FY 2018 2021 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT...

FINAL Approved and Adopted on: 6/22/17

ederal Transit Administration, and in part through local matching funds of SRTPA member governments. These contents are responsibil ity of the SRTPA. The U.S.

government and its agencies assume no liability for the contents of this report or the use of its contents. The SRTPA approve d this document on June 22, 2017. Please call 712-279-6286 to obtain permission of use.

FY 2018 - 2021 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

OF THE

SIOUXLAND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ASSOCIATION

ii

Final

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S Policy Board Members Jeff Simonsen, Chairperson Supervisor Cherokee County, Iowa John Rexwinkel, Vice-Chairperson Council Person City of Le Mars, Iowa Gary Horton Supervisor Plymouth County, Iowa Matthew Ung Supervisor Woodbury County, Iowa Jim Agnitsch Council Person City of Cherokee, Iowa Tammy Bramley Supervisor Monona County, Iowa Rhett Leonard Supervisor Ida County, Iowa Technical Advisory Committee Members Mark Nahra, Chairperson Engineer Woodbury County, Iowa John Meis, Vice-Chairperson Engineer City of Cherokee, Iowa Brandon Billings Engineer Cherokee County, Iowa Dustin Wallis Engineer Monona County, Iowa Jeff Williams Engineer Ida County, Iowa Tom Rohe Engineer Plymouth County, Iowa Scott P. Langel City Administrator City of Le Mars, Iowa Curt Miller Transit Director Siouxland Regional Transit System Policy Board & Transportation Advisory Committee Non -Voting Members Darla Hugaboom Federal Highway Administration Iowa Dakin Schultz Iowa Department of Transportation Mark Bechtel Federal Transit Administration - Region VII Siouxland Interstate Metropolitan Planning Council Staff Michelle Bostinelos Executive Director Jacob Heil Regional Planner II Kevin Randle Regional Planner II Sharon Burton Executive Assistant

iii

Final

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................................................................................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 PLANNING FACTORS ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 STATUS REPORT OF PREVIOUSLY PROGRAMMED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................................... 3

Federal Highway Administration Element ....................................................................................................................... 3 Federal Transit Administration Element .......................................................................................................................... 4

TRANSPORTATION NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS................................................................................................................................................... 5 Schedule for Solicitation of Project Application s and Evaluation ............................................................................ 6 Surface Transportation Program Projects Qualifying Criteria .................................................................................. 7 Surface Transportatio n Program Project Discussion Considerations. .................................................................. 9 Transportation Alternatives Program Qualifying Criteria ........................................................................................ 10 Transportation Alternatives Program Priority Criteria .............................................................................................. 12 County Bridge Projects.........................................................................................................................................................14 Public Participation Process ...............................................................................................................................................16 Federal Highway Administration Element ...................................................................................................................... 17 Federal Transit Administration Element ........................................................................................................................ 25

FINANCING THE PROGRAM............................................................................................................................................................................. 28 AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS....................................................................................................................................................................... 36 RESOLUTION 2017-1 APPROVAL OF THE FY 2018 2021 TIP ....................................................................................................................... 38 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CAPACITY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 39

T A B L E O F T A B L E S TABLE 1 STATUS REPORT OF PREVIOUSLY PROGRAMMED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ELEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 3 TABLE 2 STATUS REPORT OF PREVIOUSLY PROGRAMMED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION ELEMENT .......................................................................................................................... 4 TABLE 3 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM FUND BALANCE ................................................................................................. 28 TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL AID BY PROGRAM .................................................................................................................... 29 TABLE 5 CITY STREET FINANCE REPORT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES ............................................................ 30 TABLE 6 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FROM FY 2016................................................................................................ 32 TABLE 7 FINANCIAL CONSTRAINT SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 32 TABLE 8 FARM TO MARKET RECEIPTS......................................................................................................................................... 33 TABLE 9 FY 2016 COUNTY ENGINEERS ANNUAL REPORT .......................................................................................................... 33 TABLE 10 CITY STREET FINANCE REPORT REVENUES .................................................................................................................... 34

1

Final

I N T R O D U C T I O N The Siouxland Interstate Metropolitan Planning Council (SIMPCO), as the Siouxland Regional Transportation Planning Associatio n (SRTPA), has developed a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the Regional Planning Affiliation 4 (hereinafter referred t Le Mars and Cherokee, Iowa and the counties of Cherokee, Ida, Monona, Plymouth, and Woodbury, Iowa. This TIP was put together under the direction of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federa l Transit Administration ( FTA), and the Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT), as a requirement of the Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. The FAST Act was signed by the President on December 4, 2015. The FAST Act provides federal funding authorizations for the highway network, highway safety, alternative modes, and mass transpo rtation through Fiscal Year 2021. It is the purpose of the SRTPA Transportation Improvement Program FY 2018-2021 to provide all citiz ens of Region 4, the FHWA, FTA and Iowa DOT with the SRTPA multimodal and intermodal transportation improvements for the fiscal years 2018 through 2021. Preparation of the TIP consisted of compiling background information provided through the U.S. Census, U .S. DOT, Iowa DOT, and other named sources. The SRTPA was responsible for the preparation of this TIP, with guidance given by local and county off icials, the SRTPA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), Policy Board, and through citizen input. The purpose o f a TIP is to serve as an organized structure of information on improvements addressing the future needs, goals, and objectives of Region 4 from a planning perspective. This TIP is project specific and a programming document. The information contained in the following pages will provide a better understanding of the Region 4 transportation network improvements and a vision of the transpo rtation network in the year 20 21 developed utilizing current transportation network characteristics, current and projected social, physical, environmental, and economic al characteristics, as well as various local and county citizen participation, and local official involvement. Several local and r egional meetings and a public hearing were held throughout the development of the SRTPA Transportation Improvement Program FY 2018-2021 in order to encourage and receive a diversity o f information and participation .

2

Final

P L A N N I N G F A C T O R S The FAST Act continues previous planning requirements by specifying nine factors that must be considered in the development of transportation plans and programs. The factors are formulated to rea ssert the policy goals of the FAST Act, reinforce the link between policy goals and planning, and establish broader relationships between transportation planning and other planning activities, such as land use, growth management, and air quality compliance. They are also intended to expand the role of transportation planning, facilitate the development of a more balanced transportation system, and increase the efficiency of the system.

1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitivenes s, productivity, and efficiency;

2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for mo torized and non -motorized users;

3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non -motorized users;

4. Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for f reight;

5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservati on, and improve quality of life and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns;

6. Enhance the integration and connecti vity of the transportation system, across and betwee n modes, for people and freight;

7. Promote efficient system managem ent and operation;

8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system , and;

9. Increase the resiliency and reliability of the tr ansportation system and reduce or mitigate storm water impacts of surface transportation.

10. Enhance travel and tourism

3

Final

S T A T U S O F P R E V I O U S L Y P R O G R A M M E D T R A N S P O R T A T I O N I M P R OV E M E N T S F Y 2 0 17 P R O J E C T S T A B L E 1 : F E D E R A L H I G H W A Y A D M I N I S T R A T I O N E L E M E N T

T A B L E 2 : F E D E R A L T R A N S I T A D M I N I S T R A T I O N E L E M E N T F Y 2 0 1 7 P R O J E C T S

PGM TYPE SPONSOR TPMS PN LOCATION TYPE WORK TOTAL FA RGNL STATUS

STBG CRD Cherokee CRD 14509STP-S-C018(72)--5E-18 On L-51, from C38 south 13 Miles to South County Line Pave, Culvert Repair 3300 930 930 Started in AprilSTBG-HBPCRD Cherokee CRD 18029BROS-C018(71)--8J-18 630TH ST: Over Maple River Bridge Replacement 1000 800 0 Programmed FY2018NHPP DOT-Pgm DOT-D03-RPA04 35577NHS--75()--11-75 US 75: JACKSON ST IN MERRILL TO CO RD C38 Grade and Pave, Erosion Control, Right of Way 9300 0 0 AwardedPRF DOT-Pgm DOT-D03-RPA04 35603NHSN--20()--2R-97 US 20: ELLIOT CREEK TO E OF EMMET AVE IN LAWTON Pavement Rehab 423 0 0 AwardedPRF DOT-Pgm DOT-D03-RPA04 35609 STPN--175()--2J-97 IA 175: 3.0 MI E OF ECL OF DANBURY Revetment 852 0 0 CompletePRF DOT-Pgm DOT-D03-RPA04 35573BRFN--175()--39-67 IA 175: MISSOURI RIVER E OF DECATUR, NE (STATE SHARE) Bridge Rehabilitation 37 0 0 AwardedPRF DOT-Pgm DOT-D03-RPA04 35416STPN-141()--2J-67 IA 141: CO RD L32 S OF MAPLETON TO ECL OF UTE Pavement Rehab 5603 0 0 AwardedPRF DOT-Pgm DOT-D03-RPA04 35418STPN--141()--2J-97 IA 141: E OF SMITHLAND TO WCL OF MAPLETON Pavement Rehab 3919 0 0 AwardedPRF DOT-Pgm DOT-D03-RPA04 35421IMN--29()--0E-97 I-29: CO RD K25 (SALIX) INTERCHANGE 6.4 MI N OF IA 141 Erosion Control 200 0 0 AwardedPRF DOT-Pgm DOT-D03-RPA04 25292BRFN--75()--39-75 US 75: DRY CREEK 3.4 MI N OF CO RD C60 (SB) Bridge Deck Overlay 329 0 0 Has been letPRF DOT-Pgm DOT-D03-RPA04 25306BRFN--175()--39-67 IA 175: MISSOURI RIVER E OF DECATUR, NE (STATE SHARE) Bridge Rehabilitation, Bridge Painting, Bridge Cleaning 4732 0 0 AwardedSTBG-HBPCRD Monona CRD 18084 BROS-8365(602)--8J-67 WEST ST: Over McCandles Ditch Bridge Replacement 500 400 0 Programmed FY2018STBG-HBPCRD Monona CRD 20645 BROS-C067(77)--8J-67 TEAK AVE: Over South Willow Creek Bridge Replacement 720 576 0 Currently under constructionSTBG-HBPCRD Monona CRD 32814BRS-C067(78)--60-67 On L32, Over JORDAN CREEK, in Ctr S24 T84 R43 Bridge Replacement 300 240 0 Currently under constructionSTBG CRD Plymouth CRD 25016STP-S-C075(148)--5E-75On C60 from Hwy 140 west 6.25 MI: Pave, Pavement Markings 3766 1966 1600 Let April 18, 2017 STBG-HBPCRD Plymouth CRD 7708BROS-C075(146)--8J-75 On Tamarack Ave between Sec 1/2-90-43: Over West Fork Little Sioux River Bridge Replacement 700 560 0 To Be Let May 16, 2017STBG-HBPCRD Plymouth CRD 12726BRS-C075(143)--60-75 On C-66 in Sec 19-90-43: Over West Fork Little Sioux River Bridge Replacement 1275 1020 0 To Be Let Sept 19, 2017STBG-HBPCRD Plymouth CRD 21684BROS-C075(147)--8J-75 On 310TH ST between Sec 13/24-90-45: Over MUDDY CREEK Bridge Replacement 370 296 0 Let April 18, 2017STBG PA RPA-04 218RGPL-PA04(RTP)--ST-00SIMPCO - RPA 4: RPA 4 FHWA PLANNING Trans Planning 56 45 45 OngoingSTBG PA RPA-04 25199RGTR-PA04()--ST-00 Light Duty Bus (176" wb): Capital Expansion Transit Investments 88 70 70 CompleteSTBG-HBPCRD Woodbury CRD 16571BRS-C097(112)--60-97 D-25: Over Big Whiskey Creek Bridge Replacement 850 680 0 AwardedSTBG-HBPCRD Woodbury CRD 21791BROS-C097(129)--5F-97 L43: From 190th Street to 200th Street Bridge Replacement 600 480 0 Awarded

Fund(s) Sponsor Transit # Expense Prj. Type Obj. Type Unit # Desc FY17_Ttl FY17_FA FY17_SA Approval Status

STA, 5311 Region 4 / SRTS 2103 Operations Other Other General Operations/Maintenance/Administration/Planning 2,832,977 491,179 430,565 FTA Pre-Approved

5311 RPA-04 2132 Planning Misc Other FTA Planning 29,637 23,709 0 FTA Pre-Approved

5339 Region 4 / SRTS 3918 Capital Replacement Vehicle Unit#: 7518 Light Duty Bus (176" wb) 90,000 76,500 0 FTA Pre-Approved













5339 Region 4 / SRTS 4515 Capital Other Other Transit Building Facilities 5,000,000 4,000,000 0 TIP Approved

STP Region 4 / SRTS 3726 Capital Expansion Vehicle Light Duty Bus (176" wb) 90,000 76,500 0 FTA Pre-Approved

4

Final

T R A N S P O R T A T I O N N E T W OR K I M P R O V E M E N T S The transportation network improvements within the boundary of Region 4 will consist of a multimodal network which meets the needs

and demands of the citizens residing throughout the region and state. The multimodal transportation network will consist of an urban

and rural highway system which provides for safe and efficient transportation of people, goods, and servic es throughout Region 4.

Combined with the highway system will be a complex multimodal network of transit services; freight movement services such as air, rail,

and trucking; as well as enhancement facilities such as bicycle and pedestrian trails. Region 4 will continue to have the access to

Amtrak passenger rail services in nearby Omaha, keeping the enhanced transportation opportunities.

The network will be planned and programmed, given the financial constraints placed upon Region 4, to meet the growing needs and

demands of the citizens which will be utilizing the facilities and services, making up the Region 4 transportation network. The SRTPA

Transportation Improvement Program FY 2018-2021 provides for the general health, safety, and well -being of the citizens of Region 4.

FY 2018 Siouxland Regional Transit System capital purchases will total $ 672,000 with $566,400 of federal participation.

The intent of the SRTPA Transportation Improvement Program FY 2018-2021 is to enable Region 4 to create a multimodal and intermodal

network that encourages and provides the distribution of people, goods, and services throughout Region 4 and to points beyond the

Sioux City Metropolitan Planning Area boundaries. In doing so, the Regional Planning Area will meet international, national, state, and

local transportation objectives. All projects are programmed using year of expenditure (YOE) dollars pe r the requirements of the FAST

Act. Costs of future p rojects were determined using inflation rate ranging between 3.5% and 5% are calculated by the project sponsor.

5

Final

S C H E D U L E F O R S O L I C I TA T I O N O F P R O J E C T A P PL I C A T I O N S A N D E V A L U A T I O N

November 16, 2016 - TAC makes recommendation to Policy Board for application deadlines. Policy Board sets dates accordingly

January 20, 2017 SIMPCO staff sends out Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) and Transportation Alternative Program

(TAP) applications to cou nty engineers, member cities, and other interested parties via the public participation list. Applications

are also available via email and on the SIMPCO website

(http://s impco.org/Transportation/TransportationImprovementPlan.aspx )

February 24, 2017 - STBG Application Deadline

February 27, 2017 March 21, 2017 - Project evaluation by SIMPCO staff

March 22, 2017 - Project presentations by applicants. Project recommendation to Policy Board by TAC.

March 23, 2017 Project selection and approval by Policy Board

May 17, 2017 Draft TIP presented to TAC

May 25, 2017 Draft TIP presented to Policy Board

May 19, 2017 - Draft TIP available on SIMPCO website and office. P ublic comment period begins.

June 15, 2017 DRAFT TIP to TAC and Policy Board and to Iowa DOT

June 14, 2017 Public Input Meeting

June 21, 2017 Final TIP to TAC for recommendation to Policy Board

June 22, 2017 - Final TIP to Policy Board for approval

July 14, 2017 Final TIP sent to Iowa Department of Transportation

October 2017 Letters to the Offices of Program Management and Public Transit sent out

http://simpco.org/Transportation/TransportationImprovementPlan.aspx

6

Final

S U R F A C E T R A N S P O R T A T IO N B L O C K G R A N T Q U A L I F Y I N G C R I T E R I A 1. To be eligible as a Surface Transportation Block Grant activity, any project or area served by the project must fit one or more of the

following categories: - Construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, restoration, preservation, or operational improvements for highways,

including construction - Replacement, rehabilitation, preservation, protection and application of environmentally acceptable, minimally corrosive anti -

icing and deicing compositions for bridges and tunnels on public roads of all functional classifications - Construction of a new bridge or tunnel at a new location on a Federal -aid highway. - Inspection and evaluation of bridges and tunnels and training of bridge and t unnel inspectors and inspection and evaluation of

other highway assets. - Capital costs for transit projects including vehicles and facilities (publicly or privately owned) that are used to provide i ntercity

passenger bus service. - Carpool projects, fringe a nd corridor parking facilities and programs, including electric vehicle and natural gas vehicle

infrastructure - Bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways - Highway and transit safety infrastructure improvements and programs - Highway and transit research and development and technology transfer programs - Capital and operating costs for traffic monitoring, management, and control facilities and programs, including advanced truck

stop electrification systems - Surface transportation planning programs - Transporta tion alternatives - Transportation control measures in the Clean Air Act - Development and establishment of management systems. - Environmental mitigation efforts - Intersection projects that have safety and/or congestion problems - Infrastructure -based intelligen t transportation systems capital improvements. - Environmental restoration and pollution abatement - Control of noxious weeds and aquatic noxious weeds and establishment of native species - Projects and strategies designed to support congestion pricing - Recreational trails projects - Construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities - Development and implementation of a State asset management plan for the National Highway System - Construction and operational improvements for any minor collector if -

o the min or collector and the project to be carried out are in the same corridor and in proximity to a National Highway System route;

7

Final

o the construction or improvements will enhance the level of service on the National Highway System route and improve regional traffic flow; and

o the construction or improvements are more cost -effective, as determined by a benefit -cost analysis, than an improvement to the National Highway System route.

- Workforce development, training, and education activities

NOTE: This list is exclusive; a project must fit into one of the categories to be eligible for Surface Transportation Program funds. For a full list of eligible items and criteria, please refer to http://www. fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidestp.cfm

2. Projects must have an assured local (non-federal funds) match of at least 20 percent of the estimated total cost of the proposed

project. requires a non -federa l match of at least 20 percent of project costs.

Assurance of this required local match by the proposer at the time of the application indicates a necessary level of support by the proposer to immediately proceed with the project development and implement ation.

3. Projects must be submitted through/by counties or incorporated cities.

All federal funds received by the State of Iowa will be received and disbursed by the Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT). With , projects within smaller cities and towns may now be eligible for federal aid. Surface Transportation Program funds are available as a reimbursement program administered by the Federal Hig hway Administration (FHWA). Reimbursement will be received from federal highway funds for the federal portion (up to 80 percent of total expenditures) of those expenditures for the project. All applications of STBG funds by cities of less than 5,000 popu lation, shall be submitted to the respective County Board of Supervisors for review .

4. Projects must be proposed on eligible roads.

The STBG provides flexible funding that may be used by States and localities for projects on any Federal -aid highway, includi ng the National Highway System (NHS), bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities. Applicants should refer to the Federal Functional Classification map available at the county engioffice, the Siouxland Interstate Metropolitan Planning Council office, and the District 3 Office in Sioux City to check eligibility.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidestp.cfm

8

Final

S U R F A C E T R A N S P O R T A T IO N B L O C K G R A N T D I S C U S S I O N C O N S I D E R AT I O N S Each of the following considerations is used during project selection. The considerations listed below are representative of the amount of weight given to certain aspects of the project during the application review. Each consideration is related to the questi ons within the application. 1. Is this project currently in the Long Range Transportation Plan ? 2. Projects with an assured local (non -federal funds) match in excess of 20 percent

The demand for Surface Transportation Block Grant funds far exceeds the amount made available to Iowa. Providing a modest incentive for proposers to exceed the minimum required local (non -federal funds) match (20 percent) will enable leveraging implementation of more projects in more locations throughou t the state.

3. Projects with components which have already been funded and/or implemented from other funding sources, especially projects fo r

which proposed surface transportation projects would complete a larger project, concept, or plan There may be a number of larger projects that are missing a key or final element. Funding these missing elements with Surfac e Transportation Block Grant funds would provide additional benefits to funded projects.

4. Projects that have already gone through a statewide, regional, and/or local priority setting process

In some cases, the proposed project has already been included in the list of priorities for the locality, region, or the stat e, but was not completed due to funding limitations. There appears to be a number of very good projects that have gone through one or more of these processes but remain unfunded or underfunded because of limitations on the availability of funding in these programs.

5. Projects which demonstrate a regional impact on economi c development

Does this project benefit more than one neighborhood, community, or county, or are recognized as being of regional or interregional significance? Does this project demonstrate the improvements or enhancement of the movement of freight and services?

6. Project Average Annual Daily Traffic and the projected Average Annual Daily Traffic 7. Project Federal Functional Classification

8. Does this project request funds for alternative modes of transportation and/or will use funds for planning purpos es?

9

Final

T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A L T E RN A T I V E S P R O G R A M Q U A L I F Y I N G C R I T E R I A Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP). Transportation

alternative activities are not required to be a part of the Surface Transportation Block Grant where 10 percent of the STBG apportionment is required for transportation enhancement. The Transportation Alternatives Program is funded at a level equal to 2 percent of the FHWA funding. 1. Eligibility activities under 23 U.S.C.213(b) eligible activities under the TAP program consist of:

A. Transportation Alternatives as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(29) (FAST Act 1103): i. Construction, planning, and design of on -road and off -road trail facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other

nonmotorized forms of transportation, including sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian and bicycle signals, traffic calming techniques, lighting and other safety -related infrastructure, and transportation proj ects to achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

ii. Construction, planning, and design of infrastructure -related projects and systems that will provide safe routes for non -drivers, including children, older adults, and individuals with disabilities to access daily needs.

iii. Conversion and use of abandoned railroad corridors for trails for pedestrians, bicyclists, or other nonmotorized transportation users.

iv. Construction of turnouts, overlooks, and viewing areas. v. Community improvement activities, including -

a. inventory, control, or removal of outdoor advertising; b. historic preservation and rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities; c. vegetation management practices in transportation rights -of-way to improve roadway safety, preven t against

invasive species, and provide erosion control; and d. archaeological activities relating to impacts from implementation of a transportation project eligible under title

23. vi. Any environmental mitigation activity, including pollution prevention and po llution abatement activities and mitigation

to- a. address stormwater management, control, and water pollution prevention or abatement related to highway

construction or due to highway runoff, including activities described in sections 133(b)(11), 328(a), an d 329 of title 23; or

b. reduce vehicle -caused wildlife mortality or to restore and maintain connectivity among terrestrial or aquatic habitats.

B. The recreational trails program under section 206 of title 23. C. The safe routes to school program under section 140 4 of the SAFETEA-LU.

i. Infrastructure -related projects. -planning, design, and construction of infrastructure -related projects on any public road or any bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail in the vicinity of schools that will substantially improve the ability of students to wa lk and bicycle to school, including sidewalk improvements, traffic calming and speed reduction

10

Final

improvements, pedestrian and bicycle crossing improvements, on -street bicycle facilities, off -street bicycle and pedestrian facilities, secure bicycle parking fa cilities, and traffic diversion improvements in the vicinity of schools.

ii. Noninfrastructure -related activities to encourage walking and bicycling to school, including public awareness campaigns and outreach to press and community leaders, traffic education and enforcement in the vicinity of schools, student sessions on bicycle and pedestrian safety, health, and environment, and funding for training, volunteers, and managers of safe routes to school programs.

iii. Safe Routes to School coordinator. D. Planning, designing, or constructing boulevards and other roadways largely in the right -of-way of former Interstate System

routes or other divided highways.

Ineligible Activities: Section 1103 of the FAST Act eliminated the definition of transportation enhancement activ ities in section 104 of title 23 and inserted in its place a definition of transportation alternatives, which does not include eligibility for certain acti vities that were previously eligible as transportation enhancements:

A. Safety and educational activitie s for pedestrians and bicycles. Exception: Activities targeting children in Kindergarten through 8th grade are eligible under SRTS (an eligible activity under the TAP funding). Note: Some of these activities may be eligible under HSIP. Nonconstruction proj ects for bicycle safety remain broadly eligible for STBG funds.

B. Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites. C. Scenic or historic highway programs (including visitor and welcome centers).

i. Note: A few specific activities under this categor y (construction of turnouts, overlooks, and viewing areas) remain eligible under section 101(a)(29)(D) of title 23.

D. Historic preservation as an independent activity unrelated to historic transportation facilities. Note: Historic preservation and rehabilita tion of historic transportation facilities are permitted as one type of community improvement activity; see section 101(a)(29)(E).

E. Operation of historic transportation facilities. F. Archaeological planning and research undertaken for proactive planning. This category now must be used only as mitigation for

highway projects. G. Transportation museums.

2. Projects must have an assured match (non-FHWA funds) of at least 20 percent of the estimated total cost of the proposed project.

The FAST Act requires a match of a least 20 percent of project costs. Assurance of this required match by the applicant agency(ies) at the time of the application indicates a necessary level of support by the applicant agency(ies) to immediately proceed with t he project development and im plementation. Applicant agency(ies) may apply funds from other federal agencies and the value of other contributions may be credited to the non -FHWA share of the costs of the project to carry out a transportation alternative activity. Up to 100% of an individual project may be financed with federal funds.

11

Final

3. Eligibility of project sponsors Under the FAST Act, federal funds received by the State of Iowa will be received and disbursed by the Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT). With the FAST Act, eligible entities to receive TAP funds have expanded to include: local governments; regional transportation authorities; transit agencies; natural resource or public land agencies; school districts, local educ ation agencies, or schools; tribal governments; and any other local or regional government entity with responsibility for oversight of transportation or recreational trails (other than a metropolitan planning organization or a State agency) that the State dete rmines to be eligible. Under TAP, nonprofit s are not eligible as direct grant recipients of the funds. Nonprofits are eligible to partner with any eligible entity on an eligible TAP project, if State or local requirements permit.

4. Applicant agency(ies) must provide written assurance that a governm ental entity will adequately maintain the completed project and

not change the right -of-way use. The Iowa Department of Transportation requires that a governmental entity agrees to operate and maintain facilities funded wi th federal transportation enhancem ent funds for twenty (20) years and not change the use of any right -of-way acquired without prior approval of from the Iowa DOT and the FHWA.

5. Projects must demonstrate a relationship to transportation.

The FAST Act requires that transportation alternative s program projects be related to transportation. The FHW A fact sheet providing guidance states: the FAST Act (23 U.S.C. 213(b), 101(a)(29) provides funding for programs and pr ojects defined as transportation alternatives, including on - and off -road pedestrian and bicycle facilities, infrastructure projects for improving non -driver access to public transportation and enhanced mobility, community improvement activities, and envir onmental mitigation, recreational trail program projects; safe routes to school projects; and projects for the planning, design or construction of boulevards and other roadways largely in the right -of-way of former Interstate System routes or other divided highways

T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A L T E RN A T I V E S P R O G R A M - P R I O R I T Y C R I T E R I A Each of the following eight criteria explains its importance to the application and provides the applicant agency(ies) with t he amount of weight given in the application review. Each priority is directly related to questions on the application. 1. The degree to which the proposed project fulfills the intent of the FAST Act 10 points

It is important to implement quality projects. Relative to the FAST Act, quality is defined by the declara tion of policy included in the act:

FAST Act creates a streamlined performance -based, and multimodal program to address the many challenges facing the U.S. transportation system. These challenges include improving safety, maintaining infrastructure condition, reducing traffic con gestion, improving efficiency of the system and freight move The FAST Act links transportation plans, programs, and projects to the goals of preserving community quality and protecting the environment. Transportation alternatives program pr ojects should provide leadership by example for this new direction in federal transportation policy.

12

Final

2. Projects which qualify in two or more of the eligible categories of transportation alternatives identified in the FAST Act process 10

points There are several eligible categories identified for transportation alternatives in the FAST Act. With limited funding available, it is in

3. Projects with an assured match (non-FHWA funds) in excess of 20 percent 30 points

A number of agencies in Iowa currently solicit, prioritize, and select transportation alternatives type projects. The demand for transportation alternatives program funds far exceeds the amount made available to Iowa. Providing a modest incentive for the applicant agency(ies) to exceed the minimum 20 percent required match (non -FHWA funds) would enable leveraging implementation of more projects in more locations throughout the state. Providing equitable access to transportation alternatives program funds for poorer communities is also a concern. And the maximum points given to this prioritizing criterion are sufficiently low to fu nd projects that score well on the remaining prioritizing criter ia.

Projects must demonstrate that there is an adequate amount of local funding for the project in the year of construction. Wh en projects are scored, the local commitment is weighed significantly. If a project does not show an adequate amount of local funding, the application may be set aside and evaluated again the next year. The SRTPA will fund construction costs of a physical tra il and will not fund amenities for the trail. Other items that are not typically funded by SRTPA are: land cost; prelimi nary design and engineering; utility relocation; construction engineering; and in -kind costs.

4. Projects with components which have already been funded and/or implemented from other funding sources, especially projects fo r

which proposed transportation alt ernatives would complete a larger project, concept, or plan 5 points There may be a number of larger projects that are missing a key or final element. Funding these missing elements with transportation alternatives program funds would provide additional benefits to funded projects.

5. Projects that have already gone through a statewide, regional, and/or local priority setting process 5 points

There are a number of processes in Iowa that have solicited, prioritized, and selected transportation alternatives type projects for a decade or more. There appears to be a number of very good projects that have gone through one or more of these processes but remain unfunded or underfunded because of limitations on the availability of funding in these programs.

6. Projects which demonstrate more than a local impact or benefit and tourism and economic development potential 20 points Transportation alternatives program funds are federal funds. The amount of funds is limited and is probably not sufficient t o fund all

projects submitted. For example, priority will be given to projects that benefit more than one neighborhood, community, or county, or are recognized as being of regional or interregional significance. Priority will also be given to those projects that enh ance tourism and economic development potential. It is suggested to the applicant agency(ies) that projects with state wide impact and benefit should apply directly to Iowa DOT for Statewide Recreational Trails Project Funding.

13

Final

7. Status of Land Acquisition 5 points

The status of land acquisition (if applicable) will be evaluated based on the progression of acquisition. 8. Project development status, at time of application, with regards to the federal and other processing requirements appropriate to the

proposed project 10 points All projects funded with federal funds administered by the FHWA are required to be processed follo wing rules established by the FHWA. The precise process a project must follow varies. For example, a project to develop a plan may merely have to follow the consultant selection process, whereas a major project entailing extensive land acquisition and si gnificant environmental impacts may entail a number of steps including the writing of a federal environmental impact statement and holding numerous public meetings and hearings. Projects, which have reached successive milestones in the development process appropriate for the project, will be awarded points based on how far in the process they have been developed. The farther a project has been developed, t he more certain is its implementation and the more reliable is its estimated cost.

C O U N T Y B R I D G E P R OJ E C T S

In Iowa, each county selects its own project for STBG Highway Bridge Program (STBG-HBP) funding. Projects are selected at the local level based on need and available funding. Counties prioritize projects by sufficiency ratings, condition of bridge , types of use, traffic counts, load rating, bridge life, and cost to replace/ maintain . Projects are then submitted to the Iowa DOT Office of Local Systems to insure fiscal constraint before being programmed in the TIP/STIP. Below is the specific process as stated by each county: Woodbury County: Annually the County Engineer reviews the latest bridge inspection reports. The County Engineer reviews the bridges that have load restrictions and less than five years of estimated remaining life as two primary screening factors in comparing the condition of bridges in the system. The County Engineer then looks at traffic counts and detour length to evaluate which bridge replacements will make the greatest impact in reducing out of distance travel for farm commod ities. The County Engineer looks

factor that is considered in comparing bridges eligible for replacement. Priority is given to rep lacement of bridges on the paved road system, but more critical needs are sometimes present on the gravel road system, so paved road bridges cannot be replace d to the exclusion of bridges on the lower level system. The County Engineer also looks for accelerated deterioration compared to prior inspection reports. Bridges may move forward i n the construction program if their rate of deterioration appears to be increasing or if the bridge suffered damage in the cour se of

14

Final

the year. Bridges may be selected and prioritized ahead of others already in the five year construction program if a collision, flood or other natural disaster causes the loss of a bridge or a severe reduction in capacity. This re -prioritization usually results in the delay of one of more already programmed bridges due to lack of funds. The County Engineer is accessible every day to local residents to discuss individual concerns about bridge replacement and re pair priorities. Local livestock and grain producers currently supply frequent input concerning bridges near their operations. Br idge recommendations made by the County Engineer are reviewed annually and approved by the Board of Supervisors. Monona County: Monona County decides the order of bridge replacements based on necessity basis. The factors included are bridge condition rati ng, load rating, traffic volume, and traffic connectivity to markets, detour length and structural type. Other factors may b e including ability to secure FEMA funding or special funding through the Iowa DOT Annual County Bridge Program, etc. Monona Countthe Board of Supervisors approval. Plymouth County: Plymouth County process for prioritizing bridges is to collect condition informat ion from inspections and prioritized based on the condition with the worst condition being first. A bridge on a paved road with the same condition as another on a gravel road way will be given priority. Ida County: Ida County begins by looking at the Structural and Inventory Appraisal form to determine the bridges condition rating and local ratings. The County Engineer then looks at the detour lengths and relative location to other bridges. If there is a signific ant detour len gth for heavy traffic that bridge will be selected over a bridge that has a shorter detour. The County Engineer also looks at the rate of deterioration of the bridge. If it is accelerating that bridge may be selected over a bridge with the same characteris tics in deterioration. A bridge on the paved system will have a higher priority than one on a gravel road or level B road. Other factors are traffic volume, length of structure, and structure type. The structure selected will ultimately be based on the Cou Cherokee County: Cherokee County selects the bridges to be replaced or repaired from the information that has been supplied by the bridge

15

Final

inspection consultant Calhoun and Burns. They provide Cherokee County with the list of all deficient bridges and estimated life expectancies. The County uses this information to determine the choice of bridges to schedule. If Cherokee County is planning a major road project, the County Engineer will look at any bridges on that road and try to schedule those structures prior to doing the road construction.

P U B L I C P A R T I C I P A T I O N P R O C E S S The Transportation Improvement Program is updated annually with the exception for updating the plan with amendm ents to the document. The following is a general guideline process for the Transportation Improvement Program:

During the draft development phase, the SRTPA staff develops a document with the input from interested state and local partie s. Some of these organizations include but are not restricted to, concerned citizens, natural resources agencies, cultural/historic agencies, the media, and numerous others.

Once a draft is developed, SRTPA staff posts it on the SIMPCO website at http://simpco.org/Transportation/TransportationImprovementPlan.aspx . Copies of the draft are also available at the SIMPCO office, local city halls and county courthouses.

The SRTPA informs the local media about informational meetings on the current plan. Once the entire Transportation Improvement Program is established, the SIMPCO SRTPA will open up the 15 day comment period

and will hold an open house for the public to discus s opinions about the document. The Transportation Improvement Program will be once again updated on the website and there will be copies in the SIMPCO office, local city halls and county courthou ses. There will be an open house during the 15 day comment period that gives the public time to review the document further and contact staff with suggestions/concerns via mail, email, telephone, fax, or in person.

The adoption of the document will be held after the 15 day comment period has commenced. The adopt ion of the Transportation Improvement Program takes place at a regularly scheduled SRTPA meeting.

http://simpco.org/Transportation/TransportationImprovementPlan.aspx and hard copies can be found at the SIMPCO office, local city halls and county courthouses.

http://simpco.org/Transportation/TransportationImprovementPlan.aspxhttp://simpco.org/Transportation/TransportationImprovementPlan.aspx

16

Final

S R T P A F E D E R A L H I G H W A Y E L E M E N T

17

Final

18

Final

19

Final

20

Final

21

Final

22

Final

FY 2018 2021 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT...

Documents

Transcript of FY 2018 2021 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT...