Transition from SAFETEA-LU to the new MAP-21 Federal Transportation Act

Transcription

1 C h a p t e r 9 - F i n a n c i a l P l a n a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S y s t e m I m p r o v e m e n t P r o j e c t s A major component of the Plan (T2040) is this financial plan that constrains the planned list of improvements to what is fiscally reasonable to expect. In short, this chapter shows what might be affordable and keeps the recommendations of this plan from becoming an unrealistic wish list of desired but unaffordable projects. This chapter shows a balance between the transportation improvements that the community wants to make (described in the previous chapters of this document) with the financial realities of what the community can actually do to improve its transportation system over the next several years. This chapter also shows what the region must do to maintain its existing transportation system while working to expand and improve it. The financial plan is based on a review of past funding levels, discussions about expected funding levels, budget planning work done at the local and state levels, and the creation of various lists of transportation needs expressed by the many groups and individuals involved in the MPO planning process. This financial plan sets priorities for funding selected critical transportation improvements that need to be done in order to maintain our transportation system and provide necessary mobility to our residents and ample access for our businesses. This plan also lists improvements that are desirable but at this time cannot be afforded. Those currently unaffordable projects are put in the illustrative list near the end of this chapter. The existence of that illustrative list indicates that more improvements are desired than can be completed using the reasonably anticipated funding sources. This plan assumes that our region will not have all the funding it wants for transportation, so this chapter recommends things that are both needed and affordable. That involves making some difficult decisions. This chapter summarizes fiscal discussions that the MPO staff and committee members were involved in over several months in 2012 and early Transition from SAFETEA-LU to the new MAP-21 Federal Transportation Act On July 6, 2012 the United States Government enacted a new surface transportation program called Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21). That new act consolidated some funding programs that had been used for many years under previous federal acts and made changes to other programs. Unlike, many others past federal transportation acts this new one is only a two-year authorization for federal fiscal years 2013 and For this T2040 Plan the MPO assumes that the MAP-21 changes will continue beyond that initial two-year period and to the 2040 planning horizon year for this plan. The following sections of this chapter summarize how the federal highway and transit programs used recently in Douglas County under the former Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) Act 127

2 were incorporated into the new MAP-21 Act and funding programs, and how future funding projections under MAP-21 were created to fiscally constrain this transportation plan. The MAP-21 funding projections in this chapter assume that the consolidation of programs and relative funding levels for passed under MAP-21 will continue in place until Similar assumptions for state and local funding sources are also included in the funding projections. Although MAP-21 has been discussed most frequently as a new transportation funding act, it also contains other features such as the national transportation goals and performance measures noted in the following two sections. For transportation agencies (MPO, KDOT, local governments) the MAP-21 changes toward a performance based assessment of systems and a focus on these new federal goals may be as important as the funding program changes within the five-year lifespan ( ) covered by this transportation plan update. MAP-21 Performance Goals and Their Potential Impact on Funding and Funding Flexibility MAP-21 includes some significant changes that are not funding level changes per se but that could impact the flexibility of local and state governments to use federal aid for highways and transit in the ways they are used to doing. In the past if a project was eligible for federal aid and it was available and the state and/or local governments involved wanted to do the project with federal aid then it usually was allowed. Under MAP-21 putting federal aid into projects may not always be that simple. MAP-21 goes beyond just outlining eligibility requirements for federal aid to highways and transit projects. It creates a streamlined, performance-based, and multimodal program to address the challenges facing the transportation system, and specifically focuses on the following national goals. MAP-21 National Transportation 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. A major change put forth in MAP-21 that is designed to meet these goals is the establishment of performance targets and performance measures for the operation of the multimodal transportation system. For the highway systems that includes pavement condition, bridge condition, congestion, mobile source air emission, and accident (injury and fatality) performance levels. Setting performance measures for these highway goals will not happen immediately. The process for setting national, state and MPO targets for performance will take about two years. The FHWA will first set performance measures for each of the goals. Following that KDOT will set performance targets, and then the MPO will set targets based upon state targets. Once all of that is done the KDOT and the MPO will need to incorporate those items into their plans and describe how their project selection process helps to achieve those targets. If KDOT or the local governments in the MPO area do not make progress toward reaching the performance targets then MAP-21 dictates that more federal money has to be directed at correcting that shortfall until a minimum standard of performance is achieved. The details about how this will be done vary by program. This part of MAP-21 could impact our region if certain locations experience poor pavement conditions, high accident rates, or serious congestion. This could also reduce the flexibility that KDOT and local governments have in where they can spend federal money. For transit systems there are similar goals dealing with the condition of the system and the performance of the services. For transit 128

3 operators who have collected detailed ridership and operating cost data for many years the new MAP-21 changes will not be as much of a change as the highway data collection, but transit operators will still be challenged to keep efficiency as high as feasible and to document the ongoing performance levels of their systems. Transit operators will now be required to create agency level safety plans. The FTA will exercise its new Section 5329 authority under MAP-21 to set safety performance targets and make sure all forms of public transit are safe. The FTA will also coordinate its safety improvement efforts with NHTSA (National Highway Transportation Safety Administration) programs addressing behavioral issues like impaired driving and seatbelt use. Another major change for transit operators will be the creation of transit asset performance plans. Under Section 5326 of MAP-21 the FTA must define the term state of good repair and create objective standards for measuring the condition of capital assets, including equipment, rolling stock, infrastructure, and facilities. Based on that definition, the FTA then has to develop performance measures which will be used by transit operators to develop asset management targets and plans. Documenting how they meet safety targets and how they have developed their asset management plans are likely to be the most significant changes for transit operators in the Lawrence-Douglas County Region. With its enhanced focus on performance tracking and asset management this new federal transportation act will likely increase the demands on KDOT, local governments and MPO staffs to comply with new MAP-21 based regulations. It may be a year or more before regulations are written and approved to implement all of the MAP-21 changes, but when those regulations are approved it will almost certainly make the recipients of MAP-21 funds change the way they are doing business. The MPO staff and other local and state officials should anticipate significant process changes to occur during this five-year MTP update cycle ( ) as both state and local government sponsors of transportation projects adjust to new rules under MAP-21. Federal Funding Program Consolidations and Changes under MAP-21 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Funding Programs MAP-21 consolidates and restructures the former SAFETEA-LU highway funding programs into a smaller number of broader core programs. The programs listed below, with the exception of the CMAQ program, are the FHWA programs that are likely to be used in Douglas County. The use of CMAQ funds in our area will depend on our future air quality status. Major Highway Programs under MAP-21 National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) is new under MAP-21 and combines Interstate Maintenance, National Highway System, and Bridge programs under SAFETEA-LU into this MAP-21 program designed to make improvements to highways with regional and/or national significance. In the past KDOT used most of this type of funding on the state road system. Surface Transportation Program (STP) was continued under MAP-21 and is the most flexible funding program which is often used by local governments for roadway and bridge projects on collector or arterial streets. Bridge projects funded in the past with Bridge funds can now use STP or NHPP funds if the bridge is located on a principal arterial or higher class road. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) was continued but revised under MAP-21 and is used for safety improvement projects on roadways that are eligible for STP funding. Railway-Highway Crossings (set-aside from HSIP) is a category of funding was continued under MAP-21 and addresses safety issues at railroad-highway crossings. Transportation Alternatives (TA) is a new funding program under MAP-21 that combines the former Safe Routes To School, Transportation Enhancements, and Recreational Trails programs. This new program may be used to construct bikeways and walkways, but its funding level for those types of projects is not guaranteed and some transfers from this program to road and bridge projects is allowed under MAP-21. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) was continued under MAP-21. This program may fund projects that increase automobile occupancy like carpool services or move commuters to alternative modes like bikeway and transit improvements. KDOT, by policy, has shared these funds with the Kansas City and Wichita Regions as they have been or are expected to be designated as non-attainment areas for ground level ozone. Currently, those are the only two areas of Kansas that are expected to be non-attainment for ozone. KDOT policy is that CMAQ funds will be directed toward areas that are expected to face non-attainment issues for ozone. If in the future Douglas County is designated as a non-attainment area then 129

4 KDOT would have to allocate CMAQ funds to the Lawrence-Douglas County Region. Federal regulations dictate that CMAQ funds are required to be spent in non-attainment areas only when there are non-attainment areas in the state.. The FHWA programs listed in Table 9.0 have been used in the past to fund projects in Douglas County under SAFETEA-LU but are now eliminated and/or consolidated into other programs under MAP-21. Project Type Table 9.0 SAFETEA-LU versus MAP-21Road & Bridge Funding Programs Bridge Bridge (BR) Surface Transportation Program (STP) Bridge on a principal arterial or higher class road SAFETEA-LU Bridge (BR) Funding program under : MAP-21 National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) or Surface Transportation Program (STP) Shared Use Pathway Transportation Enhancement (TE) Transportation Alternatives (TA) Rural roadway exceeding statewide average for accident rates for roadway type High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) MAP-21 also greatly expanded the National Highway System (NHS) to include all principal arterials, and all of those roads are now eligible for NHPP funding. In Douglas County, more miles of road will be eligible for either NHPP or STP funds, and the eligibility will provide more funding options for certain projects. Many of the roadway improvement projects that our region s local governments have used federal funds on in the past will still be eligible for STP funding, but now more roadway sections on principal arterials or higher class roads will also be eligible for NHPP funding. The new eligibility for NHPP funds now attached to roads added to the NHS under MAP-21 also means that additional requirements for performance monitoring and inspections will be placed on those roads as part of their new NHS status. The details of how that will impact KDOT and local governments in Douglas County are still being discussed and should be known by 2014 as MAP-21 regulations are written and approved. The MPO staff and TAC members will monitor progress on defining those requirements and work with KDOT staff to ensure compliance with those changes as they are implemented. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Funding Programs Most of the SAFETEA-LU transit programs used in Douglas County were retained under MAP-21, including the urban formula program that provides both operating and capital assistance. The programs listed below are likely to be used in our area in the foreseeable future. Major Transit Programs under MAP-21 Urban Area Formula Grants (5307) Rural Area Formula Grants (5311) Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities (5310) Bus and Bus Facilities (5339) Program The FTA programs listed in Table 9.1 below have been used in the past to fund projects in Douglas County under SAFETEA-LU but are now eliminated and/or consolidated into other programs under MAP-21. Project Type Operating Assistance Table SAFETEA-LU versus MAP-21Transit Funding Programs SAFETEA-LU Jobs Access Reverse Commute (JARC-5316) Program Funding program under : MAP-21 Urbanized Area Formula Grants (5307) and/or Rural Area Formula Grants (5311) Fleet Replacement Discretionary Bus (5309) Program Bus and Bus Facilities (5339) Program 130

5 The past reliance by some small urban transit properties on getting a large discretionary grant to replace several buses at once is now gone and more intensive capital asset planning is a focus of the new FTA programs. Transit operators in Northeast Kansas, including Lawrence, have used 5309 grants in the past. That will be a big change for some operators, but with the 2008 passage of a local sales tax for transit and the recent use of some ARRA (American Recovery & Reinvestment Act-stimulus) funds for bus replacements, the Lawrence T system should not be seriously impacted by the deletion of Section 5309 grants until after the next MTP update to replace this T2040 Plan is due in That does not mean that MAP-21 will not impact our region s transit operators or the MPO staff. There will be some changes. For example, the new Asset Management Provisions (Section 5326) in MAP-21 dictate that the capital planning for the area s transit operations be incorporated into the area s Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Fortunately, that has already been underway through the MPO staff consultation with the area s transit staffs, but now that coordination is part of the federal law. Federal Funding Level Changes Under MAP-21 Road, Bridge, and Enhancement Funds It is too early to tell now how all of the new FHWA calculation changes under MAP-21 will impact the Kansas total for federal aid or our region s road system funding in the long-term, but for 2013 it appears that there may be only small changes overall. However, many details at the state and federal DOT levels still need to be worked out and that may still change 2013 amounts of federal aid available in Kansas and in the Lawrence-Douglas County Region. Likewise, for 2014 and beyond we do not know how MAP-21 will affect our funding levels, and it is likely that we will not know that for some time yet. In light of that uncertainty the MPO was able to make a general comparison of statewide apportionment totals for Kansas for 2012 funding under SAFETEA- LU and the comparable MAP-21 programs for That comparison was not a smooth fit or simple to do since some programs under SAFETEA-LU like the Bridge program had eligible projects now funded under two possible MAP-21 programs (STP and NHPP). Differences like that did make this comparison less than perfect, however, some way to transition from the old to the new funding program mix was needed for this T2040 Plan. That comparison was based on a review of statewide totals by funding program produced by the FHWA in late 2012 and provided to MPO staff. That was the most current information at hand when the MPO staff crafted the funding projections for this T2040 Plan. Those amounts appear to be reasonable estimates for now. However, they may not be exactly the same as the amounts finally appropriated and actually made available for use in Kansas or in Douglas County. The MPO staff would have preferred to have Congress pass a six-year act with authorized funding levels specified like has been done in the past, but this funding comparison for the shorter two-year act which Congress did pass was what was available to develop this T2040 Plan. That comparison did allow the MPO to estimate a reasonable magnitude of change between the former SAFETEA-LU programs and their new MAP-21 replacements. That was then used to transition from 2012 SAFETEA-LU totals to 2013 MAP-21 totals so that a reasonable 2013 starting point could be derived for projecting funding levels into the future. It is likely that as the full impacts of MAP-21 and upcoming federal appropriations become clearer in the MPO may need to revise this financial plan. However, for now the funding projections under MAP-21 shown on the following pages of this chapter are reasonable estimates of future funding levels based on a set of assumptions also thought to be currently reasonable. The funding tables list major assumptions in the table notes. Transit Funds For the FTA transit programs, the major programs providing assistance to our area will still be based on formulas using population and other variables similar to past practices. Like the roadway funding programs the transition from 2012 SAFETEA-LU to 2013 MAP-21 funding levels was not simple to estimate precisely, but comparing the national apportionment levels between the two acts in 2012 and 2013 did allow the MPO staff to make a reasonable estimate of how the programs will change and to develop 2013 starting amounts for transit funding programs under the new act. That comparison indicates that overall the national funding levels are similar between SAFETEA-LU and MAP-21. However, like the roadway programs some programs that were separate in 2012 like the Job Access-Reverse Commute (JARC) 131

6 Program were combined into larger consolidated programs under MAP-21. When all the FTA funding programs that have been used in Douglas County are considered together as a package the funding package total is down a little for The changes in Kansas totals of FTA funds are still being studied. The changes for transit operators in Douglas County are also uncertain at this time, but overall statewide FTA funding levels will likely be similar to what they were in However, funding levels to individual transit operators often vary from year to year so the FTA and local transit staffs are now working on setting those grant levels for 2013 and Changes in transit funding from the FTA will occur over the next year or two as KDOT and transit operators adjust to MAP-21 changes. At this point the MPO is assuming that transit funding levels under MAP-21 will be similar to past levels for at least 2013 and 2014 and probably for the five years until the next MTP update is required in The MPO is also making plans for a possible MTP amendment in 2014 or 2015 if MAP-21 funding levels for our region or other substantial funding changes take place to warrant an amendment. Like the roadway funding mentioned earlier, this 2012 to 2013 comparison did provide the MPO with a basis to make a reasonable transition from SAFETEA-LU to MAP-21 transit funding and use those 2013 amounts as a starting point to make future transit funding projections. The MAP-21 transit funding projections shown later in this chapter are reasonable based on the assumptions used for this T2040 Plan and the information about MAP-21 funding that was available at the time this plan was drafted. MAP-21 Funding Overview and Assumptions Funding Overview and Assumptions for Road and Bridge Improvements Federal Funding The new MAP-21 federal act is only a 27-month act authorizing funding through the end of federal fiscal year 2014 (through September 30, 2014). Although this new act will provide more certainty of federal funds for the next two years than the haphazard series of SAFETEA-LU continuing resolutions that preceded it, MAP-21 is still far short of the six year programs that have been enacted over the last twenty years. As new information from MAP-21 is studied and the impacts on federal funding in Kansas are analyzed some revisions to the federal funding projections in this T2040 Plan may need to be made. The Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) has been willing to share much of the federal funding it receives with the local governments in the state. KDOT has been more generous than required, and that arrangement has benefited both the state and local roadway systems and lead to KDOT and local partners working jointly on many projects. It is assumed that this sharing of federal funds by KDOT will continue in the future, but here are no guarantees about that. It has also been assumed that a federal program with local flexibility for what projects are funded similar to the Surface Transportation Program will continue to be the chief federal funding source for locally sponsored roadway capacity improvements in Douglas County. With the STP program retained in the new act, that appears to be the case under MAP-21. State Funding The current T-WORKS funding program for transportation improvements is much smaller than its predecessor, the Comprehensive Transportation Program (CTP) that ended in However, considering the budget difficulties that existed in 2010 Kansas was fortunate to get a multi-year state transportation act passed that soon after the end of the CTP. The advantage of T-WORKS for Douglas County is that the South Lawrence Traffic Way (SLT) was named by the Governor as one of the large projects slated for T -WORKS funding. The projections for state transportation funding for this MTP are based on the assumption that a T-WORKS scaled state funding program will continue through 2040 without major interruptions. The current T-WORKS program is scheduled to continue through at least the five-year period covered by this MTP update. Any delays in passing the next state program to follow T-WORKS can be worked into the funding projections during that MTP update. The KDOT funding levels for projects in Douglas County were reviewed by the MPO and KDOT staffs. Those projections consider an average level of state support and do not assume that a large project like the SLT or the US-59 freeway improvements south of Lawrence will be funded every few years by KDOT. To use the recent levels of KDOT support in Douglas County including those large projects to figure the annual average KDOT funding level would be unreasonable. Instead, the MPO projections for state funding for future years in this T2040 Plan assume that it will be a long time before another SLT size project is built in Douglas County with KDOT dollars. 132

7 Local Funding-Douglas County The current mix of Douglas County funds used for road and bridge improvements includes mostly local general funds and federal aid allocated to the County from KDOT. The assumption is that these funding sources will continue in the future at about 2012 levels adjusted for inflation. It is also possible for KDOT to partner with the County and use state funding for certain projects. General funds raised from local property taxes are typically used to provide the local match amount for federal funds. In other cases the local funds are used to fully fund smaller road and bridge improvements. The assumption included in the following funding tables is that an amount of general funds equal to the required twenty percent match for federal aid will be available each year from the County and that the County will also have some local funds to do other projects not using federal or state aid. The assumption that funding will exceed the required match amounts for federal aid as was the case in 2012 is continued through Local Funding-City of Lawrence The current mix of Lawrence funding for roadway and bridge improvements includes property taxes, federal aid, and sales tax revenues. In November 2008 the voters of Lawrence passed special sales taxes for road/bridge improvements and transit services. Those sales taxes were approved for a decade and the assumption in the following funding tables is that those sales taxes will be renewed throughout the period covered by this plan. The City of Lawrence, like Douglas County, receives some federal funding passed through KDOT to help fund road and bridge improvements. It is assumed that the current level of federal aid to Lawrence will continue in the future. The level of local funding support for roadway and bridge projects that existed in 2012 is assumed to remain at current levels adjusted for inflation. That assumption is made because the overall levels of funding for 2012 under SAFETEA-LU and the overall level of road and bridge funds in 2013 under MAP-21 are similar. Since the new MAP-21 Act is only a short-term program for two years the MPO will review federal funding in 2014 to see if MAP-21 levels will continue or change in FFY The MPO will make any needed adjustments to federal funding projections for Lawrence and the region s other local governments at that time. Lawrence funding projections also assume that the required twenty percent match for federal aid projects will be provided by the City. The projections assume that some large and small projects in Lawrence will be funded with City revenues alone without the use of federal or state aid. Local Funding-Baldwin City, Eudora and Lecompton The local funding for these small cities is primarily property taxes and those local funds are used mostly for maintenance of city streets. In some cases (e.g., along US-56 in Baldwin City) KDOT has interests in improving the road and supplies funding for projects. In other cases the City and Douglas County partner to make road improvements. It is often difficult for these small cities to budget a typical twenty percent share of a large project. Because of that Douglas County or KDOT assistance is often requested for federal aid eligible projects located in these small towns. Since the last MTP update in 2008 the City of Eudora has reached a population level to receive a KDOT sub-allocation of federal aid. However, that allocation is quite small at less than a hundred thousand dollars annually. Eudora officials have discussed this issue with County officials to work on projects that will allow Eudora to take advantage of this federal funding. Funding Assumptions for Roadway and Bridge - Operations & Maintenance Projects Douglas County Douglas County receives Special City & County Highway Fund revenues from the State which are state gasoline taxes passed onto Douglas County. At present, all of this gas tax revenue is used by the County Public Works Department for operations and maintenance projects, and this practice is assumed to continue. This gas tax revenue along with general fund revenues is assumed to be adequate to provide the necessary operations funding and some of the maintenance funding for the County road system in the future. Any additional funding needed for maintenance projects is assumed to come from local sources. The Operation & 133

8 Maintenance projects include things such as replacing pavement markings, sweeping, snow removal, pothole patching, drainage ditch and pipe cleaning, shoulder repairs, signal repairs, and a host of other small routine jobs needed to keep the roadway network in good operating order. This type of work is not funded with federal funds. Lawrence The City of Lawrence receives two types of funding from the state that are used for operations and maintenance projects. Like Douglas County, Lawrence receives Special City & County Highway Fund monies from the state, and like the County the City uses all of that funding for operations and maintenance projects. That practice is assumed to continue through In addition, Lawrence receives KDOT funding (KLINK) for city connecting links which are city streets that carry state highway routes through Lawrence. That funding is used for operations and maintenance needs on those state routes. With both of those state funding sources and local funding it is assumed that the City will have adequate funds to operate and perform routine maintain work on their road system in the future. The Operation & Maintenance projects include things such as replacing pavement markings, sweeping, snow removal, pothole patching, drainage ditch and pipe cleaning, shoulder repairs, signal repairs, and a host of other small routine jobs needed to keep the roadway network in good operating order. This type of work is not funded with federal funds. Kansas Department of Transportation and the Kansas Turnpike Authority The Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) and the Kansas Turnpike Authority (KTA) also operate regionally significant roads in the region. It is assumed that the KTA facilities will be operated, maintained, and preserved using toll revenues. For KDOT facilities it is assumed that those roads will be maintained with some amount of federal funding that has been designated for that purpose in the past (e.g., Interstate Maintenance and National Highway System) and starting in 2013 with its MAP-21 equivalent (National Highway Performance Program) along with state funding. It is assumed that when KDOT facilities in our region need maintenance they will receive it as KDOT is able to schedule those projects. It is assumed that most of the new MAP-21 National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) funds will be used by KDOT for its system maintenance and improvement needs and will not be available for the local governments in the MPO area to use. In the Transportation System Improvement Projects funding projections shown later in this chapter there is some NHPP funds shown that approximate the level of Bridge (BR) funds that were consolidated into the NHPP and new STP programs under MAP-21. However, most of the NHPP funds are not in that estimate since it is assumed that most of that NHPP federal funding will be used by states for improvements, major maintenance and preservation projects on their own systems. Table 9.3 shows the projections for these sources of roadway network operations and maintenance projects funded with local and state funds only. 134

9 Year Table Projections for State and Local Funding for Roadway Network Operations and Maintenance State of Kansas KDOT Special City & County Motor Fuel Tax for Lawrence Special City & County Motor Fuel Tax for Douglas County Other Local Funds Annual Totals Current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Period and 5-Year Bands for Funding Totals Annual Average Per Band ,000 2,600,000 1,800,000 6,400,000 11,000, ,000 2,639,000 1,827,000 6,496,000 11,165, ,045 2,678,585 1,854,405 6,593,440 11,332, ,136 2,718,764 1,882,221 6,692,342 11,502,462 44,999,937 11,249, ,273 2,759,545 1,910,454 6,792,727 11,674, ,457 2,800,938 1,939,111 6,894,618 11,850, ,689 2,842,952 1,968,198 6,998,037 12,027, ,969 2,885,597 1,997,721 7,103,007 12,208, ,299 2,928,881 2,027,687 7,209,553 12,391,418 60,152,711 12,030, ,678 2,972,814 2,058,102 7,317,696 12,577, ,108 3,017,406 2,088,973 7,427,461 12,765, ,590 3,062,667 2,120,308 7,538,873 12,957, ,124 3,108,607 2,152,113 7,651,956 13,151, ,710 3,155,236 2,184,394 7,766,736 13,349,077 64,801,554 12,960, ,351 3,202,565 2,217,160 7,883,237 13,549, ,046 3,250,603 2,250,418 8,001,485 13,752, ,797 3,299,362 2,284,174 8,121,508 13,958, ,604 3,348,853 2,318,437 8,243,330 14,168, ,468 3,399,086 2,353,213 8,366,980 14,380,747 69,809,677 13,961, ,390 3,450,072 2,388,511 8,492,485 14,596, ,371 3,501,823 2,424,339 8,619,872 14,815, ,412 3,554,350 2,460,704 8,749,170 15,037, ,513 3,607,666 2,497,615 8,880,408 15,263, ,675 3,661,781 2,535,079 9,013,614 15,492,149 75,204,849 15,040, ,901 3,716,707 2,573,105 9,148,818 15,724, ,189 3,772,458 2,611,702 9,286,050 15,960, ,542 3,829,045 2,650,877 9,425,341 16,199, ,960 3,886,480 2,690,640 9,566,721 16,442, ,444 3,944,778 2,731,000 9,710,222 16,689,444 81,016,981 16,203,396 Totals 7,199,740 93,596,622 64,797, ,391,685 Grand Total of All Reasonably Expected Road and Bridge Funding 395,985,709 Average Expected Road and Bridge O&M Funding per Year 13,654,680 Notes: KDOT annual funding for operations and maintenance projects in the region is difficult to predict because KDOT uses those types of funds from both federal and state sources (e.g., National Highway Performance Program and Priority Formula), but KDOT plans their maintenance projects on a statewide basis. KDOT does not have an annual maintenance budget for road and bridge projects by county. The one source of KDOT maintenance funding that is predictable is the Connecting Links (KLINK) funds provided to Lawrence on a lane mile per year basis. That amount is shown in this table. Other maintenance work by KDOT on the state system in Douglas County is assumed to be funded with KDOT sources as work is needed. Special City & County Motor Fuel Tax (state collected gas tax revenue shared with local governments) is included entirely in this table because those funds have been used exclusively for road system maintenance by local governments and not for transportation system improvements. Other Local Funds include allocations to O&M projects from Lawrence and Douglas County as well as funding from the three small cities in the region (Eudora, Baldwin City, Lecompton). For this table this amount was estimated by subtracting the Special City & County Motor Fuels Tax for Lawrence and Douglas County from the annual total O&M budgets for those two governments. These amounts are consistent with the O&M budget figures discussed in the Transportation Improvement Program. This analysis should in no way be construed as an actual forecast of individual programs or projects, but rather an order of magnitude analysis of funds that could be reasonably available for road network O&M needs during the MTP planning horizon. The amounts used in this table reflect an annual inflation factor of 1.5% which was reviewed and approved by the Technical Advisory Committee. 135

10 Funding Assumptions for Roadway and Bridge - Small System Preservation Projects Douglas County In the past Douglas County has used federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Bridge (BR) funds to preserve their road system. This federal money has typically been used to replace or reconstruct facilities in kind (i.e., replace a two-lane bridge with a new two lane bridge or reconstruct a two lane road segment with a new two-lane road segment). In some cases the new facilities incorporate small safety or other improvements into their design (e.g., the road has wider shoulders or the bridge is wider with unrestricted weight limits), but in most cases the new facility does not add new features and does not provide more traffic capacity to the roadway. These Small System Preservation Projects that the County uses STP funding for are capital projects and not maintenance projects, but they are not large Transportation System Improvements that add traffic capacity to existing links or add new road links in the network. They are also not large Major Preservation projects that have more involved designs, are much more expensive, involve more lengthy detours, and usually inconvenience many more people for a longer period of time. The Small System Preservation projects are often projects that can be completed in a short timeframe and have short design periods with no significant environmental impacts. Projects like a mill and overlay project for a short section of road or replacing a small box culvert for drainage are typical small system preservation projects and usually cost around a million dollars or less and take weeks, not months to complete. Lawrence Like the County, the City has used STP and BR funds in the past for road system preservation projects which are typically rehabilitation or smaller scale reconstruction projects for roads or bridges and often replaces facilities in kind and do not add any significant traffic capacity to the road network. For Lawrence the replacement of aging traffic signals and short sections of mill and overlay work for roads are typical Small System Preservation Projects, and for Lawrence those types of projects typically costs less than two million dollars and take weeks to complete with short or no detours and no significant environmental impacts. Like the County the City notes these projects as capital projects and includes these in its capital budget and not in the operations and maintenance budget. Douglas County and Lawrence It is assumed that the practice by both the County and City of using some federal funds for Small System Preservation projects will continue in the future. To determine how much of those federal funds are used for system preservation and how much could be available for Transportation System Improvement Projects (ones that add features and/or capacity) and Major System Preservation Projects (large projects that may take months to complete) the MPO staff reviewed the current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to estimate that proportion. In the TIP the region used approximately one-third of the STP and BR funds for projects that simply preserved the current system as is rather than added new links or made other capacity improvements to the network. In light of the uncertainty with future federal funding after 2014, the aging of the transportation infrastructure in the region, the federal and local emphasis on maintaining a state of good repair for roads and bridges, and comments received from various MPO committee members and others the MPO is using an assumption that 50% of the 2012 federal Surface Transportation Program and Bridge Program funding (and MAP-21 equivalents starting in 2013) will be used for Small System Preservation Projects through the period covered by this plan ( ). In the MAP-21 funding estimates for road and bridge transportation system improvements and major preservation projects shown later in this chapter that percent of this funding for small system preservation projects is subtracted from the tables in estimating the available future funding. The following table shows the projections for these sources of roadway network small system preservation projects that are more than routine maintenance but less than major preservation or capacity adding system improvement projects. 136

11 Table Funding Projections for Federal, State and Local Funding for Small System Preservation Projects under MAP-21 for Roads and Bridges Year Federal Surface Transportation Program-STP for Lawrence Federal Surface Transportation Program-STP for Douglas County Federal Surface Transportation Program-STP for Eudora Local 20% Matching Funds Annual Totals , ,000 37, , , , ,125 38, , , , ,312 38, , ,350 Current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Period and 5-Year Bands for Funding Totals Annual Average Per Band , ,562 39, , ,630 3,515, , , ,875 39, , , , ,253 40, , , , ,697 41, , , , ,207 41, , , , ,785 42, , ,080 4,699, , , ,432 42, , , , ,149 43, , , , ,936 44, ,460 1,012, , ,795 44, ,497 1,027, , ,727 45, ,579 1,042,897 5,062,621 1,012, , ,733 46, ,708 1,058, , ,814 46, ,884 1,074, , ,971 47, ,107 1,090, , ,206 48, ,378 1,106, , ,519 49, ,699 1,123,496 5,453,881 1,090, , ,911 49, ,070 1,140, , ,385 50, ,491 1,157, , ,941 51, ,963 1,174, , ,580 52, ,488 1,192, , ,304 52, ,065 1,210,324 5,875,379 1,175, , ,113 53, ,696 1,228, , ,010 54, ,381 1,246, , ,995 55, ,122 1,265, , ,070 56, ,919 1,284, , ,236 56, ,773 1,303,863 6,329,452 1,265,890 Totals 13,499,513 9,899,643 1,349,951 6,187,277 Grand Total of All Reasonably Expected Road and Bridge Funding 30,936,384 Average Expected Road and Bridge System Preservation Funding per Year 1,066,772 Notes: Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Bridge Rehabilitation & Replacement (BR) funding to start this table was derived from the 2011 allocations made by KDOT to local governments in the region and estimates of the 2012 allocations. This table assumes the continuation of this federal funding level at 2012 levels through The starting amounts in 2012 for these funds in this table represent one-half of that combined STP/BR allocation to the region and estimates the amount of these federal sources that are typically used for small system preservation type projects (e.g., mill and overlay, small bridge and culvert replacements, signal replacements, etc.) in the region. Small System Preservation projects do not usually add new features to the roadway or network traffic capacity. The other half of this funding source (converted to STP under MAP_21 starting in 2013) is assumed to be available for System Improvements (roadway feature and/or capacity building projects) and Major Preservation projects in the region, and that amount is shown later in this chapter under the MAP-21 funding projection tables. The amounts used in this table reflect an annual inflation factor of 1.5%. 137

12 Funding Assumptions for Transportation System Enhancements Transportation projects beyond the scope of traditional roadway building that have been funded in part with Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds in recent years and can now be funded under MAP-21 with new Transportation Alternatives (TA) funds are assumed to be part of the future transportation system improvements within Douglas County. It is assumed that one or more of the local governments in Douglas County will occasionally receive federal funding for transportation enhancement type projects (e.g., bicycle and pedestrian facilities) and that the local share of those projects will be paid for with locally generated funds. The level of that enhancement funding for the region is assumed to remain at about the level it received during the previous decade. The operating and maintenance needs for those projects are assumed to be locally funded and to become part of local government budgets. Funding Overview and Assumptions for Transit The mix of funding for the Lawrence Transit (the T ) service has recently included fare box and advertising revenues, city sales taxes, local general funds, KDOT operating assistance, federal formula operating and capital assistance, and federal discretionary capital assistance. It is assumed that future transit support will continue at current levels adjusted for inflation, but with MAP-21 some changes will occur in the federal programs. Federal Funding Overall, the federal funds for both operating and capital assistance for urban fixed route transit are expected to continue throughout the term of this transportation plan at about 2012 levels adjusted for inflation. However, the previous discretionary capital program has now been replaced by a formula program. That could mean that the T staff will need to budget a portion of their annual allocations of federal funds for future capital projects like bus replacements because the ability to request large capital grants in addition to routine formula funds does not exist under the new federal act. The reliance on a discretionary program to tap for large capital projects every few years and the practice of using all of the formula assistance received on operating expenses each year will need to be reviewed and possibly change starting in Another change with MAP-21 that will affect the T is that now the Jobs Access-Reverse Commute (JARC) program is consolidated into the Urban Area Formula Grants along with the former Discretionary Capital program. All of these transit program consolidations under MAP-21 will take the T staff and KDOT staff some time to make adjustments for, but overall the levels of federal transit support remains similar to the recent 2012 SAFETEA-LU levels used in the funding projection tables. Federal funding for the urban transit services provided by the Lawrence T system certainly represents the bulk of federal transit funding in Douglas County, but it is not all of that funding. In addition to the urban area funds the region also contains several paratransit operators that use federal funds to transport elderly and handicapped persons with specialized transportation service. Some of those operators also provide rural transportation using federal funds designed for transit outside of urbanized areas. Those funding types are expected to remain at about 2012 levels throughout the years covered by this transportation plan, but like the urban funding categories these special and rural transit funding sources have also been changed and consolidated under MAP-21. Like the changes to the urban formula program the rural formula program now allows service previously funded with JARC funds. The Section 5310 Elderly & Handicapped Program that had been funding vehicle purchases for paratransit operations serving elderly and handicapped persons has now been renamed and consolidated with the 5371 New Freedoms Program that funded service for ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) eligible individuals at urban locations not served by the area s urban transit system. Both of those programs provided support for ADA client transportation, but how this new consolidated program for special transit will impact operations in Douglas County is currently under review and still uncertain. State Funding The amount of KDOT assistance for transit services in Lawrence was expected to remain the same as it was in 2012 under the T- WORKS Program for the remainder of the period covered by this transportation plan. However, starting in 2013 the level of this state funding for the Lawrence T jumped dramatically and the KDOT started to allocate that funding by a formula which considers 138

13 system performance. The T runs routes that transport large amounts of KU students and others to the KU campus and other major activity nodes in the city, and those routes have impressive performance data for a small urban system. In January 2013 the MPO staff made changes to increase the state transit funding figures to account for this recent formula allocation change, but did not use the full 2013 number because it is still too early to tell how that KDOT change will affect the T in future years. Therefore, this amount of state aid is increased for 2013 and beyond but still a conservative projection. T-WORKS will end in 2020, and it is assumed that no major disruption to state transit assistance will occur after that. Most of the T-WORKS funding for transit in Douglas County goes to operating assistance for the Lawrence T, and that is expected to continue in future years. The state also occasionally funds the purchase of a paratransit vehicle for one of the region s operators of special transit services, and that is also expected to be a part of the state support for transit in our region in the future. Since the current transit programs are expected to continue at least until the next MTP update cycle in the use of the 2012 and 2013 levels of state transit support seem reasonable for this transportation plan. Local Funding The City of Lawrence now provides the local match for federal transit grants as well as operating assistance to the T services through a local sales tax. This is a dedicated funding source for transit that will expire in It is expected that the City will continue to provide matching funds in the future, at levels similar to the current contributions adjusted for inflation. It is also assumed that this local sales tax for transit will be continued after the current program expires. That will require voter approval and that is noted on the funding projection tables. If that appears to be changing as that sales tax nears its expiration date during the next MTP update in then adjustments will be made to the funding assumptions for that MTP update. In addition to the sales tax in Lawrence the local governments and the transit operators also can supply other local funding for transit operations and vehicles. In the case of the paratransit operators they typically supply a 20% share of their vehicle costs to match the federal grants they receive from their agency budgets. That is assumed to continue in the future. Another locally available but state related source of funding is the KU student fee that is dedicated to support the KU transit system. As a percent of the total semester bill paid by most students this fee is small, but as a reliable predictable funding source for transit in Lawrence it is huge. That fee allows the coordinated KU-City transit system serving Lawrence to be much larger than it could be if it was just a City financed system. With recent changes like the use of passes that allow riders to use both KU and City buses and the creation of the joint operated route in central Lawrence, this student fee along with the funding package from the City system are coordinated to create a system that now serves both the general public and the KU community to a level not possible in the past. Funding Assumptions for Transit Operations & Maintenance Projects and System/Service Preservation Projects For urban transit operators many of the preventive maintenance costs for their vehicles are eligible costs for using federal formula funds and local match amounts. Additional local funds needed for maintenance and operations have been supplied by local taxes in Lawrence and KU student fees for the university service. Those practices are assumed to continue and to be adequate to maintain vehicle fleets. Operating costs such as fuel and labor are covered by the use of the federal formula funds, state assistance, and local sources. Currently a small percentage of the operating costs for transit are covered by the fare box revenue, and that is expected to continue. Current funding sources and levels adjusted for inflation are assumed to cover the future costs for the current levels of transit service in the region. Some extensions of routes and/or minor changes to the service level in place in August 2012 may be possible with those existing funding sources, but any major expansions of service will likely require additional operating assistance or need to wait a few years (2015 or later) to happen. It is assumed that for the near future (between now and the next MTP update in 2018) the service levels in place at the end of 2012 will hold relatively constant unless some additional funding sources are found. Most of the transit funding used in the region is for operations and bus fleet maintenance. The transit systems do not have their own rights-of-ways or other major system components to preserve with one important exception. That is the new Transit Center which is 139

14 used for fleet maintenance and storage, the dispatch office, daily bus servicing areas, and some transit system administrative functions. The recent construction of that new Transit Center owned by the University of Kansas and leased in part by the City of Lawrence for the storage and maintenance of T buses is a welcomed improvement. That facility is the joint operations and maintenance center for the coordinated City-KU transit system. The City has a lease agreement with KU for the use of that facility. Those lease payments and KU funds are used to maintain the transit center. That is assumed to continue in the future, and the City is expected to use that facility as a base of operations for many years to come. Keeping that center in a good state of repair and keeping all the things that happen there running smoothly is a vital transit system preservation item for the Lawrence Area. Since transit is for the most part a consumable service running on pavements owned and maintained by others and not a collection of facilities that age for decades before replacement, its funding projections for operating and maintenance projects versus service preservation and minor service expansion projects are basically the same. Large capacity adding projects for running much more service will require more buses assuming that no other route/schedule adjustments are made in the system, and running more service will have impacts on labor and fuel costs. As mentioned in a preceding paragraph, any major increases in service levels or service area covered will need a commensurate increase in funding, and that is not expected now. The MAP-21 transit funding table shown later in this chapter serves as both the Operations & Maintenance (O&M) and the System Improvements funding projections for transit services in Douglas County. Reasonable Projections of Future Funding Levels for Transportation System Improvements (Roadway Network and Bikeway-Pedestrian Facilities) and Continued Transit System Services The following estimates of revenues available for transportation improvements in the Lawrence-Douglas County Area were based on current funding policies under MAP-21 as understood by the MPO in January Some funding impacts of the new federal MAP-21 Act are still uncertain. The MPO expects to know more about MAP-21 funding level expectations as well as more about a host of other MAP-21 impacts by mid At that time the MPO expects to make a major amendment to this T2040 Plan to update it for MAP-21 compliance. These estimates only include funding sources that existed at the beginning of 2012 or their MAP -21 equivalent. The impacts of inflation in determining revenues and costs were considered in this financial plan and those inflation assumptions as well as several other notes are included on the following tables. The funding projections shown on the following tables are the amounts used to fiscally constrain this T2040 Plan so that only projects which can reasonably be expected to have available funding in the foreseeable future are included on the lists of recommended projects listed near the end of this chapter. 140

15 Table Funding Projections for Federal, State and Local Funding for Transportation Enhancement Type Projects (Bicycle and Pedestrian, Safe Routes To School, etc.) in Douglas County under MAP-21 Year USDOT - Transportation Alternatives - TA Other Federal and/or State Lawrence Sidewalk Projects Other Local Funds Annual Totals ,220 20, ,000 50, , ,000 17, , ,445,469 20, , ,112 2,044,231 Current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Period and 5-Year Bands for Funding Totals Annual Average Per Band , ,136 2,896, , ,622 21, ,273 53, , , , ,537 21, ,689 54, , , , ,601 22, ,299 56, ,754 1,826, , , , ,818 23, ,108 58, , , , ,193 23, ,124 59, , , ,710 1,704, , ,730 24, ,351 61, , , , ,434 25, ,797 63, , , , ,311 26, ,468 65, ,293 2,119, , , , ,365 26, ,371 67, , , , ,603 27, ,513 69, , , ,675 1,977, , ,028 28, ,901 71, , , , ,649 29, ,542 73, , , , ,469 30, ,444 75, ,119 2,459, ,908 Totals 4,142, ,592 7,199,740 1,269,082 Grand Total of All Reasonably Expected Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility/Program Funding Average Expected Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility/Program Funding per Year 12,983, ,706 Table 9.4 Notes: The USDOT-Transportation Alternatives (TA) program is the current discretionary funding program that provides federal funds for projects for historic, scenic & environmental, bicycle-pedestrian, recreational trail, and safe routes to school projects which enhance the transportation system. Shared use path and historic street restoration projects in the Lawrence Area have been funded recently with this this type of federal funding under the former SAFETEA-LU Act and its Transportation Enhancements- TE program. For the 2013 award of funding the KDOT is using old TE funds from SAFETEA-LU that need to be used by the end of 2014 or they will be lost. This table reflects the actual 2013 TE awards from KDOT to our region. In July 2012 the USDOT consolidated the TE program along with the Safe Routes To School (SRTS) and the Recreational Trails programs into a new Transportation Alternatives (TA) program under MAP-21. This table assumes that one or more TA grants will be awarded to our region once every two years as occurred previously under the old TE and SRTS programs. Comparing the 2012 combined TE-SRTS-Recreation Trails funding total to the 2013 TA funding level shows a 23.39% decrease. That reduction factor was applied to the TAC approved SAFETEA-LU starting number for the TE program developed prior to the passage of MAP -21 to determine the starting amount for TA funding in this table. 141

16 Other Federal/State Funds may include funding for sidewalks and/or bikeway facilities completed through separate funding approvals but coordinated with a roadway project or separately funded bike-pedestrian facilities done as an enhancement or mitigation effort for a large roadway project. This category may also include KDOT funding of transportation system enhancements or federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds used for bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities. This category includes any federal and/or state funding for bike-pedestrian facilities or programs that is not a TA or TE project, and it includes any federal and/or state funding for bike-pedestrian improvements that is not part of a roadway project. Lawrence Sidewalk funds include federal CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) and City funding for sidewalk repair/ replacement projects that are not made as part of adjacent roadway improvement project. Other Local Funds include all other local funding sources used for pedestrian and/or bikeway projects including the required local match for TA or TE projects; public funds for bicycle and/or pedestrian projects (except Lawrence sidewalk items accounted for in the previous column) from Douglas County, Lawrence, Lecompton, Eudora, and/or Baldwin City; and any locally raised funding from community groups. The estimates for the future levels of these funding sources were derived from consultations with the members of the Technica l Advisory Committee and based on funding levels in the previous and current Transportation Improvement Programs. This table assumes the continuation of recent funding levels through This analysis should in no way be construed as an actual forecast of individual programs or projects, but rather an order of magnitude analysis of funds that could be reasonably available for transportation enhancement type projects during the MTP planning horizon. The amounts used in this table reflect an annual inflation factor of 1.5% which was reviewed and approved by the TAC. Year Table Funding Projections for Federal, State and Local Funding for Transit and Paratransit Operations, Maintenance, and System/Service Preservation in Douglas County under MAP-21 FTA Section 5307 Formula Operating & Capital - Urban Lawrence Sales Tax - Transit Operating FTA Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities - Formula Capital Lawrence Sales Tax - Transit Improvements and Capital Needs University of Kansas-KU on Wheels FTA Section 5310 Discretionary Capital - Paratransit KDOT - T- WORKS & Paratransit FTA Section 5311 Discretionary Operating & Capital - Rural Other Local Funds Annual Totals Current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Period and 5-Year Bands for Funding Totals Annual Average Per Band ,627,040 2,600, ,000 5,298,522 45, ,000 39, ,817 10,903, ,651,446 2,639, , ,500 5,378,000 45,772 1,000,000 40, ,959 12,012, ,676,217 2,678, , ,158 5,458,670 46, ,000 40, ,179 11,803, ,701,361 2,718, , ,975 5,540,550 47, ,375 41, ,476 11,980,135 46,699,219 11,674, ,726,881 2,759, , ,954 5,623,658 47, ,891 42, ,853 12,159, ,752,784 2,800, , ,099 5,708,013 48, ,549 42, ,311 12,342, ,779,076 2,842, , ,410 5,793,633 49, ,352 43, ,851 12,527, ,805,762 2,885, , ,891 5,880,538 50, ,303 43, ,474 12,715, ,832,848 2,928, , ,545 5,968,746 50, ,402 44, ,181 12,906,008 62,650,728 12,530, ,860,341 2,972, , ,373 6,058,277 51, ,653 45, ,974 13,099, ,888,246 3,017, , ,379 6,149,151 52, ,058 45, ,853 13,296, ,916,570 3,062, , ,564 6,241,389 53, ,619 46, ,821 13,495, ,945,319 3,108, , ,933 6,335,009 53, ,338 47, ,878 13,697, ,974,498 3,155, , ,487 6,430,035 54, ,218 48, ,026 13,903,436 67,492,627 13,498, ,004,116 3,202, , ,229 6,526,485 55, ,261 48, ,267 14,111, ,034,178 3,250, , ,162 6,624,382 56, ,470 49, ,601 14,323, ,064,690 3,299, , ,290 6,723,748 57, ,847 50, ,030 14,538, ,095,661 3,348, , ,614 6,824,604 58, ,395 51, ,555 14,756, ,127,096 3,399, , ,138 6,926,973 58, ,116 51, ,179 14,977,949 72,708,728 14,541, ,159,002 3,450, , ,866 7,030,878 59, ,013 52, ,901 15,202, ,191,387 3,501, , ,799 7,136,341 60, ,088 53, ,725 15,430, ,224,258 3,554, , ,940 7,243,386 61, ,344 54, ,651 15,662, ,257,622 3,607, , ,295 7,352,037 62, ,784 54, ,680 15,897, ,291,486 3,661, , ,864 7,462,318 63, ,411 55, ,816 16,135,505 78,327,950 15,665, ,325,858 3,716, ,675 1,000,652 7,574,252 64, ,227 56, ,058 16,377, ,360,746 3,772, ,901 1,015,662 7,687,866 65, ,236 57, ,409 16,623, ,396,157 3,829, ,189 1,030,897 7,803,184 66, ,439 58, ,870 16,872, ,432,100 3,886, ,542 1,046,360 7,920,232 67, ,841 59, ,443 17,125, ,468,581 3,944, ,960 1,062,056 8,039,035 68, ,443 60, ,130 17,382,522 84,381,447 16,876,289 Totals 58,571,326 93,596,622 6,896,296 25,199, ,739,914 1,623,397 21,866,674 1,426,413 12,340,967 Grand Total of All Reasonably Expected Transit Funding Average Expected Transit Funding per Year 412,260,700 14,215,886 Grand Total of All Federal Sources (FTA) = 68,517,432 17% Grand Total of All State Sources (KDOT and KU) = 212,606,588 52% Grand Total of All Local Sources = 131,136,679 32% Table 9.5 Notes: Federal FTA Section 5307 funds are formula based funding granted to urban areas for operating and capital assistance to transit operators. Under MAP-21 this program was expanded to include activities previously funded with Section 5316-Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) funds. Comparing the 2012 combined Section 5307 and JARC funding levels under 142

17 SAFETEA-LU to the 2013 Section 5307 funding levels under MAP-21 shows a 1.69% increase. That change factor was applied to the TAC approved starting number for the Section 5307 program to determine the starting amount for 5307 funding in this table. It is assumed that all of this money will go towards operating expenses for the foreseeable future as it has been used in the past. This federal funding source requires a 50% local match. FTA Section 5339 funds are formula based funding granted to transit operators for bus replacement projects. This formula program replaces the former Section 5309 Discretionary Capital program. Comparing the 2012 Section 5309 funding levels under SAFETEA-LU to the 2013 Section 5339 funding levels under MAP-21 shows a 57.11% decrease. Under MAP-21 the FTA is encouraging transit operators to plan and manage their capital funds so that they can afford new buses when needed without the reliance on large discretionary grants like the ones made available previously under Section At the time this table was prepared the MPO did not have an estimate from KDOT or FTA about how much the annual allocation of 5339 funds to the Lawrence Area would be. In the earlier TAC approved table the total of Section 5309 funds for the period was agreed to be $12,385,960 based on the assumption that a large discretionary bus replacement grant would be available every few years. It was assumed that this level of federal capital along with local funds would allow the Lawrence transit fleet to be replaced as needed. Dividing that total by the 28-year period shown on this table gets an annual amount of $442,356. That amount is about what a new diesel transit bus with some spare parts and/or related items will cost. If the assumption is also held that this type of federal capital funding will be decreased as noted above and that change factor of 57.11% is then applied to the annual amount the annual estimate is only $189,726. In the absence of a more accurate estimate from the FTA the MPO is using a round figure of $200,000 to start this column in That would allow the urban transit provider to purchase a new bus using federal funds about once every two years. this federal funding source requires a 20% local match. FTA Section 5310 funds are used to purchase paratransit vehicles for transporting elderly and handicapped persons who are unable to ride fixed route services. Several agencies in the region use these funds to provide trips in the urban and rural areas of the region and from Douglas County to other nearby counties. Under MAP-21 the 5310 funding program was expanded to include activities previously funded through the 5317 New Freedom program designed to provide paratransit trips in urban areas. Comparing the 2012 combined Section 5310 and 5317 funding levels under SAFETEA-LU to the 2013 Section 5310 funding levels under MAP-21 shows a 12.74% increase. That change factor was applied to the TAC approved starting number for the Section 5310 program to determine the starting amount for that funding in this table. It is assumed that all of this source available in the region will be used for vehicle purchases. This federal funding source requires a 20% local match. Federal FTA Section 5311 funds are formula based funding granted to rural areas for operating and capital assistance to transit operators. Under MAP-21 this program was expanded to include activities previously funded with Section 5316-Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) funds. Comparing the 2012 combined Section 5311 and JARC funding levels under SAFETEA-LU to the 2013 Section 5311 funding levels under MAP-21 shows a 0.94% decrease. That change factor was applied to the TAC approved starting number for the Section 5311 program to determine the starting amount for that funding in this table. It is assumed that all of this funding source will be used for operating expenses in the foreseeable future and that providers of rural area service will find other sources to use for vehicle replacements. This federal funding requires a 50% local match when used for operating assistance. KDOT annual funding was derived by reviewing recent funding tables for state funding of paratransit operating assistance, paratransit vehicle purchases, and transit funding allocated through the T-WORKS program for the Lawrence T system. This assumes that recent levels of KDOT funding will continue until 2040 and that another similar program will be approved to replace T-WORKS after it expires in Most of this Kansas funding is used for operating assistance to the Lawrence T system. A small amount is allocated periodically by KDOT to purchase a vehicle for one of the region's 5310 eligible paratransit providers, and annually a small amount of KDOT operating assistance is granted to 5310 paratransit operators. It is assumed that for 2012 the Lawrence T will receive 80% of these state funds. The remaining 20% is split between the annual operating assistance to 5310 providers and paratransit vehicle replacements. KDOT has historically provided $4,000 of operating assistance to each 5310 provider and supplied three providers with that funding in our region. The 20% of T-WORKS money for paratransit is assumed to be spit with 15% for vehicles and the remaining 5% for operating assistance, and those proportions are assumed to remain constant for the period. In 2013 the amount of state funding for the T system increased dramatically from about $250,000a year to about $1,000,000 a year. That was the result of T-WORKS funds for transit being allocated based on a three-year average of performance data. Since the T operates some very efficient routes to KU it is assumed that the future performance data will continue to show strong performance for the T system and that the state funding for the T will remain higher than is it was in At this time the amount of future T-WORKS funding for the T is uncertain, but it is likely to be significantly higher than the low amount for In light of this new performance based formula for state funding, the MPO staff decided to split the different between the 2012 and 2013 amounts and set the 2014 amount at $625,000 and amounts after that by using the 1.5% annual inflation factor for funding sources. Lawrence sales tax funding was derived from 2010 City estimates of revenue for both of the transit sales taxes passed in November The assumption was made that these taxes would be renewed after 2019 and continue until Tax revenues after 2019 will require voter support. This set of sales taxes includes a.20% tax for transit service continuation and another.05% tax for transit improvements including new buses. Those are shown as the operating and system improvements/capital columns in 143

18 this table. It is assumed that the improvements portion of these city sales taxes will be split evenly between new buses and other system/service improvements. It is also assumed that this local source will be used to match federal funds when needed and when other local sources are not available to match federal assistance. Values highlighted in grey require local voter support. Other Local Funds include any general fund allocations to transit projects, fare box revenues, required local match amounts for 5310 and 5311 federal funds, and any other local sources. For the 2012 starting number in this table the fare box revenue total for the Lawrence T and the required 20% agency or local match for 5310 and 5311 funds was used. For 2013 and future numbers the annual inflation route of 1.5% for funding sources was used. University of Kansas-KU on Wheels funding is derived from KU student fees and KU parking revenues. A 2013 starting number for this table was supplied to the MPO staff by the KU Parking & Transit staff. That figure of $5,378,000 includes their contract with MV to operate the service and maintain the fleet, fleet replacement costs, fuel costs, spare parts costs, and maintenance facility costs. KU staff informed the MPO that their cost and revenues are equal for 2013 and that for future years they expect to have cost and revenues balance. For 2012 the 2013 cost was estimated using the annual inflation factor of 1.5% for funding sources. The estimates for the future levels of these funding sources were derived from consultations with the members of the Technical Advisory Committee and based on funding levels in the previous and current Transportation Improvement Programs. This table assumes the continuation of recent funding levels through This analysis should in no way be construed as an actual forecast of individual programs or projects, but rather an order of magnitude analysis of funds that could be reasonably available for transit system investments during the MTP planning horizon. The amounts used in this table reflect an annual inflation factor of 1.5% which was reviewed and approved by the TAC. The funding levels shown in this table are primarily for the preservation of the transit operations in Douglas County at 2012 levels. Some small increases in service and/or changes in service areas could potentially be accomplished using these finding levels. However, any significant increases in service or service area will require increased funding levels beyond what is shown in this table. 144

19 Table Funding Projections for Federal, State and Local Funding for Roadway Network System Improvement and Major Preservation Projects in Douglas County under MAP-21 Year FHWA Surface Transportation Program - STP for Lawrence FHWA Surface Transportation Program - STP for Douglas County FHWA Surface Transportation Program - STP for Eudora FHWA National Highway Performance Program - NHPP State of Kansas KDOT Table 9.6 Notes: Values highlighted in grey require local voter support. Lawrence Sales Tax Douglas County CIP Other Local Funds Annual Totals , ,000 37, ,900,000 3,900,000 4,000, ,000 27,987, , ,465 24, ,838 18,900,000 3,958,500 3,000, ,500 27,053, , ,157 24, ,420 20,700,000 4,017,878 3,000, ,113 28,930,803 Current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Period and Five Year Funding Band Totals Annual Average Per Band , ,889 25, ,056 20,700,000 4,078,146 4,000, ,839 30,009, ,981,067 28,495, , ,663 25, ,747 20,700,000 4,139,318 4,060, ,682 30,148, , ,478 25, ,493 20,700,000 4,201,408 4,120, ,642 30,290, , ,335 26, ,296 20,700,000 4,264,429 4,182, ,722 30,434, , ,235 26, ,155 20,700,000 4,328,395 4,245, ,922 30,580, , ,178 27, ,073 20,700,000 4,393,321 4,309, ,246 30,728, ,183,273 30,436, , ,166 27, ,049 9,684,507 4,459,221 4,373, ,695 19,863, , ,198 27, ,084 9,829,775 4,526,109 4,439, ,270 20,161, , ,276 28, ,181 9,977,221 4,594,001 4,505, ,974 20,464, , ,401 28, ,338 10,126,880 4,662,911 4,573, ,809 20,770, , ,572 29, ,558 10,278,783 4,732,855 4,642, ,776 21,082, ,342,877 20,468, , ,790 29, ,842 10,432,965 4,803,847 4,711, ,878 21,398, , ,057 30, ,189 10,589,459 4,875,905 4,782, ,116 21,719, , ,373 30, ,602 10,748,301 4,949,044 4,854, ,493 22,045, , ,738 31, ,081 10,909,526 5,023,279 4,927, ,010 22,376, , ,155 31, ,628 11,073,168 5,098,628 5,000, ,670 22,711, ,252,345 22,050, , ,622 31, ,242 11,239,266 5,175,108 5,075, ,475 23,052, , ,141 32, ,926 11,407,855 5,252,735 5,152, ,428 23,398, , ,713 32, ,679 11,578,973 5,331,526 5,229, ,529 23,749, , ,339 33, ,505 11,752,657 5,411,498 5,307, ,782 24,105, , ,019 33, ,402 11,928,947 5,492,671 5,387, ,189 24,467, ,773,087 23,754, , ,754 34, ,373 12,107,881 5,575,061 5,468, ,751 24,834, , ,546 34, ,419 12,289,500 5,658,687 5,550, ,473 25,206, , ,394 35, ,540 12,473,842 5,743,567 5,633, ,355 25,584, , ,300 36, ,738 12,660,950 5,829,721 5,718, ,400 25,968, , ,264 36, ,014 12,850,864 5,917,167 5,803, ,611 26,358, ,952,347 25,590,469 Totals 8,813,480 6,463, ,348 8,235, ,641, ,394, ,055,876 17,999,350 Grand Total of All Reasonably Expected Road and Bridge Funding 725,484,996 Average Expected Road and Bridge Funding per Year 25,016,724 FHWA Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding is flexible funding for several different types of projects that is used primarily in Kansas for road and bridge work. The STP program was retained under MAP-21 and the Bridge Rehabilitation & Replacement (BR) program eligible activities were consolidated into both the STP and the NHPP programs. STP funding is allocated to KDOT by the FHWA and KDOT has then traditionally sub-allocated a portion to each county and cities over 5,000 population. It is assumed that this KDOT practice will continue. The MPO staff review of 2012 combined STP/BR funding and the 2013 STP funding under MAP-21 shows a significant decrease of 34.74%. STP funding levels for this table were derived from the 2011 allocations made by KDOT to local governments in the region which were then discounted to 50% to show the portion of STP used for small system preservation projects in the region. That resulted in the 2012 amounts shown. For 2013 and the start of MAP -21 funding those amounts were then discounted again by 34.74% for the MAP-21 change noted here. That process was used to estimate the starting 2013 MAP-21 figure in this table. FHWA National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) is a new MAP-21 program that consolidated the former Interstate Maintenance-IM, National Highway System-NHS, and Bridge Rehabilitation & Replacement-BR program eligible projects. The assumption in these figures is that IM and much of the NHS type projects under this new NHPP program will be planned and programmed by KDOT on a statewide basis and that some of that work may be done in Douglas County, but that the timing of those projects is not under local control or accurately predictable at this time. It is also assumed that IM and NHS type projects funded by KDOT will be most often on the state system with a few NHS type projects on the local system of principal arterials. The MPO staff review of 2012 combined IM/NHS/BR funding and the 2013 NHPP funding show a significant increase of 33.33%. That looks to about offset the decrease shown in the comparison of the new STP program to the previous STP/BR combination. 145

20 Some amount of BR type project funding under the new NHPP category is anticipated in the region. Since at the time this table was produced the amount of NHPP funds available for use in Douglas County was unknown by the MPO, the amount of funding in 2013 to start this program in our region was set at an amount equal to the decrease in STP funds noted above for MAP-21 changes. This column offsets the 2013 MAP-21 reduction in STP funds and assumes that BR type projects will be allowed to use NHPP funds at that level. KDOT annual funding was derived by taking the total in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) subtracting the $189 million for the South Lawrence Trafficway which was seen as an unusually large project not likely to happen regularly in Douglas County and then dividing the resulting amount by the four years in the TIP and rounding that figure to the nearest half million. This assumes that after the SLT project is complete that the region will not receive another project that large until after Lawrence sales tax funding was derived from 2010 City estimates of revenue, and the assumption was made that this tax would be renewed after 2019 and continue until Tax revenues after 2019 will require voter support. Douglas County Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) funding amounts for were estimated by Douglas County staff and provided to the MPO staff. County CIP amounts for are based on the 2015 amount and the application of the annual 1.5% annual inflation factor for transportation revenues. Other Local Funds includes general fund allocations to projects from Lawrence and Douglas County as well as local funding from the three small cities in the region (Eudora, Baldwin City, Lecompton). Certain funding sources like the Special City & County Motor Fuel Tax (state collected gas tax revenue shared with local governments) is not included in this table because those funds have been used exclusively for road system operations and maintenance by local governments and not for transportation system improvements. In addition to those funds one-half of STP and BR funds have been used for small system preservation projects so those funding sources are discounted accordingly in this table to show what level of STP and BR funds could be used for system improvement and major preservation projects. This analysis should in no way be construed as an actual forecast of individual programs or projects, but rather an order of magnitude analysis of funds that could be reasonably available for road network investments during the MTP planning horizon. The amounts used in this table reflect an annual inflation factor of 1.5% which was discussed and approved by the MPO Technical Advisory Committee. For the Douglas County CIP funding use of this inflation factor starts in 2016 with amounts estimated by the County PW Director. For KDOT funding the KDOT staff supplied projected funding amounts for For years beyond that the average amount of funding under the Comprehensive Transportation Program ( ) of $8.1 million per year was used as the base and inflated at 1.5% annually to estimate an amount for The 1.5% annual rate was used on KDOT amounts starting in Figure 9.0 Total Transportation System Funding for the Period by Project Type 26.13% 25.10% Roadway Network -Operations & Maintenance Expenses $395,985,709 Roadway Network -Small System Preservation Projects $30,936, % 1.96% Roadway Network -Major Preservation Projects $181,371,249 Roadway Network -System Improvement Projects $544,113, % Transportation Enhancements (bikeways, sidewalks, safe routes to school, other projects) $12,983, % Transit and ParaTransit -Operations- Maintenance-System & Service Preservation Projects $412,260,

21 Figure 9.0 shows a breakdown of all the projected funding for the transportation system during the period covered by this plan. That chart shows the projected funding for various types of transportation system upgrades and preservation projects discussed earlier in this chapter. The funding groups below are used in that chart. Roadway & Bridge Operations and Maintenance Expenses Roadway & Bridge Small System Preservation Projects Roadway & Bridge Major Preservation Projects Roadway & Bridge System Improvement/Capacity Adding Projects Bicycle & Pedestrian & Other Transportation System Enhancement Type Projects Transit & Paratransit Operations &Maintenance Expenses and System/Service Preservation Projects This chart shows that even with recently added funding sources to the region (e.g., Lawrence sales tax for roads and transit) the area transportation system operators will need a substantial portion of the funding simply to maintain and preserve the system at 2012 capacity and service levels. That includes the Operations & Maintenance (Roadway and Transit), Small System Preservation, and Major Preservation portions of this table that collectively compose about 64% of total projected transportation system funding. This chart does indicate that the region can reasonably expect to have enough funding to preserve its transport system and some funding to make system improvements that add capacity and afford to fund some large major preservation needs. However, this chart (when compared to public comments and improvement ideas from staff) also indicates that the region will not have enough money to make all of the needed and desired transportation system improvements in the near-term (first decade after this plan is approved). Some desired but unaffordable system improvements are pushed into either the far out years of the planning period or onto the illustrative list showing things not affordable by 2040 with existing revenue sources. Summary of the Estimation Method for Future Funding Levels and Project Costs Estimating revenues available over the life of the T2040 Plan (2012 through 2040) was done through discussion at Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings and cooperatively between the MPO, City of Lawrence, Douglas County, Lawrence Transit, University of Kansas, and KDOT. In general, historic expenditures of transportation funds invested on projects in Douglas County were used to depict average annual funding amounts which were then increased for inflation each year to estimate the revenues available for the twenty-eight year period covered by this plan. Estimated average funding amounts for most state and federal programs were developed using each program s revenue history over the last decade and a review of the last two TIP periods ( and ). That review represents an assumed continuation of current programs at levels similar to recent historical revenue levels. In some cases the figures for the first few years in the funding tables were adjusted if the TAC members had information to more accurately estimate the next two or three years of funding for their programs or had multi-year budgets approved. Those funding figures were then adjusted for inflation and projected over the rest of the years in the table. The TAC reviewed these projections several times while they were being drafted and approved them for use in this MTP update. This Plan estimates both revenues and costs for street and highway projects, bicycle and pedestrian projects, public fixed-route transit services, and specialized paratransit services. During the review of funding projections the TAC members discussed the need for annual inflation factors for both revenues and project costs, and the TAC decided that those two inflation factors should not be the same. The TAC members decided to inflate project costs faster than revenues. That is consistent with historical trends over the last twenty years or more. The TAC discussions of inflation factors resulted in their agreement to use an annual rate of 1.5% for revenues and a rate of 3.0% for project costs. The MPO staff and TAC members also reviewed the cost of several different types of projects found in recent Transportation Improvement Programs and adjusted those costs to 2012 levels. Those costs were used as starting points with some costs adjusted up or down based on the detail about each recommended project or similar ones available at the time this MTP was drafted. The base 2012 funding amounts and 2012 generalized project costs coupled with the annual inflation factors were then used to project year of expenditure costs and revenues. All of this information from the TAC discussions was incorporated into the tables in 147

22 this chapter. The TAC agreed that these projections represented a reasonable fiscal constraint on this MTP and its list of recommended transportation system improvements. What that process produced was a reasonable list of funding projections based on known funding program features in 2012 and a list of typical costs for common transportation system improvements. Those tables, when compared, present a basic picture of how much money the region can expect to have to make transportation improvements in the future and how many improvements the region can expect to afford. The revenue projections shown in this chapter are a reasonable constraint on the list of recommended projects. The recommended list of transportation system improvements uses more accurate detailed estimates for the specific projects put on that list when such estimates are available (more common for projects anticipated in the first five years of this plan) and a more generalized typical project cost is used when a project specific cost estimate is not available. In either case the list of recommended improvements is fiscally constrained. Cost Estimates for Transportation System Improvement Projects The costs of recommended transportation improvements noted in this chapter are the best estimates available at the time this plan was developed. For some projects that have been planned for years the figures are based on detailed engineering cost estimates. If a project sponsor can supply an engineer estimate then that is used and noted on the list. If the project is a new idea arising out of this plan and the project has not been reviewed for a cost estimate previously, then the MPO uses a rough estimate based on what some similar projects in Northeast Kansas have cost during the last few years. In other cases where material quantities can be estimated the cost estimate may be based on unit costs of materials and other costs for similar projects. Since some of the recommended projects have more up to date and precise cost estimates than other projects, the total cost of all of those recommended projects is just a reasonable estimate of what the recommendations of improving our region s transportation system will be. However on the other side, the estimates of the funding that will be available to make all of those improvements are also just reasonable projections. The idea that this plan will only include a list of recommended projects which can be reasonably afforded is satisfied because there are assumptions on both the revenue and cost sides of this plan that constrain it to what could happen. The list of things that could happen to improve transportation in Douglas County is shorter than a list of all the improvements that everyone living here wants to see happen. That is the fiscal constraint at work in this planning process. The projects that are desired but not affordable at this time are shown on the illustrative projects lists at the end of this chapter. A cost estimate for those projects is also estimated in the same way that costs for recommended projects were developed. The costs for common transportation improvements can vary substantially based on numerous factors (e.g., right-of-way costs, drainage structures, topography, etc.) related to each particular project. The MPO staff recognizes that some people reviewing this plan will not have knowledge about how much transportation projects costs. In order to assist the reader of this plan with better understanding the level of expenses involved in transportation planning, the following table shows a sample of different types of transportation improvement projects and their cost. Those examples are listed here to provide a basic understanding of how expensive transportation improvements are and to show readers how many transportation improvement needs there are in this region compared to the projected levels of funding. 148

23 Table Transportation Improvement Program - Examples of Transportation Improvement Costs Project Location and Type US-56 Bridge over East Fork of Tauy Creek near Baldwin City - Bridge Replacement K-10/23rd Street over BNSF Railroad - Bridge Replacement Approximate Project Cost Project Description 1,897,000 This is a bridge that carries a rural section of US-56 over a small creek near Baldwin City. This project represents a bridge that is used on major rural routes to span small creeks. 6,719,000 This is a new bridge to carry a high-volume 4-lane urban arterial over a railroad line and rail-trail. It also carries K-10 through Lawrence. This project represents an urban arterial bridge replacement in locations where traffic flow needs to be maintained during construction and traffic control plans are complex. K-10/Bob Billings Parkway - New Interchange 20,739,000 This is a new diamond interchange along K-10 on the west side of Lawrence. It will be similar to the one at the K-10/US-40 intersection but this new interchange will have bicycle and pedestrian facilities crossing K-10. This project represents the new design of diamond interchanges that are built to accommodate all transport modes. 31st Street -Haskell to O'Connell Road - Road Extension 6,873,000 This is a one-mile extension of an urban two-lane minor arterial road on the urban fringe of Lawrence. The right-of-way for this road segment is wider than needed for a typical 2-lane rural road which will allow it to fit a four-lane road in the future if needed. This project represents two-lane road extension projects on the urban fringe and new minor arterial links needed to complete the network. US-59/Iowa Street - Yale to Irving Hill Road - Reconstruction 6,172,000 This is a major reconstruction project along a very busy urban arterial with numerous commercial driveway cuts that carries a major state highway (i.e., US-59) through Lawrence. This road project involves numerous underground features (drain pipes, utilities, etc.). It represents a reconstruction project in a busy complex urban center where detours and full closures are not desirable and traffic control plans are complex. Kasold Drive - Harvard to Bob Billings Parkway - Reconstruction 5,000,000 This is a reconstruction project along a four-lane urban minor arterial connecting residential areas to nearby principal arterials and commercial zones. It is representative of reconstruction projects in areas where construction zone traffic impacts are limited to the vicinity of the project and some alternative routings may exist to move traffic around the reconstruction site. County Route US-56 to CR 12 at Baldwin City- Upgrade Rural Road to Urban Street 3,400,000 This project is a major upgrade of a narrow rural two-lane roadway to a 3-lane urban street with curb & gutter, concrete sidewalk and multi-use path, and underground storm sewer. This is representative of the type of project needed on rural roads in urbanizing areas carrying significant amounts of commuter traffic. Lawrence Transit - Hybrid Fixed Route Bus Lawrence Transit - Regular Fixed Route Bus 580,000 This is the 2012 price of a hybrid diesel bus that is like the ones recently put into service by the Lawrence T. 380,000 This is the 2012 price of a regular diesel powered bus like the ones used in Lawrence. Burroughs Creek Rail-Trail 846,000 This is a major facility in the regional bikeway system. It is built as a wide shared use path accommodating cyclists, pedestrians and skaters. Its concrete tread width is 10 feet. This project follows an abandoned rail line and represents a pathway constructed in a narrow right-of-way with limited access points. 6th and Iowa - sidewalk extension and gap filling with intersection improvement to address congestion 1,500,000 This project is a sidewalk gap filling project in Lawrence. It connects a sidewalk along Iowa Street to a sidewalk along 6th Street. It was constructed in an area with physical limitations (i.e., rock outcroppings and grades) that made sidewalk construction difficult. This project also includes the installation of a left-turn lane on 6th Street westbound to Iowa Street southbound. This project represents a difficult but doable retrofit installation of needed pedestrian and intersection improvements in a busy urban street environment. This is representative of a smaller spot improvement at an intersection that needs something added to make it more efficient and reduce congestion. A full reconstruction and upgrade of a busy urban arterial intersection will likely cost more than this project. 149

24 Recommended Transportation System Improvement Projects As is the case in virtually every community across the nation, there are not sufficient revenues to meet all of the transportation needs in the Lawrence-Douglas County Region. Because financial resources are limited and this plan must fiscally constrain the list of recommended projects, it was required to select a list of high priority projects that improved the transportation system, were supported by the public and local governments, and were deemed to be affordable. The following set of fiscally constrained system improvement lists along with the illustrative projects list clearly shows that some worthwhile projects are not recommended because they simply cannot be afforded at this time. That process included hard choices and changes. The lists below show all of the transportation system improvements that are recommended by this T-2040 Plan and are affordable for the region to undertake between 2012 and This plan and its recommended projects lists will be reviewed and updated again in Recommended Transportation System Improvements by Mode The following lists of recommended projects are what are shown to be affordable using projections of reasonably available funding for the future. However, in most cases being on these lists does not mean that the project is actually funded now. This is a Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) list of future projects, and the actual budgeted funds to make these projects happen will be programmed later in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and other related state and local government budget documents. The recommended projects listed on the following pages are simply the ones that have been selected as desired transportation system improvements and system preservation projects that fit within the fiscal constraints of the projected funding levels depicted in this T2040 Plan. Illustrative projects that do not fit within the fiscally constrained portion of this plan are shown on a separate list. Roadway System Improvement and Major Preservation Projects A summary of the recommended system improvements to the roadway network (which includes roadway widening, construction of new roads and roadway extensions, major access management changes, intersection improvements, deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and other transportation system management improvements, major roadway safety improvements and other roadway/bridge capacity improvements) are presented in the following table. In addition to those roadway projects major preservation projects for the roadway network are also included in this table. Projects that have not yet been built but have allocated funding and are part of the Existing+Committed Network (e.g., South Lawrence Trafficway) used in the travel demand model for this T2040 Plan are also listed in the following table, but their funding is not listed. The funding for those committed projects was discounted from the funding projection tables discussed earlier in this chapter. Those projects are treated as if they are already built and their funding already spent in this T2040 Plan. Since most of the travel in our region involves automobile travel on roads and bridges it would seem predictable that most of the projected funding for transportation improvements recommended in this plan would be for those projects. That is the case. However, substantial amounts of funding are also allocated to other types of transportation system projects, especially transit as seen on the other tables in this section. As noted in the pie chart shown previously, the total recommended funding for roadway network system improvements and the large preservation projects combined is about $725 million or about 47% of all the anticipated transportation funding for the period. Of that $725 million it is anticipated that about three-quarters or $544 million will be used for system improvements and the other quarter or $181 million for major preservation projects to keep the existing system in good shape. 150

25 Table Fiscally Constrained List of Recommended Roadway Network - System Improvements and Major Preservation Projects Years in TIP Period or Funding Band Projected Annual Totals of Funding ,987, ,053, ,930, ,009,265 TIP Period or Funding Band Projected Totals 113,981,067 Route Project Location Cost K-10 Highway Safety and Resurfacing Project - with centerline rumble strips I-70/KTA Interchange to US-59 1,062,000 K-10/15th Street/Bob Billings Parkway K-10/South Lawrence Trafficway New Interchange K-10/15th Street/Bob Billings Parkway 19,385,000 New 4-lane freeway US-59/Iowa E to 23rd Street/K-10 on 32nd Street alignment 31st Street New 2-land road, grading, surfacing., multimodal improvements Haskell to O'Connell 6,873,000 K-10 Highway Safety Project - Cable Median Barrier K-10 Highway East of Lawrence 1,366,000 * 23rd Street/K-10 Highway Bridge Replacement over BNSF Abandoned Rail Line and Rail- Trail in Lawrence K-10 Highway/ 23rd Street Bridge over BNSF Railroad near Haskell University 6,719,000 23rd Street/K-10 Access Point Consolidation US 59 (Iowa St.) East to O'Connell Road 1,063,000 23rd & Iowa Intersection Geometric/Intersection Improvements 23rd & Iowa Streets Intersection 1,574,000 US-59 Widen to 4-lane freeway, guardrails, lighting US 59 Franklin-Douglas County Line N to 4-lane divided section at about N1000 Road/CR 458 US-59 Bridge Replacement US 59 over West Fork of Tauy Creek.14 mile N of Douglas/Franklin County Line 23,666,000 1,040,000 Old US-59 alignment Turnback Project for KDOT Transfer to County-grading and pavement improvements US 59 Franklin-Douglas County Line N to 4-lane divided section at about N1000 Road/CR 458 2,485,000 US-59/Iowa Street Reconstruction and addition of sidewalks and shared use pathway Yale Drive to Irving Hill Road including Intersection Area t 15th/ Bob Billings Parkway 7,237,000 US-56 Bridge Replacement US 56 Tauy Creek Drainage Bridge 1.95 miles east of US-59 & Tauy Creek Bridge 2.7 miles east of US-59 US-56 Bridge Replacement US 56 Tauy Creek Drainage Bridge 1.95 miles east of US 59 & Tauy Creek Bridge 2.7 miles east of US-59 US-56 Center Turn Lane Improvement US-56 at Baldwin City from Bull Pup Drive to E 1600 Road 2,175,000 3,324,000 1,047,000 US-56 Realignment/Geometric/Intersection Improvements High Street and US 56 Intersection 773,000 6th Street/US-40 and Geometric/Intersection Improvements 6th & Iowa Streets Intersection 900,000 Iowa Street/US-59 Intersection CR 1057/E 1900 Road Bridge Replacement Route 1057 Bridge over Wakarusa River at 1300 E 1900 Road 3,150,000 CR 1055/6th Street CR 442/N 1600 Road/Stull Road Reconstruction and Improvements to Urban Road with Curbs and US-56 N to CR 12 4,305,000 Gutters Reconstruction of curves and addition of paved shoulders Shawnee/Douglas County Line E to CR 1023/E 1,400, Road 19th Street Reconstruction including center turn lane and bike lanes Naismith Drive to Iowa/US-59 3,885,

26 Kasold Drive Reconstruction including multimodal facilities Harvard Road to Bob Billings Parkway 5,000,000 6th Street in Baldwin City Construct Left Turn Lane on 6th Street at US-56 Intersection of US-56 and 6th Street 433,000 9th Street Signal, Intersection Improvement, Sidewalk Emery Road to Michigan Street 538,000 CR 6 Safety Project - reconstruct and improve curve N 1150 Road to E 550 Road 414,000 9th Street and Kentucky Intersection Improvements including addition of turn lanes 9th and Kentucky Intersection 224,000 Intersection CR 458/N 1200 Road Reconstruction of 2-lane road and addition of paved shoulders US-59 to E 1050 Road/Wakarusa Drive 1,750,000 CR 1055 Culvert extensions and pavement rehabilitation CR 12 to Vinland/N 700 Road 1,600,000 Wakarusa Drive Road Reconstruction Oread West to Research Park 1,000,000 23rd Street/K-10 ITS - install fiber optic cables and video detection system Iowa Street/US-59 east to Lawrence City Limit 180,000 George Williams Way Extension north to Rock Chalk Park Current north end at about N 1650 to Rock Chalk Park 31st Street and Louisiana Intersection 6th Street/US-40 and George Williams Way Intersection Bob Billings Parkway and George Williams Way Intersection 2,000,000 Intersection improvements including turn lanes and a signal 31st Street and Louisiana Intersection 500,000 New Traffic Signal New Traffic Signal 6th Street/US-40 and George Williams Way Intersection Bob Billings Parkway and George Williams Way Intersection 300, ,000 Bob Billings Parkway Road Reconstruction Kasold Drive to Crestline 1,200,000 9th Street at the Kentucky and Tennessee Intersections US-40/6th Street and K- 10 Highway K-10/US-40/6th Street Interchange Area Various Rail-Road Intersections Safety Improvements Construction of a Diverging Diamond Interchange (partial funding in this period; preliminary engineering only) Develop plans to improve ramps, widen bridge, close frontage road, address bicycle/pedestrian needs across the bridge, add traffic signals at both ramp terminals, and update signing and pavement markings. 9th Street at the Kentucky and Tennessee Intersections 200,000 US-40/K-10 Interchange 600,000 US-40/K-10 Interchange 504,000 Safety Improvements Railroad-Public Roadway Crossings 1,500, Funding Band Total 111,672, Carryover 2,309,067 Years in TIP Period or Funding Band Projected Annual Totals of Funding ,148, ,290, ,434, ,580, ,728,722 TIP Period or Funding Band Projected Totals 152,183,273 Route Project Location Cost CR 1055/E 1700 Road Reconstruction and addition of paved shoulders CR 12/N 400 Road to CR 460/N 700 Road 6,264,000 Wakarusa Drive Major Reconstruction Project with Pedestrian Facility Improvements Bob Billings Parkway to Legends Drive 5,363,000 Overland Drive New 2-lane road George Williams Way to Queens Road ** 31st Street New 2-lane road O'Connell to Noria Road 7,809,638 US-40/6th Street and K- 10 Highway Construction of a Diverging Diamond Interchange (completion of funding and all other work on the project) US-40/K-10 Interchange 8,739,000 31st Street New 2-lane road Noria/E 1750 Road to CR 1057/E 1900 Road 12,679,385 Church Street/CR 1061 Interchange Improvements - widen to 4 lanes with bikeway K-10 Interchange Area 15,626,339 CR 1061/E 2200 Road Widen to 4 lanes with bikeway K-10 S for one-mile 11,719,754 N 1100 Road Widen to 4 lanes US-59 to Haskell/CR ,439,

27 MacDonald Road Intersection Improvements Princeton Boulevard Intersection 2,880,037 CR 1057/E 1900 Road Improve and reconstruct to 2-lane rural arterial standards CR 458/N 1000 Road to K-10 8,225,218 CR 458/N 1000 Road Improve and reconstruct to 2-lane rural arterial standards US-59 to CR 1057/E 1900 Road 14,100,374 19th Street New 2-lane road O'Connell to Harper 4,226,462 O'Connell Road New 2-lane road 23rd to 15th Street 8,452,923 ITS Projects Intelligent Transportation Systems deployments along congested corridors and other locations to improve safety, traffic flow, air quality and reduce congestion. Various Locations in the Lawrence Urbanized Area including corridors experiencing congestion at peak periods (6th street, 23rd Street, Iowa Street, and others) 500,000 CR 1055 Reconstruction and addition of paved shoulders Vinland (E 1700 Rd/N 700 Rd) to CR 458/N 4,775,000 6th Street/US-40 and New Traffic Signal 6th Street/US-40 and Queens Road Intersection 300,000 6th Street/US-40 and New Traffic Signal 6th Street/US-40 and Champion Road Intersection 300,000 CR 458 Reconstruction and Rehabilitation E 800 Road to N ,020,000 Wakarusa Drive Road reconstruction with turn lanes and sidewalks Bob Billings Parkway to Legends Drive 5,363,000 Various Roadway and Bridge Improvements ITS Projects This may include safety, ITS, intersection, bicycle, pedestrian, transit stop, and other improvements to the road environment. This may also include phases of larger projects that overlap two funding bands. Intelligent Transportation Systems deployments along congested corridors and other locations to improve safety, traffic flow, air quality and reduce congestion. A traffic control center will be developed as part of this ITS deployment. Various corridors and locations in Douglas County 5,000,000 Various Locations in the Lawrence Urbanized Area including corridors experiencing congestion at peak periods (6th street, 23rd Street, Iowa Street, and others) 1,000, Funding Band Total 151,783, Carryover 399,634 Years in TIP Period or Funding Band Projected Annual Totals of Funding ,863, ,161, ,464, ,770, ,082,564 TIP Period or Funding Band Projected Totals 102,342,877 Route Project Location Cost K-10/South Lawrence Trafficway Widen to 4 lanes with a New Interchange at Wakarusa to replace the current at-grade intersection and no connection at Kasold. US-59/Iowa W to I-70/Kansas Turnpike 29,899,346 K-10/US-40/6th Street Interchange Area Long-Term Interchange Area Improvements for closing/relocating frontage roads, adding signals, widening road, adding bikeways, and adding pedestrian facilities K-10/US-40/6th Street Interchange Area between K-10 Highway and E 800 Road 24,190,495 US-40 Widen to 4 lanes E 800 Road to Stull Road/CR 442 at E 700 Road 23,919,869 23rd Street/Clinton Parkway ITS Projects Various Roadway and Bridge Improvements Intersection Improvements and Access Management including medians and improved pedestrian facilities in this corridor Intelligent Transportation Systems deployments along congested corridors and other locations to improve safety, traffic flow, air quality and reduce congestion. A traffic control center will be developed as part of this ITS deployment. This may include safety, ITS, intersection, bicycle, pedestrian, transit stop, and other improvements to the road environment. This may also include phases of larger projects that overlap two funding bands. Kasold to Harper with Improvements at the Kasold- Louisiana-Haskell-Harper Intersections Various Locations in the Lawrence Urbanized Area including corridors experiencing congestion at peak periods (6th street, 23rd Street, Iowa Street, and others) 9,956,659 1,000,000 Various corridors and locations in Douglas County 10,000, Funding Band Total 98,966, Carryover 3,376,

28 Years in TIP Period or Funding Band Route Project Location Cost Wakarusa Drive Widen to 4 lanes with bikeway Clinton Parkway/23rd Street to CR 458/N 1200 Road 30,950,233 Haskell/ CR 1055 Widen to 4 lanes with bikeway K-10 to N 1100 Road 27,988,139 US-56 ITS Projects Various Roadway and Bridge Improvements Projected Annual Totals of Funding ,398, ,719, ,045, ,376, ,711,909 TIP Period or Funding Band Projected Totals 110,252,345 Reconstruction and addition of paved shoulders, intersection improvements and other safety upgrades Intelligent Transportation Systems deployments along congested corridors and other locations to improve safety, traffic flow, air quality and reduce congestion. A traffic control center will be developed as part of this ITS deployment. This may include safety, ITS, intersection, bicycle, pedestrian, transit stop, and other improvements to the road environment. This may also include phases of larger projects that overlap two funding bands. US-59 east to the Douglas/Johnson County Line 34,741,161 Various Locations in the Lawrence Urbanized Area including corridors experiencing congestion at peak periods (6th street, 23rd Street, Iowa Street, and others) 1,000,000 Various corridors and locations in Douglas County 10,000, Funding Band Total 104,679, Carryover 5,572,812 Years in TIP Period or Funding Band Projected Annual Totals of Funding ,052, ,398, ,749, ,105, ,467,177 TIP Period or Funding Band Projected Totals 118,773,087 Route Project Location Cost I-70/Kansas Turnpike Widen to 6 lanes K-10 Lecompton Interchange E to *** Douglas/Leavenworth County Line CR 458/N 1200 Road Widen to 4 lanes US-59 to E 1050 Road/Wakarusa Drive 69,669,520 US-59/Iowa Street ITS Projects Intersection Improvements, Medians and Access Management Intelligent Transportation Systems deployments along congested 6th Street/US-40 to K-10 with improvements at 6th, Various 9th, Locations Harvard, in 15th, the 23rd, Lawrence 25th, Urbanized 27th, 33rd Area corridors and other locations to improve safety, traffic flow, air including corridors experiencing congestion at quality and reduce congestion. A traffic control center will be peak periods (6th street, 23rd Street, Iowa Street, developed as part of this ITS deployment. and others) Various Roadway and Bridge Improvements This may include safety, ITS, intersection, bicycle, pedestrian, transit stop, and other improvements to the road environment. This may also include phases of larger projects that overlap two 40,538,524 1,000,000 Various corridors and locations in Douglas County 5,000, Funding Band Total 116,208, Carryover 2,565,

29 Years in TIP Period or Funding Band Projected Annual Totals of Funding ,834, ,206, ,584, ,968, ,358,098 TIP Period or Funding Band Projected Totals 127,952,347 Route Project Location Cost N 1100 Road Widen to 4 lanes Haskell/CR 1055/E 1500 Road to CR 1057/E 83,189,050 Douglas County - Various Add paved shoulders and make other pavement, drainage, 1900 Various Road County Road Segments 10,000,000 County Lawrence Road - Various segments City not and/or Add curbing, safety sidewalks, improvements bikeways, beyond drainage the routine improvements, maintenance Various City Street Segments 10,000,000 Street Eudora segments - Various not City intersection Add curbing, upgrades, sidewalks, safety bikeways, improvements drainage and improvements, other items to Various City Street Segments 5,000,000 Street Baldwin segments City - Various not intersection Add curbing, upgrades, sidewalks, safety bikeways, improvements drainage and improvements, other items to Various City Street Segments 5,000,000 City Lecompton Street segments - Various not City Street segments not specified in this table intersection Add curbing, upgrades, sidewalks, safety bikeways, improvements drainage and improvements, other items to intersection upgrades, safety improvements and other items to improve the function of the roadway that are projects beyond the routine maintenance and small scale system preservation projects Various City Street Segments 5,000, Funding Band Total 118,189, Carryover 9,763, Funding Bands Total 701,498, Carryover Total 23,986,361 Table 9.8 Notes: *The $189 million in KDOT/T-WORKS funds for this project is not in the fiscal analysis and was not used to estimate KDOT funding available for the region in the future. It was assumed that this level of KDOT funding for one project was unusual and would not be repeated during the period covered by this T2040 Plan. The SLT (east half) cost is not included in the projected funding amounts for Road-Bridge system improvements described in earlier sections of this chapter. *This roadway link is in the E+C network used in the travel demand modeling process. This link is also assumed to be privately funded by developers in the area as this area urbanizes. ***KTA projects are assumed to be funded in full from KTS tolls and is not included in the Road/Bridge projected funding available for system improvements. The projects listed in this table were placed in a funding band based on when the project could be afforded based on projected future funding levels and where the MPO staff and the T2040 Advisory Committee decided to place them. All projects are subject to schedule changes in this table based on updates of local and state budgets and budget priorities, and related updates to the Transportation Improvement Program. This table is intended to show fiscal constraint for the horizon period ( ) for this plan and for each funding band. All of the projected funding and roadway/bridge cost numbers listed above are based on a set of assumptions for future funding levels and the inflation of cost and various actions by federal, state and local governments. Changes to any one or more of those assumptions could significantly impact this fiscal analysis for future road/bridge improvements in the region. All of these numbers are subject to change. The MPO staff reviewed the Transportation Improvement Program and found that the total funding programmed for system improvement and major preservation projects was split with approximately 75% of that total for system improvements and the remaining 25% for major preservation projects. This split is depicted on the pie chart included in this chapter. 155

30 Transit System Improvement Projects Transit needs are defined in terms of relative ridership and service characteristics. A more robust transit system with higher frequency bus service covering more of the city and serving more hours of the day could result in more ridership. More convenient service would attract more choice riders in addition to better serving the transit-dependent population. This in turn would reduce traffic demands on major roads which could then reduce the need for some road improvements to be done or for other improvements to be delayed as congestion on those roads eases as more travelers use transit and fewer people drive alone. Switching some drivers to transit also has benefits for air quality which could become a serious issue for Douglas County in the foreseeable future. The current bus transit system in Lawrence represents a minimum service for a community of the size and character of Lawrence. Even though the voters of Lawrence did pass a sales tax for transit in late 2008, it is likely that without additional funding the system will remain similar to the 2012 levels of service. Fortunately, the 2012 level of transit service was improved significantly over the 2008 levels that existed when the Transportation 2030 Plan was approved. That is due in large part to the coordination of the City T and KU on Wheels bus routes, the revision of several routes to improve their efficiency, the institution of flex routing in selected areas at off-peak times, and the delivery of a new joint maintenance and operations center through the use of some innovative financing methods. The bottom line is that some additional funding may be necessary to provide higher levels of service in future years, but the improvements made in the last four years are likely to be fundable in the years to come with the reasonably expected transit funding levels shown in this plan. As noted in Figure 9.0, the total recommended funding for transit and paratransit services and related capital needs to be completed between 2012 and 2040 is about $389 million which represents about 25% of all the anticipated transportation funding for that period. Table Recommended Transit and Paratransit System Improvements and Service Preservation Projects Years in TIP Period or Funding Band Projected Annual Totals of Funding ,903, ,012, ,803, ,980,135 TIP Period or Funding Band Projected Totals 46,699,219 Operator Project Location Cost Lawrence T heavy duty fixed route and/or paratransit bus Lawrence 960,000 replacements Lawrence T 6 heavy duty fixed route bus replacements Lawrence 1,920,000 Lawrence T 2012 Operating Expenses Lawrence 4,206,242 Lawrence T 2013 Operating Expenses Lawrence 4,332,429 Lawrence T 2014 Operating Expenses Lawrence 4,462,402 Lawrence T 2015 Operating Expenses Lawrence 4,596,274 KU on Wheels 2012 Operating Expenses Lawrence 5,298,522 KU on Wheels 2013 Operating Expenses Lawrence 5,378,000 KU on Wheels 2014 Operating Expenses Lawrence 5,458,670 KU on Wheels 2015 Operating Expenses Lawrence 5,540,550 Urban Transit Providers Service Expansions and/or Improvements (includes operating and capital needs) Lawrence 1,500,

31 Paratransit Providers Government Funded Vehicle Purchases Based in Douglas County - service provided to NE Kansas and KC Metro Rural Transit Providers Government Funded Service Based in Douglas County - service provided to NE Kansas and KC Metro Rural Transit Providers Service Expansions and/or Improvements (includes operating and capital needs) Based in Douglas County - service provided to NE Kansas and KC Metro 230, , , Total 44,586, Carryover 2,112,903 Years in TIP Period or Funding Band Projected Annual Totals of Funding ,159, ,342, ,527, ,715, ,906,008 TIP Period or Funding Band Projected Totals 62,650,728 Operator Project Location Cost Lawrence T 2016 Operating Expenses Lawrence 4,734,162 Lawrence T 2017 Operating Expenses Lawrence 4,876,187 Lawrence T 2018 Operating Expenses Lawrence 5,022,473 Lawrence T 2019 Operating Expenses Lawrence 5,173,147 Lawrence T 2020 Operating Expenses Lawrence 5,328,342 KU on Wheels 2016 Operating Expenses Lawrence 5,623,658 KU on Wheels 2017 Operating Expenses Lawrence 5,708,013 KU on Wheels 2018 Operating Expenses Lawrence 5,793,633 KU on Wheels 2019 Operating Expenses Lawrence 5,880,538 KU on Wheels 2020 Operating Expenses Lawrence 5,968,746 Urban Transit Service Expansions and/or Improvements Lawrence 3,000,000 Providers (includes operating and capital needs) Paratransit Providers Government Funded Vehicle Purchases Based in Douglas County - service provided to NE Kansas and KC Metro 308,255 Rural Transit Providers Government Funded Service Based in Douglas County - service provided to NE Kansas and KC Metro Rural Transit Providers Service Expansions and/or Improvements (includes operating and capital needs) Based in Douglas County - service provided to NE Kansas and KC Metro 270,851 1,000, Total 58,688, Carryover 3,962,

32 Years in TIP Period or Funding Band Projected Annual Totals of Funding ,099, ,296, ,495, ,697, ,903,436 Years in TIP Period or Funding Band Projected Annual Totals of Funding ,111, ,323, ,538, ,756, ,977,949 TIP Period or Funding Band Projected Totals 67,492,627 Operator Project Location Cost Lawrence T 6 heavy duty fixed route bus replacements Lawrence 2,850,000 Lawrence T 3 heavy duty fixed route bus replacements Lawrence 1,050,000 Lawrence T 2021 Operating Expenses Lawrence 5,488,192 Lawrence T 2022 Operating Expenses Lawrence 5,652,838 Lawrence T 2023 Operating Expenses Lawrence 5,822,423 Lawrence T 2024 Operating Expenses Lawrence 5,997,095 Lawrence T 2025 Operating Expenses Lawrence 6,177,008 KU on Wheels 2021 Operating Expenses Lawrence 6,058,277 KU on Wheels 2022 Operating Expenses Lawrence 6,149,151 KU on Wheels 2023 Operating Expenses Lawrence 6,241,389 KU on Wheels 2024 Operating Expenses Lawrence 6,335,009 KU on Wheels 2025 Operating Expenses Lawrence 6,430,035 Urban Transit Providers Service Expansions and/or Improvements (includes operating and capital needs) TIP Period or Funding Band Projected Totals 72,708,728 Lawrence 1,500,000 Paratransit Providers Government Funded Vehicle Purchases Based in Douglas County - service provided to NE Kansas and KC Metro Rural Transit Providers Government Funded Service Based in Douglas County - service provided to NE Kansas and KC Metro Rural Transit Providers Service Expansions and/or Improvements (includes operating and capital needs) Based in Douglas County - service provided to NE Kansas and KC Metro 332, , , Total 66,875, Carryover 617,349 Operator Project Location Cost Lawrence T 6 heavy duty fixed route bus replacements Lawrence 2,220,000 Lawrence T 2026 Operating Expenses Lawrence 6,362,318 Lawrence T 2027 Operating Expenses Lawrence 6,553,188 Lawrence T 2028 Operating Expenses Lawrence 6,749,784 Lawrence T 2029 Operating Expenses Lawrence 6,952,

33 Lawrence T 2030 Operating Expenses Lawrence 7,160,845 KU on Wheels 2026 Operating Expenses Lawrence 6,526,485 KU on Wheels 2027 Operating Expenses Lawrence 6,624,382 KU on Wheels 2028 Operating Expenses Lawrence 6,723,748 KU on Wheels 2029 Operating Expenses Lawrence 6,824,604 KU on Wheels 2030 Operating Expenses Lawrence 6,926,973 Urban Transit Service Expansions and/or Improvements Lawrence 1,000,000 Providers (includes operating and capital needs) Paratransit Providers Government Funded Vehicle Purchases Based in Douglas County - service provided to NE Kansas and KC Metro Rural Transit Providers Government Funded Service Based in Douglas County - service provided to NE Kansas and KC Metro Rural Transit Providers Service Expansions and/or Improvements (includes operating and capital needs) Years in TIP Period or Funding Band Projected Annual Totals of Funding ,202, ,430, ,662, ,897, ,135,505 TIP Period or Funding Band Projected Totals 78,327,950 Based in Douglas County - service provided to NE Kansas and KC Metro 357, , , Total 71,596, Carryover 1,112,046 Operator Project Location Cost Lawrence T 2031 Operating Expenses Lawrence 7,375,671 Lawrence T 2032 Operating Expenses Lawrence 7,596,941 Lawrence T 2033 Operating Expenses Lawrence 7,824,849 Lawrence T 2034 Operating Expenses Lawrence 8,059,595 Lawrence T 2035 Operating Expenses Lawrence 8,301,382 KU on Wheels 2031 Operating Expenses Lawrence 7,030,878 KU on Wheels 2032 Operating Expenses Lawrence 7,136,341 KU on Wheels 2033 Operating Expenses Lawrence 7,243,386 KU on Wheels 2034 Operating Expenses Lawrence 7,352,037 KU on Wheels 2035 Operating Expenses Lawrence 7,462,318 Urban Transit Service Expansions and/or Improvements Lawrence 1,000,000 Providers (includes operating and capital needs) Paratransit Providers Government Funded Vehicle Purchases Based in Douglas County - service provided to NE Kansas and KC Metro Rural Transit Providers Government Funded Service Based in Douglas County - service provided to NE Kansas and KC Metro 385, ,

34 Rural Transit Providers Service Expansions and/or Improvements (includes operating and capital needs) Years in TIP Period or Projected Annual Funding Band Totals of Funding ,377, ,623, ,872, ,125, ,382,522 TIP Period or Funding Band Projected Totals 84,381,447 Based in Douglas County - service provided to NE Kansas and KC Metro 300, Total 77,407, Carryover 920,534 Operator Project Location Cost Lawrence T 2036 Operating Expenses Lawrence 8,550,424 Lawrence T 2037 Operating Expenses Lawrence 8,806,937 Lawrence T 2038 Operating Expenses Lawrence 9,071,145 Lawrence T 2039 Operating Expenses Lawrence 9,343,279 Lawrence T 2040 Operating Expenses Lawrence 9,623,577 KU on Wheels 2036 Operating Expenses Lawrence 7,574,252 KU on Wheels 2037 Operating Expenses Lawrence 7,687,866 KU on Wheels 2038 Operating Expenses Lawrence 7,803,184 KU on Wheels 2039 Operating Expenses Lawrence 7,920,232 KU on Wheels 2040 Operating Expenses Lawrence 8,039,035 Urban Transit Service Expansions and/or Improvements Lawrence 1,000,000 Providers (includes operating and capital needs) Paratransit Providers Government Funded Vehicle Purchases Based in Douglas County - service provided to NE Kansas and KC Metro 415,175 Rural Transit Providers Government Funded Service Based in Douglas County - service provided to NE Kansas and KC Metro Rural Transit Providers Service Expansions and/or Improvements (includes operating and capital needs) Based in Douglas County - service provided to NE Kansas and KC Metro 364, , Total 86,499,904 Previous Period Carryover Funds Put in Reserve and Used To Balance This Period Total Surplus or Deficit for the Period 2,118, Carryover 0 6,607,096 Total Estimated Costs of Projects ,653,604 Table 9.9 Notes: Each five-year funding band was crafted to have a small carryover amount to account for contingencies. The last band was balanced out by using carryover funds from previous bands. The cumulative carryover amount shown at the bottom of this table accounts for the balancing done for that last band and is a small percent (less than 2%) of total projects costs for the entire period. The Lawrence T staff supplied the MPO staff with the T operating budget amount for 2012, and that was used as the starting figure 160

35 for T operations. Lawrence T transit costs are assumed to increase at an annual inflation factor of 3% which is faster than the rate assumed for revenues at 1.5%. That was done to represent the historical trend of cost rising faster than funding for public transit. Those rates were reviewed and approved by the TAC. FTA guidelines for bus life were used for the estimate of bus replacement needs for the Lawrence T. University of Kansas-KU on Wheels funding is derived from KU student fees and KU parking revenues. A 2013 starting number for this table was supplied to the MPO staff by the KU Parking & Transit staff. That figure of $5,378,000 includes their contract with MV to operate the service and maintain the fleet, fleet replacement costs, fuel costs, spare parts costs, and maintenance facility costs. KU staff informed the MPO that their cost and revenues are equal for 2013 and that for future years they expect to have cost and revenues balance. For 2012 the 2013 cost was estimated using the annual inflation factor for revenues of 1.5%. Government funded vehicle purchases for Douglas County based paratransit providers is assumed to equal the amount of Section 5310 funds available plus the required 20% local match. In some cases these providers may also purchase vehicles completely with their own funds to supply service. Government funded rural transit service based in Douglas County is assumed to equal the amount of Section 5311 funds available plus the required 20% local match. In some cases these providers may also provide service funded completely with local sources as available. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Needs The Bicycle Work Program prepared by the Lawrence-Douglas County Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) along with the Bikeway System Map prepared by the MPO depicts many improvements needed to complete the planned regional bikeway network. That system plan includes a combination of shared use paths, on-street bike lanes, and bike routes. During 2013 the MPO will complete a Countywide Bikeway Plan, and the recommendations from that study will be incorporated into this T-2040 Transportation Plan as amendments to this plan are made. Since the last MTP update in 2008 the BAC has been expanded and improved to include representatives from around Douglas County, and the BAC is now an official advisory committee of both the Lawrence City Commission and the Douglas County Board of Commissioners. In addition to the many bikeways that are planned for the regional system but not yet built, the region also has some missing or neglected sidewalk segments that should be built to complete the connectivity of the pedestrian network. Streets that continue but have sidewalks that simply end abruptly as they pass a certain property or approach a particular intersection are all too common in Kansas cities. In other cases there are city streets that have no sidewalks at all, and pedestrians are expected to walk in the street and mingle with cars in travel lanes. The region does have a significant amount of missing or deteriorated sidewalks in critical locations along arterial corridors, within neighborhoods, and in and around activity centers. The treatment of pedestrian facilities as an optional access/mobility feature at locations around the region is quite different from the absolute priority of having the most convenient closest access possible to all locations for car traffic. That needs to change to address the pedestrian environment as a valued part of the regional multimodal transportation system. Although in many cases the needs for bicyclists and pedestrians are grouped together, these two modes of transportation have very different operating characteristics and facility design criteria. Also, the funding for bikeways and sidewalks are often quite different with sidewalks more likely to be built by private developers for newly developed areas and maintained by adjacent land owners. Bikeways like bike lanes and paths are often funded by federal and/or state grants with local government contributions and maintained by local governments. Those differences between facilities for cyclists and walkers need to be well understood by the people who design, build and maintain those facilities, and also in education programs designed to foster safe cycling practices and pedestrian movements. What those two types of human powered travel modes do certainly share is that they both need additional funding and increased attention in the future to become the important part of the regional multimodal transportation system that they have the potential to become. Figure 9.0 shows the total recommended funding for separate bikeway and pedestrian facility improvements to be completed between 2012 and 2040 is about $11 million which represents only about 1% of all the anticipated transportation funding for that 161

36 period. It should be noted that this amount and small percent is only for bike and pedestrian improvements that are not part of a larger roadway project budget. It is possible that some major bikeway and pedestrian facility improvements could be made in the future as part of road projects. However even considering that, the percent of overall transportation funding for bicycle and pedestrian facilities is anticipated to remain relatively small. What we ve heard While some systems have improved, traffic flow and road conditions are not better and coverage of the transit system is only marginally better. 162

37 Table Recommended Bicycle and Pedestrian System Improvement Projects (bikeway plans, bike routes, bike lanes, shared use paths, sidewalks, and other bike-ped facility and system improvement projects) Years in Funding Band Projected Annual Totals of Funding Current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Period and 5-Year Bands for Funding Totals Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian System Improvements for this Funding Band Project Cost ,220 Lawrence Sidewalk Improvement Program 818,181 Bikeway Connection to/from the KU-City Recreation/Sports Complex near the ,000 K-10/US-40 interchange 200,000 Total Project Costs Per Band ,044,231 Burroughs Creek/Haskell Rail-Trail 23rd to 29th Street 219, ,136 2,896,586 Safe Routes To School - bicycle and pedestrian improvements 80,000 Breezedale Monument Restoration 60,000 Santa Fe Deport Restoration 1,555,581 2,932, ,190 Lawrence Sidewalk Improvement Program 1,093, ,457 Bikeway from K-10 Trailhead near I-70 north to Farmers Turnpike Bike Route 300,000 Carryover -36, ,767 Safe Routes To School - Plan for Eudora 30, ,969 Safe Routes To School - Eudora Path to/from elementary school 200, ,754 1,826,137 Safe Routes To School - Baldwin City Path to/from elementary school 200,000 1,823, ,678 Lawrence Sidewalk Improvement Program 1,178, ,164 Bikeway Connection from Hobbs Park north to Constant Park 400, ,590 Safe Routes To School - Plan for Lawrence 75, ,010 Safe Routes To School - bicycle and pedestrian improvements 50,000 Carryover 2, ,710 1,704,152 1,703,210 Carryover ,304 Lawrence Sidewalk Improvement Program 1,269,267 6th Street Corridor Bikeway from Downtown to 6th Street Path at Monterey ,046 Way 200, ,060 Bikeway Projects Identified in the Countywide Bikeway System Plan 500, ,604 Safe Routes To School - bicycle and pedestrian improvements 150, ,293 2,119,307 2,119,267 Carryover ,390 Lawrence Sidewalk Improvement Program 400, ,016 * Bike-Pedestrian Bridge over K-10 in Eudora 1,500, ,412 Safe Routes To School - bicycle and pedestrian improvements 70, , ,675 1,977,738 1,970,000 Carryover 7, ,994 Lawrence Sidewalk Improvement Program 400, ,189 Bike-Pedestrian Bridge over K-10 at the K-10/US-40 Interchange in Lawrence 1,500, ,280 Bikeway Projects indentified in the Countywide Bikeway System Plan 400, ,960 Safe Routes To School - bicycle and pedestrian improvements 100, ,119 2,459,542 2,400,000 Carryover 59,542 Totals 12,983,462 12,948,924 Carryover 34,538 Table 9.10 Notes: Cost estimates for all other projects on this list were developed by local government engineering staffs and are reasonable estimates based on similar projects in the region and recent experiences with materials costs. More details for these projects will be developed as they are moved into local budget documents and/or moved into the design/engineering stage. This table assumes that the City of Lawrence will continue to fund its sidewalk improvement program at levels comparable to 2012 in the foreseeable future and continue that until the sidewalk system is free of major gaps. That sidewalk program has been funding by Community Development Block Grant and Local funds, and those sources of funding are assumed to continue in the future. This table assumes that by 2030 the City of Lawrence will have completed its work to fill sidewalk gaps and can then significantly scale down its funding for sidewalk maintenance and improvements. It is assumed when that occurs the funding for sidewalks will be moved to other non-road transportation projects like bikeway projects listed in this table. 163

38 Projects shown in this table are not year specific and may be constructed during any year within the funding band they are listed in or much sooner in another band if Transportation Alternatives (TA) funding becomes available for the project. New and/or increased funding levels for these types of projects from the State or local sources may also advance projects to earlier years. *These projects were proposed by local governments for 2012 TE funding from KDOT. The cost estimates in this table represent the estimates developed in early 2013 for the TE funding applications. If federal funding via KDOT is granted to these projects then they should be advanced to construction during the first funding band. Other projects and improvements that support the bicycle and/or pedestrian network should be made as part of roadway projects and included in the budgets for those transportation system upgrades and are not called out specifically in this table. That integration of bike-pedestrian elements in roadway projects is consistent with the MPO's Complete Streets Resolution and the Lawrence Complete Streets Policy. There are many more planned bikeway segments in the region than the few shown on this table. All of the planned bikeway links in the region are shown on the Bikeway System Plan Map in the Bicycle Chapter of this T2040 Plan. The bikeway projects listed on this table are known proposals that were discussed by MPO staff and/or committees within the last few years. At the time this plan was adopted those bikeways were recommended transportation system improvements. However, this list of recommended bikeway projects is subject to change. All of the projected funding and transportation enhancement cost numbers listed above are based on a set of assumptions for future funding levels and the inflation of cost and various actions by federal, state and local governments. Changes to any one or more of those assumptions could significantly impact this fiscal analysis for future transportation enhancements in the region. All of these numbers are subject to change. Although the Tables 9.8, 9.9 and 9.10 list transportation improvements in three separate modal areas (roadways, transit, bikepedestrian) there are a number of travel corridors and projects that have features for all, or most of, those travel means. For projects in the corridors that have planned roadway, walkway, bikeway and transit service mobility all of the various types of facilities need to be put into those project designs so that the corridor can serve its multimodal function well. The operational needs of transit should be considered during planning and design of roadway improvements in those corridors where transit service is needed, expected to be needed, or already existing. Likewise, the gaps in the bikeway and pedestrian facility networks and their condition should be addressed early and often in the planning, design, and construction of improvements in those corridors. Transit, pedestrian and bicycle focused features of road corridors can help make it truly a multimodal travel way and should be important parts of the project design and not viewed as optional features that can be done in the project if we have enough funding but dropped if the budget gets tight. Tables 9.8, 9.9 and 9.10 depict how we could improve the region s multimodal transportation system between now and 2040 have carryover amounts and large balances left at the end of the table. Because of the uncertainty of future funding levels at all levels of government (e.g., short-term of MAP_21, questions about replacing/renewing TWORKS in 2020, voter approval of continued sales tax support of transportation in Lawrence after those taxes expire in 2019) the MPO staff has left some carryover amounts in these tables so that if future funding is less than projected some projects may be delayed instead of cut completely from these fiscally constrained tables, and because the MPO would rather add projects to these tables by amendment than to make amendments that cut projects for the recommendations list. Figure 9.1 shows the locations of the recommended roadway network and bikeway network improvements. Since transit services cover the entire region and the exact locations of pedestrian facility improvements are undetermined at this time, those modal transportation improvements are not shown on this map. 164

39 Figure T2040 Roadway Network-Recommended Improvement Projects Map -Douglas County, Kansas A large version of this map can be found online at: 165