Tier are supported by the Travel Demand Model •Supports increased motorized and non-motorized safety and system performance •Location has a high level of AADT* and/or crashes TIER 3 •Designated as a need by stakeholders and general public •Some projects in this Tier are supported by the Travel Demand Model •Projects in this tier may be completed in phases, impacting cost and date of completion •Supports increased motorized and non-motorized safety and system performance DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 114 Figure 6.4 Illustrative Projects Map – Road & Bridge DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 115 Figure 6.5 Illustrative Projects – Road & Bridge # Juris. Location Need Term Cost Tier 1 INTERCHANGES 1 JEFF US 50 / Truman Bl / Country Club Dr Interchange Improve safety, congestion, capacity, and pedestrian accommodations Near-Term 5-10 years $5M-$10M 3 JEFF US 50/63/54 Interchange (Tri-Level) Improve safety, capacity, and pedestrian accommodations; study may be needed Near-Term 5- 10 years $50M 5 JEFF US 50/63 / Clark Ave Interchange - includes Miller and Dunklin intersections Improve safety, congestion, capacity, and pedestrian accommodations Near-Term 5- 10 years $3M 6 JEFF US 54 / Ellis Blvd / Southwest Blvd Interchange (Includes Christy/ Southridge/ Lorenzo Greene) Improve safety, congestion, capacity, and pedestrian accommodations Near-Term 5- 10 years $5M- $10M 9 JEFF US 50 / Dix Rd Interchange Improve safety, capacity, congestion, and pedestrian accommodations; lack of left turn lanes Near-Term 5- 10 years $5M- $10M CORRIDORS 2 JEFF Country Club Dr Corridor - Truman Blvd to Rainbow Dr Improve safety, congestion, capacity, and pedestrian accommodations Long-Term 10 years< $1M-$5M 4 JEFF US 50/63 (Rex-Whitton Expressway) Corridor - US 54 to Lafayette St Improve safety, capacity, congestion, pedestrian accommodations; may include widening, grade separations, and/or outer roads Long-Term 10 years< $10M< 7 JEFF Missouri Blvd Corridor - S. Country Club Dr to Howerton Ct Improve safety, congestion, capacity, and pedestrian accommodations Long-Term 10 years< $5M- $10M 8 JEFF Missouri Blvd Corridor - Stoneridge Pkwy to US 50 Improve safety, congestion, capacity, and pedestrian accommodations Long-Term 10 years< $5M- $10M 10 JEFF US 54/63 (westbound) - MO 94 to just south of Missouri River Improve safety, capacity, and congestion; additional lanes needed Long-Term 10 years< $10M< DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 116 Figure 6.6 Illustrative Projects – Road & Bridge # Juris. Location Need Term Cost Tier 2 INTERCHANGES 11 JEFF US 54 EB Ramps / Stadium Interchange (includes Christy/Jefferson/Madison Intersections) Improve safety, congestion, capacity, and pedestrian accommodations Near-Term 5-10 years $1M-$10M 13 HOLT US 54 / Center St Interchange Improve safety, congestion, capacity, and pedestrian accommodations Long-Term 10 years< $1M-$10M 19 CALL US 54 / S. Summit Dr. Interchange - Additional Ramps Improve safety and capacity Long-Term 10 years< $1M-$5M 30 HOLT Simon Blvd Corridor - S. Summit Dr to US 54 Improve safety, capacity, and pedestrian accommodations Long-Term 10 years< $5M-$10M 43 JEFF MO 179/ US 50/ Missouri Blvd. Improve safety, capacity, and pedestrian accommodations Long-Term 10 years< $25M INTERSECTIONS 12 JEFF MO 179 and Truman Blvd Intersection Improve safety, congestion, capacity, and pedestrian accommodations Long-Term 10 years< $1M-$5M 14 WARD Route B / Ashbury Way / Falcon Ln / Friendship Rd Intersection Improve safety, capacity, congestion, and pedestrian accommodations; traffic calming needed Near-Term 5-10 years $1M-$5M 15 WARD Route B / M / W Intersection Improve safety, capacity, congestion, and pedestrian accommodations; traffic calming needed Near-Term 5-10 years $5M-$10M 16 WARD Route B / Tanner Bridge Intersection Improve safety, capacity, congestion, and pedestrian accommodations; traffic calming needed Near-Term 5-10 years $2M 21 COLE US 54 / Rockport Hill Rd Intersection Improve safety and capacity at crossover Near-Term 5-10 years NA 22 COLE US 50 / Henwick Ln / Kaylor Bridge Rd Intersection Improve safety and capacity at crossover Near-Term 5-10 years NA 25 JEFF W. Truman Blvd / Scott Station Rd Intersection Improve safety, capacity, and pedestrian accommodations Near-Term 5-10 years < $500k 26 JEFF Southwest Blvd / Stadium Blvd Intersection Improve safety, capacity, and pedestrian accommodations Near-Term 5-10 years $500k- $5M 27 JEFF Ellis Blvd / Green Berry Rd Intersection Improve safety, capacity, and pedestrian accommodations Near-Term 5-10 years $500k- $5M 28 JEFF Bald Hill Rd / Seven Hills Rd Intersection Improve safety, capacity, and pedestrian accommodations Near-Term 5-10 years $500k-$5M CORRIDORS 17 TAOS Route Y / Big Meadows Rd Corridor Improve safety and pedestrian accommodations Long-Term 10 years< NA 18 TAOS WARD COLE Routes M Corridor - Route B to US 50 Improve safety and pedestrian accommodations Near-Term 5-10 years $500K- $1M 23 JEFF MO 179 / Rockhill Rd Corridor - Industrial Dr to Sue Dr Improve safety, congestion, capacity, and pedestrian accommodations Long-Term 10 years< $500k- $5M 24 JEFF West Edgewood Corridor- Stadium Blvd to Creek Trail Improve safety, capacity, and pedestrian accommodations Near-Term 5-10 years $500k- $5M 31 JEFF Monroe St Corridor - US 50 to Woodlawn Ave Improve safety, capacity, and pedestrian accommodations Near-Term 5-10 years $5M BRIDGES 20 JEFF High St. viaduct replacement Replace High St / Wears Creek Viaduct (includes Missouri Blvd/Wears Creek bridge) Long-Term 10 years< $5M-$10M 29 JEFF Algoa Rd Culvert Improve safety and stormwater impacts - aged culvert Near-Term 5-10 years $1M DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 117 Figure 6.7 Illustrative Projects – Road & Bridge # Juris. Location Need Term Cost Tier 3 INTERSECTIONS 32 HOLT S. Summit Dr / Perrey Dr / Hibernia Ln / Holt Ln Intersection Improve safety, capacity, and pedestrian accommodations Near-Term 5-10 years NA 34 HOLT N. Summit Dr / Mars St Intersection Improve safety, capacity, and stormwater/drainage issues Near-Term 5-10 years NA 35 HOLT Van Horn Rd / Julie Ln Intersection Improve safety and capacity Near-Term 5-10 years NA 36 HOLT Nieman Rd / Halifax Rd / Major Terr Intersection Improve safety, capacity, and pedestrian accommodations Near-Term 5-10 years NA 40 JEFF Swifts Hwy / Jefferson St Intersection Improve safety, capacity, and pedestrian accommodations Long-Term 10 years< $50K- $100k 42 STMA Route T/D & Bus 50 W Intersection Improve capacity for freight traffic; maintaining pedestrian accommodations Near-Term 5-10 years $500k- $1M CORRIDORS 33 HOLT Spalding Rd / Park Improve safety, capacity, and stormwater/drainage issues Near-Term 5-10 years NA 41 JEFF Madison St Corridor - Dunklin St to US 54 Improve safety, congestion, capacity, and pedestrian accommodations Near-Term 5-10 years $1M-$5M BRIDGES 37 HOLT E Simon Blvd Culvert (~0.4 miles east of Jefferson Rd) Improve safety and stormwater impacts - undersized culvert Near-Term 5-10 years $1M 44 COLE Scott Station Road over Union Pacific Railroad Improve safety and condition Near-Term 5-10 years $1M COMPLETE STREETS 38 JEFF W. Main St Complete Streets - Brooks St to Rock Hill Rd Complete Streets - Improve accommodations for all modes (vehicles, transit, bicycle riders, and pedestrians) Long-Term 10 years< $5M- $10M 39 JEFF E. High St Complete Streets - E. McCarty St to Marshall St Complete Streets - Improve accommodations for all modes (vehicles, transit, bicycle riders, and pedestrians) Long-Term 10 years< $5M- $10M DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 118 MULTI-MODAL PROJECTS FIGURE 6.8 ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS – MULTI-MODAL # Juris. Location Need Term Cost Airport 500 JEFF Jefferson City Memorial Airport - Runway 12/30 Extension and widening of runway 12/30 Long-Term 10 years< $10M< 501 JEFF Jefferson City Memorial Airport - Air Traffic Control Tower Replace sub-standard air traffic control tower with new construction Near-Term 5-10 years $1M-$5M 502 JEFF Jefferson City Memorial Airport - Runway 9/27 Reconstruction of Runway 9/27 Near-Term 5-10 years $1M-$5M 503 JEFF Jefferson City Memorial Airport - Runway 9 and 9/27 Relocate and Extend Runway 9/27 Long-Term 10 years< $5M-$10M 504 JEFF Jefferson City Memorial Airport - ARFF/SRE Facility Rehabilitate Facility Housing Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) trucks and snow removal equipment (SRE) Near-Term 5-10 years $500k- $1M 505 JEFF Jefferson City Memorial Airport - Taxiway A Reconstruction Reconstruction of Taxiway A Near-Term 5-10 years $5M-$10M River Port 600 CAMPO Missouri River Port Construction of a port facility in either Callaway or Cole County Near-Term 5-10 years $10M< Rail 700 JEFF Amtrak Station Connectivity Improve connectivity and access for passenger rail users between Amtrak Station and other transportation services and local amenities Near-Term 5-10 years $1M-$5M 701 JEFF Capital Area Rail Terminal (CART) rail spur Phase II - Construction of rail spur to increase capacity Near-Term 5-10 years $2M JEFFTRAN PROGRAM OF PROJECTS Figure 6.9 outlines an Illustrative list of transit projects that may be completed in the next 5 to 10 years dependent upon the Jefferson City annual budget and availability of federal funds. Figure 6.9 JEFFTRAN Program of Projects SOURCE: JEFFTRAN Description Est. Total Funding by Others Local Replace paratransit widebody cutaway buses 600,000$ $ 480,000 120,000$ Upgrade/replace fare card system 150,000$ $ 120,000 30,000$ Transit facility repairs & improvements 50,000$ 40,000$ 10,000$ Security upgrades for transit facilities 30,000$ $ 24,000 6,000$ Upgrade transit transfer facilities 150,000$ $ 120,000 30,000$ Purchase and install bus shelters and amenities at various locations in Jefferson City 30,000$ 24,000$ 6,000$ Purchase back-up generator & switches for transit and CM facilities 250,000$ 200,000$ 50,000$ Replace low-floor route buses 8,000,000$ $ 6,400,000 1,600,000$ Construct replacement transit/central maintenace/bus barn/bus wash facilities 40,000,000$ 32,000,000$ 8,000,000$ Transit admin facility rehab 75,000$ $ 60,000 15,000$ Purchase and install additional transit traveler kiosks (each)15,000$ 12,000$ 3,000$ Add bike racks/benches at passenger transfer facilities and selected bus stops 25,000$ $ 20,000 5,000$ Charging systems/electrical upgrades for buses 600,000$ 480,000$ 120,000$ Add crosswalks and supporting bike/ped amenities to transit bus shelters 60,000$ $ 48,000 12,000$ Add solar lighting/occupancy indicators for selected bus shelters 35,000$ 28,000$ 7,000$ Replace mobile column lifts for buses 100,000$ $ 80,000 20,000$ Add vehicle electric charging stations and associated infrastructure 50,000$ 40,000$ 10,000$ Time-tracking software for transit employees 15,000$ $ 12,000 3,000$ Passenger Engagement/Bus infotainment system, including digital displays 250,000$ 200,000$ 50,000$ Pre-trip inspection software 30,000$ $ 24,000 6,000$ Purchase and install heating system for bus wash building 35,000$ 28,000$ 7,000$ Purchase and install vehicle operations monitoring system 332,000$ $ 265,600 66,400$ Total 50,882,000$ 40,705,600$ 10,176,400$ DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 119 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS Figure 6.10 – 6.19 outlines multiple illustrative projects lists taken from the Capital Area Active Transportation Plan. Adopted in January 2024, the plan includes a comprehensive list of projects that may be completed in the next 5 to 20 years dependent upon the availability of federal, state, and local funds. The Capital Area Active Transportation Plan lists projects in the five categories below. NOTE: The following lists are meant as quick reference guide to projects contained in the Capital Area Active Transportation Plan. For full project information, please refer to the Capital Area Active Transportation Plan on the CAMPO webpage at: www.jeffersoncitymo.gov/campo • Pedestrian & Bicycle Projects (69 packages) – See full plan for phasing / prioritization information o Cole County / Apache Flats: 3 Packages o Holts Summit: 5 Packages o Jefferson City: 54 Packages o Saint Martins: 2 Packages o Taos: 1 Package o Wardsville: 4 Packages • Sidewalks (15 Packages) - See full plan for phasing / prioritization information o Cole County / Apache Flats: 3 Packages o Holts Summit: 1 Package o Jefferson City: 9 Packages o Saint Martins: 1 Package o Taos: 1 Package o Wardsville: 1 Package • Long-Range Projects o Long-Range Greenways - Lohman Greenway, Neighorn Branch Trail, Rising Creek Trail, Wardsville Trail West, Bunker Hill Trail o Long-Range Sidepaths - Industrial Dr., W. McCarty St., Wildwood Ave., Mission Dr., Rock Ridge Rd., Stoneridge Parkway, Route T (Highway 50 to Henwick) o Long-Range Sharrows - Dove Lake Road • Signed Routes • Intersection Projects PHASING PLAN The phasing plan (Figure 6.10 is informed by package tier designations as well as by geography. o Phase 1 (the spine) expands the reach of the Wears Creek Greenway, providing critical connections across Hwy 50 and a connection to St. Martins. West Main Street’s conversion to a complete street and the completion of bike lanes on Dunklin are also incorporated. o Phase 2 (essential destinations) includes separated paths to essential services as well as connections between schools along Stadium Boulevard and the Wears Creek Greenway. o Phase 3 (infill) - While Phase 2 begins the on-road and greenway connections to Holt’s Summit and St. Martins, Phase 3 includes greenway connections to Wardsville and Taos as well as neighborhood connections throughout the Capital Area. o Phases 4 and 5 culminate with secondary signed route and sharrow connections to surrounding communities as well as supplemental neighborhood connections. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 120 FIGURE 6.10 ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS – ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN – PHASING PLAN MAP Source: 2023 Capital Area Active Transportation Plan The map above and following lists are meant as quick reference guide to projects contained in the Capital Area Active Transportation Plan. For full project information, please refer to the Capital Area Active Transportation Plan on the CAMPO webpage at: www.jeffersoncitymo.gov/campo Discussed in greater detail during in the Active Transportation Plan, project tiers do not necessarily reflect the order of implementation. Tier 1 projects reflect those of higher priority, but not necessarily those of the highest levels of connectivity between other Tier 1 packages if implemented before all others. The package tiers are a guide for implementation, rather than the hard-set order of implementation. Phasing, on the other hand, reflects an ordered approach to creating connectivity across the network in an orderly manner. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 121 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS – PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE PROJECTS Key Package Tier Facility Type Jefferson City 1 Greenway Apache Flats 2 Sidepath Wardsville 3 Complete Street Holts Summit 4 Alley Conversion St. Martins 5 Cycle Track Taos Bike Lanes Climbing Lane Sharrow Signed Route Sidewalk Figure 6.11 Illustrative Projects – Active Transportation Pedestrian & Bicycle – Tier 1 Package Tier Segment Facility Type HS-4 1 Turkey Creek Trail Greenway 1 Highway 391 Sharrow 1 Oilwell Road Sharrow 1 Greenway Drive Sidepath JC-1 1 Country Club Drive North Sidepath JC-25 1 Southwest Boulevard Sidepath 1 Sunrise Lane Sidepath JC-26 1 Ellis Boulevard Sidepath 1 Southridge Drive Sidepath JC-39 1 Stadium Boulevard Cycle Track 1 Stadium Boulevard Sidepath JC-42 1 Island Connector Trail Greenway JC-45 1 East Dunklin Street Bike Lanes 1 West Dunklin Street Bike Lanes 1 Dunklin Street East Sharrow 1 Dunklin Street West Sharrow 1 Bolivar Street Sidepath JC-52 1 Country Club Drive South Sidepath JC-54 1 Wears Creek Greenway Greenway JC-8 1 Julie Trail Greenway 1 Maywood Trail Greenway 1 Hard Rock Drive Sidepath SM-1 1 US Highway 50 Sidepath 1 Traci Drive Sharrow Figure 6.12 Illustrative Projects – Active Transportation Pedestrian & Bicycle – Tier 2 Package Tier Segment Facility Type AF-1 2 Hunters Run Road Bike Lanes 2 King Ridge Road Bike Lanes 2 Arden Trail Greenway 2 Arden Drive Sharrow 2 Rainbow Hills Road Sharrow 2 Wardsville Road Sharrow 2 Rainbow Drive Sidepath AF-2 2 Binder Lake Trail Greenway HS-2 2 Nieman Road Sharrow 2 Summer Tree Lane Sharrow 2 Halifax & Nieman Road Sidepath HS-3 2 Center Street Sidepath 2 Karen Road Sidepath 2 Simon Boulevard Sidepath 2 Summit Drive Sidepath JC-12 2 Leandra Trail Greenway 2 Fairgrounds Road Sidepath 2 Leandra Lane Sidepath 2 Scruggs Station Road Sidepath JC-14 2 Jaycee Park Trail Greenway 2 Gettysburg Trail Greenway 2 Graystone Trail Greenway JC-17 2 Diamond Ridge Bike Lanes 2 Sardonyx Road Bike Lanes 2 Wildwood Drive Sidepath JC-18 2 Ten Mile Drive Sharrow 2 Missouri Boulevard Sidepath JC-19 2 Commerce Drive Sidepath 2 Highway 179 Sidepath JC-2 2 Truman Trail Greenway 2 Scott Station Road Sidepath JC-20 2 Mission to Southridge Trail Greenway JC-24 2 Debra Avenue Sharrow 2 Thompson Street Sharrow 2 Cedar Ridge Trails Greenway 2 Duane Swift Connector Greenway 2 McKay Trail Greenway 2 Stadium Trail Greenway 2 Cedar Hill Road Sidepath JC-41 2 West Main Street Bike Lanes 2 Capital Avenue Sharrow 2 Main Street Sidepath 2 Bolivar Street Sharrow 2 Broadway Street Sharrow 2 Clay Street Sharrow 2 Cliff Street Sharrow JC-48 2 McCarty Street Sidepath JC-49 2 Algoa Road Signed Route 2 Scenic Drive Sharrow 2 St. Louis Road Sharrow 2 Boggs Creek Trail Greenway JC-5 2 Commerce Trail Greenway 2 Hart Street Sharrow JC-6 2 Truman Boulevard Sidepath JC-7 2 Main Street Complete Street Complete Street 2 Main Street Trail Greenway SM-2 2 Parkview Avenue Sharrow 2 Pheasant Run Sharrow 2 Summerhill Drive Sharrow 2 Pheasant Run Trail Greenway W-2 2 Route B Sidepath W-3 2 Falcon Trail Greenway DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 122 Figure 6.13 Illustrative Projects – Active Transportation Pedestrian & Bicycle – Tier 3 Package Tier Segment Facility Type HS-1 3 Holts Summit Trail East Greenway HS-5 3 Cedar City Trail Greenway 3 Summit Drive Sharrow 3 Katy Trail Connector Greenway 3 Autumn Ridge Sidepath 3 Cottonwood Drive Sidepath JC-10 3 Ryder Court Sharrow 3 Tanman Court Sharrow 3 Apache Trail Bike Lanes 3 Big Horn Drive Bike Lanes 3 Big Horn Drive Cycle Track 3 Claradean Trail Greenway 3 Big Horn Drive (north end) Sidepath 3 Horner Road Sidepath JC-13 3 Powerline Trail Greenway 3 Big Horn Drive (south end) Sidepath 3 Old Lohman Road Sidepath JC-22 3 Satinwood & Vieth Drive Bike Lanes JC-23 3 Bunker Hill Trail Greenway 3 Bunker Hill Road Sharrow JC-27 3 Green Berry Acres Trail Greenway 3 Moreau River Trail South Greenway 3 Wardsville Trail West Greenway JC-30 3 Aurora Trail Extension South Greenway 3 Tanner Bridge Road Climbing Lane 3 Aurora Avenue Sharrow 3 Mesa Avenue Sharrow 3 Monroe & Tanner Bridge Road Sharrow 3 Tanner Bridge Road Sharrow JC-31 3 Eastland Drive Bike Lanes JC-32 3 Deer Trail Sharrow 3 Schott Road Sharrow 3 Supercenter Sharrow Sharrow 3 East Elm Street Bike Lanes 3 Deer Trail Trail Greenway JC-33 3 Moreau River Trail East Greenway 3 Moreau River Trail North Greenway 3 Algoa Road Climbing Lane 3 Moreau River Access Road Sharrow JC-4 3 Alameda Drive Bike Lanes 3 Capital Trail Greenway JC-43 3 East High Street Complete Street Complete Street 3 East High Street / West High Street Sharrow 3 West High Street Bike Lanes JC-47 3 East McCarty Street Bike Lanes 3 Benton Street Climbing Lane JC-50 3 Bald Hill Road Climbing Lane 3 East Atchison Street Sharrow JC-50 3 Bald Hill Road Sharrow 3 Cardinal Street Sharrow 3 El Dorado Drive Sharrow 3 Bald Hill Trail Greenway JC-51 3 Madison Street Sharrow 3 Madison Street Sidepath JC-9 3 Dix Road Cycle Track 3 Dix Road Sidepath 3 Boonville Road Sharrow 3 Memorial Park Connection Greenway W-4 3 Wardsville Trail West Greenway 3 Friendship Road & Route B Signed Route Tier 4 and Tier 5 continued on next page. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 123 Figure 6.14 Illustrative Projects – Active Transportation Pedestrian & Bicycle – Tier 4 Package Tier Segment Facility Type AF-3 4 Paradigm Drive Bike Lanes 4 Pioneer Trail Drive Bike Lanes 4 Arden Drive Sharrow 4 Brookview Drive Sharrow 4 Covered Wagon Road Sharrow 4 Gateway Drive Sharrow 4 New Frontier Drive Sharrow 4 Old West Road Sharrow 4 Settlers Ridge Drive Sharrow 4 Pioneer Greenway Greenway JC-15 4 Scarborough Way Sharrow 4 London Way Bike Lanes JC-21 4 Rolling Hills Drive Bike Lanes 4 Southridge Drive Bike Lanes 4 Mission Drive Bike Lanes 4 Cavalier Drive Sharrow 4 Southridge Drive Sharrow JC-28 4 Green Berry Road Sharrow 4 Clark Avenue Bike Lanes 4 Moreau Drive Bike Lanes JC-3 4 Schellridge Road Bike Lanes 4 Schellridge Road Climbing Lane 4 Country Club Drive Sharrow 4 Schellridge Road Sharrow JC-35 4 Belair Drive Climbing Lane 4 Twin Hills Road Climbing Lane 4 Belair Drive Sharrow 4 Leonard Drive Sharrow 4 Schumate Chapel Road Sharrow 4 Southern Air Drive Sharrow 4 Sue Drive Sharrow 4 Twin Hills Road Sharrow 4 Twin Hills Trail Greenway JC-37 4 Myrtle Avenue Climbing Lane 4 Swifts Highway Climbing Lane 4 Dulle Street Sharrow 4 Edmonds Street Sharrow 4 Myrtle Avenue Sharrow 4 Northeast Drive Sharrow 4 Swifts Highway Sharrow JC-40 4 Jefferson Street Sharrow 4 Jefferson Street Bike Lanes JC-44 4 Tanner Way Alley Conversion Alley Conversion 4 Jackson Street Climbing Lane 4 Jackson Street Sharrow 4 Mulberry Street Sharrow JC-46 4 Marshall Street Sharrow 4 Ash Street Climbing Lane 4 Adams Street Sharrow 4 Ellis Porter Drive Sharrow JC-46 4 Grant Street Sharrow 4 Hough Street Sharrow 4 Lafayette Street Sharrow 4 Marshall Street Sharrow 4 East McCarty Street Sharrow 4 East Miller Street Sharrow 4 Monroe Street Sharrow 4 Optimist Court Sharrow 4 Riverside Drive Sharrow 4 East State Street Sharrow 4 Vetter Lane Sharrow 4 Wall Way Alley Conversion Alley Conversion 4 Capitol Avenue & Riviera Street Bike Lanes 4 Miller Trail Greenway Figure 6.15 Illustrative Projects – Active Transportation Pedestrian & Bicycle – Tier 5 Package Tier Segment Facility Type JC-11 5 Scruggs Station, Westview & Brooks Sharrow JC-16 5 Fairway Drive Sharrow 5 Gettysburg Place Sharrow 5 Graystone Drive Sharrow 5 Nob Hill Road Sharrow 5 Shermans Hollow Road Sharrow JC-29 5 Chestnut Street Climbing Lane 5 Carol Street Sharrow 5 Chestnut Street Sharrow 5 Dixon Drive Sharrow 5 Hough Park Road Sharrow 5 Rosewood Drive Sharrow 5 Winston Drive Sharrow 5 Leslie Boulevard Bike Lanes JC-34 5 Mokane Road Sharrow 5 Sandstone Road Sharrow JC-36 5 East Circle Drive Climbing Lane 5 Hayselton Drive Sharrow JC-38 5 Primrose Drive Sharrow 5 Swifts Highway Sharrow 5 Tower Drive Sharrow 5 Westwood Drive Sharrow 5 Woodclift Drive Sharrow 5 Satinwood Drive Sharrow 5 Edgewood Drive Bike Lanes JC-53 5 Idlewood Road Sharrow 5 Southwood Road Sharrow T-1 5 Old Shamrock Road Sharrow 5 Route M Sharrow 5 Shamrock Road Sharrow W-1 5 Green Berry Road Sharrow 5 Wardsville Road Sharrow DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 124 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS - SIDEWALKS Figure 6.16 Illustrative Projects – Active Transportation Plan (ATP) - Sidewalks Network Tiers Map SOURCE: 2023 CAPITAL AREA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN The map above and following lists are meant as quick reference guide to projects contained in the Capital Area Active Transportation Plan. For full project information, please refer to the Capital Area Active Transportation Plan on the CAMPO webpage at: www.jeffersoncitymo.gov/campo DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 125 Figure 6.16 Illustrative Projects – ATP Sidewalks Holts Summit Package Tier Segment HS-SW SW-3 Crest Avenue Sidewalk SW-3 Lake Mykee Sidewalk SW-3 Northrup Avenue Sidewalk SW-3 Summer Tree Lane Sidewalk St. Martins SM-SW SW-3 Traci Drive Sidewalk Apache Flats (Cole County) AF-SW-1 SW-4 Big Horn/Apache Trail Sidewalk SW-4 Bourbon Street Sidewalk SW-4 Brookview Drive Sidewalk SW-4 Gateway Drive Sidewalk SW-4 King Ridge Road Sidewalk SW-4 Lakeview Heights Drive Sidewalk SW-4 New Frontier Sidewalk SW-4 Rainbow Hills Road Sidewalk SW-4 Ravenwood Drive Sidewalk SW-4 Sharon Drive Sidewalk SW-4 Woodward Lane Sidewalk AF-SW-2 SW-4 Hunters Run Road Sidewalk SW-4 Rainbow Drive Sidewalk Taos T-SW SW-1 Route M Sidewalk Wardsville W-SW SW-2 Route M Sidewalk SW-2 Route W Sidewalk SW-2 Wardsville Road Sidewalk Jefferson City JC-SW-1 SW-2 Carol Street Sidewalk SW-2 Chestnut Street Sidewalk SW-2 Dixon Drive Sidewalk SW-2 Eastland Drive Sidewalk SW-2 Green Berry Road Sidewalk SW-2 Green Meadow Drive Sidewalk SW-2 Payne Drive Sidewalk SW-2 Rosewood Drive Sidewalk SW-2 Seven Hills Sidewalk SW-2 Winston Drive Sidewalk JC-SW-2 SW-1 Bald Hill Road Sidewalk SW-1 Capital Avenue East Sidewalk SW-1 Elm Street Sidewalk SW-1 Grant Street Sidewalk SW-1 Hough Street Sidewalk SW-1 Karen Drive Sidewalk SW-1 Polk Street Sidewalk SW-1 Riviera Street Sidewalk SW-1 Vetter Lane Sidewalk JC-SW-3 SW-1 Adams Street Sidewalk SW-1 Atchison Street Sidewalk Infill JC-SW-3 SW-1 Aurora Avenue Sidewalk SW-1 Christy Drive Sidewalk SW-1 Monroe Street Sidewalk SW-1 Tanner Bridge Road Sidewalk JC-SW-4 SW-3 Cedar Hill Road Sidewalk SW-3 Overlook Drive Sidewalk SW-3 Rolling Hills Drive Sidewalk SW-3 Southridge Drive Sidewalk SW-3 Vieth Drive Sidewalk SW-3 Yorktown Drive Sidewalk JC-SW-5 SW-3 Buehrle Drive Sidewalk SW-3 Creek Trail Drive Sidewalk SW-3 Edgewood Drive East Sidewalk SW-3 Edmonds Street Sidewalk SW-3 Lynnwood Drive Sidewalk SW-3 Ponderosa Drive Sidewalk SW-3 Southwest Boulevard Sidewalk SW-3 Stadium Boulevard Sidewalk SW-3 Swifts Highway Sidewalk SW-3 Woodcliff Drive Sidewalk JC-SW-6 SW-1 Brooks Street Sidewalk SW-1 Hart Street Sidewalk SW-1 Howard Street Sidewalk SW-1 Industrial Drive Sidewalk SW-1 St Marys Sidewalk JC-SW-7 SW-2 Belair Sidewalk SW-2 Forest Hill Avenue Sidewalk SW-2 Hillsdale Drive Sidewalk SW-2 Main Street West Sidewalk SW-2 Meadow Sidewalk SW-2 Ridgeway Drive Sidewalk SW-2 Rock Hill Sidewalk JC-SW-8 SW-4 Country Club Sidewalk SW-4 Country Club West Sidewalk SW-4 Schellridge Sidewalk SW-4 Ten Mile Drive Sidewalk JC-SW-9 SW-1 Alameda Sidewalk SW-1 Cititrends & Truman Sidewalk SW-1 Edgewood Drive West Sidewalk SW-1 Fairland Road Sidewalk SW-1 Harpers Ferry Road Sidewalk SW-1 Leandra Lane Sidewalk SW-1 Scott Station Road Sidewalk SW-1 Scruggs Station Road Sidewalk SW-1 Truman Boulevard Sidewalk SW-1 Village Drive Sidewalk DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 126 Figure 6.17 Illustrative Projects – ATP Long-Range Projects (not prioritized) Segment Type Future Lohman Greenway Future Greenway Neighorn Branch Trail Rising Creek Trail Wardsville Trail West Dove Lake Road Future Sharrow Industrial Drive Future Sidepath McCarty Street Wildwood Avenue Mission Drive Rock Ridge Road Stoneridge Parkway Figure 6.19 Illustrative Projects – ATP Intersection Projects Location Type Highway 179 Grade Separated Overpass Madison St Lafayette St over UP rail lines to Adrian’s Island Bolivar St over Hwy 50 Underneath Highway 50 & Missouri Blvd Grade Separated Underpass West McCarty upgrades as part of future Tri- Level project Truman Blvd near Commerce Dr HAWK Signal Commerce Dr near Merchants Dr Industrial Dr near Hart St Stadium Blvd near Jefferson St East McCarty St near East High St Route B near Friendship Rd (Wardsville) Southwest Blvd near Dix Road Dix Rd near Southwest Blvd Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Signal Binder Lake Rd near Ball Park Ct Rainbow Dr near Campground Ct Country Club Dr near Rainbow Dr West Edgewood Dr near Trailhead Parking Diamond Ridge near West Edgewood Dr West Edgewood Dr west of Harpers Ferry Rd West Edgewood Dr south of Taylors Ridge Ct South Country Club near Tanman Ct Horner Rd Near Big Horn Dr Scruggs Station Rd near South Country Club Dr Country Club Dr near Capital Mall Summit Dr near Greenway Drive (Holts Summit) Simon Blvd near Karen Rd (Holts Summit) Center St near Halifax Rd (Holts Summit) Leslie Blvd near Stadium Blvd East McCarty St near St Louis Rd Creek Trail Dr near Capital City High School West Edgewood Dr at Tree Valley Ln Southwest Blvd at Sunrise Ln Southwest Blvd at Cedar Hill Rd Eastland Dr at Lewis and Clark Dr Rainbow Dr at Woodward Ln Ellis Blvd at near Rosewood Dr Figure 6.18 Illustrative Projects – ATP Signed Routes Segment Type Algoa Road Signed Route Bald Hill Road Route C Country Club Drive Country Club Drive South County Road 391 Dainer Road & Oakland Road Friendship Road & Route B Hemstreet Road Henwick Lane Heritage Highway Honey Creek Road Leandra Lane Lo Mo Drive & Old Lohman Road Meadows Ford Road Militia Drive Missouri-OO / Simon Mount Carmel Road North Shamrock Road Nine Hills Road Old Lohman Road Old Stage Road Osage Bend Road / Route W Rabbit Run Road Rock Ridge Road & Country Park Road Route B & E Route C Route D Route E Route H Route J Route M Route W Scott Station Road Scrivner Road Southridge Drive State Route C Stringtown Station Road Route T Tanner Bridge & Honey Creek Road Route U Route U and Brazito Vieth Drive West Lohman Road Wade Road DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 127 DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 128 MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN The Major Thoroughfare Plan details expansions of existing major roads, proposed federal functional classification upgrades, and delineates future major roads that are necessary to accommodate the anticipated 20-year growth projections of the CAMPO Planning Area. The Major Thoroughfare Plan incorporates recommendations from the 2019 Travel Demand Model (TDM), the City of Jefferson’s Comprehensive Plan (Activate Jefferson City 2040), other local studies, and stakeholder input. The goals of the Major Thoroughfare Plan are as follows: • Provide for the efficient movement of vehicular traffic into and throughout the Region. • Consider right-of-way needs to accommodate a proposed thoroughfare. • Ensure adequate roadways to serve existing and proposed developments. • Assist in identifying Capital Improvement Program needs. • Reduce the traffic volumes in residential areas by ensuring adequate arterials. • Serve as a planning tool and assist coordination with other agencies. The Major Thoroughfare Plan includes a map and list showing major upgrades to existing roads and general locations of future roads and connections. (Figures 6.20 and 6.21) Generally, the Major Thoroughfare Plan Map excludes minor collector and local street projects. The Major Thoroughfare Plan includes some projects that overlap with the MTP Illustrative List of Projects. The Major Thoroughfare Plan does not include detailed traffic studies, crash data, or other condition statistics as those are available in the CAMPO TDM, CAMPO MTP, or in studies conducted by individual jurisdictions. AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS The CAMPO Major Thoroughfare Plan is a component of the CAMPO 2045 & Beyond MTP and may be changed through an amendment or administrative modification as described in in Section 3 of the MTP. CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND MTP AND 2019 TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL (TDM) In 2019 CAMPO adopted an updated MTP that included an updated TDM. The MTP and TDM utilized the several local planning documents along with multi-modal plans such as the Holts Summit 2014 Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Plan, 2017 Capital Area Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan, and the 2017 Coordinated Public Transit - Human Services Transportation Plan. The TDM resulted in a list of recommended improvements that were based on stakeholder needs, current land use, future land use projections, and population and housing projections. The TDM was used to support the MTP’s Implementation Plan and Illustrative List of Projects. The Illustrative List of Projects outlined in the MTP directly supports the development of the CAMPO Major Thoroughfare Plan. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 129 Figure 6.20 Major Thoroughfare Plan Map Figure 6.21 Illustrative Projects – Major Thoroughfare Plan 100 US 50/54/63 Tri-Level Reconfiguration of Tri-Level interchange to improve safety, congestion, capacity, and pedestrian accommodations. FFFC: Freeway/Expressway 101 US 50/63 (Rex-Whitton Expressway) Corridor - US 54 to Lafayette St Improve safety, capacity, congestion, pedestrian accommodations; may include widening, grade separations, and/or outer roads. FFFC: Freeway/Expressway 102 US 54/63 - MO 94 to just south of Missouri River Improve safety, capacity, and congestion; additional lanes needed. The project would include a re- configuration of Route W overpass. FFFC: Freeway/Expressway 103 Missouri Blvd Western Corridor- S. Country Club Dr to Howerton Ct Improve safety, congestion, capacity, and pedestrian accommodations; may include widening / lane additions. FFFC: Principal Arterial 104 Missouri Blvd Eastern Corridor - Stoneridge Pkwy to US 50 Improve safety, capacity, congestion, access management, and pedestrian accommodations; may include turning restrictions. FFFC: Principal Arterial 105 Route B - Tanner Bridge Rd to Route W Improve safety, capacity, congestion, pedestrian accommodations; may include reconfiguration of intersections or additional lanes. FFFC: Minor Arterial 106 Bald Hill Road Improve safety, capacity, congestion, pedestrian accommodations; may include widening, alignment improvements, right-of-way clearing, stormwater improvements, and signing. FFFC: Major Collector 107 Tanner Bridge Road 108 Scott Station Road DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 130 THE FINANCIAL PLAN The Financial Plan demonstrates how the adopted transportation plan can be implemented. When combined with the current Transportation Improvement Program in Appendix E, this section stands as the Financial Plan for the MTP. The following paragraphs address the federal requirements as they pertain to the development of the Financial Plan. This section contains system-level estimates of costs and revenue sources that are reasonably expected to be available to adequately operate and maintain Federal-Aid highways and public transportation within the CAMPO region over the 25-year planning horizon. CAMPO works with public transportation operators, member jurisdictions, and MoDOT to cooperatively develop estimates of funds that will be available to support implementation of the MTP. All necessary financial resources from public sources that are reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the MTP are identified in this section. There are no private sector revenue sources identified as contributing to the implementation of the MTP at this time. This section also includes recommendations on additional funding sources and includes an assessment of innovative financing resources. CAMPO has considered all projects and strategies proposed for funding under title 23 U.S.C., title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 or with other Federal funds; State assistance; local sources; and private participation. As applicable, an inflation rate that reflects “year of expenditure dollars” has been applied to revenue and cost estimates. These rates are based on information developed cooperatively by CAMPO, MoDOT, member jurisdictions, and public transportation operators. An illustrative list of non-fiscally constrained projects, for which additional funding would need to be identified, is included in this section. These projects have been categorized, prioritized, and include cost ranges. 109 Rainbow Drive Improve safety, capacity, congestion, pedestrian accommodations; may include construction of a curb and gutter, stormwater improvements, and new pavement. FFFC: Major Collector 110 Henwick Lane 111 E. High St.- E. McCarty St to Marshall St Complete Streets - Improve accommodations for all modes. 112 W. Main St.- Brooks St to Rock Hill Rd 200 Wildwood Extension (Phase I) Southern extension from W. Edgewood Drive to Rock Ridge Road. 201 Wildwood Extension (Phase II) Southern extension from Rock Ridge Rd. to Route C. 202 S. Summit Drive Ramp Additions Construction of east bound and west bound ramps connecting US 54 to S. Summit Drive in Callaway County; completing the existing overpass. 203 Militia Drive Extension Southern extension of Militia Drive from US 63 to Liberty Road. 204 Stoneridge Parkway Extension Southern extension to W. Edgewood Dr, including intermittent landscaping and center turn lanes. FFFC: Collector 205 Schotthill Woods Drive Extension Eastern extension from its current terminus to Schott Rd. FFFC: Collector 206 Mission Drive Extension Proposed connection between MO 179 and Wildwood Dr extension. Project identified in the 2019 Travel Demand Model. Exact location unknown; project would likely occur in phases. FFFC: Collector DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 131 FISCAL CONSTRAINT 2025-2029 THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) The TIP is updated annually and the most recent version is located in Appendix E or on the CAMPO webpage at www.jeffersoncitymo.gov/campo The TIP stands as the “Fiscally Constrained” list of the first five years of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan’s Financial Plan. Developed in accordance with federal regulations CFR §450.324, the TIP is a 5-year financial program of transportation projects to be implemented within the MPA, which are funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), or are deemed regionally significant. Each project or project phase included in the TIP is to be derived from the 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 USC and 49 USC Chapter 53 or regionally significant projects requiring action by the FHWA or the FTA are required to be included in the TIP and derived from the MTP. The TIP is developed in cooperation with the MoDOT, local jurisdictions, and public transportation operators. Figure 6.22 is a map of the 2025-2029 TIP projects. Figures 6.23-6.28 provides a breakdown of the funding and program years for each project. The full version of the most current TIP document can be found in Appendix E or on the CAMPO webpage at www.jeffersoncitymo.gov/campo TIP PROJECT SELECTION Projects are identified by agencies with jurisdiction over the project, using their own criteria, and are submitted to the CAMPO Board of Directors for approval before being included in the TIP. Projects are approved based on their consistency with the goals and strategies outlined in the MTP. A more detailed description of the TIP application process is located in Appendix E. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 132 FIGURE 6.22 PROJECT LOCATIONS MAP OF FISCALLY CONSTRAINED TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 133 FIGURE 6.23 - FISCALLY CONSTRAINED TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS – BRIDGE MoDOT Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $59,200 $341,600 $400,800 MoDOT STATE $14,800 $85,400 $100,200 TIP #2022-07 Local $0 MoDOT#5P3523 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $1,693,600 $1,693,600 MoDOT STATE $423,400 $423,400 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $2,618,000 Total $74,000 $2,544,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,618,000 MoDOT Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $107,200 $556,800 $664,000 MoDOT STATE $26,800 $139,200 $166,000 TIP #2022-10 Local $0 MoDOT#5P3525 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $2,800,000 $2,800,000 MoDOT STATE $700,000 $700,000 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $4,330,000 Total $134,000 $4,196,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,330,000 MoDOT Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $184,800 $482,400 $667,200 MoDOT STATE $46,200 $120,600 $166,800 TIP #2022-11 Local $0 MoDOT#5P3560 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $800 $800 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $1,838,400 $1,838,400 MoDOT STATE $459,600 $459,600 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $3,133,000 Total $232,000 $2,901,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,133,000 Project Name: Project Name: Description & Location: Bridge rehab over Bus. 50, Linden Dr., Moreau Overflow and Stadium Blvd. Includes Madison St. Ramp over Rte. 54. Project involves bridges A1415, A1309 and twin bridges A1305, A1307 and A1672. Bridge Improvement On US 54 over Neighorn Branch E NG Description & Location: Bridge replacement over Neighorn Branch.Project involves bridge K0760. RO W CO N S T Comments: Let with: CD0157 Comments: Project Name: Prior Funding Description & Location: Bridge rehabilitation over Vetter Lane. Includes Bolivar Street over Rte. 50. Project involves bridge A1420 and twin bridges A0722. R O W C ONS T Comments: Let with CD0075 Prior Funding Bridge Improvements On US 54 over Bus. 50 and others. E N G Prior Funding Bridge Improvement on Rte. 50 over Vetter Lane & Bolivar. E N G R OW C ON S T DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 134 MoDOT Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $1,600 $1,600 $28,800 $76,800 $108,800 MoDOT STATE $400 $400 $7,200 $19,200 $27,200 TIP #2023-01 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0072 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $497,600 $497,600 MoDOT STATE $124,400 $124,400 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $758,000 Total $2,000 $2,000 $36,000 $718,000 $0 $0 $0 $758,000 MoDOT Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $1,600 $12,000 $13,600 MoDOT STATE $400 $3,000 $3,400 TIP #2023-03 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0075 FHWA $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $227,200 $227,200 MoDOT STATE $56,800 $56,800 Local $0 MoDOT $0 Total Project Cost: $301,000 Total $2,000 $299,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $301,000 MoDOT Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $800 $800 $800 $13,600 $164,000 $180,000 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 $200 $3,400 $41,000 $45,000 TIP #2024-01 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0140 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $716,000 $716,000 MoDOT STATE $179,000 $179,000 Local $0 Other $0Total Project Cost: $1,120,000 Total $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $17,000 $1,100,000 $0 $0 $1,120,000 Prior Funding Bridge Improvement On S. Summit Drive over Rte. 54 ENG C O N S T Comments: Prior Funding Bridge (Overpass) Removal on Tri- Level over US 50 EN G Description & Location: Bridge improvement over Rte. 54. Project involves bridge A3521.R O W Project Name: Description & Location: Bridge improvements over Osage River. Project involves bridges A5552 and A0506. R OW C ON S T Comments: Description & Location: Bridge removal on tri- level over Rte. 50. Project involves bridge A1418. R O W C O NS T Comments: Let With: 5P3523 Project Name: Project Name: Prior Funding Bridge improvements on US 50 over Osage River. E N G DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 135 MoDOT Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $1,600 $800 $800 $29,600 $200,000 $682,400 $915,200 MoDOT STATE $400 $200 $200 $7,400 $50,000 $170,600 $228,800 TIP #2024-02 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0139 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $4,520,000 $4,520,000 MoDOT STATE $1,130,000 $1,130,000 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $6,794,000 Total $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $37,000 $250,000 $6,503,000 $0 $6,794,000 MoDOT Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $11,200 $36,800 $48,000 MoDOT STATE $2,800 $9,200 $12,000 TIP #2024-03 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0157 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $517,600 $517,600 MoDOT STATE $129,400 $129,400 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $707,000 Total $14,000 $693,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $707,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA BRO $83,336 $83,336 MoDOT BFP $51,226 $51,226 TIP #2024-04 Local Cole County $5,438 $5,438 MoDOT#BRO-R026(25)Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA BRO $1,576,241 $1,576,241 MoDOT BFP $968,897 $968,897 Local Cole County $102,863 $102,863 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $2,788,001 Total $140,000 $2,648,001 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,788,001 Prior Funding Bridge improvements On US 54/63 over Missouri River. ENG Prior Funding Bridge Improvement On US 54 over Neighorn Branch EN G Description & Location: Bridge improvements over Missouri River. Project involves bridge A4497. RO W C O N S T Comments: Description & Location: Bridge rehabilitation over Neighorn Branch. Project involves bridge G0302. R O W C O N S T Comments: Let with: 5P3560 Description & Location: Replacement of bridge on Tanner Bridge Road over the Moreau River. Bridge #0780025 R O W C O N ST Comments: 2022 BRO EN G Tanner Bridge Road bridge replacement over Moreau River Project Name: Prior FundingCole County Project Name: Project Name: DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 136 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 TIP #2025-10 Local $0 MoDOT#BRO-R026(001)Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA BRO $210,508 $210,508 MoDOT BFP $134,263 $134,263 Local Cole County $61,229 $61,229 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $406,000 Total $0 $406,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $406,000 E NG Description & Location: Replacement of bridge on Sturbridge Road over Branch of Grays Creek. Bridge #301001 R OW C ONS T Comments: 2023 BRO Cole County Prior Funding Project Name: Sturbridge Road bridge replacement over Branch of Grays Creek DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 137 FIGURE 6.24 FISCALLY CONSTRAINED TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS - ROADWAYS Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2028 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $80,800 $52,800 $201,600 $335,200 MoDOT STATE $20,200 $13,200 $50,400 $83,800 TIP #2020-12 MoDOT $0 MoDOT#5S3418 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $147,200 $147,200 MoDOT STATE $36,800 $36,800 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $1,308,800 $1,308,800 MoDOT STATE $327,200 $327,200 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $2,239,000 Total $101,000 $250,000 $1,888,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,239,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $2,400 $135,200 $137,600 MoDOT STATE $600 $33,800 $34,400 TIP #2022-23 Local $0 MoDOT#5P3487 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $1,760,000 $1,760,000 MoDOT STATE $440,000 $440,000 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $2,372,000 Total $3,000 $2,369,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,372,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $1,600 $800 $800 $124,000 $127,200 MoDOT STATE $400 $200 $200 $31,000 $31,800 TIP #2023-04 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0004 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $1,904,000 $1,904,000 MoDOT STATE $476,000 $476,000 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $2,539,000 Total $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $2,535,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,539,000 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 NS T Comments: Prior Funding Intersection Improvements on S OR 50 at S Ten Mile Drive E N G Description & Location: Intersection improvements at South Ten Mile Drive in Jefferson City. R O W C O NS T Comments: Project Name: MoDOT Prior Funding Guard Cable & Guardrail Repair in Northern Central District E NG Prior Funding 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. RO W C O N S T Comments: Project Name: Project Name: MoDOT MoDOT DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 138 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $1,600 $1,600 $26,400 $212,800 $242,400 MoDOT STATE $400 $400 $6,600 $53,200 $60,600 TIP #2023-06 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0106 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $3,248,800 $3,248,800 MoDOT STATE $812,200 $812,200 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $4,364,000 Total $2,000 $2,000 $33,000 $4,327,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,364,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $1,600 $12,000 $13,600 MoDOT STATE $400 $3,000 $3,400 TIP #2023-08 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0040 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $191,200 $191,200 MoDOT STATE $47,800 $47,800 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $256,000 Total $2,000 $254,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $256,000 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $4,000 $136,000 $367,200 $507,200 MoDOT STATE $1,000 $34,000 $91,800 $126,800 TIP #2024-14 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0170 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $800 $800 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $2,492,800 $2,492,800 MoDOT STATE $623,200 $623,200 Local $0 Other $0 Total $5,000 $171,000 $3,575,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,751,000 Prior Funding Pavement Improvement on RT E from US 54 to RT B E N G 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 Osage River to Moreau River. Comments: Let with CD0181 and CD0212 Description & Location: Pavement preservation on RT E from US 54 to RT B.R O W C O NS T Comments: Let With : CD0042 MoDOT Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name:Callaway Rte 54 E NG Description & Location: Add lanes north of the Missouri River Bridge in Jefferson City. Includes modifying interchange configuration at Rte. W and Rte. 54. RO W CO N S T Comments: This project was split from 5P3497. (TIP#2022-01) Total Project Cost: $3,751,000 Prior FundingMoDOT MoDOT C O N S T R O W ENG Project Name:Pavement Improvement on US 50 Project Name: DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 139 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $800 $5,600 $6,400 MoDOT STATE $200 $1,400 $1,600 TIP #2025-01 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0156 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $80,000 $80,000 MoDOT STATE $20,000 $20,000 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $108,000 Total $0 $1,000 $107,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $108,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $800 $800 $17,600 $19,200 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 $4,400 $4,800 TIP #2025-02 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0212 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $256,000 $256,000 MoDOT STATE $64,000 $64,000 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $344,000 Total $0 $1,000 $1,000 $342,000 $0 $0 $0 $344,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $800 $10,400 $36,000 $47,200 MoDOT STATE $200 $2,600 $9,000 $11,800 TIP #2025-03 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0184 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $632,000 $632,000 MoDOT STATE $158,000 $158,000 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $849,000 Total $0 $1,000 $13,000 $835,000 $0 $0 $0 $849,000 Comments: Pavement improvement on Route J from Rte. 50 to end of state maint. ENG Description & Location: Pavement improvement at Rte. 50/63 interchange. Includes Rte. 63 and ramps. R O W C ONS T Comments: Let with CD0181 and CD0106 Description & Location: Pavement improvement from Rte. 50 to end of state maintenance.Includes Liberty Rd from Rte. M to end of state maintenance and Christy Dr. from west of Toyota entrance to StadiumBlvd R O W C O N S T Prior Funding S OR US 54 pavement improvement ENG Prior Funding Pavement improvement at Rte. 50/63 interchange. E N G Description & Location: Pavement improvement from Riviera Heights Rd to end of state maintenance. R O W C O N S T Comments: Let with CD0155 Prior FundingMoDOT MoDOT Project Name: MoDOT Project Name: Project Name: DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 140 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $800 $800 $20,800 $22,400 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 $5,200 $5,600 TIP #2025-04 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0183 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $295,200 $295,200 MoDOT STATE $73,800 $73,800 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $397,000 Total $0 $1,000 $1,000 $395,000 $0 $0 $0 $397,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $800 $800 $46,400 $48,000 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 $11,600 $12,000 TIP #2025-11 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0176 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $648,800 $648,800 MoDOT STATE $162,200 $162,200 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $871,000 Total $0 $1,000 $1,000 $869,000 $0 $0 $0 $871,000 MoDOT Prior Funding Project Name:Pavement improvement - MO 179 E N G Description & Location: Pavement improvement from Rte. 87 to 0.14 miles north of west Main Street. Includes Rte. AA from Rte. 87 to Rte. 179. R O W C O NST Comments: Let with CD0183 Description & Location: Pavement improvement from Rte. 50 to Rte. B.RO W C O N S T Comments: Let with CD0176 Prior Funding Pavement improvement on Rte M from Rte. 50 to Rte. B. E NG Project Name: MoDOT DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 141 FIGURE 6.25 FISCALLY CONSTRAINED TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS - OTHER Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA SAFETY $800 $800 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 TIP #2023-12 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0006 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA SAFETY $50,400 $50,400 MoDOT STATE $12,600 $12,600 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $64,000 Total $0 $64,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $64,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA SAFETY $800 $800 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 TIP #2024-05 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0141 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA SAFETY $50,400 $50,400 MoDOT STATE $12,600 $12,600 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $64,000 Total $0 $0 $64,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $64,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA SAFETY $800 $800 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 TIP #2025-06 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0175 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA SAFETY $50,400 $50,400 MoDOT STATE $12,600 $12,600 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $64,000 Total $0 $0 $0 $64,000 $0 $0 $0 $64,000 Description & Location: On-call work zone enforcement at various locations in the Central District. ROW C O N S T Comments: Prior Funding On-Call Work Zone Enforcement E N G Description & Location: On-call work zone enforcement at various locations in the Central District. R OW CO N S T Comments: Project Name: On-Call Work Zone Enforcement E N G Prior Funding On-Call Work Zone Enforcement E N G Description & Location: On-call work zone enforcement at various locations in the Central District. RO W C O N S T Comments: Project Name: Project Name: Prior FundingMoDOT MoDOT MoDOT DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 142 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 TIP #2024-06 Local $0 MoDOT#5B0800T Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT STATE $107,000 $107,000 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT STATE $62,388,000 $4,399,000 $4,399,000 $4,399,000 $4,399,000 $4,399,000 $84,383,000 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $84,490,000 Total $62,495,000 $4,399,000 $4,399,000 $4,399,000 $4,399,000 $4,399,000 $0 $84,490,000 Prior Funding Payback for Safe and Sound bridges in the Central District. E N G Description & Location: Payback beginning in SFY 2008 for Safe and Sound bridges in the Central District. R O W C O NST Comments: Future costs ~ $15M to $25M. Project Name: MoDOT DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 143 FIGURE 6.26 FISCALLY CONSTRAINED TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS – SCOPING AND DESIGN PROJECTS Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $44,800 $800 $2,400 $48,000 MoDOT STATE $11,200 $200 $600 $12,000 TIP #2013-16 Local $0 MoDOT#5S2234 Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Project Cost: $60,000 Total $56,000 $1,000 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $267,200 $800 $268,000 MoDOT STATE $66,800 $200 $67,000 TIP #2022-27 Local $0 MoDOT#5P3588 Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Project Cost: $335,000 Total $334,000 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $335,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $800 $800 $14,400 $16,000 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 $3,600 $4,000 TIP #2024-07 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0159 Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Project Cost: $20,000 Total $1,000 $1,000 $18,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 Description & Location: Scoping for bridge improvements over Rte. 50. Project involves bridge A1187. R O W CON S T Comments: Future Cost ~ $301,000 - $1M Prior Funding US 50 / Truman Blvd / Country Club Dr.- Scoping for Interchange Improvements E N G Description & Location: Scoping for intersection improvements from Ashbury Way to Rte. B/M/W intersection in Wardsville. R O W C O N S T Comments: Future Cost ~ $5M - $10M Prior Funding Dix Road - Scoping for bridge improvements over US 50. E N G Description & Location: Scoping for Interchange Improvements at Truman Blvd and Country Club Drive. R O W CO N S T Comments: Future Cost ~ $10M - $15M Project Name: Project Name: Prior Funding Rte B - Scoping for intersection improvements E N G Project Name: MoDOT MoDOT MoDOT DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 144 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA $0 MoDOT STATE $200,000 $50,000 $150,000 $400,000 TIP #2024-08 Local $0 MoDOT#5S3592 Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Project Cost: $400,000 Total $200,000 $50,000 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $140,000 $40,000 $800 $180,800 MoDOT STATE $35,000 $10,000 $200 $45,200 TIP #2024-11 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0065 Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Project Cost: $226,000 Total $175,000 $50,000 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $226,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $800 $2,400 $3,200 MoDOT STATE $200 $600 $800 TIP #2025-12 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0241 Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Project Cost: $4,000 Total $0 $1,000 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000 R O W C O N S T Comments: Prior Funding VARIOUS - Traffic safety studies at vairous locations in Central ENG Project Name: MoDOT Prior Funding Project Name: S. Summit Dr. - Scoping for bridge improvements over US 54 E N G Description & Location: Scoping for bridge improvement over Rte. 54. Project involves bridge A3521. ROW C ONST Comments: Future Cost ~ $301,000 - $1M Prior Funding VARIOUS - Scoping for future projects in the Central District. E N G Description & Location: Scoping for future projects on various routes in the Central District. R O W CO N S T Comments: Project Name: Description & Location: Traffic safety studies at vairous locations in Central District. MoDOT MoDOT DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 145 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $80,000 $8,000 $2,400 $90,400 MoDOT STATE $20,000 $2,000 $600 $22,600 TIP #2025-13 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0168 Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Project Cost: $113,000 Total $100,000 $10,000 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $113,000 MoDOT Prior Funding Project Name: US 50/63/54 - Scoping for bridge improvements at intersection E NG Description & Location: Scoping for bridge improvements at intersection of Rte.50, Rte.63 and Rte. 54 in Jefferson City. Project involves bridges A1419, A4826, A4827, A4828 R O W C O N ST Comments: Future Cost ~ $50M - $75M DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 146 FIGURE 6.27 FISCALLY CONSTRAINED TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS - PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE PROJECTS Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA STBG $10,400 $292,800 $303,200 MoDOT STATE $2,600 $73,200 $75,800 TIP #2020-16 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0126 Other $0 FHWA STBG $38,400 $38,400 MoDOT STATE $9,600 $9,600 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA STBG $1,108,000 $1,108,000 MoDOT STATE $277,000 $277,000 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $1,812,000 Total $61,000 $1,751,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,812,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $17,600 $122,400 $182,400 $322,400 MoDOT STATE $4,400 $30,600 $45,600 $80,600 TIP #2025-05 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0215 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $8,000 $8,000 MoDOT STATE $2,000 $2,000 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $1,252,000 $1,252,000 MoDOT STATE $313,000 $313,000 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $1,978,000 Total $0 $22,000 $163,000 $1,793,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,978,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA TAP $79,500 $79,500 MoDOT $0 TIP #2023-17 Local Holts Summit $62,500 $62,500 MoDOT#Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA TAP $420,500 $420,500 MoDOT $0 Local Holts Summit $62,500 $62,500 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $625,000 Total $0 $625,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $625,000 Prior Funding Bus. 50 - Updating Pedestrian Facilities E N G MoDOT Project Name: Prior Funding Holts Summit Sidewalk construction along S. Summit Drive EN G Description & Location: Transportation Alternatives Program Grant, Sidewalk installation along S. Summit Drive from Holt Lane to Ellsworth Drive. R O W C ONS T Comments: 2022 TAP Holts Summit Description & Location: Upgrade pedestrian facilities to comply with the ADA Transition Plan in Jefferson City, Taos, Wardsville and Frankenstein. RO W C O N S T Comments: MoDOT Prior Funding MO 179 - Updating Pedestrian Facilities E N G Description & Location: Upgrade pedestrian facilities at various locations in Jefferson City, Lake Ozark, Clarksburg, Pilot Grove and Dixon. R OW CO N S T Comments: Project Name: Project Name: DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 147 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 TIP #2023-16 Local $0 MoDOT#Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA TAP $500,000 $500,000 MoDOT $0 Local Jefferson City $483,465 $483,465 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $983,465 Total $0 $983,465 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $983,465 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 TIP #2025-07 Local $0 MoDOT#Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA TAP $500,000 $500,000 MoDOT $0 Local Jefferson City $495,703 $495,703 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $995,703 Total $0 $0 $0 $995,703 $0 $0 $0 $995,703 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 TIP #2025-08 Local $0 MoDOT#Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA TAP $169,762 $169,762 MoDOT $0 Local Jefferson City $42,441 $42,441 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $212,203 Total $0 $212,203 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $212,203 Prior Funding Wears Creek Greenway Extension Bypassing MO 179 E N G Description & Location: Transportation Alternatives Program Grant, includes extension of the Wears Creek Greenway along Tree Valley Lane, bypassing MO 179. R O W CO N S T Comments: 2022 TAP Project Name: Prior Funding Boggs Creek Multi-Use Trail E N G Project Name: Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Prior Funding South Country Club Sidewalk E N G Project Name: Description & Location: Multi-Use trails construction from McCarty St.. to Riverside park in the Boggs Creek watershed. R O W C O NS T Comments: 2023 TAP Description & Location:Construction of Sidepath along S. Country Club Drive from 200 feet NE of Tanman Ct. to Farigrounds Rd. R O W C ON S T Comments: 2023 TAP DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 148 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA TAP $27,117 $27,117 MoDOT $0 TIP #2024-13 Local Wardsville $7,383 $7,383 MoDOT#Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA TAP $361,874 $361,874 MoDOT $0 Local Wardsville $98,526 $98,526 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $494,900 Total $0 $494,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $494,900 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA TAP $41,609 $41,609 MoDOT $0 TIP #2025-09 Local Cole County $18,391 $18,391 MoDOT#Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA TAP $458,391 $458,391 MoDOT $0 Local Cole County $202,609 $202,609 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $721,000 Total $0 $721,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $721,000 Prior Funding Rainbow Dr. Sidewalk ENG Description & Location: Construction of approximately 1400 feet of 8ft wide sidewalks along Falcon Lane to accommodate pedestrians and bicycle users. RO W C O N ST Comments: TAP 2022 Supplemental Award Description & Location: Sidewalk construction along Rainbow Dr. from Hunters Run to Terra Bella Dr. R O W C O NST Wardsville Cole County Comments: 2023 TAP Project Name: Prior Funding Falcon Lane Pedestrian Improvements E N G Project Name: DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 149 FIGURE 6.28 FISCALLY CONSTRAINED TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS – PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals Project JEFFTRAN Operating Assistance Other Pass. Fares $607,281 $495,000 $504,900 $514,998 $525,298 $535,804 $3,183,281 MoDOT State Operatin $52,414 $68,478 $68,478 $68,478 $68,478 $68,478 $394,804 TIP #2011-04 Local City of Jefferso $1,159,670 $1,393,160 $1,421,023 $1,449,444 $1,478,433 $1,508,001 $8,409,731 MoDOT#FTA 5307 $1,159,670 $1,393,160 $1,421,023 $1,449,444 $1,478,433 $1,508,001 $8,409,731 Total Project Cost: $20,397,546 Total $2,979,035 $3,349,798 $3,415,424 $3,482,363 $3,550,641 $3,620,284 $0 $20,397,546 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals Project JEFFTRAN Operating Assistance Other $0 MoDOT $0 TIP #2022-21 Local General Fund $140,123 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $280,123 MoDOT#FTA 5310 $561,290 $112,000 $112,000 $112,000 $112,000 $112,000 $1,121,290 Total Project Cost: $1,401,413 Total $701,413 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $0 $1,401,413 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals Project 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 Total Project Cost: $52,719 Total $0 $40,000 $12,719 $0 $0 $0 $0 $52,719 Description & Location: Operating Assistance for JEFFTRAN service within Jefferson City limits (A 3% annual inflation factor applied.) Comments: Prior Funding Description & Location: Section 5310 Grant Program for acquiring new paratransit buses. Providing mobility needs for seniors and persons with disabilities. Comments: "Prior Funding" includes grants: MO 2017-017, MO 2019-030.00, MO 2020-034, and DR. Prior Funding OP E R 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. Comments: MO-2019-027-00 and MO-02020- 027-00 Prior Funding Replace Security Systems in Transit Facilities OP E R OP E R City of Jefferson - JEFFTRAN City of Jefferson - JEFFTRAN City of Jefferson - JEFFTRAN DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 150 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals Project Other Pass. Fares $0 MoDOT State Operating $0 TIP #2022-24 Local General Fund $71,000 $71,000 MoDOT#FTA 5339 $284,000 $284,000 Total Project Cost: $355,000 Total $0 $355,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $355,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals Project 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 Total Project Cost: $35,000 Total $0 $35,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals Project FTA MoDOT TIP #2022-31 Local General Fund $66,213 $66,213 MoDOT#FTA 5339 $264,853 $264,853 Total Project Cost: $331,066 Total $0 $331,066 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $331,066 Comments: MO-2021-036-00 Prior Funding Replacement of Two Low-Floor Buses OP ER Description & Location: This project would repair the bus barn roof, which is leaking. Comments: MO-2020-027-00 Prior Funding Repair Bus Barn Roof OP ER Description & Location: Replacement of AVL and related equipment and supporting services. Comments: MO-2023-033-00 Prior Funding AVL/AVA/APC/Infotainment Replacement Equip.and Services O P ER Description & Location: This project would purchase 2 replacement low-floor buses. City of Jefferson - JEFFTRAN City of Jefferson - JEFFTRAN City of Jefferson - JEFFTRAN DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 151 THE FULL VERSION OF THE MOST CURRENT TIP DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND IN APPENDIX E OR ON THE CAMPO WEBPAGE: WWW.JEFFERSONCITYMO.GOV/CAMPO Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FTA 5310 $88,000 $88,000 $88,000 $264,000 MoDOT $0 TIP #2018-10 Local $0 MoDOT#Other OATS $22,000 $22,000 $22,000 $66,000 Total Project Cost: $330,000 Total $0 $0 $110,000 $0 $110,000 $0 $110,000 $330,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FTA 5310 $60,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $340,000 MoDOT $0 TIP #2018-11 Local $0 MoDOT#Other OATS $60,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $340,000 Total Project Cost: $680,000 Total $0 $120,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $0 $680,000 Project Name: Project Name: OATS Operating Assistance OATS Operating Assistance Comments: Other Funding - OATS, Inc. Prior Funding O PER Description & Location: Requesting replacement/expansion vehicles to provide service in Jefferson City and surrounding Comments: Other Funding - OATS, Inc. Prior Funding O P E R Description & Location: Within the Jefferson City MPO Region-Section 5310-Seniors and Individuals w ith Disabilities. OATS OATS DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 152 FISCAL CONSTRAINT 2029-2045 Figure 6.29 depicts fiscal constraint for projects that are anticipated to occur beyond 2029. Future funding for these projects is reasonably expected to be available to support the projected costs, but is not guaranteed at this time. This chart was updated during the 2024 MTP Update Process. Figure 6.29 Fiscally Constrained Projects 2025-2045 *INFLATIONARY FACTOR OF 2% HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR EACH YEAR BEYOND 2025. Fiscally Constrained Projects 2025-2045 Project 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031-2035 2036-2040 2041-2045 Jefferson City New Sidewalks /ADA Improvements* $120,000 $122,400 $124,848 $127,345 $129,892 $132,490 $703,271 $776,468 $857,284 Jefferson City New Stormwater Improvements* $464,000 $473,280 $482,746 $492,401 $502,249 $512,293 $2,719,316 $3,002,344 $3,314,831 Cole Co. - Militia Drive Extension to Liberty Road $2,000,000 Cole Co. - Wildwood Extension to Rock Ridge Road $3,000,000 Jefferson City Replacement of High St. Viaduct $14,000,000 Jefferson City - Missouri State Penitentiary Parkway $2,000,000 Jefferson City - Mission Dr. to Stadium Blvd. Connection $750,000 JEFFTRAN - Paratransit Vehicle Replacement $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 JEFFTRAN -Replace low-floor route buses 8,000,000 JEFFTRAN - Construct new transit facilities and central maintenance facilities $40,000,000 JEFFTRAN -Upgrade Fare Card System $300,000 Total $6,024,000 $735,680 $16,747,594 $1,259,745 $40,772,140 $8,784,783 $4,872,587 $4,478,813 $4,872,115 Total $73,975,457 DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 153 COST & REVENUE ESTIMATES This section includes estimates of costs and revenue sources that are reasonably expected to be available to adequately operate and maintain Federal-Aid highways and public transportation within the CAMPO region over the 25-year planning horizon. CAMPO works with public transportation operators, member jurisdictions, and MoDOT to cooperatively develop estimates of funds that will be available to support implementation of the MTP. All necessary financial resources from public sources that are reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the MTP are identified in this section. There are no private sector revenue sources identified as contributing to the implementation of the MTP at this time. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE 2025-2045 It is anticipated that the CAMPO Region will have approximately $139,407,173 in Operation and Maintenance Costs over the planning horizon. 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. Operations and maintenance budgets are requested from municipalities to aid in demonstration of fiscal constraint. Shown in Figure 6.30 are the projected operations and maintenance costs by lane mile for 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. Cost projections for transit providers, based on 2019 expenditures, is also included. Figure 6.30 Operations & Maintenance 2025-2045 *6-YEAR PROJECTION. ALL OTHER PROJECTS ARE FOR 5 YEARS. NOTE: AN INFLATION FACTOR OF 2% HAS BEEN APPLIED TO EACH 5-YEAR TOTAL BEYOND 2025. SOURCE: CAMPO 2025-2029 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Jurisdiction 2024 Federal -Aide Eligible Lane Miles 2025-2030* 2021-2035 2036-2040 2041-2045 Callaway County $6,458 11 $426,228 $356,611 $363,743 $371,018 Cole County $6,935 28 $1,184,220 $990,797 $1,010,613 $1,030,826 Holts Summit $4,778 14 $411,960 $344,673 $351,567 $358,598 Jefferson City $7,209 143 $6,214,734 $5,199,661 $5,303,654 $5,409,727 St. Martins $7,146 4 $188,226 $157,482 $160,632 $163,845 Taos $5,291 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Wardsville $5,291 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 MODOT $5,323 370 $11,817,060 $9,886,940 $10,084,679 $10,286,373 Totals 570 $20,242,428 $16,936,165 $17,274,888 $17,620,386 JEFFTRAN $3,031,835 $18,191,010 $15,219,812 $15,524,208 $15,834,692 OATS, Inc.$120,000 $720,000 $602,400 $614,448 $626,737 Totals $39,153,438 $32,758,376 $33,413,544 $34,081,815 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE - JURISDICTIONS - COST PER LANE MILE BY JURSIDICTION OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE - TRANSIT - OVERALL COSTS AND MAINTENANCE Grand Total $139,407,173 DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 154 ANTICIPATED AVAILABLE REVENUE 2025-2045 Figure 6.31 shows forecasted revenues for CAMPO based on information provided by each jurisdiction. It is estimated that the CAMPO Region will have approximately $1.7 Billion in anticipated available revenue over the planning horizon. Figure 6.31 Anticipated Available Revenue 2025-2045 NOTES: -CART FUNDS BASED ON 2024 NUMBERS FROM MODOT. THERE IS A CONSERVATIVE 2% INCREASE PER YEAR, BASED ON HISTORICAL NUMBERS. -SALES TAXES ANTICIPATED TO REMAIN FLAT UNLESS CHANGED AND VOTED UPON SOURCE: CAMPO 2025-2029 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Jurisdiction Source 2026-2030 2031-2035 2036-2040 2041-2045 CART 11,654,717$ 11,887,811$ 12,125,568$ 12,368,079$ Taxes 26,009,793$ 26,529,989$ 27,060,588$ 27,601,800$ Total 37,664,510$ 38,417,800$ 39,186,156$ 39,969,879$ CART 8,037,522$ 8,198,273$ 8,362,238$ 8,529,483$ Taxes 56,966,961$ 58,106,300$ 59,268,426$ 60,453,795$ Total 65,004,483$ 66,304,573$ 67,630,665$ 68,983,278$ CART 1,086,161$ 1,107,885$ 1,130,042$ 1,152,643$ Taxes 4,842,912$ 4,939,770$ 5,038,566$ 5,139,337$ Total 5,929,073$ 6,047,655$ 6,168,608$ 6,291,980$ CART 11,886,660$ 12,124,393$ 12,366,881$ 12,614,219$ Taxes 74,540,191$ 76,030,995$ 77,551,615$ 79,102,647$ Total 86,426,851$ 88,155,388$ 89,918,496$ 91,716,866$ CART 320,900$ 327,318$ 333,864$ 340,542$ General Revenue 5,725,870$ 5,840,387$ 5,957,195$ 6,076,339$ Total 6,046,770$ 6,167,705$ 6,291,060$ 6,416,881$ CART 278,521$ 284,092$ 289,774$ 295,569$ General Revenue (excluding CART)1,433,644$ 1,462,317$ 1,491,563$ 1,521,394$ Total 1,712,165$ 1,746,409$ 1,781,337$ 1,816,964$ CART 427,381$ 435,928$ 444,647$ 453,540$ General Revenue 1,470,350$ 1,499,756$ 1,529,752$ 1,560,347$ Total 1,897,730$ 1,935,685$ 1,974,398$ 2,013,886$ FTA Section 5307 5,460,341$ 5,569,547$ 5,680,938$ 5,794,557$ FTA Section 5310 257,165$ 262,309$ 267,555$ 272,906$ FTA Section 5339 -$ -$ -$ -$ Sales Tax - 1/2% Capital Improvement 408,000$ 416,160$ 424,483$ 432,973$ City of Jefferson-Local Operating Assistance 7,237,736$ 7,382,491$ 7,530,141$ 7,680,743$ MoDOT State Operating Assistance 349,238$ 356,223$ 363,347$ 370,614$ Farebox and Reimbursements 10,749$ 10,964$ 11,183$ 11,407$ FTA Section 5310 526,320$ 536,846$ 547,583$ 558,535$ Farebox and Reimbursements 26,010$ 26,530$ 27,061$ 27,602$ Local Contracts 320,790$ 327,206$ 333,750$ 340,425$ 423,959,514$ 432,438,705$ 441,087,479$ 449,909,228$ JEFFTRAN OATS Wardsville Grand Total Totals 1,747,394,926$ Taos Holts Summit Jefferson City St. Martins Callaway County Cole County DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 155 MODOT REVENUE FOR ROADS & BRIDGES, MULTIMODAL, HIGHWAY SAFETY (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS) MoDOT’s funding comes from both state and federal sources. Most of the money is dedicated by federal law or the state constitution and statutes to specific purposes. Figure 6.32 depicts the funds available for roads and bridges and other transportation modes. Figure 6.32 MoDOT funds available for roads and bridges and other transportation modes SOURCE: MODOT. CITIZEN’S GUIDE TO TRANSPORTATION FUNDING (FINANCIAL SNAPSHOT, NOVEMBER 2023). DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 156 LOCAL FUNDING SOURCES Sales tax provides most of the transportation revenue at the local level. Local revenue sources for operations and maintenance include state fuel tax, state vehicles sales/use tax, local sales taxes, franchise fees, license & permit fees, property taxes, and other revenue sources that provide significant resources for local general funds and specific funding of transportation. Not all taxes and fees go to transportation, so the local jurisdiction will usually identify a budget specifically for transportation purposes, such as capital improvements program or operations and maintenance budgets. Local finance initiatives, otherwise known as special taxing districts, may also provide additional revenue to be used on specific transportation needs within a designated development area. TAXES All jurisdictions in the CAMPO Region receive funding via the state fuel tax or a designated sales tax or property tax, see Figure 6.33. Local revenue also supports JEFFTRAN in Jefferson City through the City’s Capital Improvement Program. These taxes are critical to transportation maintenance and improvements. Revenue projections stemming from these taxes are outlined in greater detail in Section 6 under Anticipated Available Revenue. Figure 6.33 Local Funding Sources by Jurisdiction Callaway County County Aid Road Trust - State Fuel Tax Property Tax - Road & Bridge ($.2466 levy) Sales Tax - 1/2% Capital Improvement Cole County County Aid Road Trust - State Fuel Tax Property Tax - Road & Bridge ($.27 levy) Holts Summit County Aid Road Trust - State Fuel Tax Jefferson City and JEFFTRAN County Aid Road Trust - State Fuel Tax Sales Tax - 1/2% Parks Sales Tax Sales Tax - 1/2% Capital Improvement St. Martins County Aid Road Trust - State Fuel Tax Taos County Aid Road Trust - State Fuel Tax Wardsville County Aid Road Trust - State Fuel Tax Source: CAMPO Transportation Improvement Program 2020-2024 LOCAL FINANCE INITIATIVES & SPECIAL DISTRICTS Local Finance Initiatives are incentive programs that financially assist development activities. Each program is designed to address a specific development need by or assist a specific type of developer, including local governments, not-for-profit organizations, for-profit developers, community development corporations, volunteer organizations or others. Community Improvement Districts (CID) provide funding for certain public improvements or services in the designated benefit area. Funding may be through a special tax on sales, special assessment on certain real property or by fees, rents or charges generated in the District. Local Option Economic Development Sales Tax allows citizens to authorize a supplemental sales tax dedicated exclusively for certain economic development initiatives in their home municipality. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 157 Neighborhood Improvement Districts (NID) finance certain public facilities, improvements or redevelopment in the designated benefit area. Funding is accomplished by issue of general obligation bonds of the governing municipality. Property Tax Abatement is offered to private companies for certain urban redevelopment or industrial development projects by cities and counties. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) provides local tax financial assistance for the redevelopment of designated economically depressed areas. TIF allows the use of a portion of certain new local tax revenues generated for a limited number of years in the redevelopment area to help pay for the redevelopment. Jefferson City has four areas in the City where Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is used, including the Capital Mall, High Street in the Downtown area, the Southside Neighborhood along Dunklin Street, and the old St. Mary’s Hospital site. Funds generated from the TIFs in these areas can assist with restoration, construction, demolition, sidewalk installation, engineering, stormwater mitigation, and more. Transportation Development Districts (TDD) are created for the purpose of developing, improving, maintaining or operating one or more projects relative to the transportation needs of the benefit area, related to streets and highways, railroads or urban light rail, aviation, bus or other mass transit, river port, ferry or any other conveyance and related infrastructures within the broad definition of transportation. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 158 STATE FUNDING SOURCES STATE HIGHWAY USER REVENUES Cities and counties within CAMPO planning area receive State Highway Revenue each year. These revenues come from Motor Fuel Tax, Vehicle Sales Tax, and Motor Vehicle Fees. For Counties, the revenue distribution is based on the ratio of a county’s rural road mileage to the total of county rural road mileage of the state, and the ratio of the County’s assessed total county rural land valuation as portion of the total state rural land valuation. For cities, a city’s share is distributed according to population, based on the ratio of the city population to the population of all the cities in the state. *REQUIRES CERTIFICATION BY THE COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION AND THE MISSOURI HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SOURCE: MODOT DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 159 STATE PARTNERSHIP FUNDING PROGRAMS (REPAYMENT REQUIRED) STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE REVOLVING FUND (STAR FUND) The STAR Fund was created to assist in the planning, acquisition, development and construction of transportation facilities other than highways in the state. MISSOURI TRANSPORTATION FINANCE CORPORATION (MTFC) A non-profit lending corporation established to assist local transportation projects, and to administer the STAR Fund. STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BANK (SIB) A SIB is an investment fund at the state level with the ability to make loans and provide other forms of credit assistance to public and private entities to carry out transportation projects. STATE PARTNERSHIP DEBT-FINANCING PROGRAMS (REPAYMENT NOT REQUIRED) COST SHARING PROGRAM Projects where MoDOT commits a portion of project costs for projects not on the department's right-of-way and construction program, but that will benefit the state highway system. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM A method of funding projects that will significantly impact the economic development in a given area. TRANSPORTATION CORPORATIONS Specialized, temporary, private, not-for-profit corporations that can be organized to plan, develop, and finance a particular transportation project. Transportation Corporations accounted for $10,528,000 in funding for MO Rt. 179 from FY 2005 to 2007. MISSOURI ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (MEHTAP) MEHTAP provides state financial assistance for public and nonprofit organizations offering transportation services to the elderly and disabled at below-cost rates. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 160 FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES Federal transportation funding sources include grant and loan programs administered by a handful of agencies. For the purposes of this plan, sources that cannot be used within the CAMPO planning area have been excluded. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (FHWA) PROGRAMS An agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA supports State and local governments in the design, construction, and maintenance of the Nation’s highway system (Federal-Aid Highway Program) and various federally and tribal owned lands (Federal Lands Highway Program). FHWA provides State and local governments with financial and technical assistance. NATIONAL HIGHWAY PERFORMANCE PROGRAM (NHPP) 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. HIGHWAY BRIDGE PROGRAM (HBP) HBP is intended for bridge rehabilitation and replacement. In Missouri, HBP funds are only available to local jurisdictions in the form of BRO (Bridge Replacement Off-System). BRO funds are annually allocated to counties and can only be applied to bridges not on the state-system. HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP) HSIP supports a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-State-owned public roads and roads on tribal lands RAILWAY-HIGHWAY CROSSINGS (SET-ASIDE FROM HSIP) A set-aside from HSIP, this program funds safety improvements to reduce the number of fatalities, injuries, and crashes at public grade crossings. TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES (TA) – PREVIOUSLY TAP Administered by MoDOT, TA replaces the previous Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) and with a set- aside of Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) program funding. These set-aside funds include all projects and activities that were previously eligible under TAP. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (TEAP) Administered by MoDOT, TEAP allows local public agencies to receive engineering assistance to study traffic engineering problems. Eligible projects include: corridor safety and/or operational analysis, intersection(s) safety and/or operational analysis, speed limit review, sign inventory, pedestrian/bike route analysis, parking issues, and other traffic studies, etc. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 161 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) PROGRAMS An agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation, the FTA provides financial and technical assistance to local public transit systems, including buses, subways, light rail, commuter rail, trolleys and ferries. FTA also oversees safety measures and helps develop next-generation technology research. SECTION 5307 URBANIZED AREA FORMULA GRANTS 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 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 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 5339 FORMULA GRANTS FOR BUS AND BUS FACILITIES This program makes Federal resources available to States and designated recipients to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses. Additionally, funds can be used to purchase related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities including technological changes or innovations to modify low or no emission vehicles or facilities. BUILD AMERICA BUREAU Administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Build America Bureau serves as the single point of contact and coordination for states, municipalities, and project sponsors looking to utilize federal transportation expertise, apply for federal transportation credit programs, and explore ways to access private capital in public private partnerships. The Bureau streamlines credit opportunities and grants and provides access to the credit and grant programs with more speed and transparency, while also providing technical assistance and encouraging innovative best practices in project planning, financing, delivery, and monitoring. TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING AND INNOVATION ACT (TIFIA) TIFIA provides credit assistance for qualified projects of regional and national significance. Many large- scale, surface transportation projects, including highway, transit, rail, intermodal freight, and port access are eligible for assistance. Eligible applicants include state and local governments, transit agencies, railroad companies, special authorities/districts, and private entities. The TIFIA credit program is designed to fill market gaps and leverage private co-investment. INFRASTRUCTURE FOR REBUILDING AMERICA (INFRA) GRANTS INFRA provides dedicated, discretionary funding for projects that address critical highway and bridge issues. The grants support fixing infrastructure by creating opportunities for all levels of government and the private sector to fund infrastructure, using innovative approaches. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 162 BIPARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE LAW (BIL) According to the US Department of Transportation (US DOT), the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) is the largest investment in bridges since the interstate system was built, the largest investment in transit in U.S. history, the greatest investment in passenger rail since the creation of Amtrak, and the largest investment in EV infrastructure in U.S. history. The BIL, signed into law November 15, 2021, includes a five-year reauthorization (FY2022-26) of surface transportation programs and direct advanced appropriations. Total transportation funding in this five-year package is over $660 billion, including the following over five years: • Federal Highway Administration: $365 billion • Federal Transit Administration: $107 billion • Federal Railroad Administration: $102 billion • Federal Aviation Administration: $25 billion • National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: $8 billion • Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: $5 billion • Maritime Administration: $2 billion • Office of the Secretary of Transportation: $43 billion THE BIL AND MISSOURI In Missouri, the BIL impacts several areas of transportation. According to a White House fact sheet, “the law makes critical investments that will improve lives for Missourians and position the state for success.” The fact sheet’s data calls out different ways in which the BIL is intended to invest in Missouri as of May 2023. Thus far, approximately $3.1 billion has been announced for parts of the transportation system, including roads, bridges, public transit, ports, and airports. With formula funding alone, Missouri is at least anticipated to receive billions more for more projects up until 2026. THE BIL AND METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS The BIL creates many new programs and impacts several existing ones – including funding for Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). The BIL continues funding of MPOs and approximately $950 million in federal funding is anticipated to be dedicated towards MPOs across the nation over a five-year period. New changes for MPOs also include altered requirements for consistent data reporting and equitable population representation as well as greater considerations for aspects of transportation planning and respective public participation. According to FHWA, the BIL also 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) on specified planning activities to increase safe and accessible options for multiple travel modes for people of all ages and abilities. [§ 11206(b)]. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 163 APPENDIX A: MTP PLANNING REQUIREMENTS §450.324 CFR APPENDIX B: AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS APPENDIX C: SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT APPENDIX D: SURVEYS AND PUBLIC COMMENT APPENDIX E: CAMPO TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM APPENDIX F: CAPITAL AREA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN – 2023 APPENDIX G: CAMPO COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLAN – 2021 APPENDIX H: CAMPO TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL REPORT APPENDIX I: CAMPO WAYFINDING PLAN – 2016 Note: Appendices may be updated on an annual or semi-annual basis. Updates to the Appendices and the MTP can be found on our website at www.jeffersoncitymo.gov/campo DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 164 APPENDIX A: MTP PLANNING REQUIREMENTS - §450.324 CFR §450.324 Development and content of the metropolitan transportation plan. Section (a) The metropolitan transportation planning process shall include the development of a transportation plan addressing no less than a 20-year planning horizon as of the effective date. In formulating the transportation plan, the MPO shall consider factors described in §450.306 as the factors relate to a minimum 20-year forecast period. In nonattainment and maintenance areas, the effective date of the transportation plan shall be the date of a conformity determination issued by the FHWA and the FTA. In attainment areas, the effective date of the transportation plan shall be its date of adoption by the MPO. Whole plan (b) The transportation plan shall include both long-range and short-range strategies/actions that provide for the development of an integrated multimodal transportation system (including accessible pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of people and goods in addressing current and future transportation demand. Section 6 (c) The MPO shall review and update the transportation plan at least every 4 years in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas and at least every 5 years in attainment areas to confirm the transportation plan's validity and consistency with current and forecasted transportation and land use conditions and trends and to extend the forecast period to at least a 20-year planning horizon. In addition, the MPO may revise the transportation plan at any time using the procedures in this section without a requirement to extend the horizon year. The MPO shall approve the transportation plan (and any revisions) and submit it for information purposes to the Governor. Copies of any updated or revised transportation plans must be provided to the FHWA and the FTA. Whole Plan (d) In metropolitan areas that are in nonattainment for ozone or carbon monoxide, the MPO shall coordinate the development of the metropolitan transportation plan with the process for developing transportation control measures (TCMs) in a State Implementation Plan (SIP). Not Applicable to CAMPO (e) The MPO, the State(s), and the public transportation operator(s) shall validate data used in preparing other existing modal plans for providing input to the transportation plan. In updating the transportation plan, the MPO shall base the update on the latest available estimates and assumptions for population, land use, travel, employment, congestion, and economic activity. The MPO shall approve transportation plan contents and supporting analyses produced by a transportation plan update. Section 4 & Appendix H – TDM Report (f) The metropolitan transportation plan shall, at a minimum, include: Multiple Locations – See in Below Supporting Subparts (1) The current and projected transportation demand of persons and goods in the metropolitan planning area over the period of the transportation plan; Section 4 & Appendix H – TDM Report (2) Existing and proposed transportation facilities (including major roadways, public transportation facilities, intercity bus facilities, multimodal and intermodal facilities, nonmotorized transportation facilities (e.g., pedestrian walkways and bicycle facilities), and intermodal connectors) that should function as an integrated metropolitan transportation system, giving emphasis to those facilities that serve important national and regional transportation functions over the period of the transportation plan. Sections 5 & 6 & Appendix H – TDM Report (3) A description of the performance measures and performance targets used in assessing the performance of the transportation system in accordance with §450.306(d). Section 1 and Appendix C – System Performance Report (4) A system performance report and subsequent updates evaluating the condition and performance of the transportation system with respect to the performance targets described in §450.306(d), including— Appendix C - System Performance Report (i) Progress achieved by the metropolitan planning organization in meeting the performance targets in comparison with system performance recorded in previous reports, including baseline data; and (ii) For metropolitan planning organizations that voluntarily elect to develop multiple scenarios, an analysis of how the preferred scenario has improved the conditions and performance of the transportation system and how changes in local policies and investments have impacted the costs necessary to achieve the identified performance targets. (5) Operational and management strategies to improve the performance of existing transportation facilities to relieve vehicular congestion and maximize the safety and mobility of people and goods; Appendix – System Performance Report (6) Consideration of the results of the congestion management process in TMAs that meet the requirements of this subpart, including the identification of SOV projects that result from a congestion management process in TMAs that are nonattainment for ozone or carbon monoxide. Not Applicable to CAMPO (7) Assessment of capital investment and other strategies to preserve the existing and projected future metropolitan transportation infrastructure, provide for multimodal capacity increases based on regional priorities and needs, and reduce the vulnerability of the existing transportation infrastructure to natural disasters. The metropolitan transportation plan may consider projects and strategies that address areas or corridors where current or projected congestion threatens the efficient functioning of key elements of the metropolitan area's transportation system. Sections 3 & 6 (8) Transportation and transit enhancement activities, including consideration of the role that intercity buses may play in reducing congestion, pollution, and energy consumption in a cost-effective manner and strategies and investments that preserve and enhance intercity bus systems, including systems that are privately owned and operated, and including transportation alternatives, as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a), and associated transit improvements, as described in 49 U.S.C. 5302(a), as appropriate; Sections 3 & 6 & Appendix G – Coordinated Public Transit- Human Services Transportation Plan DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 165 (9) Design concept and design scope descriptions of all existing and proposed transportation facilities in sufficient detail, regardless of funding source, in nonattainment and maintenance areas for conformity determinations under the EPA's transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93, subpart A). In all areas (regardless of air quality designation), all proposed improvements shall be described in sufficient detail to develop cost estimates; Section 6 & Appendix E – Transportation Improvement Program (10) A discussion of types of potential environmental mitigation activities and potential areas to carry out these activities, including activities that may have the greatest potential to restore and maintain the environmental functions affected by the metropolitan transportation plan. The discussion may focus on policies, programs, or strategies, rather than at the project level. The MPO shall develop the discussion in consultation with applicable Federal, State, and Tribal land management, wildlife, and regulatory agencies. The MPO may establish reasonable timeframes for performing this consultation; Safety and Environmental Considerations & Implementation (11) A financial plan that demonstrates how the adopted transportation plan can be implemented. Section 6 & Appendix E – Transportation Improvement Program (i) For purposes of transportation system 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 the Federal-Aid highways (as defined by 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(5)) and public transportation (as defined by title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53). (ii) For the purpose of developing the metropolitan transportation plan, the MPO(s), public transportation operator(s), and State shall cooperatively develop estimates of funds that will be available to support metropolitan transportation plan implementation, as required under §450.314(a). All necessary financial resources from public and private sources that are reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the transportation plan shall be identified. (iii) The financial plan shall include recommendations on any additional financing strategies to fund projects and programs included in the metropolitan transportation plan. In the case of new funding sources, strategies for ensuring their availability shall be identified. The financial plan may include an assessment of the appropriateness of innovative finance techniques (for example, tolling, pricing, bonding, public private partnerships, or other strategies) as revenue sources for projects in the plan. (iv) In developing the financial plan, the MPO shall take into account all projects and strategies proposed for funding under title 23 U.S.C., title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 or with other Federal funds; State assistance; local sources; and private participation. Revenue and cost estimates that support the metropolitan transportation plan must use an inflation rate(s) to reflect “year of expenditure dollars,” based on reasonable financial principles and information, developed cooperatively by the MPO, State(s), and public transportation operator(s). (v) For the outer years of the metropolitan transportation plan (i.e., beyond the first 10 years), the financial plan may reflect aggregate cost ranges/cost bands, as long as the future funding source(s) is reasonably expected to be available to support the projected cost ranges/cost bands. (vi) For nonattainment and maintenance areas, the financial plan shall address the specific financial strategies required to ensure the implementation of TCMs in the applicable SIP. Section 6 & Appendix E – Transportation Improvement Program (vii) For illustrative purposes, the financial plan may include additional projects that would be included in the adopted transportation plan if additional resources beyond those identified in the financial plan were to become available. (viii) In cases that the FHWA and the FTA find a metropolitan transportation plan to be fiscally constrained and a revenue source is subsequently removed or substantially reduced (i.e., by legislative or administrative actions), the FHWA and the FTA will not withdraw the original determination of fiscal constraint; however, in such cases, the FHWA and the FTA will not act on an updated or amended metropolitan transportation plan that does not reflect the changed revenue situation. (12) Pedestrian walkway and bicycle transportation facilities in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 217(g). Section 2 & 5 & Appendix C, E, & F (g) The MPO shall consult, as appropriate, with State and local agencies responsible for land use management, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic preservation concerning the development of the transportation plan. The consultation shall involve, as appropriate: Section 2 (1) Comparison of transportation plans with State conservation plans or maps, if available; or (2) Comparison of transportation plans to inventories of natural or historic resources, if available. (h) The metropolitan transportation plan should integrate the priorities, goals, countermeasures, strategies, or projects for the metropolitan planning area contained in the HSIP, including the SHSP required under 23 U.S.C. 148, the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan required under 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), or an Interim Agency Safety Plan in accordance with 49 CFR part 659, as in effect until completion of the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, and may incorporate or reference applicable emergency relief and disaster preparedness plans and strategies and policies that support homeland security, as appropriate, to safeguard the personal security of all motorized and non-motorized users. Section 2 & Appendix C (i) An MPO may, while fitting the needs and complexity of its community, voluntarily elect to develop multiple scenarios for consideration as part of the development of the metropolitan transportation plan. Section 3 (1) An MPO that chooses to develop multiple scenarios under this paragraph (i) is encouraged to consider: (i) Potential regional investment strategies for the planning horizon; (ii) Assumed distribution of population and employment; (iii) A scenario that, to the maximum extent practicable, maintains baseline conditions for the performance areas identified in § 450.306(d) and measures established under 23 CFR part 490; (iv) A scenario that improves the baseline conditions for as many of the performance measures identified in § 450.306(d) as possible; (v) Revenue constrained scenarios based on the total revenues expected to be available over the forecast period of the plan; and (vi) Estimated costs and potential revenues available to support each scenario. (2) In addition to the performance areas identified in 23 U.S.C. 150(c), 49 U.S.C. 5326(c), and 5329(d), and the measures established under 23 CFR part 490, MPOs may evaluate scenarios developed under this paragraph using locally developed measures. DRAFT 04.11.2024 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 166 (j) The MPO shall provide individuals, affected public agencies, representatives of public transportation employees, public ports, freight shippers, providers of freight transportation services, private providers of transportation (including intercity bus operators, employer-based commuting programs, such as carpool program, vanpool program, transit benefit program, parking cashout program, shuttle program, or telework program), representatives of users of public transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled, and other interested parties with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the transportation plan using the participation plan developed under § 450.316(a). Section 3 & Appendix D (k) The MPO shall publish or otherwise make readily available the metropolitan transportation plan for public review, including (to the maximum extent practicable) in electronically accessible formats and means, such as the World Wide Web. Section 3 & Appendix D (l) A State or MPO is not required to select any project from the illustrative list of additional projects included in the financial plan under paragraph (f)(11) of this section. Section 6 (m) In nonattainment and maintenance areas for transportation-related pollutants, the MPO, as well as the FHWA and the FTA, must make a conformity determination on any updated or amended transportation plan in accordance with the Clean Air Act and the EPA transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93, subpart A). A 12-month conformity lapse grace period will be implemented when an area misses an applicable deadline, in accordance with the Clean Air Act and the transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93, subpart A). At the end of this 12-month grace period, the existing conformity determination will lapse. During a conformity lapse, MPOs can prepare an interim metropolitan transportation plan as a basis for advancing projects that are eligible to proceed under a conformity lapse. An interim metropolitan transportation plan consisting of eligible projects from, or consistent with, the most recent conforming transportation plan and TIP may proceed immediately without revisiting the requirements of this section, subject to interagency consultation defined in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. An interim metropolitan transportation plan containing eligible projects that are not from, or consistent with, the most recent conforming transportation plan and TIP must meet all the requirements of this section. Section 1, 2, & 5 & Appendix C Appendix B Amendments and Modifications AMENDMENTS & MODIFICATIONS The MTP is updated every five years. Between updates the MTP may be changed through an amendment or administrative modification. An amendment to the MTP is subject to a 7-day public comment period after being reviewed by the Technical Committee and before being approved by the Board of Directors. If staff conducts an administrative modification, notice will be provided to the Board of Directors either prior to or immediately following the modification. Definitions of an amendment or administrative modification, according to 23 CFR §450.104, are as follows: Administrative modification means a minor revision to a long-range statewide or metropolitan transportation plan, Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), or Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) that includes 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 does not require public review and comment, a redemonstration of fiscal constraint, or a conformity determination (in nonattainment and maintenance areas). Amendment means a revision to a long-range statewide or metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or STIP that involves a major change to a project included in a metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or STIP, including the addition or deletion of a project or a major change in project cost, project/project phase initiation dates, or a major change in design concept or design scope (e.g., changing project termini or the number of through traffic lanes or changing the number of stations in the case of fixed guideway transit projects). Changes to projects that are included only for illustrative purposes do not require an amendment. An amendment is a revision that requires public review and comment and a redemonstration of fiscal constraint. If an amendment involves “non-exempt” projects in nonattainment and maintenance areas, a conformity determination is required. No amendments or modifications have been made at this time. Action Type CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN Appendix C Appendix C System Performance Report Updated January 2024 The CAMPO System Performance Report presents the condition and performance of the transportation system with regard to performance measures, performance targets, and progress achieved in meeting targets. This is the second System Performance Report for CAMPO and thus reports performance measures and targets. Future reports will contain comparisons to evaluate progress made in achieving targets. PERFORMANCE-BASED PLANNING AND PROGRAMING (PBPP) Performance-based Planning and Programing (PBPP) is a requirement of the FAST Act and impacts both the MTP and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). PBPP refers to the application of transportation performance management (TPM) principles within the planning and programming processes of transportation agencies to achieve desired performance outcomes for the multimodal transportation system. CAMPO uses a performance- based approach to transportation decision making to support the national federal highway performance goals listed below. NATIONAL FEDERAL HIGHWAY PERFORMANCE GOALS • Safety - To achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. • Infrastructure Condition - To maintain the highway infrastructure asset system in a state of good repair • Congestion Reduction - To achieve a significant reduction in congestion on the National Highway System. • System Reliability - To improve the efficiency of the surface transportation system. • Freight Movement and Economic Vitality - To improve the national freight network, strengthen the ability of rural communities to access national and international trade markets, and support regional economic development. • Environmental Sustainability - To enhance the performance of the transportation system while protecting and enhancing the natural environment. • Reduced Project Delivery Delays - To reduce project costs, promote jobs and the economy, and expedite the movement of people and goods by accelerating project completion through eliminating delays in the project development and delivery process, including reducing regulatory burdens and improving agencies' work practices. CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN Appendix C FEDERAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES CAMPO has adopted targets and measures in five areas: Safety, Pavement & Bridge, System Performance, Transit Asset Management, and Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan. Listed below are the four performance areas. SAFETY FAST Act/ MAP-21 was the first transportation reauthorization bill requiring target setting collaboration between State DOTs and planning partners on national performance measures. Targets are required to be set for five safety performance measures using five-year rolling averages. Annual targets must be set by State DOTs, then by each MPO, with the choice of adopting state targets or establishing their own for: • Number of Fatalities; • Rate of Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles traveled (VMT); • Number of Serious Injuries; • Rate of Serious Injuries per 100 Million VMT; and • Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and Non-motorized Serious Injuries The first three performance measures must be reported in the Highway Safety Plan (HSP) for NHTSA. All five performance measures must be reported in the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) for FHWA. When targets are not met, the State DOT must spend the full HSIP allocation in one fiscal year and submit an HSIP implementation plan to FHWA detailing how the State DOT plans to meet its targets. Figure 1 shows the statewide safety targets adopted by MoDOT and adopted by CAMPO. These targets are updated annually. Figure 1 – Safety Performance Targets Set by MoDOT* Performance Measure Crash Data 5-Year Rolling Average Baseline (2018- 2022) 5-year Rolling Average Statewide Target CY2024 2021 Final 2022 Preliminary 2023 (Using Target Setting Methodology) 2024 (Using Target Setting Methodology) Number of Fatalities* 1016 1057 998 918 972.4 ~972.4 Fatality Rate per 100 Million VMT* 1.27 3 1.340 1.253 1.141 1.258 ~1.258 Number of Serious Injuries* 5268 5047 4766 4486 4861.8 ~4861.8 Serious Injury Rate per 100 Million VMT^ 6.602 6.398 5.982 5.575 6.281 6.227 Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries^ 530 594 561 525 523.0 ~523.0 * Targets 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. An exception is made for instances where the baseline 5-year rolling average is less than the calculated target using the parameters previously described. When this occurs, the baseline will be used as the target. ~The number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries using the methodology above was calculated to by 499.1. This is greater than the 484.0 for the baseline, therefore the baseline was used for the target. CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN Appendix C PAVEMENT AND BRIDGE On May 20, 2017, the FHWA’s final PM2 rule on pavement and bridge condition performance measures to address new requirements established by MAP-21 and the FAST Act took effect. The Pavement and Bridge Condition Performance Measures final rule, published in the Federal Register on January 18, 2017, establishes measures for State DOTs to carry out the NHPP and to assess the condition of pavements on the non-Interstate NHS; pavements on the Interstate System; and bridges carrying the NHS, including on- and off- ramps connected to the NHS. This final rule includes six measures are: • percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in Good condition • percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in Poor condition • percentage of pavements on the NHS (excluding the Interstate System) in Good condition • percentage of pavements on the NHS (excluding the Interstate System) in Poor condition • percentage of NHS bridges in Good condition • percentage of NHS bridges in Poor condition There are no interstate highways in the CAMPO region, so those targets are not addressed. MoDOT establishes the following statewide pavement and bridge targets as seen in Figure 2, which shows the targets set by MoDOT and adopted by CAMPO. These targets may be updated every other year. Figure 2 – Applicable Pavement and Bridge Targets set by MoDOT Performance Measure 2021 Baseline 2023 Target 2025 Target Percentage of NHS Bridges in Good Condition 27.2% 22.8% 19.2% Percentage of NHS Bridges in Poor Condition 7.1% 7.7% 7.8% Percentage of Interstate Pavements in Good Condition 79.9% 77.5% 77.5% Percentage of Interstate Pavements in Poor Condition 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% Percentage of non-Interstate NHS Pavements in Good Condition 61.3% 61.1% 61.1% Percentage of non-Interstate NHS Pavements in Poor Condition 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% *Target revised from original set in May 2018 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN Appendix C TRAVEL TIME RELIABILITY AND FREIGHT RELIABILITY The System Performance final rule, published in the Federal Register on January 18, 2017 and effective on May 20, 2017, sets forth measures that State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) will use to report on the following characteristics within their jurisdiction: • the performance of the Interstate and non-Interstate National Highway System (NHS) to carry out the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP); • freight movement on the Interstate system; and • traffic congestion and on-road mobile source emissions for the purpose of carrying out the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program. This System Performance/Freight/CMAQ Performance Measures final rule includes six measures: • Interstate Travel Time Reliability Measure: Percent of Person-Miles Traveled on the Interstate that are Reliable • Non-Interstate Travel Time Reliability Measure: Percent of Person-Miles Traveled on the Non-Interstate NHS that are Reliable • Freight Reliability Measure: Truck Travel Time Reliability Index • Peak Hour Excessive Delay (PHED) Measure: Annual Hours of PHED Per Capita • Non-Single Occupancy Vehicle Travel (SOV) Measure: Percent of non-SOV Travel • On-Road Mobile Emissions: Total Emissions Reduction There are no interstate highways in the CAMPO region, so those targets are not addressed. The CMAQ measures do not apply to the CAMPO region, so the PHED, Non-SOV and On-Road mobile emissions targets are not addressed. MoDOT established the following travel time reliability target as seen in Figure 3, which shows the target set by MoDOT and adopted by CAMPO. This target may be updated every other year. Figure 3 – Applicable Travel Time Reliability Target set by MoDOT Performance Measure 2021 Baseline 2023 Target 2025 Target Interstate Travel Time Reliability Measure: Percent of Reliable Person-Miles Traveled on the Interstate 98.4% 87.1% 86.0% Non-Interstate Travel Time Reliability Measure: Percent of Reliable Person-Miles Traveled on the Non-Interstate NHS 95.5% 87.8% 87.0% Freight Reliability Measure: Truck Travel Time Reliability Index 1.18 1.45 1.45 CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN Appendix C TRANSIT ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN Transit Asset Management is the strategic and systematic practice of procuring, operating, inspecting, maintaining, rehabilitating, and replacing transit capital assets to manage their performance, risk, and costs over their life cycles for the purpose of providing safe, cost-effective, and reliable public transportation. The TAM final rule requires every transit provider that receives federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 to develop a TAM plan or be part of a Group TAM Plan prepared by a sponsor (MoDOT). All TAM plans must contain four major components: • Asset Inventory: A register (comprehensive list) of agency’s assets and specific information about those assets. The inventory is broken into four categories: Equipment, Rolling Stock, Facilities (maintenance and administration), and Infrastructure. • Condition Assessment: The process of assessing and documenting the condition or residual life of an asset. This process provides an overall assessment of equipment, maintenance and administration facilities. • Management Approach – Decision Support Tools: An analytic process or methodology to help prioritize projects to improve and maintain the State of Good Repair of capital assets, based on available condition data, objective criteria and financial needs for asset investments over time. • Investment Prioritization: A transit provider’s ranking of capital projects or programs to achieve or maintain a SGR based on financial resources from all sources a transit provider reasonably anticipates will be available over the TAM Plan period. This section includes but is not limited to performance measures, targets, and proposed investments. 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, as listed below, and adopted by CAMPO. 4 – Transit Asset Management targets by MoDOT and JEFFTRAN * ULB stands for Useful Life Benchmark ** TERM is a Federal Transit Administration Transit Economic Requirements Model which helps transit agencies assess their state of good repair backlog, level of annual investment to attain state of good repair, impact of variations in funding, and investment priorities. CAMPO 2045 & BEYOND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN Appendix C PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AGENCY SAFETY PLAN 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. JEFFTRAN, in cooperation with MoDOT, established the following safety performance targets as seen in Figure 5, which shows the targets set by JEFFTRAN and adopted by CAMPO. These targets may be updated every year. Figure 5 – Transit Asset Management targets by MoDOT and JEFFTRAN Mode of Transit Service Ratalities (Total) Fatalities (per 100k VRM) Injuries (Total) Injuries (per 100k VRM) Safety Events (Total) Safety Events (per 100k VRM) System Reliability (VRM/Failure) Fixed Route 0 0 2 0.14 40 2.72 0.00001 ADA Complementary Paratransit 0 0 1 0.1 36 3.53 0.000012 * The targets are based on a review of the previous five (5) years of JEFFTRAN's safety performance datat. All rate targets recorded here are per one hundred thousand vehicle revenue miles (VRM). JEFFTRAN Safety Performance Targets Appendix D 2023 Public Survey and 2018 Stakeholder Comments CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Public Survey 2023 1 / 17 Q1 Where do you live? Answered: 268 Skipped: 0 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Holts Summit Wardsville Taos Jefferson City St. Martins Cole County (out-side ci... Callaway County... Boone County Osage County Other CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Public Survey 2023 2 / 17 6.34%17 26.49%71 8.58%23 44.03%118 1.12%3 9.33%25 0.75%2 0.37%1 1.49%4 1.49%4 TOTAL 268 ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Holts Summit Wardsville Taos Jefferson City St. Martins Cole County (out-side city limits) Callaway County (out-side city limits) Boone County Osage County Other CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Public Survey 2023 3 / 17 Q2 Where do you work? Answered: 268 Skipped: 0 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Holts Summit Wardsville Taos Jefferson City St. Martins Cole County (out-side ci... Callaway County... Boone County Osage County Other I am not currently... CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Public Survey 2023 4 / 17 1.49%4 4.85%13 0.75%2 62.31%167 0.75%2 3.36%9 1.87%5 3.73%10 0.37%1 6.72%18 13.81%37 TOTAL 268 ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Holts Summit Wardsville Taos Jefferson City St. Martins Cole County (out-side city limits) Callaway County (out-side city limits) Boone County Osage County Other I am not currently employed. CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Public Survey 2023 5 / 17 12.31%33 35.45%95 19.40%52 20.52%55 12.31%33 Q3 How many people (including yourself) currently live in your household? Answered: 268 Skipped: 0 TOTAL 268 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% 1 2 3 4 5 or more ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES 1 2 3 4 5 or more CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Public Survey 2023 6 / 17 14.93%40 38.43%103 46.64%125 Q4 How many working vehicles does your household own? Answered: 268 Skipped: 0 TOTAL 268 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% 1 2 3 or more ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES 1 2 3 or more CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Public Survey 2023 7 / 17 1.87%5 9.70%26 24.63%66 25.37%68 17.91%48 18.28%49 2.24%6 Q5 What is your age? Answered: 268 Skipped: 0 TOTAL 268 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 or older ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 or older CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Public Survey 2023 8 / 17 1.87%5 8.58%23 13.06%35 17.16%46 20.90%56 10.82%29 10.45%28 7.09%19 10.07%27 Q6 What is your approximate average household income? Answered: 268 Skipped: 0 TOTAL 268 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% $0-$24,999 $25,000-$49,999 $50,000-$74,999 $75,000-$99,999 $100,000-$124,9 99 $125,000-$149,9 99 $150,000-$174,9 99 $175,000-$199,9 99 $200,000 and up ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES $0-$24,999 $25,000-$49,999 $50,000-$74,999 $75,000-$99,999 $100,000-$124,999 $125,000-$149,999 $150,000-$174,999 $175,000-$199,999 $200,000 and up CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Public Survey 2023 9 / 17 Q7 How often do you travel using the following forms of transportation? Answered: 268 Skipped: 0 How often? 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Every day - …Frequently …Regularly: 2…Occasionall… Rarely: Les…Never: Hav… Car/Truck/Van Walk Bike Public Transit - JEFFTRAN,... Uber or similar Electric Scooter Electric Wheelchair CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Public Survey 2023 10 / 17 How often? 95.09% 252 4.53% 12 0.38% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 265 3.72% 7 22.34% 42 15.96% 30 9.04% 17 22.87% 43 26.06% 49 188 2.17% 4 2.72% 5 4.35% 8 8.15% 15 15.76% 29 66.85% 123 184 1.65% 3 0.55% 1 1.10% 2 0.00% 0 4.40% 8 92.31% 168 182 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.55% 1 4.40% 8 25.82% 47 69.23% 126 182 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.56% 1 5.00% 9 94.44% 170 180 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.56% 1 99.44% 178 179 EVERY DAY - THIS IS MY PRIMARY CHOICE OF TRANSPORTATION. FREQUENTLY - MORE THAN 5 TIMES A MONTH. REGULARLY: 2 TO 5 TIMES A MONTH. OCCASIONALLY: ONCE A MONTH. RARELY: LESS THAN ONCE A MONTH. NEVER: HAVEN'T IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS. TOTAL Car/Truck/Van Walk Bike Public Transit - JEFFTRAN, OATS, SERVE, etc. Uber or similar Electric Scooter Electric Wheelchair CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Public Survey 2023 11 / 17 Q8 How safe do you feel using the following forms of transportation? Answered: 268 Skipped: 0 Safety level 40.45% 108 51.31% 137 7.49% 20 0.75% 2 0.00% 0 267 11.16% 24 44.19% 95 25.58% 55 5.58% 12 13.49% 29 215 2.43% 5 15.05% 31 25.73% 53 10.19% 21 46.60% 96 206 8.50% 17 27.00% 54 7.50% 15 2.50% 5 54.50% 109 200 4.43% 9 11.33% 23 6.40% 13 0.99% 2 76.85% 156 203 0.00% 0 6.03% 12 6.03% 12 8.04% 16 79.90% 159 199 0.00% 0 1.01% 2 2.53% 5 2.53% 5 93.94% 186 198 Safety level 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Safe Safe Uncomfort…Very Unsafe No opinion … Driving or riding in a... Walking Riding a bike Using Uber or similar Public Transit - JEFFTRAN,... Riding an Electric... Using an Electric... VERY SAFE SAFE UNCOMFORTABLE VERY UNSAFE NO OPINION (I RARELY OR NEVER USE THIS FORM OF TRANSPORTATION) TOTAL Driving or riding in a Car/Truck/Van Walking Riding a bike Using Uber or similar Public Transit - JEFFTRAN, OATS, SERVE, etc. Riding an Electric Scooter Using an Electric Wheelchair CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Public Survey 2023 12 / 17 Q9 If you answered "uncomfortable" or "unsafe" to walking, biking, ortransit, what sort of improvements would make you feel safer? Answered: 147 Skipped: 121 CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Public Survey 2023 13 / 17 Q10 How would you like to see money spent in our region? Please rankthe following, with 1 as your highest priority and 8 as your lowest priority. Answered: 268 Skipped: 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Equity and Accessibilit... Environmental Protection... Innovation - Implement... Community Development... System Preservation... Economic Prosperity... Safety - Reduce the... Alternatives to Driving... CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Public Survey 2023 14 / 17 20.15% 54 10.82% 29 12.31% 33 14.93% 40 9.70% 26 14.55% 39 11.19% 30 6.34% 17 268 4.97 3.73% 10 11.94% 32 12.31% 33 13.81% 37 15.67% 42 12.69% 34 17.91% 48 11.94% 32 268 4.05 13.06% 35 25.00% 67 20.52% 55 13.43% 36 11.57% 31 7.46% 20 6.34% 17 2.61% 7 268 5.54 7.46% 20 10.82% 29 13.81% 37 19.78% 53 20.52% 55 16.42% 44 6.72% 18 4.48% 12 268 4.66 11.19% 30 12.31% 33 14.93% 40 16.04% 43 13.06% 35 14.18% 38 12.69% 34 5.60% 15 268 4.71 4.48% 12 6.72% 18 11.94% 32 13.81% 37 13.81% 37 19.78% 53 19.78% 53 9.70% 26 268 3.87 33.58% 90 14.93% 40 10.07% 27 5.22% 14 11.19% 30 7.09% 19 10.82% 29 7.09% 19 268 5.54 6.34% 17 7.46% 20 4.10% 11 2.99% 8 4.48% 12 7.84% 21 14.55% 39 52.24% 140 268 2.65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOTAL SCORE Equity and Accessibility -Directly address thetransportation needs of theelderly, people withdisabilities and low- income. Environmental Protection -Protect environmental,cultural and historic sites,and mitigate negativeimpacts. Innovation - Implement newtechnology to improve trafficflow, roadway maintenanceand overall transportationsystem efficiency. Community Development -Implement land-use andtransportation policies thatenhance communities,create connections to jobs,and promote tourism. System Preservation - Preserve existingtransportation assets, suchas roadway pavement andbridges. Economic Prosperity - Improve infrastructure alongregional transportationcorridors, supporting currentand future economicdevelopment. Safety - Reduce the amountand severity of crashes for alltransportation users. Alternatives to Driving - Promote alternativetransportation modesincluding bus, biking,walking, passenger rail andride- sharing. CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Public Survey 2023 15 / 17 Q11 What do you see as transportation needs in our region? (Think ofspecific projects, such as adding lanes to a certain intersection, signaltiming, widening roads, fixing a curve, adding bike lanes, addingsidewalks, etc.) Answered: 242 Skipped: 26 CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Public Survey 2023 16 / 17 Q12 What trends do you see affecting the future of the Capital Area, and how? (Examples might include aging population, employment, rural depopulation, on-line retailing, redevelopment, etc.) Answered: 209 Skipped: 59 CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Public Survey 2023 17 / 17 Q13 What is important to you in considering an overall vision for our region? (Examples might include ways to use land, such as more affordable housing, developing vacant or undeveloped, more parks, more sidewalks/trails, more roadway capacity, improved schools, attracting more jobs, etc.) Answered: 215 Skipped: 53 Question 9 If you answered "uncomfortable" or "unsafe" to walking, biking, ortransit, what sort of improvements would make you feel safer? A bike and walk lane on the outside of the bridge over Hwy54 at Ellis A roundabout or light at the Ashbury Way/Route B intersection Sidewalks along at least one side of Wardsville A societal culture that collectively expects and watches out for cyclists on roads that don't have a dedicated bike Add a well planned bike or pedestrian facilities at all in my area Bike and walk lanes especially across bridges and through intersections. Bike lanes Bike lanes and sidewalks where needed are important Bike lanes, citizens that respect the posted speed limits Biking in JC could be made safer with the addition of dedicated bike lanes ‐ rather than a shared auto and bike Biking in the city is not feasible for me because of the hills and traffic Biking needs to stay on trails already for them Biking on city streets is dangerous there’s trails for bikers Bring back a real cab service as uber/lyft is unreliable and has no incentive to keep drivers active when they may Clearly mark all crosswalks with broad paint stripes, and post signs more frequently. covered and lighted bus stops. Sidewalks along business areas on both sides of the roads. Create a park and ride on 54 north of the bridge... Closer to Holts Summit or New Bloomfield. It will lessen the traffic on the bridge and create more parking in Jeff. You could work with the cities of Holts Summit, New decreased speeds on the roads Dedicated bike lane. Dedicated multi use paths for biking and walking. Dedicated sidewalk Drivers are crazy. Watch your back in JC. Drivers should be forced to observe posted traffic signs. For example, a "yield" sign is not a "merge" sign. Get rid of bike lanes in JC Having transportation available at night would make it easier and safer to go places. Highway shoulders, sidewalks, but most of all ‐ drivers who pay attention and don't have their face in their I am more interested in the safety of students walking. More sidewalks throughout the city, particularly close to I commute through wardsville to go to work and the area by the new Casey's is a bad spot during high traffic, I would feel better if it had a traffic light at that location, especially with the newer drivers from the highschool. I did not answer "uncomfortable" for any mode of transportation. I do not bike because I do not feel it’s safe. Other people bike down Route M, which really scares me, as it’s a curvy road that people drive too fast on. It’s difficult to comfortably pass bikers. I feel "uncomfortable" riding or driving due to local drivers not following the rules of the road. They stop right in the middle of road for no reason, do not use turn signals, will not yield, run stop signs & red lights and are I feel the people driving on the roads near my house would be likely to hit me if I was on a bike I live on DeerTrail and as many of my neighbors we are daily walkers. Many of us walk up our street DeerTrail to Eastland. When you get up to Eastland walking on the street becomes very dangerous as there are no sidewalks ( sidewalks only exist on the street starting on the other side of Hwy 50/63 by Woodland Animal Hospital. There are no sidewalks. There are pieces if sidewalk from CFM to Taco Bell. After Taco Bell there are NO sidewalks on Eastland all the way up to GreenBerry Road. Why can we not have sidewalks? The traffic is constant with traffic coming from many directions such as subdivision s, schools, businesses, Hwy 50/63, and Hwy 54. There are many times large trucks and many truck drivers have found a short ‐cut from 54 to 50 in both directions. Many drivers exceed the speed limit. All of these things put us in danger just because we also desire to walk out of our front door and get exercise or go to the store. Many walk to work. There are even you g people walking I might feel safer biking if I knew what the rules are for using bikes on public roads, and if I knew that the people Page 1 of 27 Question 9 I think bikes should have a 5' flag or backward facing blinking red light, rearview mirrors on either the bike or helmet, stay to within 3' of edge of road surface, pull over when two or more vehicles are slowed behind them, I use my personal vehicle so for me it could be a stop light at Rt B/Ashbury Way. I travel through there daily to and from school and work and it is a very unsafe intersection, especially for young drivers and elderly, not to I walk my neighborhood everyday and have to be very awake of traffic. Wish there were more sidewalks in my I wouldn't feel safe using any other form of transportation except my own SUV. People who bike are taking Improved crosswalk areas with sensors/flashing lights, better visibility (especially on Mo Blvd for state workers ‐ and for employees to use designated crosswalk areas ‐ this area is very dangerous for pedestrians and IMPROVED SIDEWALK AVAILABILITY WITH CURBS SEPARATING THE STREET FROM SIDEWALKS Increase dedicated facilities with focus on connections to accommodate travel from start to end on dedicated facilities. Improve education and enforcement of motor vehicle operators responsibilities relative to vulnerable road users "Every person operating a motor vehicle on the roads and highways of this state shall drive the Intersection of Rt. M/B/W Keep people from biking or walking on letter route roads. Especially the rural letter route roads of Wardsville, Lack of sidewalks and lighting Lighting Lighting Lower homeless and crime rate. Biking‐ the sidewalk on my road (Moreau Dr) is unsafe (lots of cracks and broken pieces‐ can not even take my daughter for a walk in the stroller on our side of the sidewalk) Make the intersection of Route B, W, and M safer Make walking or bike riding unlawful on road with no shoulder. It is not safe to bike on curve county roads. Missing sidewalks in many sections of town. Would honestly love to walk and bike everywhere. More accessible More and well maintained( no major settling, bumps, and cracking) sidewalks would make my opinion change to very safe. Public education on sharing road with bikers more biking lanes. more bike lanes and off road greenways. better marking where riding in street is required. Better training for More contiguous sidewalks. More cops More designated bike‐only lanes. More sidewalks. More pedestrian friendly paths in rural areas. More security measures in place. More sidewalks and a place for bikes to ride More sidewalks and improved rosd crossings (e.g. on Mo Blvd). Separate bike lane. Also better bike safety training opportunities. Msny people on bikes don't follow traffic laws (in my observation). Especially important More sidewalks, I would drive less; relieve congestion on the Missouri River bridge and I might spend more time More sidewalks, roundabout at Green Berry and Seven Hills because it’s a very busy intersection. more sidewalks, wider streets More sidewalks. More specified bike routes/walking areas Motorists don't always see people on bikes. Bikers must ride very defensively. Moving my office building close to my home?? Mow the ditches and cut the trees on Route W since they have not been cleaned properly for years. We also have a lot of deer and can NOT see them because of the TREES and TALL grass‐visablity hazard. The chip and seal is terrible on Route W and when it snows it seems like we are the last road cleaned. One time the shoulders My unsafe response to riding a bike is directed more at motorist attitudes than existing infrastructure. N/A N/A Page 2 of 27 Question 9 n/a N/A N/A N/A n/a N/A N/A N/a n/a ‐ I don't bike or walk due to distance of travel Na NA Na NA Na Na Na Need more space Need sidewalks in better condition Need to enforce law against texting and driving. It is the other drivers that worry me the most. Running red No side walks No sidewalks along county roads NO SIDEWALKS OR AREAS TO WALK OR BIKE IN WARDSVILE None None! We don’t need bicycles or people walking along highway M. Not safe. There are other places to safely bicycle or walk. We have large semi’s and dump trucks, etc, using both highways M andB. At the curve by Tres Agaves and Gas station that is highway B, semi trucks drive that road to and from Meta for Diamond Dogfood. Not applicable Not much for non road walking, biking, etc Other drivers yielding at yield signs, not making left turns on a red light, not driving like 179 is Daytona police protroling all areas Protected bike lanes and protected sidewalks Ride on biking trails and not the street, keep bicycles off of the street Right of way education Round about or stoplight at RTE B and WARDSVILLE road intersection AND at RTE B and M intersections. Safe, but could be better with better sidewalks Safer drivers Security Sidewalk on tanner bridge between Lorenzo and Ellis Sidewalks Sidewalks Sidewalks Sidewalks Sidewalks added to streets in Wardsville. sidewalks along both sides of every street Sidewalks along the roadways Sidewalks and bike lanes Sidewalks and bike lanes Page 3 of 27 Question 9 Sidewalks and designated areas for non vehicle. Better intersections at Casey’s and b/m/w Sidewalks etc Sidewalks for walking, buffered bike lanes for biking, benches at bus stops with more frequent pickups and drop Sidewalks or dedicated bike lanes Sidewalks or shoulders on the roads. Sidewalks or wider streets. Walking to businesses is not a safe option as crossing overpass is needed. sidewalks that do not end in needed accessible places Sidewalks that stretch the length of the road. For example, missouri boulevard. The sidewalks are sporadic and Sidewalks with curb Sidewalks!!! Sidewalks, more room on the roads sidewalks/paths Speed bumps on certain roads, NO BICYCLES on roads when no shoulder!! Safe walking areas as the people who Speed enforcement and/or sidewalk The public transit makes me feel lonely because the busses and shuttles are always empty. The types of improvements that would need to be made have nothing to do with transportation or the roads. The unsafe comes ftom the other people acting up or not paying attention The wide shoulders along Route B have improve the area to allow walking. The amount of vehicles traveling Route B have increased immensely, and the traveling speeds are crazy along Route B There a no sidewalks in our subdivision (Paradigm Dr) There are no sidewalks or places to walk safely in most areas so choose to drive. If I do walk I go to a park or There are several neighborhoods and major roadways that do not have sidewalks or bike lanes. This puts pedestrians in the same area as motor vehicles which is an uncomfortable/unsafe situation. There is just too much going on in the world for me to trust my well being in the hands of another person. There really needs to be a sideway from Fairground Estates/Covington Gardens to the Fairgrounds for kids that ride their bikes or walk to school. Also for people who are walking or running to get to sidewalks on the other Traffic lights Uncomfortable driving due to multiple drivers not paying attention and very unsafe walking sure to drivers not Using marked trails and lanes. Can’t really control unsafe speed of vehicles Ways to keep pedestrian off of highways so they don't slow traffic and cause accidents We need more / better / smarter sidewalks and walking paths to make Jefferson City more walkable. Similarly, we have a pathetic amount of bike infrastructure and nearly no dedicated / protected bike lanes. Share‐o's are notoriously unsafe ‐ studies show that share‐o's are ignored by motorists and only provide a false sense of security to cyclists. We need protected bike lanes that can't be parked in (like Capital Avenue). This will probably Where we live, traveling into JC, there is no safe way other than motor vehicle to travel. The few that attempt Wider roads with shoulder Wider streets with separate bike lane, cleaner city transportation that runs more often Page 4 of 27 Question 11 What do you see as transportation needs in our region? (Think ofspecific projects, such as adding lanes to a certain intersection, signaltiming, widening roads, fixing a curve, adding bike lanes, addingsidewalks, etc.) Roundabout at South Country Club and Rainbow Drive. Improving traffic flow on Truman Blvd over Hwy 50, at all lights/intersections). Improve pedestrian situation at Truman Building where state workers cross walk across MO Blvd and don’t utilize crosswalks (which also need redesigned/relocated) ‐ this area is extremely dangerous in the morning. There are two lanes of traffic each way and cars often stop to allow pedestrians to cross outside of crosswalks, but they cannot control traffic of other lanes, which may not stop or may not see the pedestrian Adding sidewalks to Green Berry, roundabout at seven hills and green berry More sidewalks/bike lanes in/near Wardsville to promote more of a walking interactive community... Signal at the intersection of Route B and Falcon Lane... Roundabout at Falcon Lane and Old Wardsville Road Handling growth in the outlying areas‐specifically Wardsville. Tri level needs to be changed/fixed...it does not function properly. Right hand turn and/or longer right hand turn lanes going north on 179 and turning onto Tanner Bridge and Highway 54 to handle rush hour traffic and give cars going south, turning left better idea if Improving safety Walk ways to the school. Many kids choose to walk to Blair oaks and there are no safe walk ways to the school Address the existing falcon lane, Rt B, Ashbury way intersection. Unfortunately, the addition of Ashbury way has created a poorly designed intersection. I see that the only way to resolve that is move the Falcon lane Adding sidewalks in wardsville. Fixing intersection of Route B, W & M and also Route D and Asbury Way Intersection at Route b/w by st stand needs updated. Lots of yields and stops that no one seems to know how to use. Not sure what the best option for this is. Stop light or round about would be better. Extending the hours of operation for the bus services for those who work second shift jobs, I think it would be great to run it until midnight. That would be very helpful for those who don’t have vehicles. Timing of lights where hwy 179 goes over hwy 54. Better pavement on Rt W to handle heavy trucks. Adding parking options for downtown/business owners Better intersections in Wardsville. Almost all of the roads in Cole county and Jefferson City need repaved on route J the roads need to be ground down replaced and all the trees along the roads need to be trimmed back because they are falling over onto the Divert truckers from going through Wardsville and improve the intersection at Rt M/B/W. Roundabout at Route B/M/W SIDE WALKS!!!! Adding lanes where possible. Jefferson City has several areas of congestion that backup and cause congestion in subsequent intersections, magnifying the traffic issues. Wardsville needs sidewalks. It is not safe for our children who walk as there are many large trucks on the road. It’s up to the people to take responsibility to slow down. Law enforcement needs to be more visible and take action monitoring the speed limit. There should be no problem. improvements at St. Stanislaus intersection Fix the interchange between 50/63 and 54. Additional lanes, traffic stops to control speed and traffic flow, and lane widening as well as better speed/law Improving flow at problem intersections, like Rt M and Rt B in Wardsville The mess in Wardsville ‐ Route B, W, M intersection and the intersections within Wardsville limits along Route B Remove the merge coming from Rt B/M. Do something different to accommodate the Rt B Traffic ‐ the Tres Agaves traffic. Address the crossing at Falcon Lane/Caseys ‐ so many ‘new’ drivers in that area because of the school. The lane designations at Marina Road, Big Meadows that cross Hwy 50 are a mess. Cars fly through at 75 mph plus on 50 while other cars are trying to cross. Terrible at shift change from prison and Scholastic. So Replace the tri‐level and bypass the traffic lights on the expressway Stoplight at the intersection by Casey’s Page 5 of 27 Question 11 Need 3 lanes between MO River Bridge and US 63 interchange Route B needs widened with a shoulder all the B/Ashbury B/W/M Round about at the intersection of Route B and M and Hwy W and add dedicated bike and sidewalks along route B as many people walk, run, or bike along this road. Also guard rails along route B that have some pretty steep hills from Mertens Country lane to evergreen lane in Wardsville. Dedicated turn lanes to the street roads Wardsville is an extremely fast growing community. The intersection of B‐M‐W in morning/evening hours is dangerous . Especially from 7‐730am and 3‐530pm. Also when out of town people come to Wardsville and do not know to yield, or how the intersection works. I have lived here my entire life, and it used to not ever be an Improvements to address speed ‐ maybe narrowing the lane width. Maybe a roundabout at M/W/B and Casey’s in Wardsville. This may also help with the speed/inattention issue. Fix the B/M/W intersection in Wardsville and the intersection of B and Wardsville Road Route W in Cole County needs to have the road widened to add somewhat of a shoulder as we currently have nothing if we needed to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle. Fix the intersection by Casyey's in Wardsville. The hump coming from Falcon Lane causes difficulties for some people. Reducing the speed limit would help tremendously. Education for driving in the roundabouts. Fix the Roundabout at Rt B, Rt M & Rt W in Wardsville for safety. Witness vehicles almost being hit by another daily. Also need a roundabout at Ashbury Drive by Casey’s. Numerous accidents there all the time, especially mornings Turning from Wardsville Road onto Rt B needs addressed. Bypass Wardsville from Casey's to where Tanner Bridge road meets route B. Or don't let anymore subdivision Connecting Rt. B to Malitia Route b, Ashbury way, and wardsville road intersection. I think there needs to be a stop light or round about. Adding signage to alert drivers to unique road designs Tri level in JC needs demolished and rebuilt in a manner that actually makes sense. Redo 50/63 from the trilevel to Lafayette so those passing through JC don't have to stop at all the stop lights for local traffic. Do sonething about the insane traffic blockade in the heart of Wardsville. Lastly, the railroad crossing on Militia Drive has been redone probably 4 times since 2007. It is currently equivalent to a horrible speed bump that is Falcon lane light or intersection There are two intersections in Wardsville that concerns me. It seems there have been numerous accidents by the new Casey’s gas station in Wardsville with a consistent increase in traffic flow as the community grows‐ would recommend a light or a round‐a‐bout. The intersection at the end of Falcon lane and Wardsville road is Adding sidewalks and fixing the intersection at B, W, and M highways Fix all the existing roads so they’re smooth and safe to drive. We as citizens should have the right to inspect and fail roads and close them like the government does with our vehicles. Intersection/ round abouts Addressing the intersection of Routes B, M, and W in Wardsville. Side walks in the Wardsville area are needed. Improvements at the B and Ashbury intersection and the BMW intersection in wardsville is needed. Turning lane in route M to Falcon lane would also help reduce congestion. No bicycles on the roadway. No bike lanes. They need to bike elsewhere. need roundabouts and stoplights Intersections in Wardsville. B,W,M Intersection Falcon Lane, M intersection Falcon Lane, Wardville Rd, Roundabouts in Wardsville at falcon Lane and B and another at falcon Lane and M. Intersection of routes MWB Do something about M, W, B intersection in Wardsville. The design was fine 30 years ago but too much traffic Widening roads and adding shoulders Intersection of M, B and W is abysmal. Very unsafe and unregulated. Turn lines at intersection Page 6 of 27 Question 11 Adding lanes to certain roads and fixing areas that are high crash corridors. Rt b and Ashbury intersection in Wardsville should be converted to a roundabout or stoplight to prevent high risk crossings on an increasingly busy road. Wardsville has outgrown its road infrastructure. A round about or traffic lights at the route B/Ashbury intersection Route B through wardsville and all the intersections through wardsville. Falcon Lane should be wider and include sidewalks for student safety Intersection at B,W, And M needs improvement or clearer instructions for visiting drivers. Intersection at Ashbury Way and RT B could use a None. Fix what we have. Better intersection in Wardsville for b/old Wardsville/Casey’s and also b/m/w Route B route M and route w intersection Adding lanes, stripping and marking lanes Signals Traffic circle and/or stoplights in Wardsville. By Casey’s and by BeeLine (yielding into oncoming traffic is stupid Adding sidewalks, putting a roundabout at Ellis Blvd/Green Berry. Widening turn lane going onto Hough park Expanded alternate transportion development (less automobile), more rails‐to‐trails Provide signage to help non‐locals find their way from downtown to the various highways. Adding either a traffic signal or roundabout to the intersection of Ashbury Way and Route B in Wardsville. Maybe make the far lane on either side of mo Blvd the turn only lane and the outer lane for driving thru Continue the 179 loop around the south and east side of JC(relieving 50 through town). Bypass Rt B around Wardsville. Bypass 50 around Linn. Bring 63 across the Missouri on a bridge that meets up with 179 to alleviate congestion on the current bridges.(I know, good luck with that...) pave the shoulders of roads so that bikes can use that instead of traffic lanes(much safer for all), sidewalks are fine, but should be maintained by public Missouri Blvd. needs traffic lights. Traffic is often congested on Hwy 54 going into Jeff City. It wouldn’t be so Address the growth in Wardsville and Taos area. Route B and M is an extremely dangerous in morning and evening. New land is being developed which will mean 100‐200 new families moving to this area in next few years with no plans in place to address this growth. Shoulders and rumble strips on all letter Route Roads. Sidewalks throughout town would be nice. Handiwheels access for individuals with developmental disabilities free of charge. Better timed traffic light (a Parking in downtown Jefferson City is not adequate for the number of visitors and regular workers — particularly spots that will allow you to park all day. I go to a lot of meetings in the Capitol and other state office buildings, but my work office is not nearby. These meetings last more than two hours, but the spots downtown 1. Remove bike lanes from sharing the driving lanes. 2. Repair existing roads, curbs and guttering. 3. Repair Reduce need for automobile, improve Sidewalk accessibility, and offer more bike friendly options We should go back to flashing lights (flashing red or flashing yellow) on stop lights during the overnight hours. I know downtown does but other areas changed to normal rotation at night. Also the timing on the Ellas blvd Add bike lanes and cross walks. Have more flashing signs with speed limit Add sidewalk on Tanner Bridge. Redo intersection of 50‐54‐63. Left turn from EB 54 to WB 50 particularly The entire clustermus of the hwy 54 sharp curve exit to Madison and Jefferson in either direction. That Curve :/ Somehow taking Christy straight to Madison. The hwy 50 to 63n could be widened a lane and maybe eliminate the 54 west exit in middle of that, I love it, but there are enough alternatives and it’s rarely used. And I would love to see a sidewalk from Beasley Court or Hoffman to Mesa or Monroe. I have driven for Lyft and delivered Fix the roads, don't just fill the cracks and potholes. General road maintenance. Too many of the city streets are in need of resurfacing. Also the signal timing and general flow of the Hwy 179, Hwy 50 and Mo Blvd interchange could be better. Bike lanes or sidewalks added on London Way connecting to the Fairgrounds so community members can safely access the sidewalks on the other side of the Fairgrounds. Page 7 of 27 Question 11 Speed enforcement, add sidewalks, fixing, potholes, replace the dreadful tri level, add stoplights to Missouri blvd and add more alternate routes, can’t get anywhere in town without driving distances. Improved traffic flow around and over the MO. River Bridge. Adding another bridge over the Missouri River west of Jefferson City so that traffic from Columbia traveling to the Lake of the Ozarks doesn't clog the bridge on HWY 54. There is already quite a bit of traffic coming from Interstate 70 down 54 to the Lake every Friday and then moving northbound on Sundays. Alternatively, maybe More bike lanes are needed overall. Sidewalks in residential neighborhoods. (Tanner Bridge south of Ellis for example) Roundabouts or some other means to alleviate traffic congestion on Ellis/Southwest Blvd near Hwy 54 overpass. Better enforcement of speed limits. (Not sure this is a “transportation” issue but, again, Tanner Bridge south of Ellis‐speed is a REAL Adding sidewalks to help keep pedetrians from walking in the street on bust rods such as Ventura Correctly fixing sub grade failures on Eastland Dr. Redoing intersection of E. Dunklin and Clark Ave. and completely rebuild E Dunklin to Layefette St. This would make a statement that the city wants to work with LINCOLN University. Build Broadway street up north side of Whitten Expressway to be out of the floodplain to have more access during a flooding event. Every year as snow plow trucks hit curbs in round abouts or other curbs, put them on the list to fix that following spring/ summer. Fix bridge that goes over Turkey Creek on Oil Well Rd. Just because it is a semi low traffic count doesn't mean it shouldn't be over laid and fix the guard rail that has been hit three times and the approach on both sides is unacceptable. Obviously the High Street Viaduct should be addressed. The blinking red lights on weekends and night are confusing on E. McCarty when Nothing. Sidewalk needs repaired on Moreau Dr Moreau Dr needs reduced speed limit or greater speed limit Improve West Missouri Blvd and Truman Blvd intersection. More sidewalks on busier city streets. Aw Add bike lanes to the outside of the bridge over Hwy 54 at Ellis High speed light rail between Jefferson City and Columbia. Give up on traditional bus service and provide a service more like handiwheels for everyone with expanded hours. Target development of infrastructure where Providing transit 7 days a week and extended to support more than 8‐5 M‐f jobs. BRT between Columbia Fix timing of lights on Ellis Blvd over 54. Fix roads on Stadium Blvd. near Walmat and Target. More sidewalks. Need public transportation that does not end at 5PM people would like to go out to say the amphitheater and enjoy adult beverages and take a bus there and back versus risking a DWI or trying to get the nonexistent Ubers Fixing all roads, some are absolutely horrible to drive on. Bike lanes, sidewalks, and extend the greenway to allow better connection in the community. Adding sidewalks Keeping all roads well maintained. Upgrade any dangerous streets, roads and intersections. Address any The intersection of Hwy 50, Clark Ave, E. Miller, E. Elm is a death trap. There are too many intersections coming together with plenty of traffic, especially at peak times. Many people are always cutting out in front of you because it's hard to see, they are impatient or just because they want to. I drive that intersection several times a day and have had to slam on my brakes so hard & quick that stuff flies off the back seat to avoid getting hit! A permanent cab service. Extended days and hours for Jefftran. In Jefferson City we need better, smoother streets especially Stadium Blvd, Jefferson St., Dunklin St. near Lincoln Ensuring sidewalks on major roads, especially ones with residential properties on/nearby Interchange of 50, 63, and 54. North side outer road of 50 past the mall to St Martins. Need to address Emerald Jefferson street sidewalks are crumbling not allowing for wheelchairs or strollers. Have MODOT consider a diverging diamond at Highway 50 and the Truman Blvd intersection (near the mall). These work much better than roundabouts. Examples ‐‐ I‐70 at Oak Grove interchange, I‐70 at St Charles interchange, I‐435 and Hwy 210 at North Kansas City. The diverging diamond safely moves traffic and reduces congestion. Roundabouts, as constructed in Jefferson City, can be extremely confusing because there is not enough signage to direct drivers and too many exit lanes. The one on Stadium near Capital Region Hospital is a Page 8 of 27 Question 11 The timing if the lights on the so‐called expressway is awful. It is also horrible on Ellis and anywhere else there are 2 or more in a row. The surface of Dunkin from Clark to Broadway is terrible, as is Elm. A left turn signals from any of the Downtown streets on to Highway 50 would be awesome. Show that enough people are using the public transportation to make the investments in public transportation viable. Consider The tri‐level needs to be totally redesigned. Ellis needs to be widened with side walks ‐ from hwy 50 to Walgreens ‐ this would connect all these The turn lane to get on Dix Road when heading east on Missouri Boulevard changes too quickly and traffic piles up into other lanes. Also people turning left on Missouri boulevard constantly put their own and others lives at stake because they get impatient and jump out into traffic. I think having side roads behind businesses on Adding sidewalks to most streets in the city. Having handicapped transportation on nights and weekends. Wish the downtown traffic lights were monitored instead of just being on a set timer. Many times you’re sitting Bike lanes need to be removed from the streets unless the streets are WIDENED enough to allow a lane ONLY for bikes! Having a bike use an entire lane of roadway is INSANE. Also fix the trilevel ‐ there is a wreck a week Reduce the traffic on the bridge. By creating a park & ride into Jeff from Holts Summit and New Bloomfield, you will create a larger employment pool for Jeff City, reduce traffic on the bridge, reduce car accidents, increase Safety and capacity improvements to the Tri‐Level Interchange for US Hwy 50/54/63. Redesign/ remove stop condition on 2nd level (addition of bridge for unimpeded traffic flow‐its an interchange!). Prioritize access to local streets as secondary to primary interchange traffic flow. This may include improvements to the Missouri Blvd. Hwy 50 intersection and Missouri Blvd. Hwy 54 interchange as well. Highway 50/ Dix Road Interchange improvements, including additional lanes of highway from Dix Road to the Tri‐level interchange. Rex Whitton Additional improvement to the Rex Whitton Expressway and the Tri‐level interchange at 50/63/54. Improvements to the Truman Blvd interchange, and the addition of ramps to the Summit Drive interchange for Dix Road/Industrial Dr. intersection needs to be wider/more lanes JC transportation needs include additional and well‐maintained sidewalks (e.g. western Boonville Road, Missouri Blvd.), dedicated bike lanes, and easy‐to‐use bus system ‐ including a return to the availability of downtown Fixing the Tri‐Level and the Whitten Expressway 1. Build Whitton Expressway to the original design eliminating these stop lights that torture employees at the end of their day trying to escape the city. 2. Secondary bridge across the Missouri River on the east side of town. 3. Replace the tri‐level. #2 will aide in this undertaking. 4. Sell the statue currently on the top of the Dix Rd Exit ramp... this is the absolute worst area to try and merge over to the lane needed to get off the next exit ramp that leads to HWY 54 going to Holt Summit/Fulton. You then have on coming traffic getting off the exit (Holt Summit/Fulton behind you), when other drivers are trying to get onto the SMALL window of opportunity to get onto HWY 54 (heading to Holt Summit/Fulton). This area is a disaster, especially during hours New 50/63 interchange. Reviewing the use of yield signs for right hand turns at intersections throughout Jefferson city. Adding longer right hand turn lanes on Route B to Lorenzo Green/Tanner Bridge Rd and to Highway 54. Improving Route B/Lorenzo Green/Tanner Bridge Rd intersection safety. East bound on Route B through the intersection has a very steep grade and needs signage indicating so. Also needs additional signage closer to highway 54 for large vehicles that can't use tanner bridge rd and adding a red light warning sign coming Add a light signal at the area by Wardsville Casey's. Do not add any bike lanes. It is very uncomfortable driving with bikes nearby. Do not add any additional roundabouts. People do not know how to correctly use them and just pull out in front of people without waiting their turn. Add sidewalks to both sides of every street so people can feel safe and it would encourage people to be more active if they feel safe. Have all stoplights run by the sensor and not timers. Do not have the Sidewalks on Paradigm Drive and rainbow drive, fix traffic flow at St Joseph cathedral school, Missouri Blvd is a nightmare and needs something so people can pull out easier (maybe traffic light timing or another traffic light) Page 9 of 27 Question 11 Intersection in Wardsville by church and intersection by Casey's is congested and can be dangerous during rush hours. Lights on 179 under hwy 50 can get congested too SIDEWALKS ON WEST TRUMAN BLVD‐ VERY DANGEROUS PEOPLE WALKING ON THE ROAD AND ROAD IS VERY Improve safety on Missouri boulevard. Widen Rt M from Wardsville to Taos ‐ it's narrow and when bicyclists are on the road, it's dangerous for them and the motorists. Improve the Truman Blvd/Missouri Blvd intersection and Truman Blvd overpass ‐ traffic is terrible there in the morning and night. Improve 179 under Hwy 50 ‐ the lights are not synchronized and traffic backs up there. Improve the Intersection of Rt B/Ashbury Way/Falcon Lane ‐too many accidents; consider blocking off Falcon Lane for people to go straight across Rt. B or turn left into there. Make it where people can only turn right from Falcon onto Rt. B and can only turn right from Rt B Adding bike lanes. Better bus programs. More passenger rail. Fix the tri‐plex in Jefferson City and add a ramp on Summit Drive in Holts Summit to Hwy 54 Sidewalks! Repair Improvements in public transportation. Tri‐Level in Jefferson City Expressway / Trilevel improvements. Hwy 50 through downtown and in both directions as dual lane. Bridge traffic and the tri‐level. Get rid of the Bike lanes they are confessing with there marking! Secondary roads need to be maintained better Adding sidewalks, bike lanes At intersection of hwy 179 and Country Club add a sign right tur has right of way Extending 179 to effectively bypass Jeff City and reduce downtown traffic. East bound ramps on both sides of Hwy 54 at AC Summit Drive over pass. Adding shoulders to state road AA and OO There needs to be a signal at route B and Ashbury way in wardsville. It is such a dangerous intersection. It would also slow people down going into and out of wardsville Adding sidewalks and widening roads Add entrance and exit ramp at the southern most holts Summit access. Currently it only has southbound Sidewalks More lanes going into and out of Jefferson City. Traffic backs up too often in the morning going into JC and out Adding lanes on Missouri River Safe crosswalk for Russellville elementary students Widening of roads in rural areas 1. For the love of Pete ‐ address the mess in Wardsville! a. The Asbury Way/Hwy 179/Falcon Lane intersection, with the Friendship Lane just before it. b. 179/Rte M/Rte W intersection .... this should have been dealt with years ago. c. Route M and Falcon Lane. 2. Signal timing for Missouri Blvd at Hwy 50/63 to be the same all day long!! Currently the timing is longer during lunch hour and evening "rush hour" than other times of the day. Daily I go to the High St Post Office ‐ about 10am ‐ and there can be 3 or 4 cars on MO Blvd, waiting for the light to cross the hwy. By the time the first car is in the intersection, the light turns yellow. It is not uncommon for vehicles to run the MO Blvd red light because they were 4th in line and had already been waiting at the light. Keep the timing the same all day long. 3. I don't know if this is your jurisdiction or City of Multiple bad intersections in Wardsville which result in several crashes a year. Has been like this since the 90’s when I moved here. So much growth in the area that something needs to change. Casey’s /Route B intersection Intersection of Falcon lane and Old Wardsville Road Worst one in my opinion is Route B, M A big improvement is needed to the intersection of Dix Road and Williams Street. Improve traffic flow in downtown Hwy 50 Need to find something different than the J turns on Hwy 54. More lanes in and out of Jefferson City. Fix tri level, too confusing for people driving through. More sidewalks. Adding sidewalks and turn lanes around the school district. Reconstructing 2 major intersections on wardsville Page 10 of 27 Question 11 Add a 3rd lane to 54 Improving intersections at Route M, B, and W as well as the one where Ashbury, Route B, and Wardsville roads The intersection of Routes B/M/W in Wardsville needs attention. Possibly a roundabout. Traffic has significantly increased over the years on the stretch of Route B from this particular intersection and all the way through Look into the intersection of Route W, Route B and Route M. Route B and Ashbury way intersection Roundabout at the two busy intersections Improving the tri level interchange Improving the condition of city streets. SHOULDERS on all highways and county arterial and high volume routes, chevrons for all deep horizontal curves. Better sight lines for Route B traffic heading into the B,M,W junction at Wardsville. EDUCATION and SAFETY PRESENTATIONS for small town chatterbox who think all poor driving decisions can be solved with a traffic I would recommend adding sidewalks through Wardsville around the church and the mexican restaurant Expansion of Rte 54/63 interchange and the Missouri River crossing. Route 50/54 interchange improvements. Overall Maintenance of state roads from over used truck‐traffic & especially with snow ice Please make the intersection of Routes B, M & W in Wardsville, MO safer and also Route B & Ashbury Waye Extend militia drive. Extend 179 to the east. Bypass Rt B around Wardsville and improve to St Thomas. More Stop light at Rt B and Ashbury Way in Wardsville Fix the B/M/W intersection in Wardsville and improve the Ashbury/B intersection. Roundabouts? Ashbury / Rt B intersection is dangerous The intersection at the Casey’s and dollar general and Rt B in Wardsville needs a light. The triangle type intersection at B and M (by Tres Agaves) in Wardsville needs to be addressed. It is extremely dangerous. Widening roads Sidewalks. I live and work in the 5th ward. We have lots of foot traffic having to walk along the side of the road and even across an overpass with no sidewalks. I would run to work if I didn't have to deal with all the traffic on Ellis between Break Time and Schulte's. The stop light at Route C and Southwest Blvd. could also benefit from better pedestrian crossings. People scurry across that busy intersection often, sometimes in the dark, so I'd like to see us make that whole area safer for pedestrians. There are also several bus stops in that area without Roundabout (preferred) at Ashbury away and Route B Sidewalk along at least one side of Wardsville Road You should not have to make many improvements because they have marked trails for walkers and cyclists Improve intersection of Rt C and Ellis Blvd by Schulte’s. It is dangerous Turn lane on Lorenzo Green. 4 way stops on Wardsville, the BMW intersection, missouri Blvd adding more Do not add signals or stop light in wardsville like these idiots are talking about Safe Transportation for elderly, disabled and low income Add sidewalks PLEASE. My husband is disabled and the lack of sidewalks makes life more difficult. Additionally, increase the number of accessible parking spaces in community lots and in the downtown area. Particularly on Intersection between route B, M, and W needs either a roundabout or stop light, possibly rumble strips as folks speed through. Same with intersection of Route B and Ashbury Way. Would also like to see a wider turnoff to Ashbury Way from Jefferson City and turnoff to Old Route B from Wardsville. Reduce speed limit on route B We do not need signals at the intersection of Rt. B and Ashberry Lane, nor do we need a roundabout at the intersection of Rt.B/M/W. Doing either of these will back up traffic so bad during high volume commute times. Ashbury way and route B. And route M, route W and route B. Most horrible intersections ever Sidewalks & bike lanes The biggest thing is please spend more money on making the city's roads smoother. As a motorcyclist it is concerning how rough the ride is. Stadium Blvd. from Edgewood to Southwest is probably the worst example. Remove traffic lights along Route 50 in downtown Jefferson City. Create a better interchange at 50/63/54 to More bike lanes, maintaining existing roads, sidewalks and safe crossings in busy areas. Maintain what we have. Use capital funds to rebuild existing roads and sidewalks rather than adding to the Page 11 of 27 Question 11 Need for more sidewalks AND more crosswalks on Missouri Blvd. I see folk risking a cross from bus stop to job, shopping, etc. Mo Blvd has very few pedestrian crossings. N/a Series of walkabout paths that connect throughout downtown. Adding sidewalks in holts summit area for safety. Continuing to improve sidewalks on the east side, particularly leading to East School. More aggressive overlay existing streets A new High St. viaduct. Building a bypass ( US 50 around Jefferson City. This is the only city of its size statewide. That does not have a bypass. The flooding at the tri‐level during the 93 flood. Is a good example. Why that is Bike lanes and sidewalks@ Begin planning for another Missouri River bridge on either east side (connect to MO 94 and US50) or west side (connect US 63 and 50). Consider mass transit, perhaps a daily round trip for workers in Fulton or Columbia with major employers. Add sidewalks between neighborhoods outside JC and local shopping, better connectivity like Widening roads or bike lanes. Clearer signage at intersections. More sidewalks I think more lanes would be helpful on 54 between the Trilevel‐Missouri River bridge area. Also the merging onto 50 from west 54 could use additional lanes/improvement. I am not sure how the Trilevel can be improved Public EV charging Resurface Moreau Drive please. resurfacing streets like Broadway and Linden or any other than High Street. Adding sidewalks along Stadium See #9. Sidewalks and walking Signal at lights on Eastland to GreenBerry Road. Longer hours of transportation and low amount to use Sidewalks! Crosswalks. Public transportation evenings and weekends. Providing good connectivity to all areas of town. Getting roadways into better condition. Widening space on roadways by initiating codes or ordinances requiring off street parking. I see many apartment complexes or multi‐family homes that off street parking; however, tenants park on the street. This Add *protected* bike lanes to *all* streets and most roads. Ensure that all streets and most roads also feature Sidewalks through the neighborhoods near riverside park. Namely on Riverside Dr., Riviera St., Polk St. (North & South), Hough St., and all streets perpendicular to Hough. There are plenty of dog walkers, bike riders, and kids N/A Wider roads, more parking downtown, more parking at the library, bike lanes that are not part of the car lane I believe adding a side walk to missouri blvd passing over highway 179 would increase safety. Also, the section of missouri blvd in front of mcdonalds/chickfilet/lowes area. Also, the section of missouri blvd that is near arbys Adding bike lanes to connect communities and business throughout campo. Improving safety of all road users on Missouri Blvd. Improving traffic flow on US50/US63 from Dix past Clark Improving lighting at intersections on US50/US63 to increase visibility of vulnerable road users. Educational program to inform all road users of We need a way for people who do not drive to be able to function in the community. Such as access to jobs and There are not nearly enough protections for pedestrians, especially at busy areas like Missouri Boulevard. I would like to see much more focus on areas that are demonstrably hostile to cyclists and pedestrians, adding bike lanes. Consider more round‐abouts. widening roads and fixing curves and adding sidewalks to busy roadways Route C needs lanes for bikes and sidewalks for walking. It is unsafe at the moment. The intersection between Route C/Idlewood/Veith isn't always efficient. When in a turn lane it may take several cycles of the lights to get I feel that bike lanes, sidewalks and widening narrow roads are important. I feel that encouraging alternate transportations such as bike share programs are important, especially for a small town like this. Also, I think it Either a greenway or sidewalk on Industrial Drive It would be nice if there were better commuter options for people who travel between Columbia or Holts Page 12 of 27 Question 11 Whetton parkway and the trilevel needs improved. High street bridge needs replaced. Improve access/onramp to MO63 and MO54 at the interchange south of the MO River bridge. Improving the tri‐level and Whitton Expressway. Improving key interchanges like Truman Road, Dix Road and SIDEWALKS!!! stop light at main and dix (by west school) better signage or a light at west main and high street Y Better ways to cross MO Blvd by bike and foot More streets marked for bike lanes expanding the greenway and connectors Dedicated pedestrian (walking, biking) path along Industrial Dr./Truman Blvd. Most issues I notice are what I believe is a sense of entitlement by drivers. No sharing the road or cooperation between drivers. There is an issue with excessive speed. Continue to build the trail system to provide easier access to Neiborhoods. Add bike lanes on rout m, make route m wider add sidewalks as many people walk on route m Better reflective/visible paint used on roads/highways in low lit areas. Addressing the tri‐level. Improvements to the Tri‐Level and Rex Whitton Expressway. Replacement of the High Street Viaduct Improvements to Truman Blvd./Hwy 50 Interchange Improvements to Stadium Blvd./W. Edgewood Intersection Page 13 of 27 Question 12 What trends do you see affecting the future of the Capital Area, and how? (Examples might include aging population, employment, rural depopulation, on-line retailing, redevelopment, etc.) 1. Lack of industry providing good paying blue collar jobs. 2. Citizens leaving JC and not as many citizens replacing them. Loss/stagnant population. 3. Diminishing small businesses. 4. Convention center has been spoken about forever and nothing has materialized. Columbia and The Lake of the Ozark has the entertainment, A continued lack of forsight in planning for parking, traffic flow and bad driving habits. Also, I am fed up with the system of parents lining up before and after school to pick‐up their children. The whole town becomes a traffic A dysfunctional city council changing direction from previous plans. A growing school district in Wardsville access to public transportation. low income or people who cannot drive have no way to function in this Affordable housing for low income families is desperately needed. A certain group including (Vogel and Rackers) have worked against this and promoted lies to defeat proposals. I certainly hope that won't become a trend. Aging buildings with lack of maintenance and excessively high rental costs are helping online retailers keep dollars from possible local businesses. It's too expensive or just not safe to rent existing spaces. Add in the Aging population Aging population Aging population and competitive pay scales for workers Aging population and employment. Aging population and lack of transportation for those that don’t drive and don’t do technology. Online shopping. State workforce that dominates the population but that is underpaid. Aging population and low income. Jefferson City area has had little to no growth the past decade. Aging population and no growth been flat for 8 years, thanks to former Mayor Tergin. Aging population and on‐line retail Aging population and the young adults not wanting to stay here. Our pay, jobs, and night life does not compare Aging population expandation of our industrial base, New housing development. Aging population is almost always ignored so ... Aging population that doesn’t want community to grow Lack of employees Aging population will need to get to medical and pharmacy needs; major employers like medical, prison, nuclear plant, etc require in person workers, mass transit around these locations will take pressure off roads. Aging population with no real major corporations coming to JC to offer high paying professional jobs to attract Aging population, continued inflation (especially of gas prices) Aging population, corrupt government personnel Aging population, failure to attract young adults. Aging population, inadequate housing, poor bus system, stagnant tax base. Aging population, lack of growth Aging population, need to offer some Art’s & entertainment for our youth Aging population, on‐line retailing, Aging population, rural development Aging population. Aging population. Aging population. There is nothing here to keep the young people around. Aging population. Very little lower income housing available. This causes less new or first time workers to live in Aging population... Wardsville has the potential to be a great community like Wildwood Missouri but lacks walking trails, sidewalks, etc. We need more developments to entice people to raise their families here, work Aging, rural areas GAINING population, bicycling Alternative modes of transportation Page 14 of 27 Question 12 Anything to promote downtown development is a plus. In general the city needs more attractions/businesses that differentiate it from surrounding regions (Columbia, The Lake, etc.). back sliding on public policies that support alternative transportation, tourism, parks, affordable housing and opportunities for all income levels. And of course aging population (all the young people want out), poor wages Backward thinking community. Beyond me to answer this Bicycle vacations ‐ people opting for environmentally friendly travel Online retailing Outdoor activity Blair Oaks school district is continuing to grow and traffic is a huge concern during school. As it continue to grow the traffic concerns will grow as well. BMW intersection is just a complete mess before and after school and Chamber of commerce thinking Jefferson City needs to be like St Louis in the industrial aspect. Terrible idea City council putting up roadblocks for new businesses. Cole, southern Callaway, and southern Boone countries are experiencing significant development in the smaller communities and rural areas of CAMPO. The traffic volumes, speeds, aggressive driving and distracted driving are major issues that need to be addressed in transportation planning. This is especially challenging in light of Community continues to grow and new development off of Friendship RD will only make the traffic worse Concerned about how the new convention center will impact parking availability to residents and workers downtown. Where will employees who are disabled be able to park during construction after the existing Continued development and population growth in Wardsville causing more traffic especially at peak times Continued growth of surrounding towns causing additional traffic commuting to Jefferson City for jobs. Continued population growth in the Wardsville area Continued redevelopment offers a great opportunity for showcasing the city as a destination for visitors and a Continued residential growth in the Wardsville area will lead to additional traffic concerns. cost of living and aging population, overall population decline Crappy city staff. Development across the river impacting the school growth and population increase due to lack of housing in Distracted driving, Don’t know. Elected officials and powerful local families not allowing Jefferson City the opportunity to grow. Let's go! employment Employment and economical ways to get to work for all Employment, redevelopment, new development (decent good restaurants no more pizza, Chinese or Mexican) Expanding population, resulting in further development of commercial/residential and more destruction of land Expansion of housing on highways that were built to support rural traffic, continued OSOW movement on lettered routes because of height restrictions in Jefferson City ( why is the unused bridge in the trilevel still standing? Why isn't Dix Rd interchange rebuilt already? That one has horrible sight lines for exiting drivers and shoulder issues that MODOT won't address.) The good news is driverless cars are coming. Other travelers, Folks wanting to ride bikes and walk more. More folks moving into the area. Growing commuter population. Poor timing on lights so traffic backs up. Low income and aging population with no access to vehicles. Not enough parking downtown. Need sidewalks in Holts Summit. Growing populations in the towns surrounding Jefferson City Growth in communities just outside of JC. Hard to assess as slow growth plagues the city, county and state in general. High speed rail would be ideal allowing for quick daily travel throughout the state. Missouri just is not keeping HOMELESS POPULATION AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING hopefully inviting more tourism to the area and providing river access/activities Housing and transportation. Employers cannot find workers because they have issues with transportation to work especially 2nd and 3rd shifts. New comers cannot find affordable housing. Page 15 of 27 Question 12 Housing costs Housing costs in the last 3 years have made it difficult to afford for potential new home buyers. Housing development and population boom. Housing will continue to expand at the edges of the Jefferson City area, and there will be even more need for cost‐effective, frequent, and environmentally‐friendly transportation. I am not sure. I do worry for JCMO, I came from very rural Mo, this was as city as I wish to live, I also grew up in st Charles, but since being here it has dried up a lot, passengers would call it a “sleeper” town. The malls running on borrowed time, theaters old, bowling alley is a bar, there is nothing to offer for family entertainment. Parks seemed Huge pre covid to us, it be nice to see that take back off. I loved the promotion and joining in of community activities and the app Nextdoor is awesome for giving that feel of community. With parks inactive and the aging I don't foresee any major business developments in the future of this area. Housing is a major issue as well as transportation that helps the residents get to already established businesses and jobs. These issues alone don't I don't know I have seen where we need more public access as I myself have had to rely on friends to get minor surgical procedures due to inability to get an Uber/lyft or us having viable bus service I hope the convention center brings foot traffic which will want food both restaurants and grocery drug stores like Walgreens, shopping, but also. Younger generation wants to walk everywhere from recreation green I live across from the Salvation Army and foot traffic and elderly is increasing. I see it declining if we don’t make major economic improvements such as safer roadways and attractions. I think redeveloping some areas of the city that have become run down would be beneficial in bringing new I think we need to make ourselves attractive to younger generations by providing mode choice. I’m not sure Idk If we quit building dumb tourists things and bring jobs we could see great growth In line retail Increase in houses being built Increase in rural population where as overflow from city into more rural areas causing congestion and land locks. Increased development will require friendlier, less cluttered roadways for navigation and aesthetic appeal. Increased homelessness Increased online shopping causing less shopping in local stores Increased population Inflation and the economy in general is going to run a lot of families out because we cannot afford to live here as it is. This is unfortunate because I moved to here for emergent medical care for my epileptic son and for my boys to have better resources and education available to them. I just don’t know how much longer families like Interest rates and inflation will lower home sales and keep buyers renting longer. It seems that the entire Capital area is not growing, that is population or new business. Jefferson City has great potential to be an attractive community for remote employees to move to if only we would invest our efforts and finances wisely. Though I doubt that our current City leadership is up to the task. Continuing to focus on bringing in more businesses without the ability to accommodate more people (due to Jefferson City isn't growing. It doesn't offer the amenities that people need/want so people go elsewhere to spend their money or do their activities. Jefferson City needs a large conference center so conferences and other events can be held here. The one recently proposed by the JCREP is a start but not big enough for large conferences. Jefferson City needs more gym space so basketball, volleyball and archery tournaments can be held here. Look at the Cape Girardeau Sportsplex. We are missing out on revenue for the entire area because we don't have the space to host anything. Lots of people leave our area every weekend to attend tournaments Lack if variety forms of transportation along with affordable housing availability. Page 16 of 27 Question 12 Lack of affordable housing for low‐ and middle‐income folks. Lack of affordable housing, Lack of workers ( due in part to housing and Lack of trsnspo). lack of fiber internet in many neighborhoods still in Jefferson City. Wardsville and Taos seemingly have better Lack of forward thinking Lack of housing, aging population Lack of innovation and crime. The Capital area needs to always be improving to attract the future and crime will Lack of public participation in local happenings. I feel like we have an especially difficult public to engage when it comes to taking action and not simply complaining. I'd like to empower folks to feel like their participation in Lack of younger population. Large population of older people will need a better system for transportation. Lack of family planning and safe Less face to face retail, service oriented business struggling to find help, less employment opportunity in state Limited amount of public transportation which effects jobs some people can take due to the limited hours of Little industry or tech jobs. Living on the east side of Holts Summit I worry that as I age transportation may be the main reason I could not Loss of young people Make sure to keep train service Many residents seem opposed to any publicly funded improvements they don’t personally use. This short sighted view will continue to see economic development decline in JC due to decreasing quality of life & people Moe traffic going through it on 54 to the lake as it's popularity grows. The need for good workers. more development in Wardsville area; roads are insufficiently sized for traffic More people continuing to move to Wardsville resulting in more people at the school. More people wanting to walk their neighborhoods but not having access to safe sidewalks more work‐from‐home, fewer young people choosing to drive or learn to drive Moving trends‐pop growth N N/a n/a N/A NA Need affordable housing for single parent families. Need for economic development to bring in more people. Population growth is important to future. Aging Need more connected greenways. Need more industry and jobs to improve cash flow to local businesses. Need more privatized businesses, fewer state and county workers No idea no ideas No opinion No opinion None. Not enough affordable housing, and aging population. Not sure how you attract stores for shopping but certainly are limited at this time. On line retail and aging population On line retail certainly. On‐line retail, lack of parking, and pricing gentrification. (Many of our small businesses have high prices that most 18‐30 year olds cannot/will not afford. We cannot justify spending our "fun money" on an item when we can find the same item online or in Columbia for cheaper. If you want to grow your millenial and gen Z On‐line retailing and working from home is having an affect on changing the transportation needs of the Page 17 of 27 Question 12 online retailing causing decline in local shopping ‐ aging population ‐ better employment opportunities needed Online retailing hurting our commercial areas. On‐line retailing will continue to affect local buying. The local stores often don't have the large inventory or variety of products we need. This will affect the need for employees needed at stores. Higher and more violent On‐line retailing, less young people interested in working or wanting to work remotely only. Online retailing. Economic downturn. Online shopping and less in store shopping Out of control housing prices. Overpopulation of every single person driving having a car ‐ parking Especially the parking rules‐regulations which results for all the empty parking lots in the high street area with wasted unused space Parking downtown and Capitol area. We were told library that the city was fine. The news tribune building to be able to offer more parking and build a new parking garage with the few stores that are downtown and not having enough hotel rooms on site you’re going to be spending a lot of money on shuttling. I would like to see Parking. Those legislators are whiners for being part time residents. They should car pool, use public trans, etc. Poorly funded schools, lowest paid teachers and state workers in country, little housing for low income, no Population Population age and growth Population and entitlement. People do not know how to drive. When there is an issue, they are quick to blame MoDOT. When the issue at hand is driving behaviors of all ages. Population in wardsville is growing rapidly but there are tons of semis that go on this route Population increases in Wardsville area as farmland is being sold off and developed. Population of “old money”, stagnate viewpoints to keep JC a sleepy little town, low income housing near old Population relocating out of city limits to Wardsville, St. Martins, etc. Population spread into more rural areas Possibly an aging population. Baby boomers are getting old! Prison redevelopment Promote public schools and work to keep the older public schools competitive. Quit spending 💰 on parking garage renovation like demolition for a Convention center, we already have one The Capital Plaza Hotel/Convention center, it's doesn't need to be close too the State Capital. Redevelopment Roadway system unattractive to manufacturing firms. Fed Govt subsidizing Ethanol and Green Energy and Fiber Companies.. wasting money that could be spent on local communities. Rural development, on‐line retailing, lack of quality and affordable housing. Rural needs more transportation options Scooters being used more SIDE WALKS Soon there will not be many retail stores especially for clothes since so many people shop online. Many people need to try on clothes for the fit so it would be nice to actually have some decent clothing stores. We need to have activities that attract younger people to the area. There isn't a lot for younger people to do so they leave Stagnant population growth. Cohesive development planning Stagnate wages because of a reliance on a state that fails to pay employees a livable wage Surrounding grocery stores are cheaper. Mosers has a monopoly. The aging population, and their misunderstanding of round abouts / acceleration lanes is astounding. When new laws or traffic implementations are introduced, we need classes or mailed flyers to licensed drivers to educate them on the change. Also, Jefferson City would be a more pleasant place to live if we had more sidewalks to The capital has very little growth with everything aging and no now blood to get things going. The fact that politicians want to force the poor out of the area instead of aiding them to get a foot up. Page 18 of 27 Question 12 The impact of adding additional housing to meet our needs. The lack of population growth in the area is a deterrent to development. More needs to be done to attract young workers to the area while still supporting the growth of "active seniors" The NIMBY attitude...everyone wants something, but Not In My Back Yard. Capital Area tends to like the size it is and doesn't necessarily want to grow. Too focused on alternative modes of transportation like biking and walking rather than just taking care of the roads. Catering to the few that scream and cry when if we just had The pandemic has had a strain on people’s bodies and habits getting out. Accessibility will become more The population is aging because the baby boomers are getting older. Once this increase in age runs its course The state's recruitment method is out of date and does not work on the younger generations. If they do not update their current work culture, the city's largest employer will continue to shrink. There are a lot of new homes and subdivisions being built around the Holts Summit area which is adding even more traffic between Holts Summit and Jefferson City. Everyone going from Holts Summit to Jefferson City is There is little culture here. Nothing for the children to do and not many employment opportunities for There isn't anything to attract people to come to the capital city so I don't see much change in the future here. There needs to be more than bars for people to do. More businesses focused on younger adults. The new convention center will hopefully be a improvement to the city but I am worried about the parking for the rest of Too much retail development in bedroom communities Traffic is funneled off the bridge and effects morning and afternoon traffic. A second bridge to bypass 63/54 unknown Unknown Unsure Wardsville is growing faster than the infrastructure is keeping up Wardsville needs sidewalks. Wardsville population is Exploding and traffic infrastructure has to be improved. We are an aging community. We need to draw young people back to Jefferson City which requires bringing in companies /job opportunities that provide jobs which promote professional skills and will promote a population that can buy housing. We also need to consider our housing alternatives to be available to all persons. We have a stagnant population. this might be due to the conservation bent of this community that don't like We should do more to attract remote workers to bring in fresh population (offer perks, office space, etc.) We've always have been a rural setting. We continue to expand into the county, not so much high density areas. People now work on the other side of town, meaning that they need to pass through it each day instead When considering the Capital Area future, the most important trends include a growing 60+ year old population, growth of areas around JC, and need for transportation to state jobs in JC. With the community growing , I am afraid we will outgrow our current infrastructure. Work from home Aging population Bridge traffic during rush hours The spaghetti bowl of the tri‐level Younger generation use (or lack thereof) of primary vehicular transportation. Older generation trends to alternative forms of transportation other than vehicular. Enhance the availability of use of Am‐Trak as a form of transportation. Provide a "permanent" train station/ depot for Am‐Trak for Jefferson City/ Mid‐Missouri area. (sooner rather than later). Continue/ enhance pursuit of commercial/ agricultural/ industrial use of the Your building out into new areas when Jefferson City has tons of old buildings and stuff that needs to be redone and the town is starting to look really trashy. Stop expanding and take care of what you already have and make Page 19 of 27 Question 13 What is important to you in considering an overall vision for our region? (Examples might include ways to use land, such as more affordable housing, developing vacant or undeveloped, more parks, more sidewalks/trails, more roadway capacity, improved schools, attracting more jobs, etc.) Open-Ended Response Zoning to allow for a planned "tiny home" community. Affordable housing is always an issue. Honestly, it would be great to have a community‐organized Hwy 50 corridor median clean‐up. While I know there are sections of "adopt‐a‐hwy", both the west and east sides need more love ‐ it's the first impression of visitors and potential investors. (the overgrown shrubs at Dix Road overpass need to be removed. Trees at the Taos exit need to be trimmed or removed). Speaking of first impressions ‐ why not partner with the Conservation Department and Young folks want to be able to go to safe parks and walk in neighborhood Would love to see sidewalks and more street lights and a warddVille bypass to get the hundreds and hundreds of trucks& cars that come through here off the city streets!!! Would love for the area to be more developed and be able to use sidewalks around the “town” Wildflowers in medians and side areas instead of grass that has to be mowed Getting the plazas updated. They're old and decrepit and overpriced We think Jefferson City should cut back on their sidewalk/ trail program. Where Greenway trails are proposed on one side of a street, a sidewalk should not be built on the opposite side of that street. Too many sidewalks are being built where very little foot traffic is evident. Sidewalks are nice, but are a construction /maintenance expense we don't need especially when street maintenance is lacking citywide. Spend more money on street We need to work on in‐fill housing on vacant lots and maybe to tighten our density requirements to open up additional development opportunities. We need to look longer range and find ways to draw and keep younger adults in our community. We need more affordable housing, whether that's for buying or renting. We also need to improve our school system and the library, because those are the two things a thriving community needs to stay thriving. We need more affordable housing and transportation alternatives ‐ in addition to continued improvements in City Parks and attractive elements ‐ and less bickering at the Council‐level about how we're broke and need another damned fire "apparatus". People aren't going to move to Jefferson City because we have shiny new police scanners, but people will absolutely chose to spend their money, time, and lives in our community if we We need commercial growth. Clean up our roadways We have plenty of trails, parks, sidewalks, and the schools make a fortune. Cleaning up dilapidated areas and restoring neighborhoods with safe living spaces along with safe business spaces would go a long way to improving the area. Leaving the old, rundown parts and just expanding elsewhere just looks bad and keeps one We have enough trails near the capital city they just need to be maintained better. We have enough sidewalks and trails. Let’s focus on handling steady traffic flow of vehicles. We don’t need more in Wardsville or Taos. We are the capitol city and need to capitalize on that. Downtown is beautiful and historic. We have the capitol building, Trains, River, High street, Concert grounds, old penitentiary definitely needs to be used to its full potential. It’s not just haunted but Beautiful. Let’s keep it Safe and build off these things. Add a children’s museum to the library, brings a youth side for family travel, and revenue. Good luck Wardsville is in desperate need of sidewalks. Using common sense worry about the roads first and biking last more people use the roads There is so much land make a place for truck drivers to be able to park and spend some time at home when they can. Need more sidewalks to keep walkers off the roads. There is not much to do that doesn’t involve drinking. The ymca is falling apart and there are no other activity facilities worth visiting. The town needs to be a desired location. Needs a thriving night life for young adults, activities for families and things to do and see. Incentives for new businesses to start up and expand to Jeff. Page 20 of 27 Question 13 The old penitentiary land should be used. Specifically the unused space. Many folks love knowing that we have paranormal and historical tours of the penitentiary. But there is a enough space to add a parking lot, skate park, or even a drive in movie theater. Repurposing that space doesn't have to be expensive and if the outermost walls stay up, it could easily be marketed towards ghost fanatics or history buffs. The intersection at rt B/Ashbury. My kids will be drivers in the coming years and I fear for their safety. That the low income population has has affordable transporation options Take away trailer parks add more affordable housing Sidewalks is my biggest concern, for me and my household. School and affordable housing are major concerns for the entire city, and should also be improved. sidewalks and trails, filling job openings‐it seems everywhere is "understaffed", roadway maintenance Sidewalks and trails would be great in Wardsville and Taos. There is one sidewalk in Taos that gets a lot of use but it’s very short. Sidewalks along Falcon Lane would be beneficial to those walking back and forth to school parking lot and stadium at dark. It’s very hard to see folks walking along that road with little to know shoulders. Sidewalks / trails attracting jobs Sidewalks Sidewalks SIDE WALKS Safety and function Safety Safe Affordable housing for workers & seniors; connected transit system supporting employment, shopping, tourism and medical needs; connected recreational trail system; Roadway capacity and existing operations and maintenance. Retirement communities that aren’t income based! Repurposing large number of vacant buildings in Jefferson City as homeless shelters, increasing amount of available affordable housing, maintaining existing infrastructure Replacing the dilapidated former Ramada Inn on Jefferson St with any other structure or Greenspan. Preparing for electric and autonomous vehicles. ENFORCEMENT of no side‐by‐side, four wheelers, ATVs or golf carts outside on county roads or state highways in Cole County. Sidewalk requirements in New subdivisions. Moving Falcon Lane's northern terminus further north. Calvary should move their driveway further toward Tanner Bridge. I was salty that MoDOT allowed the driveway where it stands and then acted surprised when crashes occurred. Required truck parking areas when industrial areas are built or expanded. Include truck parking area in the new JC Port expansion. Build truck parking in the north KC floodplain. Nip stereotypical NIMBY reactions to that suggestion by researching economic and safety advantages of safe truck parking Remove or improve abandoned buildings Reevaluate the speed limit on Tanner Bridge. Needs to be 45or 50 mph Redevelopment of the downtown core‐ East Capitol Avenue/ MSP. Incentivize redevelopment of the "entire" City core area, both north and south of the Rex Whitton Expressway. Historic structures and neighborhoods within the City core will be lost in the future if the various redevelopment planning areas on file are not formalized/ adopted and incentivized to implement plan recommendations. Redevelop and maintain areas Quit trying to legislate prosperity!! If people won’t work or make the effort for a better life or future for themselves then they get the life they deserve!! Provide better amenities for residents which in turn helps with growth Preserving existing lands with more parks and conservation areas, adding sidewalks and bike lanes. Hire more police and sheriff's deputies to try and keep theft down and peace on our streets Preserving and developing our downtown area Page 21 of 27 Question 13 Preserve historical buildings! Any new city buildings should be similar in style to the historical buildings present. Stuffing in new modern buildings only makes us look mismatched, leaves a trail of outdated buildings through the decades and damages any tourist attraction we might have for being a historic town Please do something about the old prison. It's an abomination!!!! Planned development, light industry, Parks, more life skills available to our students besides forcing them to play sports or an instrument‐ they need small engines , welding, woodworking, finances, basic skills on framing a house like Building trades maybe offered to Jr and Seniors that don’t plan on going to college but want to learn a useful skill. The appearance of our city is great, but our youth is our future and I think the odds are already against them. I say we set them up Parks are doing a great job and should continue to be funded, improved schools would always make the community stronger, and revitalizing the city core for more housing options so we can attract more jobs would New housing developments, jobs, sidewalks/trails/parks, downtown development. New apartment complex to address young professional housing. Public school situation with the constant boundary line changes and the migration of kids to private schools. Need better maintenance on existing roads, including subdivisions in Wardsville Need affordable single family homes and public transportation that covers all of JC and to out lying areas both east and west of JC NA N/A More/repaired sidewalks, trails, Parks, shoulders on 2‐lane roads more trails for hiking, more attractions on the west side of town, new housing for rent More trails More to attract tourists and permanent residents, with a focus on families and remote workers. We have great property values and we should advertise it more nationally More sidewalks/ trails as well as attracting new jobs. Also development that would attract younger population More sidewalks, improved schools, additional cultural opportunities (e.g. museums, historical sites/ interpretation, and availability of high quality health care are important to me and for the future of the Capital More sidewalks in holts summit to be able to walk without fear of getting hit by a car More sidewalks Improved Traffic siganls More sidewalks everywhere, particularly around Blair Oaks in Wardsville More sidewalks and trails. Safety at public parks. More sidewalks and trails, affordable housing More sidewalks and trails MORE SIDEWALKS More roadway capacity. We are no longer rural. Time for 2 or three landed throughout the area More roadway capacity. More roadway capacity and improving the safety of the existing roadways. More roadway capacity More parks; more affordable or middle tier housing; sidewalks; more traffic enforcement. More parks, sidewalks and trails... more play areas for children... more ways to get out and about without having to drive everywhere... More unique communities that make people want to join More parks, more sidewalks & bike pathways, more housing suitable for everybody. Save open land. More parks! The last few have been in super low income areas which doesn’t get utilized as much because of the unsafe areas. The last and final time I was at one there were gunshots and a car chase nearby which my kids witnessed and it wed a traumatic event. More parks in rural areas please. More green spaces promotes healthier lifestyles for residents. Wardsville area needs a park space like Taos. Page 22 of 27 Question 13 More parks and sidewalks in Wardsville is needed. More one story senior citizen housing More housing, and definitely more access to transportation More farms More effective public transit More connected greenways. More connected communities that are walkable and bikeable. More beautiful parks, more entertainment venues that attract jobs, rebuilding E. Capital with buildings that memic the 1880's Era of buildings. More high rise apartments that are right off MO Blvd. There are some two story that would be nice if many were purchased to make a high rise apartment complex. Even a complex in Peter Goldschmit property on Hyde Park (old drive in movie theater) and do a parking area underneath so it can be built in a floodplain. Change city codes for shading of parking lots. Need to expand other means to help with More afforfable housing is desperately needed More affordable housing. Address blight, empty storefronts. More sidewalks. More robust public transit: car washes, tire stores, oil change stores, and parking lots detract from the charm of the city. * I own zero vehicles, but the survey forced a quantity. More affordable housing. More affordable housing is a must, as well as developing vacant or dilapidated housing. More sidewalks and roadway capacity for sure. More affordable housing and too many eyesores that need attention like the old Ramada on 54. Parks and activities they shepherd are about the only reason families might want to locate here other than jobs that bring them here. Keep Parks strong. more affordable housing more parks including using abandoned property owned by city for parks expanding the greenway and adding new connections expanding bike lanes More affordable housing for all the population. More affordable housing More affordable housing Mo Blvd pedestrian improvements, as noted above. Maybe a limit on the cookie cutter neighborhoods like all around pioneer trail. Make things more exciting for younger people to want to live here making our area more eco‐friendly, walkable, particularly downtown. River accessibility on the Jefferson City side of the river. Creating safe spaces for the unhoused and providing more resources to the underserved. Make use of vacant properties. Adding sidewalks around Blair Oaks Schools. Maintaining farm land and reduce the number of subdivisions taking over our community Love the sidewalk provide Less government oversight and faster approval/disapproval of private business plans. Leave land use up to the people's wishes. Rebuild areas in town that have been blighted, I mean get a dozer and start over, 1200 sq ft homes for small families/first timers. Keep ahead of the curve for road capacity. This all feeds into the local economy, creates jobs, supplies labor, improves tax bases for schools which allows them the funds they need to keep current. Not worried about parks, again we're mostly urban, hell, we have deer/turkey running through JC everyday, so you see wildlife. Keep to the necessary that builds the rest. You need the Keeping Jefferson City an affordable place to live. I feel like that's a draw that we have had in the past ‐ people can afford to live well here. But, to make that worth it, we have to provide people with things to do. I love what Parks has done for public entertainment and offering spaces to be active, experience art, and participate in a wide variety of events. I want to keep our city an easy place to make ends meet while still offering things to do Page 23 of 27 Question 13 Just take care of the roads we have! We have a lot of potholes and really rough roads. Madison is one example coming off of 54 headed north. If we want to in fact grow, it will be focused on the schools. Good schools will draw the people then having housing for them will be the next issue. There are not a lot of "starter" Jefferson City needs to be more economically competitive. It depends almost entirely on the state to bring in workers. Bringing in more jobs needs to be the biggest goal, outside of improving our education system. Jefferson City has done extremely well with parks, greenways, etc. CAMPO should be working towards bringing the surrounding communities up to this standard to encourage regional economic development. Use to tax credits that harm schools and small communities should be discouraged, they do more harm than good. (Just look at the old Ramada, the owner created blight and when they didn’t get everything they wanted they left the It’s important to me to not let our area turn into a bunch of run down homes and land with junk everywhere. We need to create and enforce ordinances that prevent such things. Attracting good jobs goes a long way with preventing run down areas and keeping good people living in the area by offering amenities of a higher end It would be great to be a very family focused town. Continue making great parks, walkable neighborhoods, plenty of spaces for children and community to gather. It is important to make the Jefferson City area a place that is attractive for people to live in. We need to increase the housing stock so people have a place to live, but also need amenities to make it a place where people want Investing in our youth. Improving resources for families and the schools. Additional sidewalks,trails and parks infrastructure and tourism Increasing the density of downtown via continued tornado recovery efforts, developing the MSP, and building a Increase affordable housing areas. Continue building sidewalks in neighborhoods and communities. An increase of community spaces that have multiple uses and areas. It would also be nice to see an indoor public pool that’s open year round and available to everyone as well. Inclusion of all people of all abilities. Jefferson City is very segregated in all areas. Incentives for developing attractions (breweries, etc) that would encourage the younger generations to want to live in the JC and surrounding areas. Improving key roadways in the areas. Improvement to road safety Improved sidewalks and crosswalks that make pedestrian navigation feel safe. Less cluttered roadways. Improved schools and sidewalks Improved schools and more opportunities for outdoor fun Improve safety I would like to see Jefferson City become a safer community, possibly increasing population but yet maintaining a small town feel. I think more roadway capacity is always a good thing. Perhaps improve 54 from Kingdom City to Holts Summit, removing the at‐grade intersections to allow an interstate designation (570 perhaps) to allow Jefferson City to connect to the interstate system. I believe 54 from Holts Summit through Jefferson City meets interstate standards, except perhaps the sharp turn near Capital Region Medical Center. I wish Jefferson City would do something similar to Omaha, Nebraska with their variety of things to do in the downtown district…shops, art in the park, interactive playground, concert area, etc. it is absolutely beautiful how they have revitalized their downtown district. I think we have nice walkways for recreational activity. I’d love to see more community garden areas. I think it is important to provide a way for people to connect to the space that they are in and the people with whom they share a community. This could happen with enhancements to our public spaces and personal interactions that may happen in passing on our trails and sidewalks. How about growth Housing, parks and outdoor trails Housing is an issue. More neighborhoods and apartment complexes need to be thoughtfully developed. Bring in larger industry and explained existing industry. Page 24 of 27 Question 13 Housing in all sizes and income levels. Having more affordable housing could induce people from other areas to settle here and fill the open positions already in the area. Roads to better accommodate semi truck traffic and commuter traffic would offer businesses more shipping capacity and make in‐person work less burdensome on employees. Grow infrastructure. Get the locals out of their 1950s mindset. Get ahead of things instead of waiting ‐Council needs to be informed of things EARLY and not later. Fix the roads to move traffic efficiently, build the river port, invest in industrial parks to bring back good paying jobs, remove the eyesore on Jefferson Street next to Holiday Inn, build upon the success of Riverside Park concerts, help Lincoln University understand that they must care about and recruit local students and actually be a part of this community, combine the Cole County Health Department with the City of Jefferson staff, Finding ways to utilize or develop vacant buildings. Encouraging self motivation and responsibility. NOT social/welfare projects and less government emphasis on “beautification” or “arts” projects. Economic development, improved infrastructure, affordable housing. Don't steal money from parks. Do we have a land bank? Or incentives for restoration? I was sad to see historic structures on Capitol Ave torn down earlier this year; they were part of Jefferson City’s historic fabric. I think we need to value that over ideas like a shiny new convention center Do something with the eye sores on the east side. Some were deplorable before the tornado and worse now DO NOT PUT A GREENWAY IN TAOS ‐ THERE IS A PARK FOR A REASON Development of more retail options on East end of county Developing a plan to use vacant homes and buildings to use for housing for employees coming to work here and more affordable housing for people who already live here Develop unused City property Design roads for all road users "complete streets" and increase dedicated facilities for vulnerable road user (sidewalks, paths, bike lanes, greenways, etc). Focus on end to end connectivity so vulnerable road users can Definitely more affordable housing options for young couples/families starting out Definitely improve the academics of JC schools. Don’t cater to low income population at the detriment of others. JC High School is being left behind and our East Side properties are devalued. A lot of affluent Student’s families moved to West side in order to have better opportunities. Either get rid of blighted properties or renovate them. Eyesores near the downtown area. Definitely attracting more businesses to the area. Create a pro business, pro development environment and use code enforcement as a mechanism for change Continued investment in our schools, affordable housing, and the updating of and/or redevelopment of dilapidated properties that diminish the beauty of the region. Clean up capitol ave, more parks, better internet, added lanes or improvements to the 50 expressway lights, the boulevard feels dangerous at peak times Clean up and give curb appeal to existing roadways Build another bridge to cross the MO. You need to anyway to redo the trilevel. Build one across near the east side of JC (near Militia Drive). This would cut down on the unnecessary downtown traffic just to get to Holts Better traffic management. Better communication between municipalities (Jefferson City and surrounding municipalities). Better planning in rural areas. Put a middle school and a high school in Holts summit. Better roads and a growing economy better public transit, finish greenway spur connection from the jack flash down S County club to link back to the fairground around scruggs station that was promised 9 years ago. Get rid of the scooters again as they literally Better intersections, better trails and sidewalk access Page 25 of 27 Question 13 Better funding for schools to attract and retain awesome teachers, convenient and frequent public transportation options, more sidewalks and bike lanes Being able to take care of what we got. No more bike trails. Old prison redevelopment, tear down and redevelop old Truman Hotel (eyesore), Capital parking, ampitheater stage should be bigger so we can get better Attracting more.jobs Attracting more jobs. Attracting more jobs, but making the area more attractive for workers. The bridge and the traffic on it is an issue. Parking is an issue. Attracting more jobs, affordable housing Attracting more jobs that pay a livelihood. Attracting more jobs from other regions where you cannot use politics or a family name in order to get ahead. Attracting more jobs and affordable housing are most important for our community to grow attracting more jobs Attracting more and better employment opportunities and development opportunities for smaller single family homes to make home ownership more affordable Attracting manufacturing jobs, demolishing derelict homes in the city. Attracting jobs. Attracting business/jobs Attract more jobs, build entertainment facilities that will draw people to our city. Stop wasting money on things like a bridge to an island in the river. NO ONE CARES!!!! Spend money on things that will make our city better. Get rid of the trash and make traffic flow better. As I said before clean up Jefferson City and use what we already have instead of trying to expand out All those listed above. All of the examples listed are attractive. All of the above. All of the above Affordable workforce housing Affordable housing. Continue to keep schools up to date. Affordable housing. Historical preservation. Local businesses. School improvement. Convention center. Updated attractions. Affordable housing, need more apartments, jobs, parks and activities for children. Affordable housing, more parks, sidewalks, and bike trails would benefit everyone, regardless of economic status. If we want to draw in more people to this area for tourism, retail, and other economic boons, we need to make this an affordable and pleasing place to live. Affordable housing, jobs and safe roadways. Affordable housing, investment in core of city, parking. Improved and more convenient public transpo. Affordable Housing, Improved Infrastructure Improved incentive to move to JC for decent paying job opportunities, activities/things to do, school improvements, sidewalks in all areas of town.. AFFORDABLE HOUSING transportation Affordable housing is needed. Extending city bus routes to include Holts Summit would be a big plus. Important that we fight proposals that drain funding away from our public school system. Good and well supported public schools are essential to our city's future. Affordable housing is most important Affordable housing is always at the top of the list. Parks make it nice for those who live here, schools are a plus. More parking garage areas rather than just flat lots would make more sense in the downtown area. Page 26 of 27 Question 13 Affordable housing is a huge obstacle to our city's progress. Our Parks and Recreation program enhances the quality of life in Jeff City, but we have city leaders who want to gut this program. This would also stifle progress because our community won't be attractive to young people. Affordable housing is a big issue. Most of our parks have been upgraded and are a big asset. The Greenway is very nice with a few tricky crossings. Affordable housing for everyone not just the poor Affordable housing crisis. Affordable housing and reasonable rentals Affordable housing and improving public schools Affordable housing and better services for those individuals experiencing homelessness. More sidewalks and parks is always a good thing. Fair/equal distribution of available resources across The JC Public School district. Stop building expensive stadiums and put a/c and necessary upgrades in those elementary schools that affordable housing and attracting more jobs. Affordable housing (Eastland Hills would of been a great opportunity for our community) Clean up the trash (Harding St) Safe parks (parks should be a safe spot not a hangout spot for drug dealers, shootings and parties) Affordable housing is lacking in the entire area. Lack of sidewalks and narrow roads make walking unsafe. Affordable housing Faster removal of abandoned/ghost properties Improving schools More jobs at all levels of experience More job training programs on customer service and logistics Affordable housing Affordable housing Affordable housing Affordable housing Affordable housing Affordable housing Affordable housing Affordable and desirable housing, repurpose existing buildings, enhance existing historic buildings and sites Adding sidewalks to both sides of every street and upkeep of the parks will increase physical activity. Develop vacant property on Capital Avenue or tear down the condemned places. Improving JCPS may keep some people from moving to other areas that have better schools. 1. More industry. 2. Schools are a non‐issue. One exception....promote Nichols Career Center. Yes. State Tech is 30 minutes away and number one in the country. But, having a Tech school locally is a big plus. 3. Plenty of public parks. 4. Too many chain and fast food restaurants. 5. Not enough businesses that pay a family sustaing (See previous comments) Page 27 of 27 CAMPO Aggregated Questionnaire Results - Near-Term and Long-Term Needs- MTP Update 2018 Location Need Type Issue Potential Solution (optional) Hwy 54/63 N/O Missouri River Bridge Capacity Congestion in AM and PM rush Add lanes from Bridge to Hwy 63 interchange Clark Avenue Interchange @ Hwy 50/63 Safety/Capacity Safety and congestion issues with existing interchange Roundabouts at ramp terminals Dix Road Interchange @ Hwy 50 Safety/Capacity Sight distance and congestion issues at ramp terminals Reconfiguration of the interchange and Dix Road approaches West Edgewood Intersection Improvements Capacity at Stadium intersection and Safety at Creek Trail Drive Intersection Roundabouts or Signal Missouri Boulevard Capacity/Safety The area from McDonalds to Lowes does not have a center turn lane. Access to and from S. Ten Mile Drive is difficult Add a center turn lane. Right-in/ Right-out at old Orscheln and McDonalds entrances. Possible signal at S. Ten Mile Drive Clark Avenue / Dunklin St.Safety Awkward intersection Reconfigure intersecton Signal Improvements on W. Truman Safety Scott Station Road and Ventura Ave.Signal Installation Swifts Hwy/Jefferson St.Safety Sight distance issue due to bridge barrier curb and also very narrow intersection Widen Swifts Hwy approach Christy Drive/Tanner Bridge/Hwy 54 Off/On Ramps Safety Goofy offset intersection with difficult light of sight for off ramp Roundabout Madison Street Safety / Capacity Issues with traffic congestion and safety from Dunlin Street to Capital Region Hospital Combination of widening and removal of parking, add a center turn lane and removal of 3 way stop at E. Atchison South Summit Drive Sidewalk, drainage Major thoroughfare to elementary school lacks sidewalks and curbs. Some drainage issues as well.Install sidewalks with some curb and gutter and drop inlets (Applying for grant funds) Summit Drive and Perry Intersection Intersection Poor visibility at high traffic volume intersection. Offset intersection with 5th approach leg and adjacent uncontrolled access Redesign intersection (Study completed). Could be partially funded by SRTS Grant Spalding Road: Park Place to West Simon (entire length)Drainage/culvert Drainage issue. Standing water is deteriorating subgrade.Install drainage improvements. Curb and gutter could cause surface flooding for adjoining properties.N. Summit and Mars Drainage/culvert Intermittent flooding. Culvert undersized on major thoroughfare.Install drainage improvements – box culvert. Van Horn & Julie Lane Intersection Poor visibility with offset intersection Redesign intersection (Study completed). Missouri Blvd. (W. Main to Truman Blvd.)Sidewalk/crosswalks Unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists Continue adding sidewalks. Consider bike lanes and islands or other traffic slowing features. Southwest Blvd.Greenway crossing Traffic does not stop when pedestrians or cyclists are at crossing.Install flashing yellow (or red) light activated when someone is in crossing area. Bolivar Street/McCarty St. Intersection Traffic Signal Issues Sensor does not detect cyclist to trigger traffic light and there is no crossing button available to cyclists.Adjust sensors to pick up the presence of a cyclist at the intersection to trigger the traffic signal. Dix Road (W. Main to MO Blvd. including overpass over Hwy. 50)Capacity Limited access for pedestrians and cyclists Expand the width of the road and overpass to provide access Rt T/D to Henwick on Bus. 50 W Roadway Segment Busy roadway with school, church, shopping, etc & no safe way for non- drivers to travel.Bike lanes, curb, gutter & sidewalk in each direction Intersection of R/T D & Bus 50 W Intersection Busy intersection with speeding drivers & frequent running of stop signs Add a Roundabout Route B, M & W intersection in Wardsville,Roundabout (?)Traffic is especially bad in morning and evening rush hours (including school dismissals and St. Stanislaus and Blair Oaks.Create loop around Wardsville so traffic going to and from JC to Taos and St. Thomas and beyond does not have to go thru Wardsville. Route B and Ashbury Way Safety/Congestion Diffuculty turning into Ashbury and onto Route B Traffic Signals and/or turn lanes Ellis/Southwest Interchange with Hwy 54 Interchange Improvements The outer roads are two closely spaced making turning movements difficult. The area is very congested in the peak hours. There are no accommodations for pedestrians across the overpass. Examine alternate intersection/interchange configurations. Add pedestrian overpass or create space on existing bridge. Intersection of Southwest and Stadium Intersection improvement Intersection is congested during peak hours and school dismissal Explore alternate intersection type such as a roundabout. Ellis Boulevard and Moreau Drive intersection Intersection improvement Intersection is congested during peak hours Explore alternate intersection type such as a roundabout. Bald Hill and Seven Hills Intersection Intersection improvement Intersection is congested during peak hours Explore alternate intersection type such as a roundabout. 800 Block Miller E. Miller St.Roadway improvements Pavement, curb, gutter are breaking up Replace curb and gutter; remove asphalt and replace with concrete South Country Club and Highway 50 Interchange Interchange Improvements The area is congested during Peak Hours. Closely spaced outer roads. No pedestrian accommodation Examine alternate intersection/interchange configurations. Provide for pedestrains Near-Term Needs (<5 Years) Ca r y M a l o n e y - B i k e In t e r e s t R e p . St. M a r t i n s Co l e C o u n t y Ho l t s S u m m i t & C a l l a w a y Co u n t y Wa r d s v i l l e Je f f e r s o n C i t y CAMPO Aggregated Questionnaire Results - Near-Term and Long-Term Needs- MTP Update 2018 Location Need Type Issue Potential Solution (optional) Rex-Whitton Expressway Capacity Congestion at AM and PM rush Add a third lane in each direction from Monroe Street to Broadway St. Ellis Boulevard @ Hwy 54 Capacity Congestion Reconfiguration of the interchange and side roads Southwest Blvd/Stadium Blvd Intersection Capacity Intersection is tight and doesn’t flow well Rebuild of intersection to correct profile grade of Southwest Blvd and add capacity Route B/M/W Capacity/Safety Congestion and safety issues at awkward intersection Replace intersection with a studied alternative Halifax, Nieman & Major Intersection Intersection Poor visibility at three-way intersection.Install roundabout 400 E. Simon Bridge & roadway Intermittent flooding. Culvert needs to be resized and replaced Install new bridge $300,000 (MODOT Grant?) Highway 54 Pedestrian access There is no safe way to cross US-54 by bike or on foot.Install dedicated bike/pedestrian lane; probably at Simon Blvd. overpass. Additional overpass exit ramps at South Summit and US-54 Interchange There is a partial interchange at a site of major potential traffic flow Install additional ramps. Sidewalk needed along Karen Dr. (from Center St. north to MoDOT maintenance point)Sidewalk Sidwealk is non-existant. High pedestrian use in a residential area.Install sidewalk and crosswalks Sidewalk needed along Halifax Rd. (from existing sidewalk to Nieman Rd.)Sidewalk Sidwealk is non-existant. High pedestrian use in a residential area.Install sidewalk and crosswalks Dedicated bike path to Katy Trail Bike path There is a lack of a dedicated bike path from Holt Summit to the winery and thence to the Katy Trail Design and construct bike path Route T (St. Martins to Elston)Sidewalks/Shoulders/ Capacity There are no facilities for walkers Install sidewalks or expand the width of the road to accommodate pedestrians. Greenway system Expand Connectivity with downtown is limited.Continue greenway segments into downtown. Connect current segments to form a more extensive network.Downtown area Expand bike lanes Current bike lanes are limited (Capital Ave. and Bolivar St.)Continue expansion of bike lanes in the downtown area. St . Ma r t i n s Jefferson CIty & Cole County Greenway & small cities Connectivity Greenway, bike lanes need to be connected to connect small cities with Jefferson City & the Katy Trail & Rock Island Trail Continue to expand bike lanes & greenways to connect cities in the CAMPO jurisdiction Tri-level Improvements (US50,63, 54 interchange)Congestion/Safety/ Capacity/Connectivity Several issues ranging from congestion to safety issues. There are merging/weaving side swipe conflicts and confusion for motorists unfamiliar with the interchange due to stop and yeild intersections. Large Semi Tractor Trailers have some difficulty traveling westbound on US 50 and turning onto US 54 westbound via Missouri Blvd. and eastbound on US 54 onto eastbound US 50. The at-grade conflicts should be eliminated. Improvments to exits and entrances with US 54-Missouri Boulevard interchange and US 50/63-Missouri Boulevard intersection are needed. Signage and striping improvements would also help. US 54/63 at Missouri River Bridge 3 lanes Congestion/Safety Not enough capapcity at peak periods, holidays, or after crashes. Bottleneck for freight on norht/south traffic at Missouri River Lengthen the US 54 eastbound outer lane at the Missouri River Bridge from the Route W exit ramp to the US 63 exit ramp and lengthen the US 54 westbound outer lane at the Missouri River Bridge from the US 63 ramp to the Missouri River Bridge. (3 lanes from US 63 to Cole County) Rex Whitton Expressway Improvements (50/63) from (and including) Jackson Ave. to (and including) Missouri Boulevard. Road and Bridge/Connecticity/ Congestion Congestion issues. Improvements on Rex Whitton Expressway from, and including, Clarke Ave to, and including: Missouri Boulevard with Broadway, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe intersection improvements, and a Madison St. overpass component proposed by the EIS Extend Greenway Trail from Dunklin Trailhead to McCarty St in Jefferson City Sidewalk/Trails Connectivity with trails and sidewalks throughout Jefferson City Design and construct a combination of 10 foot wide concrete greenway with modular retaining walls, signed bike lanes, and widening of existing sidewalk. This project is a small component of a larger regional project to enhance trail connectitivity. Greenway Trail Projects Connectivity/Sidewalks better connectivity is needed between several trails and sidewalks • Fairgrounds Acres to County Park • South Country Club Drive to Turtle Creek subdivision • Ellis-Porter Riverside Park connector from St. Louis Road• Wears Creek to East Brank Connector• Frog Hollow Phase 4 – Creek Trail to W. Edgewood • JCMG to Satinwood Connector along Stadium Blvd. • Capitol City High School Spur Build a new transit facility for JEFFTRANExtension of runway at Jefferson City Memorial Airport Renovation or replacement of the Amtrak Train Station in Jefferson City Construction of a port on the Missouri River Je f f e r s o n C i t y Construction of a 1,000’ extension of the crosswind runway at the Jefferson City Memorial Airport. The new station will be a new front door for Missouri’s capital city. The new station will be fully accessible to the disabled and able to handle student groups, both of which are now difficult to host in the current small station. The volunteers who staff the current station would be able to allocate further resources to the selling of refreshments to Construction of a port facility in either Callaway County or Cole County as specified in the Central Missouri Multimodal Port Feasibility Study. Construction of a new transit facility for JEFFTRAN that would provide better accomodations for transit riders, JEFFTRAN staff, and possible future service expansion. Mu l t i - m o d a l L o n g - Te r m Long-Term Needs (Beyond 5 Years) Ca r y M a l o n e y - Bik e I n t e r e s t Re p . Co l e C o u n t y Ho l t s S u m m i t & C a l l a w a y C o u n t y Agenda Item 7B Page 1 of 1 CAMPO Board of Directors Staff Report 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program Update April 17, 2024 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 (MoDOT), and local public transportation operators. The CAMPO TIP year runs from July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2029. The draft 2025-2029 TIP currently includes 48 projects that total over $90.3 Million. Please note that while all project information has been received, projects may be added or removed prior to the April 17th Board of Directors meeting. Fiscal constraint, the availability of local matching funds to federal funds, is demonstrated using updated financial data from local jurisdictions. Other important components of the TIP include: • Protocol for TIP Development: Public Participation, Project Selection, Amendments, and Modifications • CAMPO Federal Performance Measures: Performance Measures and targets uses system information to make investment and policy decisions to achieve national goals. The CAMPO Technical Committee and Board of Directors reviews and approves these performance measures and targets at regular intervals, per federal guidelines. The TIP includes totals for programmed funds that address these performance measures. • Financial Plan: Each year staff works with local jurisdictions to collect required financial data. This financial data, used to illustrate fiscal constraint, includes general tax revenue, local operating assistance, operations and maintenance estimates, and transportation grants. This data provides for creating current and forecasted totals of available and programmed funds. The 5-year 2025-2029 total of available funds is approximately $301Million dollars, while the estimated programmed funds total approximately $89 Million. This includes funds from MoDOT, FHWA, FTA, and local jurisdiction budgets. These totals are subject to change during the month of April if new project costs estimates are received. • Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects: The list of fiscally constrained projects includes all projects programmed for construction or scoping that utilize federal transportation funds. Most projects in the CAMPO TIP are MoDOT sponsored and are also listed in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The 2025-2029 CAMPO TIP includes: 10 Bridge Projects – MoDOT(8), Cole County(2) 11 Road Projects – MoDOT(all) 4 Other Projects – i.e. work zone enforcement, paybacks – MoDOT(all) 7 Scoping Projects – MoDOT(all) 8 Pedestrian/Bicycle Projects – MoDOT(2), Jefferson City(3), Wardsville(1), Holts Summit(1), and Cole County(1) 8 Transit Projects – JEFFTRAN(6), OATS(2) • JEFFTRAN Program of Projects: The Program of Projects, federally required for public transportation agencies, is an illustrative list of projects and estimated costs. Technical Committee Recommendation The Technical Committee recommended the Draft 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program for review and approval to the Board of Directors at their April 4th meeting. Public Comment A 25-day public comment period will be opened April 17th and closed by the Board of Directors at a meeting on May 15th. Please refer questions or comments to Katrina Williams at 573-634-6536 or at kawilliams@jeffersoncitymo.gov. A draft 2025-2029 TIP document is attached and is available on the CAMPO webpage: https://cms4files.revize.com/jeffersoncitymo/TIP%202025-2029%20DRAFT%2004.11.2024.pdf DRAFT Transportation Improvement Program Program Years 2025-2029 July 1, 2024 – June 30, 2029 Adopted May 15, 2024 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. DRAFT 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 – Municipalities ......................................................................... 11 Demonstration of Fiscal Constraint – Public Transportation Providers .............................................. 12 Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects – Bridges ..................................................................... 13 Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects - Roadways ................................................................ 17 Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects - Other ........................................................................ 21 Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects – Scoping and Design Projects .................................... 23 Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects - Pedestrian & Bicycle Projects .................................... 26 Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects – Public Transportation Projects .................................. 29 Project Locations - Figure 7 - Map of Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects .......................... 32 Program of Projects ........................................................................................................................... 33 Multimodal Projects .............................................................................................................................. 34 Regionally Significant Projects ............................................................................................................. 34 Appendix 1 – Amendments and Administrative Modifications ............................................................ 35 Appendix 2 – Federal Funding Sources ................................................................................................ 36 Appendix 3 – Policies and Procedures ................................................................................................. 37 Appendix 4 – Definitions ...................................................................................................................... 40 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, 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 DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 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 DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program ii Resolution DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program iii MTP Process Certification DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program iv Certification of Restrictions on Lobbying DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program v ONE DOT Approval Letter DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program vi CAMPO Board of Directors Chair – Jeff Hoelscher, Eastern District Commissioner, Cole County Vice-Chair – Scott Spencer, City Council Member, City of Jefferson City of Jefferson: Jack Deeken, City Council Member Jon Hensley, City Council Member Jeff Ahlers, City Council Member Clint Smith, AICP, Director, Planning & Protective Services Gerry Stegeman, Transit Manager Matt Morasch, PE, Director, Public Works Cole County: Eric Landwehr, PE, Director, Public Works Doug Reece, City Administrator, St. Martins Callaway County: Roger Fischer, Western District Commissioner Holts Summit: Brandon Ruediger, City Administrator, City of Holts Summit MoDOT: Machelle Watkins, PE, District Engineer Ex-Officio Members: Luke Holtschneider, Jefferson City Regional Economic Partnership Daniel Nguyen, Federal Transit Administration, Region VII Christy Evers, MoDOT Transit Administrator Vacant, Missouri Office of Administration Michael Henderson, AICP, MoDOT, Transportation Planning Dan Weitkamp, Federal Highway Administration, Missouri Div. Tamara Tateosian, Callaway County Economic Development Technical Committee Chair – David Bange, PE, City Engineer, Public Works, City of Jefferson Vice-Chair – Matt Prenger, PE, County Engineer, Public Works, Cole County City of Jefferson: Clint Smith, AICP, Director, Planning & Protective Services Aaron Grefrath, Director, Parks, Recreation & Forestry Matt Morasch, PE, Director of Public Works Gerry Stegeman, Interim Transit Manager Eric Barron, AICP, Planning Manager Britt Smith, PE, Operations & Maintenance Cole County: Matt Prenger, PE, County Engineer Shannon Kliethermes, Senior Planner Callaway County: Howard Thomas, PE, County Highway Administrator MoDOT: Steve Engelbrecht, PE, District Planning Manager Michael Henderson, AICP, Transportation Planning Specialist Daniel Roeger, PE, Area Engineer Private Transportation Interest: Vacant Pedestrian or Biking Interest: Kevin Schwartz, JC Parks Outdoor Recreation Program Manager Small City Representative (Callaway): Mark Tate, Streets Department, City of Holts Summit Small City Representative (Cole): Rachel Busche, Wardsville Ex-Officio Members: Daniel Nguyen, Federal Transit Administration, Region VII Daniel Weitkamp, Federal Highway Administration, Missouri Div. Jason Branstetter, Heartland Port Authority Representative CAMPO Staff: Clint Smith, AICP– Director, Planning & Protective Services Eric Barron, AICP - Planning Manager Katrina Williams, GISP, AICP –Planner, Senior Vacant – Planner I* Kortney Bliss – Planner I* Tiphanie Pearson – Administrative Assistant * The Planner I position may work on MPO and/or City of Jefferson planning activities depending on work flow. DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 1 Introduction The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) is the designated metropolitan planning organization for the Jefferson City, Missouri Urban Area. CAMPO’s 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, the communities of Holts Summit, Jefferson City, St. Martins, Taos, and 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. DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 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 at www.jeffersoncitymo.gov 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 does not receive any 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 document 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). DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 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). If the air quality in a geographic area meets or is cleaner than the national standard, it is called an attainment area; areas that don't meet the national standard are called nonattainment areas. 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 strives to include all people, including protected classes, in planning activities. The CAMPO Title VI Program addresses this topic. Additionally, CAMPO staff expects project sponsors to identify and mitigate any disproportionately high and adverse effects of federal transportation programs. DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 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. The FAST (Fixing America’s Surface Transportation) Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act both provided for continuation of these goals. Another requirement, Performance Based Planning and Programming (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 requirements, the CAMPO Board of Directors adopts targets for the five performance areas listed below. These measures and corresponding targets can be found in the System Performance Report located in Appendix C of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), which can be found on the CAMPO website at www.jeffersoncitymo.gov/campo. CAMPO usually adopts the state targets when they are updated. 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 participates in the State Transit Asset Management Plan. There is approximately $23,582,744 in project funding programmed into this TIP that may be utilized for bus replacement and other capital projects to help transit agencies move toward 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 $111,496,271, most sponsored by the Central District of MoDOT, to help the State move towards these targets. Of this total, $7,822,271 stems from pedestrian infrastructure improvements. 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. 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). DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 5 Many projects in the TIP address Asset Management, a major priority for MoDOT. There is currently $41,977,001 in project funding in the TIP that addresses road and/or bridge maintenance or scoping. 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. 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 is $113,000 in project funding in the TIP that addresses 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 is currently $383,785 in project funding in the TIP that addresses transit safety. Other projects within the TIP address these targets indirectly, which will help transit agencies move toward these targets. DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 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. St. Martins has a one-cent sales tax for parks and streets. 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. 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. DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 7 Figure 2 – Programmed Funds and Available Project Funds by Source 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Total FHWA AC-STBG $2,600,000 $1,742,400 $5,141,600 $0 $0 $9,484,000 FHWA NHPP $8,420,000 $3,210,400 $4,352,800 $1,080,000 $5,202,400 $22,265,600 FHWA HSIP $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FHWA STBG $1,400,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,400,800 FHWA TAP $2,058,753 $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $2,558,753 FHWA SAFETY $51,200 $51,200 $51,200 $0 $0 $153,600 FHWA BRO $1,786,749 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,786,749 FHWA BFP $1,103,160 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,103,160 FHWA RTP $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FTA 5307 $1,393,160 $1,421,023 $1,449,444 $1,478,433 $1,508,001 $7,250,061 FTA 5310 $172,000 $270,000 $182,000 $270,000 $182,000 $1,076,000 FTA 5311 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FTA 5329 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FTA 5339 $608,853 $10,175 $0 $0 $0 $619,028 $19,594,675 $6,705,198 $11,677,044 $2,828,433 $6,892,401 $47,697,751 MoDOT STATE $8,604,375 $5,800,078 $6,853,878 $4,737,478 $5,768,078 $31,763,887 $8,604,375 $5,800,078 $6,853,878 $4,737,478 $5,768,078 $31,763,887 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $385,092 $0 $0 $0 $0 $385,092 $125,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $125,000 $1,919,066 $1,421,023 $1,945,147 $1,478,433 $1,508,001 $8,271,669 $180,213 $30,544 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $294,757 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $105,909 $0 $0 $0 $0 $105,909 $60,000 $92,000 $70,000 $92,000 $70,000 $384,000 $2,775,280 $1,543,567 $2,043,147 $1,598,433 $1,606,001 $9,566,427 $30,974,330 $14,048,843 $20,574,068 $9,164,343 $14,266,480 $89,028,065 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Total FHWA AC-STBG $2,600,000 $1,742,400 $5,141,600 $0 $0 $9,484,000 FHWA NHPP $8,420,000 $3,210,400 $4,352,800 $1,080,000 $5,202,400 $22,265,600 FHWA HSIP $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FHWA STBG $1,400,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,400,800 FHWA TAP $2,058,753 $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $2,558,753 FHWA SAFETY $51,200 $51,200 $51,200 $0 $0 $153,600 FHWA BRO $1,786,749 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,786,749 FHWA BFP $1,103,160 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,103,160 FHWA RTP $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FTA 5307 $1,393,160 $1,421,023 $1,449,444 $1,478,433 $1,508,001 $7,250,061 FTA 5310 $172,000 $270,000 $182,000 $270,000 $182,000 $1,076,000 FTA 5311 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FTA 5329 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FTA 5339 $608,853 $10,175 $0 $0 $0 $619,028 $19,594,675 $6,705,198 $11,677,044 $2,828,433 $6,892,401 $47,697,751 MoDOT STATE $8,604,375 $5,800,078 $6,853,878 $4,737,478 $5,768,078 $31,763,887 $8,604,375 $5,800,078 $6,853,878 $4,737,478 $5,768,078 $31,763,887 $7,095,639 $7,237,552 $7,382,303 $7,529,949 $7,680,548 $36,925,990 $12,246,232 $12,491,157 $12,740,980 $12,995,800 $13,255,716 $63,729,886 $1,116,982 $1,139,321 $1,162,108 $1,185,350 $1,209,057 $5,812,817 $16,282,005 $16,607,645 $16,939,798 $17,278,594 $17,624,166 $84,732,207 $5,537,969 $3,587,389 $3,676,754 $3,779,945 $3,886,943 $20,468,999 $1,139,155 $1,161,938 $1,185,176 $1,208,880 $1,233,057 $5,928,206 $322,556 $329,007 $335,587 $342,299 $349,145 $1,678,593 $357,514 $364,665 $371,958 $379,397 $386,985 $1,860,520 $120,000 $228,000 $140,000 $228,000 $140,000 $856,000 $44,218,051 $43,146,673 $43,934,664 $44,928,213 $45,765,616 $221,993,218 $72,417,102 $55,651,949 $62,465,586 $52,494,124 $58,426,095 $301,454,856Total Available Funds Wardsville Oats Local Totals Yearly Totals State Totals Local Callaway County Cole County Holts Summit Jefferson City JEFFTRAN St. Martins Toas Federal Totals State Oats Local Totals Yearly Totals Available FundsFederal Total Programmed Total Wardsville Programmed Funds Federal State Totals Local Callaway County Federal Totals State Cole County Holts Summit Jefferson City JEFFTRAN St. Martins Taos DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 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 $5,323, ($5,323 per lane mile x 370 lane miles = $1,969,510 annual cost), and can be seen in Figure 3. 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 3. 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. There are 571 miles of Federal-Aid eligible roadway in the CAMPO region. MoDOT is responsible for the maintenance of all “State System” roadways (370 miles) while “Off System” roadways are the responsibility of the local governments (200 miles), shown in Figure 3. Figure 3 – Local and State Owned Federal-aid System Mileage and Operations & Maintenance Costs by Jurisdiction Source: MoDOT and Local Jurisdictions Local Lane Miles Cost/Lane Mile Local O&M Cost 33 11 $6,458 $71,038 121 28 $6,935 $197,370 18 14 $4,778 $68,660 171 143 $7,209 $1,035,789 11 4 $7,146 $31,371 9 0 $5,291 $0 8 0 $5,291 $0 370 200 1,404,228$ Cost/Lane Mile MoDOT O&M Cost370 $5,323 $1,969,510 Locally Owned Federal-aid System Mileage and Operations and Maintenance Costs by Jurisdiction State System Lane Miles Jurisdiction State System Lane Miles MoDOT Locally owned federal-aid system lane miles for each jurisdiction were developed by MoDOT St. Martins Taos Wardsville Total Callaway County Jefferson City Holts Summit Cole County DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 9 Transit In addition to the local government operations and maintenance previously discussed, JEFFTRAN expenses also cover fleet repair/maintenance, repairing/replacing bus shelters, bus washing, bus maintenance facilities, public restrooms, and fuel. Figures 4 and 5 show the estimated expenditures for transit operations and maintenance for JEFFTRAN and OATS, respectively. Operations and Maintenance revenue and expenditures are based on the most recently available budgets. Figure 4 - JEFFTRAN Estimated Expenditures for Operations & Maintenance. Source: FY 2024 Jefferson City Budget Figure 5 – OATS Estimated Expenditures for Operations & Maintenance. Source: OATS Personnel Services (1,820,479)$ (1,856,889)$ (1,894,026)$ (1,931,907)$ (1,970,545)$ Materials and Supplies (345,080)$ (351,982)$ (359,021)$ (366,202)$ (373,526)$ Contractual Services (390,176)$ (397,980)$ (405,939)$ (414,058)$ (422,339)$ Utilities (29,050)$ (29,631)$ (30,224)$ (30,828)$ (31,445)$ Repairs and Maintenance (447,050)$ (455,991)$ (465,111)$ (474,413)$ (483,901)$ Total (3,031,835)$ (3,092,472)$ (3,154,321)$ (3,217,408)$ (3,281,756)$ FY 2028 FY 2029FY 2027ExpenditureFY 2025 FY 2026 Expenditure FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029Personnel Services (111,500)$ (129,000)$ (129,000)$ (129,000)$ (129,000)$ Materials and Supplies (2,500)$ (4,000)$ (4,000)$ (4,000)$ (4,000)$ Repairs and Maintenance (6,000)$ (7,000)$ (7,000)$ (7,000)$ (7,000)$ Total (120,000)$ (140,000)$ (140,000)$ (140,000)$ (140,000)$ DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 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. DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 11 Demonstration of Fiscal Constraint – Municipalities Source 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Total CART 2,195,639$ 2,239,552$ 2,284,343$ 2,330,030$ 2,376,630$ 11,426,193$ Taxes 4,900,000$ 4,998,000$ 5,097,960$ 5,199,919$ 5,303,918$ 25,499,797$ Total Available Revenue 7,095,639$ 7,237,552$ 7,382,303$ 7,529,949$ 7,680,548$ 36,925,990$ Operation & Maintenance Costs (71,038)$ (72,104)$ (73,185)$ (74,283)$ (75,397)$ (366,007)$ TIP Commitment Totals -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Costs (71,038)$ (72,104)$ (73,185)$ (74,283)$ (75,397)$ (366,007)$ Remaining Financial Capacity 7,024,601$ 7,165,448$ 7,309,118$ 7,455,666$ 7,605,151$ 36,559,983$ CART 1,514,193$ 1,544,477$ 1,575,367$ 1,606,874$ 1,639,012$ 7,879,924$ Taxes 10,732,039$ 10,946,680$ 11,165,613$ 11,388,926$ 11,616,704$ 55,849,962$ Total Available Revenue 12,246,232$ 12,491,157$ 12,740,980$ 12,995,800$ 13,255,716$ 63,729,886$ Operation & Maintenance Costs (197,370)$ (200,331)$ (203,336)$ (206,386)$ (209,481)$ (1,016,903)$ TIP Commitment Totals (5,438)$ (102,863)$ -$ -$ -$ (108,301)$ Total Costs (202,808)$ (303,194)$ (203,336)$ (206,386)$ (209,481)$ (1,125,204)$ Remaining Financial Capacity 12,043,424$ 12,187,964$ 12,537,645$ 12,789,414$ 13,046,235$ 62,604,682$ CART 204,623$ 208,715$ 212,889$ 217,147$ 221,490$ 1,064,864$ Taxes 912,359$ 930,606$ 949,218$ 968,203$ 987,567$ 4,747,953$ Total Available Revenue 1,116,982$ 1,139,321$ 1,162,108$ 1,185,350$ 1,209,057$ 5,812,817$ Operation & Maintenance Costs (68,660)$ (69,690)$ (70,735)$ (71,796)$ (72,873)$ (353,755)$ TIP Commitment Totals (125,000)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ (125,000)$ Total Costs (193,660)$ (69,690)$ (70,735)$ (71,796)$ (72,873)$ (478,755)$ Remaining Financial Capacity 923,322$ 1,069,631$ 1,091,372$ 1,113,554$ 1,136,184$ 5,334,062$ CART 2,239,335$ 2,284,122$ 2,329,804$ 2,376,400$ 2,423,928$ 11,653,588$ Taxes 14,042,670$ 14,323,523$ 14,609,994$ 14,902,194$ 15,200,238$ 73,078,619$ Total Available Revenue 16,282,005$ 16,607,645$ 16,939,798$ 17,278,594$ 17,624,166$ 84,732,207$ Operation & Maintenance Costs (1,035,789)$ (1,051,326)$ (1,067,096)$ (1,083,102)$ (1,099,349)$ (5,336,661)$ TIP Commitment Totals (1,919,066)$ (1,421,023)$ (1,945,147)$ (1,478,433)$ (1,508,001)$ (8,271,669)$ Total Costs (2,954,855)$ (2,472,349)$ (3,012,242)$ (2,561,535)$ (2,607,350)$ (13,608,331)$ Remaining Financial Capacity 13,327,150$ 14,135,296$ 13,927,555$ 14,717,059$ 15,016,816$ 71,123,876$ Jefferson City Holts Summit Costs Revenue Costs Costs Revenue Costs Revenue Revenue Callaway County Cole County CART 60,455$ 61,664$ 62,897$ 64,155$ 65,438$ 314,608$ General Revenue 1,078,700$ 1,100,274$ 1,122,279$ 1,144,725$ 1,167,620$ 5,613,598$ Total Available Revenue 1,139,155$ 1,161,938$ 1,185,176$ 1,208,880$ 1,233,057$ 5,928,206$ Operation & Maintenance Costs (31,371)$ (31,842)$ (32,319)$ (32,804)$ (33,296)$ (161,632)$ TIP Commitment Totals -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Costs (31,371)$ (31,842)$ (32,319)$ (32,804)$ (33,296)$ (161,632)$ Remaining Financial Capacity 1,107,784$ 1,130,096$ 1,152,857$ 1,176,076$ 1,199,761$ 5,766,574$ CART 52,471$ 53,520$ 54,591$ 55,682$ 56,796$ 273,060$ General Revenue (excluding CART)270,085$ 275,487$ 280,996$ 286,616$ 292,349$ 1,405,533$ Total Available Revenue 322,556$ 329,007$ 335,587$ 342,299$ 349,145$ 1,678,593$ Operation & Maintenance Costs -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ TIP Commitment Totals -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Costs -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Remaining Financial Capacity 322,556$ 329,007$ 335,587$ 342,299$ 349,145$ 1,678,593$ CART 80,514$ 82,125$ 83,767$ 85,443$ 87,151$ 419,001$ General Revenue 277,000$ 282,540$ 288,191$ 293,955$ 299,834$ 1,441,519$ Total Available Revenue 357,514$ 364,665$ 371,958$ 379,397$ 386,985$ 1,860,520$ Operation & Maintenance Costs -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ TIP Commitment Totals (105,909)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ (105,909)$ Total Costs (105,909)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ (105,909)$ Remaining Financial Capacity 251,605$ 364,665$ 371,958$ 379,397$ 386,985$ 1,754,611$ St. Martins Revenue Revenue Wardsville Taos Costs Costs Costs Revenue DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 12 Demonstration of Fiscal Constraint – Public Transportation Providers Source 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Total CARES Act Funds (Distributed as FTA 5307)207,170$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ FTA Section 5307 (not including CARES)1,070,655$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ FTA Section 5307 Sub-Total 2,331,188$ 1,106,836$ 1,162,178$ 1,220,287$ 1,281,301$ 7,101,790$ FTA Section 5310 561,290$ 112,000$ 112,000$ 112,000$ 112,000$ 1,009,290$ FTA Section 5339 608,853$ 10,175$ -$ -$ -$ 619,028$ Sales Tax - 1/2% Capital Improvement 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 400,000$ City of Jefferson-Local Operating Assistance 1,393,160$ 1,705,000$ 1,739,100$ 1,773,882$ 1,809,360$ 8,420,502$ MoDOT State Operating Assistance 68,478$ 68,478$ 68,478$ 68,478$ 68,478$ 342,390$ Farebox and Reimbursements 495,000$ 504,900$ 514,998$ 525,298$ 535,804$ 2,576,000$ Total Available Revenue 5,537,969$ 3,587,389$ 3,676,754$ 3,779,945$ 3,886,943$ 20,468,999$ Personnel Services (1,820,479)$ (1,856,889)$ (1,894,026)$ (1,931,907)$ (1,970,545)$ (9,473,846)$ Materials and Supplies (345,080)$ (351,982)$ (359,021)$ (366,202)$ (373,526)$ (1,795,810)$ Contractual Services (390,176)$ (397,980)$ (405,939)$ (414,058)$ (422,339)$ (2,030,492)$ Utilities (29,050)$ (29,631)$ (30,224)$ (30,828)$ (31,445)$ (151,177)$ Repairs and Maintenance (447,050)$ (455,991)$ (465,111)$ (474,413)$ (483,901)$ (2,326,466)$ Operation & Maintenance Totals (3,031,835)$ (3,092,472)$ (3,154,321)$ (3,217,408)$ (3,281,756)$ (15,777,791)$ TIP CommitmentsTIP Commitment Totals (180,213)$ (30,544)$ (28,000)$ (28,000)$ (28,000)$ (294,757)$ Remaining Financial Capacity 2,325,921$ 464,373$ 494,433$ 534,537$ 577,187$ 4,396,451$ JEFFTRAN Demonstration of Fiscal Constraint Revenue Operation & Maintenance Source 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 TotalFTA Section 5310 60,000$ 158,000$ 70,000$ 158,000$ 70,000$ 516,000$ Farebox and Reimbursements 4,500$ 5,250$ 5,250$ 5,250$ 5,250$ 25,500$ Local Contracts 55,500$ 64,750$ 64,750$ 64,750$ 64,750$ 314,500$ Total Available Revenue 120,000$ 228,000$ 140,000$ 228,000$ 140,000$ 856,000$ Personnel Services (51,500)$ (59,000)$ (59,000)$ (59,000)$ (59,000)$ (287,500)$ Materials and Supplies (2,500)$ (4,000)$ (4,000)$ (4,000)$ (4,000)$ (18,500)$ Repairs and Maintenance (6,000)$ (7,000)$ (7,000)$ (7,000)$ (7,000)$ (34,000)$ Operation & Maintenance Totals (60,000)$ (70,000)$ (70,000)$ (70,000)$ (70,000)$ (340,000)$ TIP CommitmentsTIP Commitment Totals (60,000)$ (92,000)$ (70,000)$ (92,000)$ (70,000)$ (384,000)$ Remaining Financial Capacity -$ 66,000$ -$ 66,000$ -$ 132,000$ OATS Demonstration of Fiscal Constraint Revenue Operation & Maintenance DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 13 Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects – Bridges MoDOT Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $59,200 $341,600 $400,800 MoDOT STATE $14,800 $85,400 $100,200 TIP #2022-07 Local $0 MoDOT#5P3523 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $1,693,600 $1,693,600 MoDOT STATE $423,400 $423,400 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $2,618,000 Total $74,000 $2,544,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,618,000 MoDOT Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $107,200 $556,800 $664,000 MoDOT STATE $26,800 $139,200 $166,000 TIP #2022-10 Local $0 MoDOT#5P3525 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $2,800,000 $2,800,000 MoDOT STATE $700,000 $700,000 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $4,330,000 Total $134,000 $4,196,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,330,000 MoDOT Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $184,800 $482,400 $667,200 MoDOT STATE $46,200 $120,600 $166,800 TIP #2022-11 Local $0 MoDOT#5P3560 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $800 $800 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $1,838,400 $1,838,400 MoDOT STATE $459,600 $459,600 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $3,133,000 Total $232,000 $2,901,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,133,000 Project Name: Project Name: Description & Location: Bridge rehab over Bus. 50, Linden Dr., Moreau Overflow and Stadium Blvd. Includes Madison St. Ramp over Rte. 54. Project involves bridges A1415, A1309 and twin bridges A1305, A1307 and A1672. Bridge Improvement On US 54 over Neighorn Branch E N G Description & Location: Bridge replacement over Neighorn Branch.Project involves bridge K0760. R O W C O NS T Comments: Let with: CD0157 Comments: Project Name: Prior Funding Description & Location: Bridge rehabilitation over Vetter Lane. Includes Bolivar Street over Rte. 50. Project involves bridge A1420 and twin bridges A0722. R O W C O N S T Comments: Let with CD0075 Prior Funding Bridge Improvements On US 54 over Bus. 50 and others. EN G Prior Funding Bridge Improvement on Rte. 50 over Vetter Lane & Bolivar. ENG R O W C O N ST DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 14 MoDOT Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $1,600 $1,600 $28,800 $76,800 $108,800 MoDOT STATE $400 $400 $7,200 $19,200 $27,200 TIP #2023-01 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0072 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $497,600 $497,600 MoDOT STATE $124,400 $124,400 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $758,000 Total $2,000 $2,000 $36,000 $718,000 $0 $0 $0 $758,000 MoDOT Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $1,600 $12,000 $13,600 MoDOT STATE $400 $3,000 $3,400 TIP #2023-03 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0075 FHWA $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $227,200 $227,200 MoDOT STATE $56,800 $56,800 Local $0 MoDOT $0 Total Project Cost: $301,000 Total $2,000 $299,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $301,000 MoDOT Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $800 $800 $800 $13,600 $164,000 $180,000 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 $200 $3,400 $41,000 $45,000 TIP #2024-01 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0140 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $716,000 $716,000 MoDOT STATE $179,000 $179,000 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $1,120,000 Total $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $17,000 $1,100,000 $0 $0 $1,120,000 Prior Funding Bridge Improvement On S. Summit Drive over Rte. 54 E N G C ON S T Comments: Prior Funding Bridge (Overpass) Removal on Tri- Level over US 50 E N G Description & Location: Bridge improvement over Rte. 54. Project involves bridge A3521.R OW Project Name: Description & Location: Bridge improvements over Osage River. Project involves bridges A5552 and A0506. R O W C O N ST Comments: Description & Location: Bridge removal on tri- level over Rte. 50. Project involves bridge A1418. R OW C O N S T Comments: Let With: 5P3523 Project Name: Project Name: Prior Funding Bridge improvements on US 50 over Osage River. EN G DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 15 MoDOT Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $1,600 $800 $800 $29,600 $200,000 $682,400 $915,200 MoDOT STATE $400 $200 $200 $7,400 $50,000 $170,600 $228,800 TIP #2024-02 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0139 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $4,520,000 $4,520,000 MoDOT STATE $1,130,000 $1,130,000 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $6,794,000 Total $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $37,000 $250,000 $6,503,000 $0 $6,794,000 MoDOT Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $11,200 $36,800 $48,000 MoDOT STATE $2,800 $9,200 $12,000 TIP #2024-03 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0157 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $517,600 $517,600 MoDOT STATE $129,400 $129,400 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $707,000 Total $14,000 $693,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $707,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA BRO $83,336 $83,336 MoDOT BFP $51,226 $51,226 TIP #2024-04 Local Cole County $5,438 $5,438 MoDOT#BRO-R026(25)Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA BRO $1,576,241 $1,576,241 MoDOT BFP $968,897 $968,897 Local Cole County $102,863 $102,863 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $2,788,001 Total $140,000 $2,648,001 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,788,001 Prior Funding Bridge improvements On US 54/63 over Missouri River. E N G Prior Funding Bridge Improvement On US 54 over Neighorn Branch E NG Description & Location: Bridge improvements over Missouri River. Project involves bridge A4497. ROW CO N S T Comments: Description & Location: Bridge rehabilitation over Neighorn Branch. Project involves bridge G0302. RO W CO N S T Comments: Let with: 5P3560 Description & Location: Replacement of bridge on Tanner Bridge Road over the Moreau River. Bridge #0780025 RO W CO N S T Comments: 2022 BRO E NG Tanner Bridge Road bridge replacement over Moreau River Project Name: Prior FundingCole County Project Name: Project Name: DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 16 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 TIP #2025-10 Local $0 MoDOT#BRO-R026(001)Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA BRO $210,508 $210,508 MoDOT BFP $134,263 $134,263 Local Cole County $61,229 $61,229 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $406,000 Total $0 $406,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $406,000 E N G Description & Location: Replacement of bridge on Sturbridge Road over Branch of Grays Creek. Bridge #301001 R O W C O N ST Comments: 2023 BRO Cole County Prior Funding Project Name: Sturbridge Road bridge replacement over Branch of Grays Creek DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 17 Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects - Roadways Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2028 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $80,800 $52,800 $201,600 $335,200 MoDOT STATE $20,200 $13,200 $50,400 $83,800 TIP #2020-12 MoDOT $0 MoDOT#5S3418 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $147,200 $147,200 MoDOT STATE $36,800 $36,800 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $1,308,800 $1,308,800 MoDOT STATE $327,200 $327,200 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $2,239,000 Total $101,000 $250,000 $1,888,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,239,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $2,400 $135,200 $137,600 MoDOT STATE $600 $33,800 $34,400 TIP #2022-23 Local $0 MoDOT#5P3487 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $1,760,000 $1,760,000 MoDOT STATE $440,000 $440,000 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $2,372,000 Total $3,000 $2,369,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,372,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $1,600 $800 $800 $124,000 $127,200 MoDOT STATE $400 $200 $200 $31,000 $31,800 TIP #2023-04 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0004 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $1,904,000 $1,904,000 MoDOT STATE $476,000 $476,000 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $2,539,000 Total $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $2,535,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,539,000 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: Prior Funding Intersection Improvements on S OR 50 at S Ten Mile Drive ENG Description & Location: Intersection improvements at South Ten Mile Drive in Jefferson City. R O W C O N S T Comments: Project Name: MoDOT Prior Funding Guard Cable & Guardrail Repair in Northern Central District E N G Prior Funding Guard Cable & Guardrail Repair in Northern Central District ENG 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 ONS T Comments: Project Name: Project Name: MoDOT MoDOT DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 18 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $1,600 $1,600 $26,400 $212,800 $242,400 MoDOT STATE $400 $400 $6,600 $53,200 $60,600 TIP #2023-06 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0106 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $3,248,800 $3,248,800 MoDOT STATE $812,200 $812,200 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $4,364,000 Total $2,000 $2,000 $33,000 $4,327,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,364,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $1,600 $12,000 $13,600 MoDOT STATE $400 $3,000 $3,400 TIP #2023-08 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0040 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $191,200 $191,200 MoDOT STATE $47,800 $47,800 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $256,000 Total $2,000 $254,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $256,000 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $4,000 $136,000 $367,200 $507,200 MoDOT STATE $1,000 $34,000 $91,800 $126,800 TIP #2024-14 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0170 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $800 $800 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $2,492,800 $2,492,800 MoDOT STATE $623,200 $623,200 Local $0 Other $0 Total $5,000 $171,000 $3,575,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,751,000 Prior Funding Pavement Improvement on RT E from US 54 to RT B E N G 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 Osage River to Moreau River. Comments: Let with CD0181 and CD0212 Description & Location: Pavement preservation on RT E from US 54 to RT B.R O W C O N ST Comments: Let With : CD0042 MoDOT Funding Prior Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Project Name:Callaway Rte 54 E N G Description & Location: Add lanes north of the Missouri River Bridge in Jefferson City. Includes modifying interchange configuration at Rte. W and Rte. 54. R OW CON S T Comments: This project was split from 5P3497. (TIP#2022-01) Total Project Cost: $3,751,000 Prior FundingMoDOT MoDOT CO N S T ROW E N G Project Name:Pavement Improvement on US 50 Project Name: DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 19 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $800 $5,600 $6,400 MoDOT STATE $200 $1,400 $1,600 TIP #2025-01 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0156 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $80,000 $80,000 MoDOT STATE $20,000 $20,000 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $108,000 Total $0 $1,000 $107,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $108,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $800 $800 $17,600 $19,200 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 $4,400 $4,800 TIP #2025-02 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0212 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA NHPP $256,000 $256,000 MoDOT STATE $64,000 $64,000 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $344,000 Total $0 $1,000 $1,000 $342,000 $0 $0 $0 $344,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $800 $10,400 $36,000 $47,200 MoDOT STATE $200 $2,600 $9,000 $11,800 TIP #2025-03 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0184 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $632,000 $632,000 MoDOT STATE $158,000 $158,000 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $849,000 Total $0 $1,000 $13,000 $835,000 $0 $0 $0 $849,000 Comments: Pavement improvement on Route J from Rte. 50 to end of state maint. E NG Description & Location: Pavement improvement at Rte. 50/63 interchange. Includes Rte. 63 and ramps. R O W C O NST Comments: Let with CD0181 and CD0106 Description & Location: Pavement improvement from Rte. 50 to end of state maintenance.Includes Liberty Rd from Rte. M to end of state maintenance and Christy Dr. from west of Toyota entrance to StadiumBlvd RO W CO N S T Prior Funding S OR US 54 pavement improvement E N G Prior Funding Pavement improvement at Rte. 50/63 interchange. E N G Description & Location: Pavement improvement from Riviera Heights Rd to end of state maintenance. RO W CO N S T Comments: Let with CD0155 Prior FundingMoDOT MoDOT Project Name: MoDOT Project Name: Project Name: DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 20 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $800 $800 $20,800 $22,400 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 $5,200 $5,600 TIP #2025-04 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0183 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $295,200 $295,200 MoDOT STATE $73,800 $73,800 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $397,000 Total $0 $1,000 $1,000 $395,000 $0 $0 $0 $397,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $800 $800 $46,400 $48,000 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 $11,600 $12,000 TIP #2025-11 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0176 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $648,800 $648,800 MoDOT STATE $162,200 $162,200 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $871,000 Total $0 $1,000 $1,000 $869,000 $0 $0 $0 $871,000 MoDOT Prior Funding Project Name:Pavement improvement - MO 179 EN G Description & Location: Pavement improvement from Rte. 87 to 0.14 miles north of west Main Street. Includes Rte. AA from Rte. 87 to Rte. 179. R O W C O N ST Comments: Let with CD0183 Description & Location: Pavement improvement from Rte. 50 to Rte. B.ROW CON S T Comments: Let with CD0176 Prior Funding Pavement improvement on Rte M from Rte. 50 to Rte. B. E N G Project Name: MoDOT DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 21 Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects - Other Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA SAFETY $800 $800 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 TIP #2023-12 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0006 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA SAFETY $50,400 $50,400 MoDOT STATE $12,600 $12,600 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $64,000 Total $0 $64,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $64,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA SAFETY $800 $800 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 TIP #2024-05 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0141 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA SAFETY $50,400 $50,400 MoDOT STATE $12,600 $12,600 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $64,000 Total $0 $0 $64,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $64,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA SAFETY $800 $800 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 TIP #2025-06 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0175 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA SAFETY $50,400 $50,400 MoDOT STATE $12,600 $12,600 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $64,000 Total $0 $0 $0 $64,000 $0 $0 $0 $64,000 Description & Location: On-call work zone enforcement at various locations in the Central District. R O W C ON S T Comments: Prior Funding On-Call Work Zone Enforcement EN G Description & Location: On-call work zone enforcement at various locations in the Central District. R O W C O N S T Comments: Project Name: On-Call Work Zone Enforcement ENG Prior Funding On-Call Work Zone Enforcement E N G Description & Location: On-call work zone enforcement at various locations in the Central District. R O W C O N S T Comments: Project Name: Project Name: Prior FundingMoDOT MoDOT MoDOT DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 22 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 TIP #2024-06 Local $0 MoDOT#5B0800T Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT STATE $107,000 $107,000 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT STATE $62,388,000 $4,399,000 $4,399,000 $4,399,000 $4,399,000 $4,399,000 $84,383,000 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $84,490,000 Total $62,495,000 $4,399,000 $4,399,000 $4,399,000 $4,399,000 $4,399,000 $0 $84,490,000 Prior Funding Payback for Safe and Sound bridges in the Central District. E N G Description & Location: Payback beginning in SFY 2008 for Safe and Sound bridges in the Central District. R OW C O NS T Comments: Future costs ~ $15M to $25M. Project Name: MoDOT DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 23 Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects – Scoping and Design Projects Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $44,800 $800 $2,400 $48,000 MoDOT STATE $11,200 $200 $600 $12,000 TIP #2013-16 Local $0 MoDOT#5S2234 Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Project Cost: $60,000 Total $56,000 $1,000 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $267,200 $800 $268,000 MoDOT STATE $66,800 $200 $67,000 TIP #2022-27 Local $0 MoDOT#5P3588 Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Project Cost: $335,000 Total $334,000 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $335,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $800 $800 $14,400 $16,000 MoDOT STATE $200 $200 $3,600 $4,000 TIP #2024-07 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0159 Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Project Cost: $20,000 Total $1,000 $1,000 $18,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 Description & Location: Scoping for bridge improvements over Rte. 50. Project involves bridge A1187. R O W CO N S T Comments: Future Cost ~ $301,000 - $1M Prior Funding US 50 / Truman Blvd / Country Club Dr.- Scoping for Interchange Improvements E N G Description & Location: Scoping for intersection improvements from Ashbury Way to Rte. B/M/W intersection in Wardsville. R OW C O N S T Comments: Future Cost ~ $5M - $10M Prior Funding Dix Road - Scoping for bridge improvements over US 50. E NG Description & Location: Scoping for Interchange Improvements at Truman Blvd and Country Club Drive. R O W CON S T Comments: Future Cost ~ $10M - $15M Project Name: Project Name: Prior Funding Rte B - Scoping for intersection improvements ENG Project Name: MoDOT MoDOT MoDOT DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 24 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA $0 MoDOT STATE $200,000 $50,000 $150,000 $400,000 TIP #2024-08 Local $0 MoDOT#5S3592 Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Project Cost: $400,000 Total $200,000 $50,000 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $140,000 $40,000 $800 $180,800 MoDOT STATE $35,000 $10,000 $200 $45,200 TIP #2024-11 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0065 Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Project Cost: $226,000 Total $175,000 $50,000 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $226,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $800 $2,400 $3,200 MoDOT STATE $200 $600 $800 TIP #2025-12 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0241 Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Project Cost: $4,000 Total $0 $1,000 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000 R O W C ON S T Comments: Prior Funding VARIOUS - Traffic safety studies at vairous locations in Central E N G Project Name: MoDOT Prior Funding Project Name: S. Summit Dr. - Scoping for bridge improvements over US 54 E N G Description & Location: Scoping for bridge improvement over Rte. 54. Project involves bridge A3521. R O W C O NS T Comments: Future Cost ~ $301,000 - $1M Prior Funding VARIOUS - Scoping for future projects in the Central District. E N G Description & Location: Scoping for future projects on various routes in the Central District. R O W CO N S T Comments: Project Name: Description & Location: Traffic safety studies at vairous locations in Central District. MoDOT MoDOT DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 25 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA NHPP $80,000 $8,000 $2,400 $90,400 MoDOT STATE $20,000 $2,000 $600 $22,600 TIP #2025-13 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0168 Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Project Cost: $113,000 Total $100,000 $10,000 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $113,000 MoDOT Prior Funding Project Name: US 50/63/54 - Scoping for bridge improvements at intersection E N G Description & Location: Scoping for bridge improvements at intersection of Rte.50, Rte.63 and Rte. 54 in Jefferson City. Project involves bridges A1419, A4826, A4827, A4828 R O W C O NST Comments: Future Cost ~ $50M - $75M DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 26 Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects - Pedestrian & Bicycle Projects Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA STBG $10,400 $292,800 $303,200 MoDOT STATE $2,600 $73,200 $75,800 TIP #2020-16 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0126 Other $0 FHWA STBG $38,400 $38,400 MoDOT STATE $9,600 $9,600 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA STBG $1,108,000 $1,108,000 MoDOT STATE $277,000 $277,000 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $1,812,000 Total $61,000 $1,751,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,812,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA AC-STBG $17,600 $122,400 $182,400 $322,400 MoDOT STATE $4,400 $30,600 $45,600 $80,600 TIP #2025-05 Local $0 MoDOT#CD0215 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $8,000 $8,000 MoDOT STATE $2,000 $2,000 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA AC-STBG $1,252,000 $1,252,000 MoDOT STATE $313,000 $313,000 Local $0 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $1,978,000 Total $0 $22,000 $163,000 $1,793,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,978,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA TAP $79,500 $79,500 MoDOT $0 TIP #2023-17 Local Holts Summit $62,500 $62,500 MoDOT#Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA TAP $420,500 $420,500 MoDOT $0 Local Holts Summit $62,500 $62,500 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $625,000 Total $0 $625,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $625,000 Prior Funding Bus. 50 - Updating Pedestrian Facilities ENG MoDOT Project Name: Prior Funding Holts Summit Sidewalk construction along S. Summit Drive E N G Description & Location: Transportation Alternatives Program Grant, Sidewalk installation along S. Summit Drive from Holt Lane to Ellsworth Drive. R OW C ON S T Comments: 2022 TAP Holts Summit Description & Location: Upgrade pedestrian facilities to comply with the ADA Transition Plan in Jefferson City, Taos, Wardsville and Frankenstein. R O W C O N S T Comments: MoDOT Prior Funding MO 179 - Updating Pedestrian Facilities E N G Description & Location: Upgrade pedestrian facilities at various locations in Jefferson City, Lake Ozark, Clarksburg, Pilot Grove and Dixon. ROW CO N S T Comments: Project Name: Project Name: DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 27 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 TIP #2023-16 Local $0 MoDOT#Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA TAP $500,000 $500,000 MoDOT $0 Local Jefferson City $483,465 $483,465 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $983,465 Total $0 $983,465 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $983,465 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 TIP #2025-07 Local $0 MoDOT#Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA TAP $500,000 $500,000 MoDOT $0 Local Jefferson City $495,703 $495,703 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $995,703 Total $0 $0 $0 $995,703 $0 $0 $0 $995,703 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 TIP #2025-08 Local $0 MoDOT#Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA TAP $169,762 $169,762 MoDOT $0 Local Jefferson City $42,441 $42,441 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $212,203 Total $0 $212,203 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $212,203 Prior Funding Wears Creek Greenway Extension Bypassing MO 179 E N G Description & Location: Transportation Alternatives Program Grant, includes extension of the Wears Creek Greenway along Tree Valley Lane, bypassing MO 179. R O W C O N S T Comments: 2022 TAP Project Name: Prior Funding Boggs Creek Multi-Use Trail EN G Project Name: Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Prior Funding South Country Club Sidewalk E N G Project Name: Description & Location: Multi-Use trails construction from McCarty St.. to Riverside park in the Boggs Creek watershed. R O W CO N S T Comments: 2023 TAP Description & Location:Construction of Sidepath along S. Country Club Drive from 200 feet NE of Tanman Ct. to Farigrounds Rd. R OW C O NS T Comments: 2023 TAP DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 28 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA TAP $27,117 $27,117 MoDOT $0 TIP #2024-13 Local Wardsville $7,383 $7,383 MoDOT#Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA TAP $361,874 $361,874 MoDOT $0 Local Wardsville $98,526 $98,526 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $494,900 Total $0 $494,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $494,900 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FHWA TAP $41,609 $41,609 MoDOT $0 TIP #2025-09 Local Cole County $18,391 $18,391 MoDOT#Other $0 FHWA $0 MoDOT $0 Local $0 Other $0 FHWA TAP $458,391 $458,391 MoDOT $0 Local Cole County $202,609 $202,609 Other $0 Total Project Cost: $721,000 Total $0 $721,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $721,000 Prior Funding Rainbow Dr. Sidewalk E NG Description & Location: Construction of approximately 1400 feet of 8ft wide sidewalks along Falcon Lane to accommodate pedestrians and bicycle users. ROW C O NST Comments: TAP 2022 Supplemental Award Description & Location: Sidewalk construction along Rainbow Dr. from Hunters Run to Terra Bella Dr. R O W C O N S T Wardsville Cole County Comments: 2023 TAP Project Name: Prior Funding Falcon Lane Pedestrian Improvements E N G Project Name: DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 29 Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects – Public Transportation Projects Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals Project JEFFTRAN Operating Assistance Other Pass. Fares $607,281 $495,000 $504,900 $514,998 $525,298 $535,804 $3,183,281 MoDOT State Operatin $52,414 $68,478 $68,478 $68,478 $68,478 $68,478 $394,804 TIP #2011-04 Local City of Jefferso $1,159,670 $1,393,160 $1,421,023 $1,449,444 $1,478,433 $1,508,001 $8,409,731 MoDOT#FTA 5307 $1,159,670 $1,393,160 $1,421,023 $1,449,444 $1,478,433 $1,508,001 $8,409,731 Total Project Cost: $20,397,546 Total $2,979,035 $3,349,798 $3,415,424 $3,482,363 $3,550,641 $3,620,284 $0 $20,397,546 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals Project JEFFTRAN Operating Assistance Other $0 MoDOT $0 TIP #2022-21 Local General Fund $140,123 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $280,123 MoDOT#FTA 5310 $561,290 $112,000 $112,000 $112,000 $112,000 $112,000 $1,121,290 Total Project Cost: $1,401,413 Total $701,413 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $0 $1,401,413 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals Project 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 Total Project Cost: $52,719 Total $0 $40,000 $12,719 $0 $0 $0 $0 $52,719 Description & Location: Operating Assistance for JEFFTRAN service within Jefferson City limits (A 3% annual inflation factor applied.) Comments: Prior Funding Description & Location: Section 5310 Grant Program for acquiring new paratransit buses. Providing mobility needs for seniors and persons with disabilities. Comments: "Prior Funding" includes grants: MO 2017-017, MO 2019-030.00, MO 2020-034, and DR. Prior Funding O P E R 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. Comments: MO-2019-027-00 and MO-02020- 027-00 Prior Funding Replace Security Systems in Transit Facilities O P ER O P E R City of Jefferson - JEFFTRAN City of Jefferson - JEFFTRAN City of Jefferson - JEFFTRAN DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 30 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals Project Other Pass. Fares $0 MoDOT State Operating $0 TIP #2022-24 Local General Fund $71,000 $71,000 MoDOT#FTA 5339 $284,000 $284,000 Total Project Cost: $355,000 Total $0 $355,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $355,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals Project 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 Total Project Cost: $35,000 Total $0 $35,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals Project FTA MoDOT TIP #2022-31 Local General Fund $66,213 $66,213 MoDOT#FTA 5339 $264,853 $264,853 Total Project Cost: $331,066 Total $0 $331,066 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $331,066 Comments: MO-2021-036-00 Prior Funding Replacement of Two Low-Floor Buses O P E R Description & Location: This project would repair the bus barn roof, which is leaking. Comments: MO-2020-027-00 Prior Funding Repair Bus Barn Roof O P E R Description & Location: Replacement of AVL and related equipment and supporting services. Comments: MO-2023-033-00 Prior Funding AVL/AVA/APC/Infotainment Replacement Equip.and Services O P E R Description & Location: This project would purchase 2 replacement low-floor buses. City of Jefferson - JEFFTRAN City of Jefferson - JEFFTRAN City of Jefferson - JEFFTRAN DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 31 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FTA 5310 $88,000 $88,000 $88,000 $264,000 MoDOT $0 TIP #2018-10 Local $0 MoDOT#Other OATS $22,000 $22,000 $22,000 $66,000 Total Project Cost: $330,000 Total $0 $0 $110,000 $0 $110,000 $0 $110,000 $330,000 Funding State Program Year - July 1 to June 30 Source Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Future Totals FTA 5310 $60,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $340,000 MoDOT $0 TIP #2018-11 Local $0 MoDOT#Other OATS $60,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $340,000 Total Project Cost: $680,000 Total $0 $120,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $0 $680,000 Project Name: Project Name: OATS Operating Assistance OATS Operating Assistance Comments: Other Funding - OATS, Inc. Prior Funding O P ER Description & Location: Requesting replacement/expansion vehicles to provide service in Jefferson City and surrounding Comments: Other Funding - OATS, Inc. Prior Funding O PER Description & Location: Within the Jefferson City MPO Region-Section 5310-Seniors and Individuals w ith Disabilities. OATS OATS DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 32 Project Locations - Figure 7 - Map of Fiscally Constrained Transportation Projects DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 33 Program of Projects Figure 8 – JEFFTRAN Program of Projects No.Description Est. Total Funding by Others Local 1 Replace paratransit widebody cutaway buses 600,000$ $ 480,000 120,000$ 2 Upgrade/replace fare card system 150,000$ $ 120,000 30,000$ 3 Transit facility repairs & improvements 50,000$ 40,000$ 10,000$ 4 Security upgrades for transit facilities 30,000$ $ 24,000 6,000$ 5 Upgrade transit transfer facilities 150,000$ $ 120,000 30,000$ 6 Purchase and install bus shelters and amenities at various locations in Jefferson City 30,000$ 24,000$ 6,000$ 7 Purchase back-up generator & switches for transit and CM facilities 250,000$ 200,000$ 50,000$ 8 Replace low-floor route buses 8,000,000$ $ 6,400,000 1,600,000$ 9 Construct replacement transit/central maintenace/bus barn/bus wash facilities 40,000,000$ 32,000,000$ 8,000,000$ 10 Transit admin facility rehab 75,000$ $ 60,000 15,000$ 11 Purchase and install additional transit traveler kiosks (each)15,000$ 12,000$ 3,000$ 12 Add bike racks/benches at passenger transfer facilities and selected bus stops 25,000$ $ 20,000 5,000$ 13 Charging systems/electrical upgrades for buses 600,000$ 480,000$ 120,000$ 14 Add crosswalks and supporting bike/ped amenities to transit bus shelters 60,000$ $ 48,000 12,000$ 15 Add solar lighting/occupancy indicators for selected bus shelters 35,000$ 28,000$ 7,000$ 16 Replace mobile column lifts for buses 100,000$ $ 80,000 20,000$ 17 Add vehicle electric charging stations and associated infrastructure 50,000$ 40,000$ 10,000$ 18 Time-tracking software for transit employees 15,000$ $ 12,000 3,000$ 19 Passenger Engagement/Bus infotainment system, including digital displays 250,000$ 200,000$ 50,000$ 20 Pre-trip inspection software 30,000$ $ 24,000 6,000$ 21 Purchase and install heating system for bus wash building 35,000$ 28,000$ 7,000$ 22 Purchase and install vehicle operations monitoring system 332,000$ $ 265,600 66,400$ Total 50,882,000$ 40,705,600$ 10,176,400$ JEFFTRAN 2025 Program of Projects Illustrative Projects DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 34 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 A 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. Widening of eastbound and westbound US 54/63 in North Jefferson City In 2024, construction began on US 54/63 to add lanes for eastbound and westbound traffic between the Missouri River bridges and the convergence of US 63 and Route 94. The project had been on the CAMPO Illustrative List for several years, and was also identified on the MoDOT High Priority Unfunded Needs list. Improvements were needed to create a safer, more efficient, and more reliable flow for the high volume of traffic using US 54/63 north of the Missouri River. The eastbound project, with a budget of $3 Million, includes: • Restriping eastbound US 54 over the Missouri River to four lanes. • Adding a third continuous lane of travel to eastbound US 54 from the Missouri River bridge to US 63. • Adding auxiliary lanes to the eastbound ramp terminal at the US 54/63 interchange. • Realigning the intersection of Wehmeyer Drive and Route 94 to the entrance of Hitachi Energy, LLC. Westbound U.S. Route 54 In August 2023, the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission voted to separate widening U.S. Route 54 into two projects: eastbound and westbound. Moving forward with widening the westbound traveled way will require additional steps and a prolonged timeframe. The project will generally include an added westbound lane and reconfiguration of the Cedar City Drive ramps. Construction is planned to start in 2026. DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 35 Appendix 1 – Amendments and Administrative Modifications Amendments TIP No. Project Description Project Sponsor Project Cost Board Approval OneDOT Approval Administrative Modifications TIP No. Description of Modification Date DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 36 Appendix 2 – Federal Funding Sources On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), also known as the “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law”) into law. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) provides $550 billion over fiscal years 2022 through 2026 in new Federal investment in infrastructure, including in roads, bridges, and mass transit, water infrastructure, resilience, and broadband. As under the FAST Act, the BIL authorizes a single, combined amount for each fiscal year for all apportioned highway programs combined. That amount is first apportioned among the States, and then each State’s apportionment is divided among the individual apportioned programs. The BIL also appropriates funding from the General Fund for three other formula-based programs separate and apart from the apportioned amount described above (and the formula described below): (1) the Bridge Formula Program, (2) the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program, and (3) the Appalachian Development Highway System Program. Federal-aid Highway Apportioned Programs The BIL authorizes a total combined amount ($52.5 B for fiscal year (FY) 2022, $53.5 B for FY23, $54.6 B for FY24, $55.7 B for FY25, and $56.8 B for FY26) in Contract Authority from the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund to fund 8 highway apportioned programs (including certain set-asides): • National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) • Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG) • Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) • Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) • National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) • Metropolitan Planning (PL) • Carbon Reduction Program (CRP) NEW • Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-saving Transportation (PROTECT) Formula Program NEW More information can be found at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/funding.cfm Federal Transit Administration Funding The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law authorizes up to $108 billion to support federal public transportation programs, including $91 billion in guaranteed funding. More information can be found at: https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/grant-programs FTA Programs Eligible Activities Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grants 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 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 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 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 Provides capital funding to replace, rehabilitate and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities. DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 37 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 • Post the amendment notice on the website, initiating the 7-calendar-day public comment period • Send notices to the appropriate parties • Place the amendment on the next Board of Directors meeting agenda. The Board 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. DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 38 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 within DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 39 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 if deemed 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 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. DRAFT CAMPO 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program 40 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. Agenda Item 7C Page 1 of 2 CAMPO Board of Directors Staff Report FY 2025 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) April 17, 2024 Summary 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/or one-time activities. The UPWP serves as the basis for funding agreements with the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) and stands as the divisional budget within the City of Jefferson’s annual budget. This annual process starts very early due to the City of Jefferson’s budget process. Staff is requesting the Board of Directors please review the objectives and activities outlined in the draft document and provide comments. Input from the Technical Committee, Board of Directors, stakeholders, and the general public have been used throughout the process. These activities are categorized into six work elements: • Work Element 521 - Program Support & Administration • Work Element 522 - General Development and Comprehensive Planning Coordination • Work Element 524 - Short Range Transportation Planning & Programming • Work Element 525 - Long Range Transportation Planning • Work Element 526 - Public Transportation Planning • Work Element 527 – Safe/Accessible Transportation Planning (No local match required. This causes overall local match requirements to fall slightly less than 20%.) Previous Year (FY 2024) - Major tasks (to be) completed: • Annual update of Unified Planning Work Program and the Transportation Improvement Program. • Review of Urbanized Area/Planning Area boundary. • Review of Federal Functional Classification of Urban Area roads. • Staff assistance in planning the 2024 Missouri Active Transportation Summit. • Completion of various reports: o System Performance, Disadvantaged Business (DBE), Title VI, Annual Listing Obligated Projects (ALOP). • Completion of CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan. • Completion of Capital Area Active Transportation Plan (formerly Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan). • Update of regional databases, including; sidewalks, greenway, bike trails/lanes and local roads. • Various ongoing technical assistance projects for member jurisdictions: o GIS, grants, research, etc. FY 2025 - Anticipated major activities in, developed thus far: • Development of the FY 2026 UPWP (Annual) • Development of the 2026-2030 Transportation Improvement Program (Annual) • Various Reports: System Performance, DBE, Title VI, ALOP. (Annual) • Update of Coordinated Public Transit – Humans Services Transportation Plan (4-5 years) • Technical assistance (i.e. mapping, data development/management, grants) (Continuous) • Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program -application for planning funds • Conduct a more in-depth review of the Metropolitan Planning Area Boundary • Study of US 54/63/50 Tri-Level Interchange. The estimated draft budget for FY 2025 is approximately $482,933 with $387,048 (~80%) funded through the Consolidated Planning Grant (CPG) and $95,884 (~20%) funded through local match. The 20% local match is provided by Jefferson City (15%) and Cole County (5%). It is projected that CAMPO will have a balance of approximately $350,538 in unprogrammed CPG funds at the end of FY 2025, ased on the anticipated FY 2024 expenditure and estimated FY 2025 draft budget. Tri-level Study is Agenda Item 7C Page 1 of 2 excluded from the FY 2024 expenditure, and included in the FY 2025 expenditure. The project is anticipated to begin in FY 2024, but most of the expenditure will likely occur in FY 2025. It is anticipated to cost up to $500,000, with $200,000 in Consolidated Planning Grant funds being utilized and local funds for the remainder. Local match is split between Jefferson City (50%) and Cole County (50%). The following chart details the estimated trajectory of the CAMPO CPG balance. All totals are subject to change during the development of the UPWP. Technical Committee Recommendation The Technical Committee recommended the Draft FY2025 Unified Planning Work Program for review and approval to the Board of Directors at their April 4th meeting. Public Comment A 7-day public comment period will be opened April 17th and closed by the Board of Directors at a meeting on May 15th. Because this public comment period coincides with the TIP and MTP 25-day public comment periods, it will be closed at the Board of Directors meeting on May 15th. Please refer questions or comments to Katrina Williams at 573-634-6536 or at kawilliams@jeffersoncitymo.gov. A draft FY 2025 UPWP document is attached and is available on the CAMPO webpage: https://cms4files.revize.com/jeffersoncitymo/FY2025%20UPWP%20-%20DRAFT%2003.26.2024.pdf CPG Balance for end of FY2023 $552,333 FY 2024 CPG Allocation*$172,841 FY 2024 UPWP CPG Expenditure - Anticipated (excludes Tri-Level Study)**-($169,636) CPG Balance for end of FY2024 - Anticipated* Subtotal $555,538$0FY 2025 CPG Allocation - Estimated per MoDOT's FY24 SPR Work Program $178,232 FY 2025 CPG Programmed Expenditure-Anticipated (excludes 2.5% safety set-aside) (Includes 100% of Tri-Level Study**)-($383,538) FY 2025 END OF YEAR Remaining Unprogrammed CPG Funds Anticipated $350,232 Consolidated Planning Grant Balance DRAFT 03.24.2024 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. DRAFT FY 2025 November 1, 2024 to October 31, 2025 Pending Adoption - May 15, 2024 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 03.24.2024 Table of Contents Introduction......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Major Tasks Completed in FY 2024 .......................................................................................................................... 1 Tasks Carried Over from FY 2024 ............................................................................................................................ 1 Priorities for FY 2025 ...................................................................................................................................... 1 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 ......................................................................................................................... 5 Work Element 521 - Program Support & Administration ......................................................................... 6 Work Element 522 - General Development & 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 2025 CAMPO Budget* ...................................................................................................................... 13 Table 2: FY 2025 Work Element Funding Summary - Consolidated Planning Grant and Local Funds ... 14 Table 4: Anticipated Available Federal Consolidated Planning Grant (CPG) Balance Revenue ............ 14 Appendix B – CAMPO Boundary Map ...................................................................................................... 15 Appendix C - Modifications and Amendments ......................................................................................... 16 DRAFT 03.24.2024 Resolution DRAFT 03.24.2024 Process Certification Page Certification of Restrictions of Lobbying Page DRAFT 03.24.2024 FTA/FHWA Approval DRAFT 03.24.2024 CAMPO Board of Directors Chair – Jeff Hoelscher, Eastern District Commissioner, Cole County Vice-Chair – Scott Spencer, City Council Member, City of Jefferson City of Jefferson: Jack Deeken, City Council Member Jon Hensley, City Council Member Jeff Ahlers, City Council Member Clint Smith, AICP, Director, Planning & Protective Services Gerry Stegeman, Transit Manager Matt Morasch, PE, Director, Public Works Cole County: Eric Landwehr, PE, Director, Public Works Doug Reece, City Administrator, St. Martins Callaway County: Roger Fischer, Western District Commissioner Holts Summit: Brandon Ruediger, City Administrator, City of Holts Summit MoDOT: Machelle Watkins, PE, District Engineer Ex-Officio Members: Luke Holtschnieder, Jefferson City Regional Economic Partnership Daniel Nguyen, Federal Transit Administration, Region VII Christy Evers, MoDOT Transit Administrator Vacant, Missouri Office of Administration Michael Henderson, AICP, MoDOT, Transportation Planning Dan Weitkamp, Federal Highway Administration, Missouri Div. Tamara Tateosian, Callaway County Economic Development Technical Committee Chair – David Bange, PE, City Engineer, Public Works, City of Jefferson Vice-Chair – Matt Prenger, PE, County Engineer, Public Works, Cole County City of Jefferson: Clint Smith, AICP, Director, Planning & Protective Services Aaron Grefrath, Director, Parks, Recreation & Forestry Matt Morasch, PE, Director of Public Works Gerry Stegeman, Interim Transit Manager Eric Barron, AICP, Planning Manager Britt Smith, PE, Operations & Maintenance Cole County: Matt Prenger, PE, County Engineer Shannon Kliethermes, Senior Planner Callaway County: Howard Thomas, PE, County Highway Administrator MoDOT: Steve Engelbrecht, PE, District Planning Manager Michael Henderson, AICP, Transportation Planning Specialist Daniel Roeger, PE, Area Engineer Private Transportation Interest: Vacant Pedestrian or Biking Interest: Kevin Schwartz, JC Parks Outdoor Recreation Program Manager Small City Representative (Callaway): Mark Tate, Streets Department, City of Holts Summit Small City Representative (Cole): Rachel Busche, Wardsville Ex-Officio Members: Daniel Nguyen, Federal Transit Administration, Region VII Daniel Weitkamp, Federal Highway Administration, Missouri Div. Jason Branstetter, Heartland Port Authority Representative CAMPO Staff: Clint Smith, AICP– Director, Planning & Protective Services FTE – 0* Eric Barron, AICP - Planning Manager FTE - 0.3 Katrina Williams, GISP, AICP –Planner, Senior FTE – 1 Vacant – Planner I FTE – 1** Kortney Bliss – Planner I FTE – 0** Tiphanie Pearson – Administrative Assistant FTE - .10 * The MPO Executive Director is also the Director of the Jefferson City Department of Planning and Protective Services. This full-time position is currently 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 03.24.2024 Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2025 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 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) defines tasks and anticipates funding requirements for the metropolitan planning activities performed by 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. The UPWP outlines activities funded through the Consolidated Planning Grant (CPG) 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 current MPA boundary was approved by the CAMPO Board of Directors January 17th, 2024 and approved by the Governor January 31, 2024 (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 jurisdictions’ professional staff 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, the City provides staffing. For FY 2025, the City of Jefferson will provide staff consisting of a full-time Planner, full-time Senior Planner, and part time support from the Director of Planning and Protective Services, a Planning Manager, and an Administrative Assistant. Major Tasks Completed in FY 2024 • Annual update of the Unified Planning Work Program and the Transportation Improvement Program. • Review of Urbanized Area/Planning Area boundary. • Review of Federal Functional Classification of Urban Area roads. • Staff assistance in planning the 2024 Missouri Active Transportation Summit. • Completion of various reports: o System Performance, Disadvantaged Business, Title VI, Annual Listing Obligated Projects. • Completion of the CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan. • Completion of Capital Area Active Transportation Plan (formerly Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan). • Update of regional databases, including; sidewalks, greenway, bike trails/lanes and local roads. • Various ongoing technical assistance projects for member jurisdictions: o GIS, grants, research, etc. Tasks Carried Over from FY 2024 • Update of the Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan. • Continued work on any technical assistance projects as they arise. • Traffic Study of US 54/63/50 Tri-Level Interchange. Priorities for FY 2025 • Complete update of Coordinated Public Transit - Human Services Transportation Plan. • Implementation of the CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan. • Implementation of the Capital Area Active 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. • Traffic Study of US 54/63/50 Tri-Level Interchange. • Application for Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program funds for a Comprehensive Safety Action Plan for the CAMPO region. • Update of Crash Analysis Report for the CAMPO area. • Conduct a more in-depth review of the Metropolitan Area Boundary. • Begin update of the Title VI Program, including the Public Participation Plan, and Language Assistance Plan. DRAFT 03.24.2024 Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2025 UPWP 2 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 (CPG) 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 2025 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 03.24.2024 Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2025 UPWP 3 Air Quality Planning According to 23 CFR 420.111(e), State DOTs and MPOs are also encouraged to include cost estimates for transportation planning, research, development, and technology transfer related activities funded with other federal, 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 • 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 has an adopted Active Transportation Plan that incorporates Complete Streets standards and/or policies and includes a prioritized list of projects. CAMPO adopted a Livable Streets Policy with the 2016 adoption of the Capital Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan. The 2024 Adoption of the Capital Area Active Transportation Plan further emphasizes CAMPO’s continued commitment to complete streets standards and policies. The term “Livable Streets” and “Complete Streets” are used interchangeably in CAMPO products. 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 15% and Cole County contributes 5%. Note: The Traffic Study for the US 54/63/50 Tri-Level Interchange deviates from the local match statement above. The local match requirement is split between Jefferson City (10%) and Cole County (10%). The total CAMPO budget for FY 2025 is $482,933. Appendix A provides more detailed breakdown of financial details. DRAFT 03.24.2024 Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2025 UPWP 4 Transportation Planning Factors The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (Public Law 117-58, also known as the “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law”) was signed into law in 2021. The BIL maintains the ten planning factors identified in the previous transportation bill, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act). These ten planning factors are 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. Planning Emphasis Areas (PEAs) In 2022, FTA and FHWA issued updated Planning Emphasis Areas (PEAs). The following PEAs are intended to be used by MPOs, state departments of transportation, transit agencies, and federal land management agencies in their Unified Planning Work Programs and State Planning and Research Work Programs: • Tackling the Climate Crisis – Transition to a Clean Energy, Resilient Future • Equity and Justice40 in Transportation Planning • Complete Streets • Public Involvement • Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET)/U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) Coordination • Federal Land Management Agency (FLMA) Coordination • Planning and Environment Linkages (PEL) • Data in Transportation Planning There is considerable flexibility in how metropolitan planning organizations and State DOTs can incorporate the PEAs into the transportation planning process. Recognizing the variability and timing of transportation planning processes, FTA and FHWA encourage these PEAs to be incorporated as programs are updated. Full consideration of the PEAs was utilized in the development of the this UPWP. Figure 1: Planning Factors as addressed by work elements Planning Factor Work Program Element Wo r k E l e m e n t 5 2 1 - Pr o g r a m Su p p o r t & A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Wo r k E l e m e n t 5 2 2 - Ge n e r a l De v e l o p m e n t a n d Co m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n n i n g Wo r k E l e m e n t 5 2 4 - Sh o r t Ra n g e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n n i n g & P r o g r a m m i n g Wo r k E l e m e n t 5 2 5 - Lo n g Ra n g e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n n i n g Wo r k E l e m e n t 5 2 6 - Pu b l i c Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n n i n g Wo r k E l e m e n t 5 2 7 – S af e & Ac c e s s i b l e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Pl a n n i n g 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.       DRAFT 03.24.2024 Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2025 UPWP 5 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 Figure 2: Timeline for updating required MPO plans and documents Fiscal 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 2029 2028 2024 2025 2026 2027 MTP - Metropolitan Transportation Plan Expires May 15, 2029 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 2024-2025 Title VI Program –Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Update Required March 2026 LAP – Language Assistance Plan Update Required March 2026 PPP – Public Participation Plan Update Required March 2026 MPA / Functional Class Review (Not shown above) Update required in 2033 (Occurs every 10 years) DRAFT 03.24.2024 Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2025 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 2024 Accomplishments • Facilitation of Board of Directors and Technical Committee monthly meetings as required. • FY 2025 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, FHWA, and FTA sponsored events, webinars, and other training opportunities. • Title VI Annual Report completed. FY 2025 Products • Board of Directors and Technical Committee meetings administration/facilitation support. • Meeting agendas, minutes, presentations, reports, and other support material. • Complete FY 2026 UPWP. • End of year report, quarterly progress reports, billings, and invoices. • DBE Commitments Semi-Annual reports. • Complete Title VI Annual Report. • Participation in professional development activities and maintain pertinent professional certifications. • Begin 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 direct costs. Work Element Cost Type Federal CPG Funds 80% Local Match 20% Total Percent of Work Program Budget 521 Labor $28,280 $7,070 $35,350 7% Direct $16,320 $4,080 $20,400 4% DRAFT 03.24.2024 Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2025 UPWP 7 Work Element 522 - General Development & 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 2024 Accomplishments • Provided 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 2025 Products • Assist with various inputs for comprehensive planning documents - ongoing for multiple years. • Assist with and maintain various GIS databases pertinent to transportation planning. • 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. Work Element Cost Type Federal CPG Funds 80% Local Match 20% Total Percent of Work Program Budget 522 Labor $15,352 $3,838 $19,190 4% DRAFT 03.24.2024 Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2025 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 Active Transportation 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 FY2025-2029 TIP. • Develop and publish the Annual List of Obligated Projects (ALOP) for the prior year TIP. • Pursue grant funding, as directed, to support short-term transportation needs, including: non-motorized planning activities, complete streets planning, freight planning, active transportation planning, safety planning, operations/management planning, transportation security planning, or wayfinding activities. FY 2024 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 2024 – 2028 TIP and any necessary amendments. • Developed 2025-2029 TIP. • Provided assistance to member jurisdictions in the completion of grant applications. • Reviewed Crash Analysis Report. • Continued update of Capital Area Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan. • Assisted with planning for the 2024 Missouri Active Transportation Summit in cooperation with Missouri Bicycle and Pedestrian Federation. FY 2025 Products • TIP amendments and administrative modifications as necessary. • Development of the Program Year 2026-2030 TIP. • Review Crash Data Report. • Provide guidance and assistance to local jurisdictions in the transportation component of their ADA Transition Plan development efforts. • Annual List of Obligated Projects from the previous program year. • Assist with planning and possibly hosting of Missouri Active Transportation Summit in cooperation with Missouri Bicycle and Pedestrian Federation. • Implement Capital Area Active Transportation Plan. Responsible Party: CAMPO staff Funding: This work element includes only labor costs Work Element Cost Type Federal CPG Funds 80% Local Match 20% Total Percent of Work Program Budget 524 Labor $19,035 $4,759 $23,794 5% DRAFT 03.24.2024 Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2025 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 review of 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. FY 2024 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. • Completed update of the CAMPO 2045 & Beyond Metropolitan Transportation Plan as federally required. • Staff continues development of GIS data and resources to assist jurisdictions with plan development and implementation. • Completed review of Planning Area Boundary and Federal Functional Classification. FY 2025 Products • Implementation of the MTP strategies and improvements. • Assist member jurisdictions in implementing recommended improvements outlined in the MTP. • Amendments and review of the MTP as necessary. • Report MTP and TIP performance measures and targets. • Annual Review of Illustrative List of Projects. • Traffic Study of US 54/63/50 Tri-Level Interchange2. Responsible Party: CAMPO/City of Jefferson staff and consultant. Funding: This work element includes direct costs and labor costs. Work Element Cost Type Federal CPG Funds 80% Local Match 20% Total Percent of Work Program Budget 525 Labor $62,548 $15,637 $78,185 16% Direct2 $200,000 $50,000 $250,000 52% 2 The project is anticipated to cost up to $500,000, with only $200,000 in Consolidated Planning Grant funds being utilized and local funds for the remainder. Local match is split between Jefferson City(50%) and Cole County(50%). DRAFT 03.24.2024 Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2025 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 maintenance of 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 2024 Accomplishments • Provided assistance to JEFFTRAN in the update of route guides. • Began update of the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan. FY 2025 Products • Update route and schedule guide as needed. • Maps, demographics, GIS analytics. • Provide assistance to JEFFTRAN staff to improve service to patrons of. • Collaborate with regional transit providers and human service agencies to meet shared goals. • Complete update of the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan. Responsible Party: CAMPO staff. Funding: This work element includes only labor costs. Work Element Cost Type Federal CPG Funds 80% Local Match 20% Total Percent of Work Program Budget 526 Labor $42,003 $10,501 $52,503 11% Note: A portion of funding for the update of the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan may be provided via a Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission Public Transportation Planning Grant (FTA 5304 Funds). This grant may provide up to $25,000 in federal grant funds and require a 20% local match. If applied for, these funds would not increase the overall CAMPO budget, but would decrease the amount of CPG funds used for this work element. This grant would potentially be applied for in FY 2024 and used in both FY 2024 and FY 2025. These funds are not programmed into the UPWP due to the uncertainty of timing and availability of funds. DRAFT 03.24.2024 Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2025 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. • Develop and maintain a Complete Streets prioritization plan that identifies projects to improve the safety, mobility, or accessibility of a street. • Participate in the Missouri Complete Streets (MOCS) Advisory Committee. • Participate in the Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety. • Educate jurisdictions and stakeholder about Complete Streets standards and policies. • Pursue grant funding that supports safety planning and implementation. FY 2024 Accomplishments • Participated in activities, meetings, and conferences including Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety. • Completed development of a prioritized list of projects as part of the update of the Capital Area Active Transportation Plan. • Facilitated stakeholder and/or jurisdiction development of pedestrian and bicycle education programs. • Provided assistance to Missouri Pedestrian and Bicycle Federation in planning and/or hosting the 2024 Active Transportation Summit. FY 2025 Products • Pursue application for Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program funds for a Comprehensive Safety Action Plan for the CAMPO region. https://www.transportation.gov/grants/SS4A • 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. • Implement the safety related goals and strategies as developed as part of the Capital Area Active Transportation Plan. • Provide assistance to Missouri Pedestrian and Bicycle Federation in planning and/or hosting the 2024 Active Transportation Summit. • Provide assistance to jurisdiction in the pursuit of funding for safety initiatives, infrastructure, and/or programing. Responsible Party: CAMPO staff. Funding: This work element includes only labor costs. Work Element Cost Type Federal PL Funds 100% Local Match 20% Total Percent of Work Program Budget 527 Labor $3,510 $0 $3,510* 0.7% * 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 2025 2.5% estimate is $3,551. DRAFT 03.24.2024 Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2025 UPWP 12 Appendix A – Financial Summary Anticipated Expenditures & Revenue CAMPO receives funding from the FHWA (PL) and FTA (5303) through the Consolidated Planning Grant (CPG) administered by MoDOT. Funding consists of 80% federal and 20% local matching funds; Jefferson City contributes 15% and Cole County contributes 5% except where noted differently. Note: The Traffic Study for the US 54/63/50 Tri-Level Interchange deviates from the local match statement above. The local match requirement is split between Jefferson City (50%) and Cole County (50%). CAMPO may over-program or under-program annual CPG or PL 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. CAMPO may apply for and receive other grant funds that may offset the use of CPG funds outlined above. Depending on the nature of the funding and project utilizing said funding, CAMPO will follow the amendment and administrative modification processes, outlined in the UPWP. DRAFT 03.24.2024 Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2025 UPWP 13 Table 1: FY 2025 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. 1 The 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) requires each MPO to use at least 2.5% of its PL funds (the FHWA portion of the CPG) on specified planning activities related to Safe and Accessible Transportation Planning (Work Element 527). 2 The project is anticipated to cost up to $500,000, with only $200,000 in Consolidated Planning Grant funds being utilized and local funds for the remainder. Local match is split between Jefferson City (50%) and Cole County (50%). Cost Category 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 & Education $3,600 $900 $4,500 Tuition Reimbursement $2,400 $600 $3,000 Prof. Services - US 54/63/50 Tri-Level Study2 $200,000 $50,000 $250,000 Subtotal $207,200 $51,800 $259,000 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 $216,320 $54,080 $270,400 Labor Costs - CPG (80%)Federal - CPG (80%) Local (20%) Total (100%) Salaries plus benefits (CPG Funds)$167,218 $41,804 $209,022 Labor Costs - PL (100%)Federal - PL (100%)No Match Total (100%) Salaries plus benefits (PL Funds - Safety)1 $3,510 $0 $3,510 Total Labor Costs $170,728 $41,804 $212,533 Federal Funds Local Match Total (100%) $387,048 $95,884 $482,933 Direct Costs Materials & Supplies Other Contracted Services Equipment Repair & Maintenance Capital Purchases & Utilities** Total MPO Budget DRAFT 03.24.2024 Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2025 UPWP 14 Table 2: FY 2025 Work Element Funding Summary - Consolidated Planning Grant and Local Funds Table 3: FY 2025 Local Match by Jurisdiction * 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. 1 The 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) requires each MPO to use at least 2.5% of its PL funds (the FHWA portion of the CPG) on specified planning activities related to Safe and Accessible Transportation Planning (Work Element 527). 2 The project is anticipated to cost up to $500,000, with only $200,000 in Consolidated Planning Grant funds being utilized and local funds for the remainder. Local match is split between Jefferson City (50%) and Cole County (50%). Table 4: Anticipated Available Federal Consolidated Planning Grant (CPG) Balance Revenue *The final amount of the FY 2024 CPG Allocation will not be released by MoDOT until May of 2024. This UPWP will have been adopted before this information is made available. Additionally, the MoDOT FY2024 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. **The Tri-level Study is excluded from the FY 2024 expenditure, and included in the FY 2025 expenditure. The project is anticipated to begin in FY 2024, but most of the expenditure may occur in FY 2025. It is anticipated to cost up to $500,000, with only $200,000 in Consolidated Planning Grant funds being utilized and local funds for the remainder. Local match is split between Jefferson City (50%) and Cole County (50%). Table 5: Anticipated Available Federal 2.5% Safety Set-Aside Balance Revenue Work Element Planning Manager (.30 FTE) Planner, Senior (1 FTE) Planner (1 FTE) Admin. Asst. (.10 FTE)Sub-Total Total Federal CPG Funds 80% Total Local Match 20%Total* Percent of Work Program Budget Labor Costs 521-Program Support & Administration $28,546 $0 $0 $6,804 $35,350 $28,280 $7,070 $35,350 7% 522-General Dev. & Comp. Planning $0 $9,699 $9,491 $0 $19,190 $15,352 $3,838 $19,190 4% 524-Short Range Transportation Planning $0 $5,542 $18,252 $0 $23,794 $19,035 $4,759 $23,794 5% 525-Long Range Transportation Planning $5,190 $44,523 $28,472 $0 $78,185 $62,548 $15,637 $78,185 16% 526-Public Transportation Planning $0 $32,791 $19,712 $0 $52,503 $42,003 $10,501 $52,503 11% Subtotal $33,736 $92,555 $75,927 $6,804 $209,022 $167,218 $41,804 $209,022 Labor Costs Utilizing 100% PL Funds 527-Safe/Accessible Trans. Planning 1 $0 $3,510 $0 $0 $3,510 $3,510 $0 $3,510 0.7% Labor Costs (Base + Fringe) Subtotal $33,736 $96,065 $75,927 $6,804 $212,533 $170,728 $41,804 $212,533 44% $20,400 $16,320 $4,080 $20,400 4% $250,000 $200,000 $50,000 $250,000 52% $270,400 $216,320 $54,080 $270,400 56% $387,048 $95,884 $482,933 100% Direct Costs Subtotal Total* 521-Direct Costs - Program Support & Administration 525-Direct Costs - US 54/63/50 Tri-Level Study2 Direct Costs Category Jefferson City Cole County Total* Labor Costs (excludes work element 527 - Safety)1 $31,353 $10,451 $41,804 521-Direct Costs - Program Support & Administration $3,060 $1,020 $4,080 525-Direct Costs - US 54/63/50 Tri-Level Study2 $25,000 $25,000 $50,000 Total*$59,413 $36,471 $95,884 CPG Local Match CPG Balance for end of FY2023 $552,333 FY 2024 CPG Allocation*$172,841 FY 2024 UPWP CPG Expenditure - Anticipated (excludes Tri-Level Study)**-($169,636) CPG Balance for end of FY2024 - Anticipated* Subtotal $555,538$0FY 2025 CPG Allocation - Estimated per MoDOT's FY24 SPR Work Program $178,232 FY 2025 CPG Programmed Expenditure-Anticipated (excludes 2.5% safety set-aside) (Includes 100% of Tri-Level Study**)-($383,538) FY 2025 END OF YEAR Remaining Unprogrammed CPG Funds Anticipated $350,232 Consolidated Planning Grant Balance 2.5% Safety Set-Aside Allocation Balance for end of FY2023 $3,286 FY 2024 2.5% Safety Set-Aside Allocation - Estimated $3,451 FY 2024 2.5% Safety Set-Aside Expenditure -($5,176) CPG Balance for end of FY2024 - Anticipated* Subtotal $1,561$0FY 2025 2.5% Safety Set-Aside Allocation - Estimated $3,551 FY 2025 2.5% Safety Set-Aside Expenditure -($3,510) FY 2025 END OF YEAR Remaining Unprogrammed 2.5% Safety Set-Aside Funds Anticipated $1,602 2.5% Safety Set-Aside Balance DRAFT 03.24.2024 Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2025 UPWP 15 Appendix B – CAMPO Boundary Map The CAMPO Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) Boundary was approved by the CAMPO Board of Directors January 17, 2024 and was approved by the Governor of Missouri January 31, 2024. 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 03.24.2024 Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization FY 2025 UPWP 16 Appendix C - Modifications and Amendments Amendments No. Description Board Approval One DOT Approval Administrative Modifications No. Description of Modification Date Agenda Item 8A CAMPO Board of Directors Staff Report Status of Current Work Tasks April 17, 2024 Summary The following list includes work tasks that are currently in progress or have been completed since the previous meeting: • Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). See staff report. A draft document is available on the CAMPO webpage at: www.jeffersoncitymo.gov/campo. A required 25-day public comment period will be held prior to approval. A final public meeting is scheduled for April 24th in the City Council Chambers at City Hall in Jefferson City. • 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Development. See staff report. A draft document is available on the CAMPO webpage at: www.jeffersoncitymo.gov/campo. A required 25-day public comment period will be held prior to approval. • FY 2025 Unified Planning Work Program Development (UPWP). See staff report. A draft document is available on the CAMPO webpage at: www.jeffersoncitymo.gov/campo. A required 7-day public comment period will be held prior to approval. • US 54/63/50 Tri-Level Interchange Study. An RFQ selection committee was appointed at the March 20th CAMPO Board of Directors meeting. The RFQ notice will be posted pending review of federal comments received. • Capital Area Active Transportation Plan. The Active Transportation Plan was approved by the CAMPO Board of Directors January 17th. The jurisdictions of Holts Summit, Jefferson City, and St. Martins have adopted the plan as their local Active Transportation Plan. Staff is moving forward Staff is working to close out the project, including delivery of final GIS data and then updating CAMPO and City databases. • GIS/Technical Assistance. Staff continues providing technical assistance regarding GIS data and mapping to member jurisdictions for various projects, including: o JEFFTRAN Technical Assistance o Zoning Map Updates as requested o Crash data o GIS data maintenance (sidewalks, trails, and other data as needed) • JEFFTRAN Transit Facility Feasibility Study. A final document has been completed and is under review by Federal Transit Administration and Jefferson City Public Works Staff. An updated presentation will be given at a future meeting.