lawrence-douglas county thursday, february 16, 2012 ... · lawrence-douglas county thursday,...

of 2

Lawrence-Douglas County Thursday, February 16th, 2012 Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 4:00 PM – 5:30 PM Policy Board 6 East 6th Street

Lawrence City Hall City Commission Room

AGENDA – Regular Meeting 4:00 – 5:30 PM

1. Call Meeting to Order (Charles Blaser - L-DC MPO Chair)

2. Action Item: Approval of Minutes from the November 7th, 2011 MPO Meeting (see attached minutes) (Charles Blaser - L-DC MPO Chair)

3. Old Business and Correspondence (see attached memo and minutes)

(Todd Girdler – MPO staff)

a. Project Updates Memo · Travel Demand Model · T-2040 Advisory Committee · Funding Projections for the next Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) –

Transportation 2040 · Public Participation Services for the MTP Update in 2012 · US 40/K-10 Highway Interchange Area Transportation Study · Complete Streets Policy for Lawrence · Riverfront Pathway Proposal

b. Recent TAC meeting minutes

· November 1st, 2011 - approved

4. Action Item: Election of MPO Officers for 2012 (Todd Girdler – MPO staff) The MPO Staff will ask the MPO Policy Board members to elect a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson to serve during calendar year 2012.

5. Action Item: 2012-2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) – Amendment #1 including Major Projects and Significant Delays List and FFY 2011 List of Obligated Federal Aid Projects (see attached amendment draft) (Jessica Mortinger – MPO staff) MPO staff will discuss and present the first scheduled amendment to the new 2012-2015 TIP. This amendment will make changes to several KDOT projects in Douglas County and add paratransit projects pending funding approval to the TIP. The “major projects” and “significant delay” definitions are needed so that the TAC can produce a list of major

of 2

projects from the previous 2008-2012 TIP and identify any TIP projects that had a significant delay. Creating this list is a requirement for new TIP documents. This amendment will also replace the 2010 list of obligated federal aid projects with the new 2011 list. Major Amendments to this document require a 15-day public comment period.

6. Action Item: Coordinated Public Transit – Human Services Transportation Plan (CPT-HSTP) for Douglas County (see attached draft plan) (Jessica Mortinger – MPO staff) The MPO staff will present the RTAC approved draft of the CPT-HSTP for discussion and approval.

7. Discussion Item: Review and Update of the Public Participation Plan (latest draft with

TAC member comments incorporated will be distributed at the meeting) (Todd Girdler – MPO staff) The MPO staff will present an updated version of the 2009 PPP for review and ask the MPO to schedule this document for approval at their March 15th meeting. This PPP amendment makes several minor changes to the PPP and is the result of the public participation review requested by KDOT during 2011. Changes to this document require a 45-day public comment period so this draft PPP was sent to the TAC and MPO members previously and posted online for public review on January 27th. The public comment period is scheduled to end on March 12th.

8. Discussion Item: MPO-FHWA Roadway Functional Classification Map (the latest draft of this map is now being edited and may be sent to the TAC for review soon and presented for review at the MPO meeting) (Todd Girdler – MPO staff) The MPO staff may present a draft map to the MPO for review and may ask the MPO to schedule it for approval in March.

9. Other Business

10. Public Comments This item is to allow brief public comments on items not listed specifically on the agenda. Comments from each individual or organization will be limited to five minutes.

11. Adjournment Next Meeting: The MPO Policy Board will meet on March 15th, 2012 or another date as needed and approved by the MPO.

Special Accommodations: Please notify the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (L-DC MPO) at (785) 832-3150 at least 72 hours in advance if you require special accommodations to attend this meeting (i.e., qualified interpreter, large print, reader, hearing assistance). We will make every effort to meet reasonable requests. The L-DC MPO programs do not discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, color or national origin, according to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For more information or to obtain a Title VI Complaint Form, see http://www.lawrenceks.org/pds/Title6 or call (785) 832-3154.

of 4

Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Policy Board

Meeting Minutes Thursday, November 17, 2011

Attendance:

Organization Name Present Voting Members Lawrence City Commission Michael Dever X Lawrence City Commission Vacant Douglas County Commission Mike Gaughan X L-DC Metropolitan Planning Commission Bruce Liese L-DC Metropolitan Planning Commission Charles Blaser X City of Baldwin Ken Wagner Kansas Department of Transportation Alt-Thomas Dow X Non-Voting Members Federal Highway Administration Paul Foundoukis Federal Transit Administration Joni Roeseler

University of Kansas Margaret (Peg) Livingood, ASLA

City of Eudora Maria Nelson City of Lecompton Jimmy Wilkins Staff Lawrence - Douglas County MPO Todd Girdler, AICP X Lawrence - Douglas County MPO Jessica Mortinger X City of Lawrence-Douglas County Planning & Development Services Dept. Scott McCullough X

Others City of Lawrence Megan Gilliland X City of Lawrence Sandra Day X Parsons Brinckerhoff Jim Tobaben X KDOT Earl Bosak X KDOT Road Jason Marburger X KDOT Planning David Schwartz X KDOT Planning David Gurss X KDOT Road Aaron Fritz X KDOT Road Kris Norton X Olsson Associates Tom Worker-Braddock X Douglas County Public Works Keith Browning X

of 4

1. Call Meeting to Order Chairperson Charles Blaser called the meeting to order at 4:09PM and a quorum was assured. 2. Action Item: Approval of Minutes from the October 20, 2011 MPO Meeting Approval of the minutes from the October 20, 2011 MPO meeting was moved by Mr. Gaughan, seconded by Mr. Dever and passed unanimously. 3. Discussion Item: Old Business and Correspondence: Mr. Girdler presented the Project Updates Memo & TAC minutes included in the agenda packet and asked if any members of the Board had additional questions. Mr. Girdler noted the MPO Policy Board will see the CPT-HSTP in early spring and that the advisory committee to the MTP update has met a few times to begin the MTP planning process. No additional questions or discussion was had.

4. Discussion Item: 5-County Regional Transportation Study-Phase 2 Thomas Dow thanked the MPO for inviting KDOT to discuss the project. KDOT is the managing partner for the study. The last update provided to the MPO was about 1.5 years ago. The participating counties are: Douglas, Johnson, Leavenworth, Miami and Wyandotte. KDOT started this study after recent development in the region that has impacted transportation facilities. The largest to note is the Kansas Speedway and all the additional development that has occurred in the area. The other notable high impact development was the BNSF facility in southern Johnson County, generating 10,000 truck trips a day to the facility. Other additional developments in Douglas County, including the Farmland redevelopment site have created the demand for this study. KDOT typically does corridor studies that create lists of desirable projects that have a cost which is unreasonable to expect KDOT to be able to fund. This study provides a way to coordinate these improvements and find the ones that are of the most value to the region so that limited funding can then be targeted to key corridors and key projects. Jim Tobaben of PB presented two newsletter handouts to highlight the study process. Phase One had identified project goals and objectives, introduced a decision making framework, and indentified key corridors. The focus has been mobility and safety issues. T-WORKS took further steps to include economic development potential. Through the 5-County Study process there have been additional values that people felt should be considered in relation to projects and outcomes. Nine outcomes (choice, mobility, safety, regional prosperity, efficient use of financial resources, environment, public health, social equity and livability) have been developed and the study process created criteria for each outcome to create an evaluation process. At the same time the study has developed a tool box of strategies that should be considered when applying solutions to corridors. Three main types of strategies were considered: system management, travel demand, and increasing capacity. The goal is to find more cost effective and efficient strategies for solving corridor congestion. The study also hopes to find ways to provide information to aid in the KDOT selection process. The website for the study has additional information and can be found at www.5countystudy.org. Mr. Gaughan asked if the nine criteria developed and the main categories were typical for transportation planning. Mr. Tobaben indicated they were used to determine how we can you best use what you have, manage existing facilities and increasing capacity. These are typical elements of transportation planning. Chuck asked how other studies of this nature have preformed. Mr. Tobaben indicated KDOT is on the leading edge of looking at a broader range of outcomes that should be considered when making transportation decisions. Being on the leading edge there were no other studies to investigate. Mr. McCullough asked Mr. Tobaben to talk about the transportation strategies that will be identified for the 14 key corridors. Mr.

of 4

Tobaben said the study projects where congestion in the future will be. The model will give a good idea of the needs; the strategies identified will try to address those needs. This process will not only use the travel demand model, but will also use TREDIS (software solution for assessing economic impacts, benefits, and costs of transportation projects) to analyze the economic impacts from transportation improvements in a corridor. From a regional perspective this will investigate how can we prioritize the projects we select in the region. This looks at all modes, looking at all impacts, including environment and economic and how they relate to each other. KDOT is beginning the next round of local consultation. This study will provide a good idea of local concerns and priorities. KDOT will have this discussion with local communities using these strategies with the corridors identified, this will not replace KDOTs existing selection procedures, however it will supplement them. Mr. Girdler said he has been working with MPOs for a number of years where state DOTs perform typical analysis, however this study uses a more formal way to analysis a broader realm of factors to better estimate outcomes. Mr. Tobaben asked if anyone had additional questions. No additional discussion or questions were had. 5. Discussion Item: Update on KDOT Projects in Douglas County John Marberger presented a briefing on the status of the South Lawrence Trafficway (SLT) project including current issues and next steps. The completion of the SLT will be 5.958 miles of a 4-lane freeway with interchanges at Iowa, Haskell and 23rd/existing K-10 and overpasses at Louisiana and O’Connell. A SLT bike path will connect to 31st Street and Louisiana. However, KDOT will be asking the City for local funding to fund the link from Louisiana to Iowa through a city/state agreement process. The 2016 project cost is $188 million. The City and KDOT are in conversations to tie the SLT and the 31st Street lettings together. To the public this will look like one large construction project if that occurs. KDOT is continuing its property acquisition work and meeting with property owners to ensure access to properties. Mr. Dever asked if existing local roads will be remaining or be removed. Mr. Marberger indicated the existing portions of Louisiana, Haskell, and 31st will be removed with vacation of the ROW by the City. Lawrence has asked KDOT to purchase ROW for the City and then later will be reimbursed by the City for during the construction of the new 4 lane 31st Street. Field check has been done in 2010 and bridge check more recently in September 2011. Baker University has now completed half of the wetland mitigation. Still remaining are about 30 tracts in addition to some City tracts to acquire. The surveyors will begin working on the Iowa street interchange. The engineers are currently finishing retaining wall design. Work on the SLT is still ongoing. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to be complete hearing testimony in January. This project is on a timeline to break ground prior to 2016 to avoid repayment of the earmarks made in 2006. The project is scheduled to be let in 2013. During the T-WORKS process this project was found to have the highest economic benefit in the state. Mr. Marberger asked if anyone had additional questions. No additional discussion or questions were had. Dave Schwartz presented a briefing on the Toll Feasibility Study. This study is investigating the possibility of tolls to fund SLT completion and maintenance. Tolling is only feasibility if traffic can support it. The traffic volumes must be high enough to support a toll; the study investigates if a toll could be used to support improvements on the corridor. It investigates the receptiveness of drivers to pay a toll to use the roadway. The 5-County Study travel demand model has lended itself for use in this study, looking at Lawrence and Kansas City in the same travel demand model, and looking at driver choices between SLT and I-70. Consumers will have

of 4

to choose based on where they are going (OD) and the willingness to pay. KDOT consulted with ETC Institute out of Olathe to conduct scientifically valid survey to determine if and to what level drivers regionally are willing to pay. Eight hundred individuals were surveyed from Shawnee, Douglas and Johnson Counties. Results are not showing a large difference from national willingness to pay trends. No decisions have yet to be made about how to toll or where to toll. Mrs. Gilliland asked if tolling will change the impacts and benefits found in the Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. Schwartz indicated that KDOT will not pursue any tolling options that will endanger the EIS work already completed. Mr. Dever asked KDOT staff to clarify the relation to tolling and completion of the Bob Billings and K-10 Interchange. KDOT staff indicated they had previously said the interchange construction would not be possible unless funding from tolling was guaranteed. The City of Lawrence and State of Kansas have applied for funding through the current round of TIGER applications. If TIGER funding is acquired the need to toll to build the interchange will be eliminated. Mr. Schwartz asked if anyone had additional questions. No additional discussion or questions were had.

Aaron Fritz presented the Bob Billings and K-10 Interchange design. The project was originally conceived as part of trafficway construction and has been revised as the funding for the completion of the SLT has been committed. During the design/engineering phase KDOT met with local groups, City and County, KU, Bicycle Advisory Committee, and local public works staff. The schedule is in flux awaiting TIGER grant announcements. The project is a one season project that is slated for completion prior to SLT completion. Design accommodates bicycle and pedestrian connections, and it has sidewalks on both sides of the bridge structure. This project includes a standard diamond interchange that works well, may have double lefts of exit ramps in the future, turning movements may be accommodate with signals at a later date, and initial ramps will be built with two lanes but will be graded to open to dual lanes later as needed.. The interchange will not build additional capacity on the trafficway. The project requires realignment of local roads to tie in with ROW already purchased. KDOT will host public officials and public meetings next year once more information is known about design details and funding. Mr. McCullough noted that it would be important to solicit input for project design from the neighborhoods that will surround the interchange. Mr. Fritz asked if anyone had additional questions. No additional discussion or questions were had. Earl Bosak noted that 6th & K-10 signals and ramp widening work will occur as a result of the corridor study work. Additional work in the corridor will occur as step two in future years including: moving frontage roads further from K-10, removing the existing frontage roads, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and bridge widening. He also noted that US 59 South of Lawrence would be finished in the fall of 2012. The existing (i.e., the old two-lane) 59 work will occur in 2013, to replace a few bridges and pipe repair, along with a mill and overlay. Mr. Bosak asked if anyone had additional questions. No additional discussion or questions were had.

6. Other Business

There was no other business.

7. Public Comments There were no public comments.

8. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 5:16 p.m. The next MPO Policy Board meeting scheduled for December 15, 2011 will be canceled and a January 2012 meeting may be held.

Memorandum Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (L-DC MPO) TO: L-DC MPO Members FROM: Todd Girdler, Senior Transportation Planner CC: Scott McCullough, Lawrence-Douglas County Planning and Development Services Director

and L-DC MPO Secretary Date: February 8, 2012 Re: Updates for MPO Projects Since the last MPO meeting held on November 7, 2011 the MPO staff has been actively working on several projects. Shown below is a list of selected projects and a brief description of recent work on those items. Travel Demand Model - the City on behalf of the MPO extended the current contract with PB Americas, Inc. to provide consultant modeling assistance to the MPO through December 2012. The MPO staff met with Lawrence-Douglas County Planning and PB staffs to discuss where and how to obtain future year employment and population data for use in the model. Planning staff met to discuss population projections for traffic analysis zones (TAZ) and supplied this population data to the consultant. T-2040 Advisory Committee – the MPO staff prepared agendas and other materials for the second T-2040 meeting held on November 1, 2011. The MPO, Lawrence, and PB staffs presented information about the regional travel demand model and population data used in the model to the committee. The MPO staff made plans for the third committee to be held in March or April. Public Participation Consultant Services for the MTP Update in 2012 – the MPO staff received proposals and the selection committee reviewed them then chose a preferred consultant and held an interview/project scope meeting with that firm. A draft contract for this job was prepared and sent to the Lawrence City Attorney’s office for review in early January. The contract is now pending consultant signature and City Commission approval. The MPO staff expects to have the consultant under contract by early March or sooner. US 40/K-10 Highway Interchange Area Transportation Study – the MPO staff continued to work on this study along with other local officials, KDOT staff, and the consultant team. The MPO staff discussed comments from local landowners with the consultant team, and the consultant forwarded those concerns to KDOT staff for review. In early January the MPO staff reviewed the final draft of this report and made final comments on the report to the consultant team. The final comments are now being incorporated into the document and the final document to be presented for approval should be ready soon. The consultant and KDOT are now planning another public meeting for this project in early March. The MPO staff plans on presented this to the MPO for approval in March or April. Funding Projections for the New MTP-Transportation 2040 – the MPO staff is drafting funding projections for transportation system improvements between 2012 and 2040 to use to fiscally constrain the MTP in accordance with federal MPO planning regulations. The initial draft projections will be reviewed by the TAC soon. Once agreed upon by the MPO, KDOT and Lawrence Transit these projections will be incorporated into the new draft MTP document. Complete Streets Policy for Lawrence – the MPO staff has continued to work with City officials to review the drafted Complete Streets Policy for Lawrence. In January the MPO staff reviewed the latest draft policy and made comments to the City. The MPO staff was concerned that the policy as drafted made it sound like the MPO was an advisory committee to the City Commission. MPO staff clarified that issue in their comments. Currently the City is taking comments from interested groups and continuing to edit the draft policy. The City may schedule this policy for City Commission consideration soon. Riverfront Pathway – the MPO staff has been working for the last few months to work with representatives from East Lawrence, the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) members, Lawrence-Douglas County Planning staff, Parks and Recreation Staff, Public Works staff and other City officials to explore ways to design and construct a shared use path that facilitates cycling traffic along the 6th Street Corridor in the Downtown Area and connects the riverfront to the north end of the Burroughs

Creek Rail Trail. MPO staff is working with the BAC to consider this as a change for the Bikeway System Map that will be updated as part of the new MTP.

of 2

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) Minutes for Tuesday, November 1, 2011 Meeting Voting Members Keith Browning (Douglas County - Public Works Director – TAC Chair) Scott McCullough (Lawrence-Douglas County Planning & Development Services Director) Stephanie Watts (KDOT) Bob Nugent (Lawrence Transit Administrator) Danny Kaiser (KU on Wheels Manager) Non-Voting Members Paul Foundoukis (Federal Highway Administration - Kansas Division Office) Lisa Hallberg (Bicycle Advisory Committee – Chair) Staff Todd Girdler (Senior Transportation Planner - TAC Secretary) Jessica Mortinger (Transportation Planner) Item 1: Call to Order - Chairman Keith Browning called the meeting to order at 2:03 PM. A quorum was present. Item 2: Welcome and Introductions - Keith Browning welcomed everyone present to the TAC meeting and introductions were made. Item 3: Action Item: Approval of Minutes from the October 4, 2011 Regular Meeting - Keith Browning asked if anyone had any changes to the minutes and no one did. Scott McCullough made a motion to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Danny Kaiser and passed unanimously. Item 4: Discussion/Action Item: Coordinated Public Transit – Human Services Transportation Plan (CPT-HSTP) for Douglas County – Jessica Mortinger told the TAC that the Regional Transit Advisory Committee (RTAC) had met on October 27th and almost completed the draft CPT-HSTP document. She said that a few more changes will be made to the draft by staff and it will be sent back to the RTAC for approval. The TAC should see the final draft in early 2012 with MPO Policy board approval sometime during the first quarter of next year. Bob Nugent noted that he has discovered some new information, such as the United Way map given to social service clients that has a transit map on it, and found the discussions and inter-agency cooperation very helpful. At the last meeting the idea of creating a maintenance consortium to discuss common vehicle maintenance issues and use that information to alert KDOT about problems with equipment they have on state contracts was considered. Item 5: Discussion Item: Definitions for Major Projects and Significant Delay – Todd Girdler presented these definitions to the TAC and told them that since our last meeting he was considering changing the minimum dollar amount for major roadway project up from $1.0 million to $2.0 million. He said that this would likely eliminate some large maintenance projects from the list and keep the list to the few large projects that the TAC had discussed as being the focus of this list. Keith Browning noted that if this amount is raised it might prevent some important bridge projects like the Lecompton Bridge from making the list even though for most people that would have been a major project causing significant delays. Todd noted that a project like that could be added to the major projects list even if it did not meet the definition if

of 2

the TAC agreed that for special reasons it needed to be listed. Todd told the TAC that he would review the old TIP, draft this list, and have it ready to be put into the new TIP with its first amendment early next year.

Item 6: Quick Updates:

a. 5-County Regional Transportation Study – Phase 2 Todd Girdler informed the TAC that he recently attended a Stakeholders Advisory Panel meeting and the next County Chairs and Public Officials meetings would be held soon.

b. RFP for Public Participation Services for the MTP Update in 2012 Todd Girdler told the TAC that the MPO staff had received proposals and evaluation of those proposals would take place soon.

c. US 40/K-10 Highway Interchange Area Transportation Study Scott McCullough informed the TAC that comments and concerns from some major landowners in the area have been forwarded to KDOT for review and that this study is nearing completion.

d. Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Update Jessica Mortinger told the TAC that the pedestrian and bicyclists counts are now being prepared for submission to the national database. She also mentioned that some special counts in Eudora and Lawrence were taken for project level use.

e. Complete Streets Policies and MPO Complete Streets Resolution Scott McCullough told the TAC that the draft Lawrence policy has been released for public view and several groups are now looking at it. A meeting is being planned for early December to meet with those groups and prepare this policy for City Commission consideration. Keith Browning indicated he would work with MPO staff to draft a CS policy for the county; he also expressed concern about the maintenance implications that need to be studied carefully.

f. MPO-FHWA Roadway Functional Classification Map Todd Girdler informed the TAC that he is now drafting a new Urban Area Boundary (UAB) to use on this map that will be smaller than the current Lawrence Urban Growth Area but larger than the current 2003 UAB. The new UAB will be closely coordinated with the Lawrence area land use plans.

g. Funding Projections for T-2040 Todd Girdler told the TAC that he will be meeting soon with KDOT and transit officials to draft assumptions for future funding levels. It is likely that levels for the T-2040 document will be similar to 2010 levels.

Item 11: Other Business Todd Girdler told the TAC that he is still working on the 2010 Transportation System – Status Report and still needs some information from some TAC members. Once completed, this report will serve as the template to use for annual updates to local governing bodies and the MPO Policy Board. Todd will send the latest draft out to TAC members soon for review. Item 12: Next Meeting: December 6, 2011 or another date set by the TAC Todd Girdler asked TAC members if they thought a December meeting was needed. The consensus was that the December meeting could be skipped. Todd noted that unless things change soon he will send out a cancellation note for that meeting later this month. The meeting was adjourned at 2:31 PM.

2012-2015 TIP-Amendment #1

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (L-DC MPO) is designated as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to carry out the Continuing, Cooperative and Comprehensive (3 C) planning program, including transportation planning; and, WHEREAS, the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) of a MPO identifies the projects to use Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration and certain other State and local funds for the advancement of projects that implement the region's Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) approved by the MPO; and WHEREAS, a Transportation Improvement Program for each MPO is customarily adopted on a regular basis, and must be amended and/or revised when necessary, in accordance with 23 USC 134, 49 USC 5303-5306 and associated regulations and laws; and WHEREAS, the local government sponsors of the projects described in this amendment have placed the necessary funds for those projects into their Capital Improvement Plans and conferred with the Kansas Department of Transportation to ensure that any needed federal and/or state funding for those projects is also available, and that this amendment maintains a fiscally constrained TIP; and WHEREAS, the projects listed in this TIP that are sponsored by the Lawrence Transit System constitute the Program Of Projects (POP) for Lawrence Transit and by approving this TIP amendment the L-DC MPO is also reviewing and approving the POP for transit to bring the Lawrence Transit System into compliance with current FTA regulations regarding their POP. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that in accordance with the provisions of 23 CFR Part 450.210, the Kansas Department of Transportation and the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Organization hereby agree that the public involvement activities carried out in response to 23 CFR 450.324 (b) satisfy the public involvement requirements to add this TIP amendment into the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP); and that the 2012-2015 Transportation Improvement Program for the Lawrence-Douglas County Area be amended to make the text and projects table changes shown on the attached pages.

The Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Organization hereby approves this TIP revision on this 16th day of February 2012.

___________________________________ , L-DC MPO Vice Chairperson

__________________________________ Scott McCullough, L-DC MPO Secretary

1

2012-2015 TIP Project Changes List – TIP Amendment #1 Project Additions (project listings attached) o MPO#:603 KDOT#:KA-2624-01

Cable Median Barrier: K-10 Douglas Co. near Eudora & Johnson Co. at K-7 Installation of cable median barrier at 2 locations. K-10 in DG Co from 5 miles W of K-10/Church St. Interchange, east for approx. 2 miles. K-10 in JO Co. from 1 mile west of K-10/K-7 Junction east for 2 miles. This project will occur in 2 locations along the K-10 Corridor in JO & DG counties. It will be reflected in both TIPS. The improvement will be considered as one project and the total project cost reflects the cost for both locations. Program $250,000 in HSIP for Preliminary Engineering, $1,000 for State Utilities, 1,035,000 in HSIP for Construction and $80,000 in HSIP for Construction Engineering.

Project Changes/Revisions (project listings attached) o MPO#:100 KDOT#:KA-0685-01

K-10 Highway/ 23rd Street Bridge Project Increase 2012 State funds for Construction Engineering from $333,000 to $357,000. Increase 2012 State funds for Construction from $3,936,000 to $4,260,000. Increase 2013 BR funds for Preliminary Engineering from $890,000 to $1,100,000. Amend Total project costs from $6,160,000 to $6,719,000.

o MPO#:101 KDOT#:K-6813-01

Bridge Replacement on US-59 - US 59 BR 017, Wakarusa Rv. 6.1 miles n/o US 56 Reduce 2013 BR funds for Construction from $622,000 to $381,000. Reduce 2013 State funds for Construction from $156,000 to $95,000. Amend Total project costs from $994,000 to $692,000.

o MPO#:102 KDOT#:K-7888-04

Road Improvements on US-59 - US 59 FR-DG County Line, North to 2L/4L Divided Section Increase 2013 State funds for Construction from $1,347,000 to $1,394,000. Amend Total project costs from $1,469,000 to $1,516,000.

o MPO#:103 KDOT#:KA-0033-01

US 56 Tauy Creek Drainage Bridge Increase 2013 State funds for Construction Engineering from $191,000 to $220,000. Increase 2013 State funds for Construction from $2,549,000 to $2,932,000. Increase 2014 BR funds for Preliminary Engineering from $230,000 to $350,000. Increase 2014 BR funds for Construction Engineering from $191,000 to $220,000. Increase 2014 BR funds for Construction from$ 2,549,000 to $2,932,000. Amend Total project costs from $3,062,000 to $3,594,000.

o MPO#:200 KDOT#:K-8392-04

South Lawrence Trafficway Add $8,565,000 State funds for Preliminary Engineering in 2012. Reduce State funds for Construction Engineering from $13,329,000 to $11,250,000. Reduce State funds for Construction from $177,719 to $150,000. Amend Total project costs from $204,975,000 to $173,800,000. Add comment: State funds to be converted to NHS funds in 2019. Delete comment PE in 2009. Check box for Advanced Construction.

o MPO#:201 KDOT#:KA-2059-01

Bridge Replacement on US-59 - US 59 over West Fork of Tauy Creek .14 mile N of DG/FR County Line

2

Reduce 2013 State funds for Construction Engineering from $25,000 to $20,000. Reduce 2013 State funds for Construction from $337,000 to $263,000. Reduce 2013 BR funds for Construction Engineering from $101,000 to $79,000. Reduce 2013 BR funds for Construction from $1,350,000 to $1,050,000. Increase 2015 BR funds for Preliminary Engineering from $67,000 to $72,000. Amend Total project costs from $1, 965,000 to $1,569,000.

o MPO#:202 KDOT#:K-7888-06

Road Improvements on US-59 - US 59 Franklin-Douglas County Line N to 4-lane divided section Reduce 2013 STP funds for Construction Engineering from $1,231,000 to $753,000.Reduce 2013 STP funds for Construction from $16,261,000 to $11,500,000. Amend Total project costs from $23,165,000 to $23,666,000.

o MPO#:210 KDOT#:23 U-0015-01

Iowa Street Reconstruction Move all 2012 commitments to 2013.

o MPO#:214 KDOT#:23 U-2117-01

31st Street: Haskell to O’Connell Remove ROW in 2015. Add 2012 Fed earmarked funds of 300,000 for ROW. Add 2012 Local funds of $300,000 for ROW. Add 2013 Local funds of $7,000,000 for Construction. Delete comment Construction in 2016. Add comment ‘Bid with SLT.’

o MPO#:220 KDOT#:KA-1826-01

K-10/15th St./Bob Billings Pkwy Interchange Increase 2014 State funds for Construction Engineering from $1,175,000 to $1,338,000. Increase 2014 State funds for Construction from $15,662,000 to $17,841,000. Add NHS funds in 2015 for planning AC Conversion for Utilities, Construction Engineering and Construction in the amounts of $224,000; $1,070,000 and $14,273,000. Amend Total project costs from $18,397,000 to $20,739,000.

o MPO#:222 KDOT#:23 KA-2611-01 23rd & Iowa Geometric Improvements Reduce 2014 State funds for Construction from $900,000 to $500,000. Increase 2014 local funds for Construction from $900,000 to $1,500,000. Amend Total project costs from $1,800,000 to $2,000,000. Delete comment: “Application pending KDOT approval.”

o MPO#:223 KDOT#: NA

6th & Iowa Geometric Improvements Remove $375,000 state and $375,000 local funding in 2014. Add local funds for 2013 Construction for $900,000. Amend Total project costs from $750,000 to $900,000. Delete comment: “Application pending KDOT approval.”

3

Table Changes/Revisions Proposed Amendment #1

YearFederal Funds *

KDOT Funds **

Local Funds

***

Total Estimated

FundsFederal KDOT Local

Total Programmed

Funds2,012 1,300 - 1,300 2,600 300 - 1,300 1,600 2,013 1,000 150 10,730 11,880 4,175 150 10,730 15,055 2,014 1,000 500 5,502 7,002 - 500 5,502 6,002 2,015 1,000 - 4,481 5,481 - - 4,481 4,481

4 Year Totals

4,300 650 22,013 26,963 4,475 650 22,013 27,138

City of Lawrence - Funding Estimates and Funds Programmed In the TIP in 1,000'sProgrammed Funds in TIPFunding Estimates

* Includes Surface Transportation Program-STP, Highway Bridge Program-BR, and Highway Safety Improvement Program-HSIP.** Includes geometric improvement funds.*** Includes regionally significant locally funded projects and local match for federal funds.

Existing Approved

YearFederal Funds *

KDOT Funds **

Local Funds

***

Total Estimated

FundsFederal KDOT Local

Total Programmed

Funds2,012 1,000 - 3,375 4,375 4,175 3,375 7,550 2,013 1,000 150 455 1,605 - 150 455 605 2,014 1,000 1,275 5,277 7,552 - 1,275 5,277 6,552 2,015 1,000 - 4,981 5,981 - - 4,981 4,981

4 Year Totals

4,000 1,425 14,088 19,513 4,175 1,425 14,088 19,688

City of Lawrence - Funding Estimates and Funds Programmed In the TIP in 1,000'sProgrammed Funds in TIPFunding Estimates

* Includes Surface Transportation Program-STP, Highway Bridge Program-BR, and Highway Safety Improvement Program-HSIP.** Includes geometric improvement funds.*** Includes regionally significant locally funded projects and local match for federal funds.

Proposed Amendment #1

YearFederal Funds

KDOT * Local Total

Programmed Funds

2012 15,343 19,487 606 35,436 2013 7,775 **160,545 - 168,320 2014 1,015 18,164 - 19,179 2015 15,639 (15,639) - -

4 Year Totals

39,772 182,557 606 222,935

Note: KDOT projects undergo fiscal constraint analysis prior to submission to MPO for TIP inclusion so all KDOT projects are presumed to be fiscally constrained.

*During Advanced Construction years KDOT totals reflect funds in which KDOT initially pays for project costs using state funds. During Advanced Construction conversion years, project funding becomes federal funds and KDOT state funds are credited back. Negative values represent a balance where AC conversion outweighs KDOT total financial commitment in the region.

** 2013 State contribution includes TWORKS commitments for the South Lawrence Trafficway.

Programmed Funds in TIP in 1,000'sKDOT

Existing Approved

YearFederal Funds

KDOT Local Total

Programmed Funds

2012 19,217 10,370 606 30,193 2013 7,780 192,730 30 200,540 2014 4,886 12,405 - 17,291 2015 67 - - 67

4 Year Totals

31,950 215,505 636 248,091

Note: KDOT projects undergo fiscal constraint analysis prior to submission to MPO for TIP inclusion so all KDOT projects are presumed to be fiscally constrained.

During Advanced Construction years KDOT totals reflect funds in which KDOT initially pays for project costs using state funds. During Advanced Construction conversion years, project funding becomes federal funds and KDOT state funds are credited back. * 2013 State contribution includes TWORKS commitments for the South Lawrence Trafficway.

Programmed Funds in TIP in 1,000'sKDOT

4

Proposed Amendment #1

FYFederal

(STP & BR)* KDOT Funds

**Local Funds

***Federal Transit

****Other Federal

Total

2012 16,173 20,364 8,417 4,727 1,463 51,144 2013 11,100 161,346 17,776 1,589 1,000 192,811 2014 5,418 14,511 7,131 1,589 - 28,649 2015 15,639 (15,389) 10,235 1,589 - 12,074

4-year Total

48,330 180,832 43,559 9,494 2,463 284,678

TIP 2012 - 2015 Total Funds Programmed in 1000'sProgrammed Dollars in the TIP

* During Advanced Construction years KDOT totals reflect funds in which KDOT initially pays for project costs using state funds. During Advanced Construction conversion years, project funding becomes federal funds and KDOT state funds are credited back. Negative values represent a balance where AC conversion outweighs KDOT total financial commitment in the region.** Includes regionally significant locally funded projects, match funding for federal aid road and bridge projects, and local match for federal transit funds.

*** Includes Sections 5307, 5309, 5310, 5311, 5316-JARC, and all other FTA funds allocated to all transit operators based in Douglas County.

**** Includes Transportation Enhancement-TE, Safe Routes to Schools-SRTS, High Risk Rural Roads-HRRR, Highway Safety Improvement Program-HSIP and funds from any federal economic stimulus act passed during this TIP period. Existing Approved

FYFederal

(STP & BR)* KDOT Funds

**Local Funds

***Federal Transit Funds

****Other Federal Funds

Total

2012 24,187 10,967 10,492 4,727 1,098 51,471 2013 7,780 193,531 7,501 1,589 210,401 2014 4,886 13,930 6,906 1,589 - 27,311 2015 67 250 10,735 1,589 - 12,641

4-year 36,920 218,678 35,634 9,494 1,098 301,824

TIP 2012 - 2015 Total Funds Programmed in 1000'sProgrammed Dollars in the TIP

* During Advanced Construction years KDOT totals reflect funds in which KDOT initially pays for project costs using state funds. During Advanced Construction conversion years, project funding becomes federal funds and KDOT state funds are credited back. ** Includes regionally significant locally funded projects, match funding for federal aid road and bridge projects, and local match for federal transit funds.*** Includes Sections 5307, 5309, 5310, 5311, 5316-JARC, and all other FTA funds allocated to all transit operators based in Douglas County.

**** Includes Transportation Enhancement-TE, Safe Routes to Schools-SRTS, High Risk Rural Roads-HRRR, Highway Safety Improvement Program-HSIP and funds from any federal economic stimulus act passed during this TIP period.

5

Proposed Amendment #1 Environmental Justice Review Table for TIP Projects (roadways, bridges, and transportation enhancements)

YearNumber of Projects

Total Cost of Projects in

1000's

Number of Projects in EJ

Zones

Percent of Projects in EJ

Zones

Total Cost of Projects in EJ

Zones in 1000's

Percent of Cost in EJ Zones

2012 23 $ 44,736 6 26.1% $ 30,119 67.3%2013 15 $ 188,663 4 26.7% $ 168,105 89.1%2014 7 $ 26,601 3 42.9% $ 6,360 23.9%2015 5 $ 9,126 0 0.0% $ - 0.0%

*2013 includes South Lawrence Trafficway Funds **This table does not include projects not mapped for environmental justice analysis. This table does not include transit allocations, SRTS allocations and projects that are not limited to a specific point on a map. ***Advanced Construction Conversion funds are not calculated in the total project costs. Existing Approved

Environmental Justice Review Table for TIP Projects (roadways, bridges, and transportation enhancements)

YearNumber of Projects

Total Cost of Projects in

1000's

Number of Projects in EJ

Zones

Percent of Projects in EJ

Zones

Total Cost of Projects in EJ

Zones in 1000's

Percent of Cost in EJ Zones

2012 21 $ 46,089 5 23.8% $ 15,480 33.6%2013 14 $ 205,805 4 28.6% $ 191,953 93.3%2014 7 $ 23,909 3 42.9% $ 6,010 25.1%2015 6 $ 9,626 0 0.0% $ - 0.0%

*2013 includes South Lawrence Trafficway Funds **This table does not include projects not mapped for environmental justice analysis. This table does not include transit allocations, SRTS allocations and projects that are not limited to a specific point on a map. Text Changes/Revisions o Existing page 22: Delete text: “and if the KDOT projects are large enough an amendment to

the MTP may also be needed. All of the KDOT projects that are listed in this TIP are also made a part of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). This fiscally constrained TIP covering Douglas County (including the KDOT projects) is incorporated by reference into the STIP. All of the amendments to this TIP also become amendments to the STIP. Therefore, all of the KDOT projects located in Douglas County are fiscally constrained in both the TIP and STIP.”

o Appendix 2 – Existing page 38: Update references to other appendices and add more entries

into blank form. o Appendix 1- Existing page 37: Delete 2010 List of Obligated Projects. Add 2011 List of

Obligated Projects (attached).

o Appendix 4 – Existing page 46: Update text to clarify addition of Major Projects and Significant Delays (attached).

o Appendix 4 – Existing page 50: Update text to clarify List of obligated projects amendment and process for posting on web. (attached).

o Add: Major Projects from the Previous 2008-2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) that Have Been Implemented (attached).

o Update TIP Project Locations Map-Douglas County, Kansas Map and 2012-2015 TIP Projects

for Lawrence-Douglas County MPO in Relation to Environmental Justice Areas Map.

6

Projects for which Federal Funds were Obligated to in FFY 2011Lawrence-Douglas County MPODouglas County, Kansas

Project # Responsible Party

Route Description of Project Project Location Work Type Fund Category

Federal Funds

Requested in TIP

Federal Funds

Obligated in FFY

Federal Funds

Remaining

Bicycle and/or Pedestrian Elements

Douglas County Senior Citizens

Countywide Paratransit - Operating Assistance/Administration

Douglas County Operations FTA Section 5317 - New Freedom - Operating Assistance/Administration

25 25 0 No

Independence Inc.

Countywide Paratransit - Capital - Vehicle Purchase

Douglas County Replacement Vehicle

FTA Section 5310- Vehicles for Elderly & Handicapped

29 28 0 No

KS-90-X019-01

Lawrence Citywide Transit - Bus Replacement and/or Bus Facilities

Lawrence Bus/Facility Purchase

FTA 115 - American Recovery & Reinvestment Act - Capital

Assistance

400 400 0 Yes-bike racks on bus

KS-15-X002-01

Lawrence Citywide Transit - Bus Replacement and/or Bus Facilities

Lawrence Bus/Facility Purchase

FTA Section 5316 - Jobs Access/Reverse Commute

497 497 0 Yes-bike racks on bus

KS-90-X139 Lawrence Citywide Transit - Operating Assistance Lawrence Operations FTA Section 5316 - Jobs Access/Reverse Commute

248 248 0 No

KS-90-X138 Lawrence Citywide Transit - Operating Assistance Lawrence OperationsFTA Section 5307 - Operating

Assistance, Preventive Maintenance, Program Administration, and Security

1,657 1,657 0 No

C-4397-02 Baldwin City CitywideConstruct Sidewalks/Pathways -

Walking School Bus Program Baldwin CitySafe Routes To School Safe Routes To School 250 216 34

Yes - includes construction of bicycle

and pedestrian

K-8392-01 and K-8392-

04KDOT

South Lawrence

Trafficway K-10 Highway

Preliminary Engineering, Right-of-Way Acquisition, Environmental Documentation, Environmental

Mitigation, Project Litigation

US-59/K-10 intersection eastward

to K-10 east of Lawrence

Engineering, Right-of-Way, Environmental

Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Transportation,

Community & System Preservation Program (TCSP)

0 1,179 0Yes - highway project includes a shared use path in the corridor

TE-0321-01 Lawrence Burroughs Creek Rail Trail

Shared Use Pathway11th to 23rd Street

along BNSF rail corridor in Lawrence

Shared Use Path

Construction

Transportation Enhancement Program (TE)

500 400 100Yes - includes

construction of bicycle and pedestrian

TE-0339-01 LawrenceNew York

Street Brick Street Restoration9th to 12th Street in

LawrenceBrick Street Restoration

American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) 947 675 272 No

TE-0347-01 LawrenceClinton

Parkway Path Shared Use PathwayWakarusa Drive to K-

10 Highway in Lawrence

Shared Use Path

Construction

American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) 801 801 0

Yes - includes construction of bicycle

and pedestrian

U-1956-01 Lawrence Kasold Drive Bridge over KTABridge over Kansas

Turnpike Bridge Surface Transportation Program

(STP) 2,268 2,268 0 No

U-2117-01 Lawrence 31st Street Roadway ExtensionHaskell Avenue to O'Connell Road

Grading and Surfacing

Surface Transportation Program (STP) 792 792 0 No

U-2125-01 Lawrence 19th Street Roadway Reconstruction and Intersection Improvements

Ohio Street to Alabama Street and

Louisiana Intersection

Geometric Improvements

, Grading,

Surface Transportation Program (STP)

294 294 0 N0

U-2231-01 Lawrence Kasold Drive Roadway ReconstructionClinton Parkway

(23rd Street) to 31st Street

Grading and Surfacing

Surface Transportation Program (STP)

1,000 1,000 0Yes - pedestrian-

bicycle facilities where ROW is available

(thousands of dollars)

of 57

The MPO is instituting a new TIP project submission form and TIP development process in 2011 along with the creation of this revamped 2012-2015 TIP document. This TIP shows projects and their expected year of implementation.

Changes to schedules for major projects will be addressed by TIP revisions or amendments as outlined elsewhere in this TIP document. Likewise, this TIP includes a description of the project selection process used to review and place projects in the TIP.

The MPO staff has is planning on respondeding to KDOT discussions about this regulation by including at the end of this appendix a listing of major projects from the previous TIP that have been implemented along with definitions of what the MPO considers to be major projects and significant delays.

or are now being implemented in this new 2012-2015 TIP. However, at this time KDOT staff is discussing the definitions to use for “major project” and “significant delay” in the creation of this list. Rather than holding up the approval of this new TIP while those definitions are decided, the MPO and KDOT staffs have decided to go ahead with the approval of this TIP and add this listing to the document as an amendment in 2012.

The L-DC MPO area is neither non-attainment nor a maintenance area at this time.

(m) During a conformity lapse, MPOs may prepare an interim TIP as a basis for advancing projects that are eligible to proceed under a conformity lapse. An interim TIP consisting of eligible projects from, or consistent with, the most recent conforming metropolitan transportation plan and TIP may proceed immediately without revisiting the requirements of this section, subject to interagency consultation defined in 40 CFR part 93. An interim TIP containing eligible projects that are not from, or consistent with, the most recent conforming transportation plan and TIP must meet all the requirements of this section.

The MPO will update its TIP at least once every four years (planned for a two-year update cycle) and update its MTP at least once every five years (four years if the region is designated non-attainment for ozone).

In the event that the TIP does lapse for any reason the MPO will quickly work with KDOT and the FHWA and FTA to create an interim TIP and bring the TIP and MTP back into conformance with these federal regulations.

(n) Projects in any of the first four years of the TIP may be advanced in place of another project in the first four years of the TIP, subject to the project selection requirements of §450.330. In addition, the TIP may be revised at any time under procedures agreed to by the State, MPO(s), and public transportation operator(s) consistent with the TIP development procedures established in this section, as well as the procedures for the MPO participation plan (see §450.316(a)) and FHWA/FTA actions on the TIP (see §450.328).

The MPO will use its TIP Amendment/Revision and Project Selection processes described in this document. Projects selected to be in the TIP and moved around within Years 1-4 will be moved from year to year with the cooperation of the KDOT, Local Transit, and FHWA/FTA staffs. The TAC will discuss these changes. Projects in Year 1 will proceed to implementation as long as adequate funds are shown in the TIP. The removal or addition of any project in Year 1 will be done via a TIP amendment that is reviewed and approved by the TAC and the MPO.

of 57

The L-DC MPO area is currently in attainment for air quality standards and therefore is not subject to this regulation.

§ 450.332 Annual listing of obligated projects.

(a) In metropolitan planning areas, on an annual basis, no later than 90 calendar days following the end of the program year, the State, public transportation operator(s), and the MPO shall cooperatively develop a listing of projects (including investments in pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) for which funds under 23 U.S.C. or 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 were obligated in the preceding program year.

The MPO produces an annual list of projects that were obligated federal funds in the preceding FFY each fall/winter and publishes this list on its web site as part of TIP updates or amendments or by separate memo. in December. This list is created in cooperation with the KDOT and local public transit provider staffs and reviewed by the TAC before publication. The latest edition of this list is included in all TIP updates and amendments which are also posted online for public viewing.

(b) The listing shall be prepared in accordance with §450.314(a) and shall include all federally funded projects authorized or revised to increase obligations in the preceding program year, and shall at a minimum include the TIP information under §450.324(e) (1) and (4) and identify, for each project, the amount of Federal funds requested in the TIP, the Federal funding that was obligated during the preceding year, and the Federal funding remaining and available for subsequent years.

The listing produced each year by the MPO provides this information and more for each project on the list.

(c) The listing shall be published or otherwise made available in accordance with the MPO's public participation criteria for the TIP.

The MPO publishes this list each year December on its web site, has it available for review with MPO staff at the MPO offices, and includes the latest list in TIP amendments and updates. The latest list of obligated federal aid projects from the Lawrence-Douglas County Region (FFY 2011) was included in the appendices of this 2012-2015 TIP Amendment #1 approved on February 16, 2012.

of 57

Major Projects From the Previous 2008-2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) that Have Been Implemented

In order to comply with 23CFR Part 450-Planning Assistance and Standards Subpart C-Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming section 324(l)(2) noted below the following definitions of “major project” and “significant delay” will be used in the creation of the TIP for the Lawrence-Douglas County MPO in Kansas.

§ 450.324 Development and content of the transportation improvement program (TIP) (l) As a management tool for monitoring progress in implementing the transportation plan, the TIP should: (2) List major projects from the previous TIP that were implemented and identify any significant delays in the planned implementation of major projects; and Major Projects

Roadway Projects (including intersections and bridges)

For purposes of complying with the federal regulation noted above, the major roadway projects list from the previous TIP will include projects located on a roadway classified by the MPO as a collector or higher, with construction costs of at least $2.0 million, and that have at least one of the following attributes:

• Designed to increase roadway capacity and decrease traffic congestion • Designed to significantly improve safety • Designed to replace aging infrastructure and bring it up to current standards • Result in significant delay and/or detour

Major projects do not include the following types of projects that are considered to be routine maintenance projects: mill & overlay, micro-abrasion, micro-surfacing, crack sealing, concrete rehabilitation, curb repairs, sweeping, mowing, spot repairs, and interim measures on detour routes.

Transit Facilities and Services Projects For purposes of complying with the federal regulation noted above the major transit projects list from the previous TIP will include projects that need to be listed in the TIP because they use federal funding and/or are regionally significant, have a total cost of at least $1.0 million, and meet at least one of the following criteria:

• Acquisition of three or more new transit vehicles • Addition of new operations and/or maintenance buildings or expansion of existing buildings • Initiation of new transit service or expansion of existing transit services into territory not

previously served by transit

Major transit projects do not include the following types of projects that are considered to be routine: preventive maintenance on transit vehicles; purchase of spare parts, shop supplies and fuel; annually received formula based operating assistance; purchase of bus stop signs, shelters and related items; scheduled purchases of one or two transit vehicles; staff training and recruitment; and other routine operational and activities.

Bikeway and Pedestrian Facilities Projects

of 57

For purposes of complying with the federal regulation noted above the major bikeway and pedestrian projects list from the previous TIP will include projects that need to be listed in the TIP because of federal funding and/or regional significance, and meet at least one of the following criteria:

• Total project cost of at least $ 500,000 • Construction of new bikeway or pedestrian facility (or extension of existing facility) into a

location where a bicycle/pedestrian facility did not exist before

Major bikeway/pedestrian projects do not include the following types of projects that are considered to be routine maintenance projects: patching, crack sealing, curb repairs, sweeping, mowing, spot repairs, landscaping maintenance, sign replacements, and other routine operational activities for pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities.

Significant Delay

For purposes of complying with the federal regulation noted above the term significant delay will be defined as two years or more from the year first listed for the project in the previous TIP. Amendments to the previous TIP may have moved a project back a year, but if the project is moved back two years or more by amendment in that previous TIP and then carried over into the next TIP then the project is listed as having a significant delay.

Major Projects from the Previous 2008-2012 TIP

Using the definitions listed above the following projects from the previous TIP were implemented between 2008 and 2011. The current TIP covers 20012 to 2015 so some 2012 projects are listed in both the previous and current TIP documents.

Roadway Projects (including intersections and bridges) • US-59 Highway - Bridge Replacement-Grading - KDOT (K-7888-01)

Franklin/Douglas County line north to existing 4-lane section, 2009, $89.29 million

• US-59 Highway - Surfacing – KDOT (K-7888-02) Franklin/Douglas County line north to existing 4-lane section, 2011, $20.054 million

• US-59 Highway – Surfacing-Guardrails-Lighting – KDOT (K-7888-06) Franklin/Douglas County line north to existing 4-lane section, 2011,$21.865 million

• South Lawrence Traffic Way/K-10 – Right-of-Way and Special work for Environmental Mitigation – KDOT (K-8392-01) US-59 to existing K-10 east of Lawrence, 2011, $18.954 million

• South Lawrence Traffic Way/K-10 – Preliminary Engineering – KDOT (K-8392-04) US-59 to existing K-10 east of Lawrence, 2011, $9.05 million

• K-10 Highway – Surfacing – KDOT (KA-2409-01) From east Lawrence City Limit eastward to Douglas/Johnson County Line, 2011, $5.164 million

• Route 438/Farmers Turnpike - Geometric-Intersection-Shoulder Improvements – Douglas County Route 1029 to curve at K-10 2009 $2.827 million

• Route 1061/Church Street – Reconstruction – Eudora/Douglas County K-10 to 28th Street/N 1200 Road, 2011, $3.302 million

• Kasold Drive – Reconstruction – Lawrence (U-2231-01)

of 57

Clinton Parkway/23rd Street to 31st Street, 2011, $6.75 million

• Wakarusa Drive – Reconstruction – Lawrence Bob Billings Parkway/15th Street to 18th Street , 2011, $3.0 million

• Iowa Street/US-59 – Grading-Surfacing – Lawrence Bob Billings Parkway/15th Street to Yale Road, 2011, $6.05 million

• North 2nd Street/US-40/59 – Intersection Improvements – Lawrence (U-2041-01) Locust Street Intersection, 2009, $3.45 million

Transit Facilities and Services Projects • Lawrence Transit/KU on Wheels – Bus Replacements – Lawrence

Citywide urban transit services 2009, $2.93 million ARRA funding

• Lawrence Transit – Bus Replacements – Lawrence Citywide urban transit services 2008, $1.52 million

• Lawrence Transit – Bus Replacements – Lawrence Citywide urban transit services 2009, $1.145 million

Bikeway and Pedestrian Facilities Projects • Main Street Enhancements – Eudora (TE-0307-01)

7th to 9th Street , 2008, $2.087 million

• Burroughs Creek Rail Trail – Lawrence (TE-0321-01) 11th to 23rd Street, 2009, $846,000

• Clinton Parkway Path – Lawrence Wakarusa Drive to K-10 Highway, 2009, $851,000

Major Projects from the Previous 2008-2012 TIP That Were Significantly Delayed

Using the definitions listed above the following major projects from the previous TIP were significantly delayed.

Roadway Projects (including intersections and bridges) • Route 1061/Church Street – Reconstruction – Eudora/Douglas County

K-10 to 28th Street/N 1200 Road, 2011, $3.302 million This project was originally programmed in the 2008-2012 TIP for 2008

• South Lawrence Traffic Way/K-10 – Right-of-Way and Special Work for Environmental Mitigation – KDOT (K-8392-01) US-59 to existing K-10 east of Lawrence, 2011, $18.954 million This project was originally programmed in the 2008-2012 TIP for 2008 at a much lower amount of $1.485 million.

Transit Facilities and Services Projects • None

Bikeway and Pedestrian Facilities Projects

• None

FY 2012 to FY 2015 L‐DC MPO TIP Projects (Cost in 1000's)

Project Sponsor: KDOT MPO#: 100

Project Name: K‐10 Highway/ 23rd Street Bridge Project

Project Type: Bridge

Route (to/from location): K‐10 Highway/ 23rd Street Bridge (023) over BNSF Railroad

Length:

Work Type: Bridge Replacement

Project Scope:

Bridge Replacement for K‐10 highway over BNSF line near Haskell University.

KDOT#: KA‐0685‐01

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments: PE in 2008, ROW in 2010, Utilities in 2011.

Total Project Cost: $6,719 Advanced Construction

StateSTPStateLocal

CEConstConstConst

$357$400

$4,260$100

BRBRBRBR

PEROWUtilitiesCE/Const

Fund Source Phase Obligation

AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

$1,100$251$251

$4,671

FY 2015


AC Conversion


Project Name: Bridge Replacement on US‐59


Route (to/from location): US 59 BR 017, Wakarusa Rv. 6.1 miles n/o US 56

Length: .008


Project Scope:

Bridge Replacement based on 44 feet roadway.

KDOT#: K‐6813‐01

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments: PE in 1997, UTIL in 2007.

Total Project Cost: $692 Advanced Construction

BRStateBRState

CECEConstConst

$46$12$381$95


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion

Page 1 of 24



Project Name: Road Improvements on US‐59


Route (to/from location): US 59 Franklin‐Douglas County Line, North to 2L/4L Divided

Length:

Work Type: Surfacing, Overlay, Pavement

Project Scope:

Turnback work for prj #K‐7888‐01 surface recycle, overlay.

KDOT#: K‐7888‐04

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments: PE in 2010.


StateState

CEConst

$102$1,394


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion


Project Name: US 56 Tauy Creek Drainage Bridge


Route (to/from location): US 56 Tauy Creek Drainage Bridge 1.95 miles east of US 59 & Tauy Creek Bridge 2.7 miles east of US‐59

Length:


Project Scope:

Bridge Replacement.

KDOT#: KA‐0033‐01

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments: PE in 2010, ROW in 2011.


State Utilities $46 StateState

CEConst

$220$2,932

BRBRBRBR

PEUtilitiesCEConst


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

$350$46$220

$2,932

FY 2015


AC Conversion

Page 2 of 24



Project Name: Tauy Creek Bridge ROW


Route (to/from location): US 56 Tauy Creek Drainage Bridge 1.95 miles east of US‐59 & Tauy Creek Bridge 2.7 miles east of US‐59

Length:


Project Scope:

One bridge replacement on US 56 over East Fork Tauy Creek.

KDOT#: KA‐0032‐01

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014



State Utilities $29 StateState

CEConst

$221$1,471

BRBRBRBR

PEUtilitiesCEConst


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

$149$29$221

$1,471

FY 2015


AC Conversion

Project Sponsor: Douglas County MPO#: 105

Project Name: Route 1057 Bridge over Wakarusa River Bridge Replacement


Route (to/from location): Route 1057 Bridge over Wakarusa River at 1300 E 1900 Road

Length: .2


Project Scope:

Total bridge replacement. On DG Co 5 ‐ Year Plan.

KDOT#: C‐4123‐01

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments:


FedLocalFedLocal

CECEConstConst

$171$43

$1,712$428


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion

Page 3 of 24



Project Name: South Lawrence Trafficway

Project Type: Road

Route (to/from location): SO Junct US 59/K10 E to K10

Length: 5.5

Work Type: Special Work, Right of Way

Project Scope:

Linked to Project L‐8392‐01.

KDOT#: K‐8392‐04

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments: ROW in 2011. State funds to be converted to NHS funds in 2019.


StateState

UtilitiesPE

$3,500$8,565

StateState

CECONST

$11,250$150,000


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion


Project Name: Bridge Replacement on US‐59

Project Type: Road

Route (to/from location): US 59 over West Fork of Tauy Creek .14 mile N of DG/FR County Line

Length: 4.3


Project Scope:

Bridge Replacement.

KDOT#: KA‐2059‐01

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments: Project is Authorized for PE Only. PE in 2011.


StateStateBR

ROWUtilitiesUtilities

$34$7$27

StateStateBRBR

CEConstCEConst

$20$263$79

$1,050


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion

BR PE $72

Page 4 of 24



Project Name: Road Improvements on US‐59

Project Type: Road

Route (to/from location): US 59 Franklin‐Douglas County Line N to 4‐lane divided section

Length: .5

Work Type: Surfacing

Project Scope:

Project will include asphalt surfacing for 4‐lane freeway, guardrails, lighting, signs and pavement markings. K‐7888‐05 related to this project.

KDOT#: K‐7888‐06

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments: PE in 2009, CE and Const in 2011.


STPSTPSTP

PECEConst


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

$1,040$753

$11,500

FY 2015


AC Conversion

Project Sponsor: Douglas Co/KDOT MPO#: 203

Project Name: Route 6 Curve Reconstruction

Project Type: Road

Route (to/from location): Route 6: N 1150 to E 550

Length: .9

Work Type: Seeding, Grading, Safety, Surfacing

Project Scope:

Work to reconstruct curve in the road.

KDOT#: C‐0059‐01

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments: High Risk Rural Roads Program


LocalLocalHRRR

CEConstConst

$54$95$500


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion

Page 5 of 24



Project Name: Route 1055 (6th St.) Reconstruction, DG Co Project #: 2010‐20

Project Type: Road

Route (to/from location): Route 1055 (6th St.) fron US 56 to Route 12

Length: 1.0

Work Type: Grading, Surfacing

Project Scope:

Reconstruct 2‐land, rural section to urban section with curbs & gutter, storm sewers & sidewalks.

KDOT#:

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments: Baldwin City and DG Co sharing costs for portion north of US 56 intersection, US 56/Route 1055 construction funded by KDOT Corridor Management funding.


LocalState

ConstConst

$3,434$432


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion


Project Name: DGCO Project No. 2011‐9; Route 442 3‐R Improvements

Project Type: Road

Route (to/from location): Route 442 from E 1 Rd. (SN Co line) to Route 1023 (E 250 Rd)

Length: 3.0


Project Scope:

3‐R Improvements; Reconstruct curves to meet 55 mph design speed; construct 6' paved shoulders.

KDOT#:

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments:


LocalLocal

ROWUtilities

$200$100

Local Const $3,528


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion

Page 6 of 24



Project Name: Route 458 Overlay & Paved Shoulders

Project Type: Road

Route (to/from location): Route 458 (N1200 Rd) US 59 to E 1050

Length: 2.5


Project Scope:

Construct 6' paved shoulders, 3" overlay, 8' ditches.

KDOT#:

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments:


LocalLocal

ROWUtilities

$55$20

Local Const $1,488


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion


Project Name: Route 1055 from Vinland to Route 458

Project Type: Road

Route (to/from location): Route 1055 from Vinland (E 1700 Rd/N 700 Rd) to Route 458 (N 1000 Rd)

Length: 3.0

Work Type: Reconstruction

Project Scope:

Reconstruct to meet 55 mph design speed and add 8' paved shoulders. Excludes .6 miles, reconstruced by Project No. 23 C‐3890‐01.

KDOT#:

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments:


Local PE $400 Local ROW $300 Local Utilities $75


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion

Local Const $4,000

Page 7 of 24



Project Name: Route 458 3‐R Improvements

Project Type: Road

Route (to/from location): Route 458 between E 800 Rd & N 1175 Rd Douglas County

Length: 4.3

Work Type: Surfacing, Reconstruction

Project Scope:

3‐R Improvements (restoration, resurfacing, reconstruction).

KDOT#:

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments: Const in 2017.


Local PE $445


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion

LocalLocal

ROWUtilities

$300$200


Project Name: Route 1055 from Route 12 to Vinland

Project Type: Road

Route (to/from location): Route 1055 from Route 12 (N 400 Rd.) to Route 460 (N 700 Rd.)

Length: 3.0

Work Type: Reconstruction

Project Scope:

Reconstruct to meet 55 mph design speed and add 8' paved shoulders.

KDOT#:

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments: Const in 2016.


Local PE $556


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion

LocalLocal

ROWUtilities

$125$20

Page 8 of 24


Project Sponsor: Lawrence MPO#: 210

Project Name: Iowa Street Reconstruction

Project Type: Road

Route (to/from location): Iowa (US 59): Yale to Irving Hill Rd

Length: 1


Project Scope:

Reconstruction of Iowa from Yale to Irving Hill: surfacing, grading, ctg, storm sewer, sidewalks, including intersetction at 15th/Bob Billings Pkwy and Iowa.

KDOT#: 23 U‐0015‐01

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments: PE and ROW in 2011. Westar will incur significant utility relocation cost.


Fed‐SafetyFed‐STPLocal

ConstConstConst

$1,000$3,000$2,250


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion


Project Name: 19th Street: Naismith to Iowa Reconstruction

Project Type: Road

Route (to/from location): 19th Street: Naismith to Iowa (US 59)

Length: .5

Work Type: Surfacing, Pedestrian & Bicycle Paths

Project Scope:

Reconstructed street will include center turn lane, sidewalks and bike lanes.

KDOT#:

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments:


LocalLocal

PEROW

$375$50

LocalLocal

UtilitiesConst

$260$3,200


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion

Page 9 of 24



Project Name: Kasold Reconstruction

Project Type: Road

Route (to/from location): Kasold Drive: Harvard Road to Bob Billings Pkwy

Length: .5


Project Scope:

Reconstruction of street will include subgrade treatment, concrete pavement and multi‐modal facilities.

KDOT#:

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments:


LocalLocal

PEROW

$500$42


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion

LocalLocal

UtilitiesConst

$300$4,158


Project Name: Wakarusa Reconstruction

Project Type: Road

Route (to/from location): Wakarusa Drive: Bob Billings Pkwy to Legends Drive

Length: .5


Project Scope:

Reconstructed road will include turn land, curbs and gutters, storm sewers and sidewalks.

KDOT#:

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments: PE costs incurred in‐house. Utilities and Const in 2016.



AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion

Local ROW $23

Page 10 of 24



Project Name: 31st Street

Project Type: Road

Route (to/from location): 31st Street: Haskell to O'Connell

Length: 1


Project Scope:

Grading, surfacing, storm watyer, multimodal facilities.

KDOT#: 23 U‐2117‐01

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments: Federal earmark in 2006 for design($500K) and ROW($300K). Bid with SLT.


FedLocal

ROWROW

$300$300

Local Const $7,000


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion


Project Name: Construct Left Turn Lane on 6th Street at US‐56 in Baldwin City

Project Type: Road

Route (to/from location): Intersection of US‐56 and 6th Street in Baldwin City

Length:

Work Type:

Project Scope:

Construct Left Turn Lane

KDOT#: KA‐2341‐01

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments:


State Const $433


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion

Page 11 of 24



Project Name: Road Work on K‐10 in Douglas County

Project Type: Road

Route (to/from location): K‐10 in Douglas County from Junction 1‐70/KTA to South Junction US‐59

Length:

Work Type:

Project Scope:

Resurfacing and centerline rumble stripes

KDOT#: KA‐2450‐01

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments:


StateState

CEConst

$51$1,012


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion

Project Sponsor: Douglas Co/KDOT MPO#: 218

Project Name: US‐56 Center Turn Lane Improvement

Project Type: Road

Route (to/from location): US‐56 at Baldwin City from Bull Pup Drive to E 1600 Road

Length: .4


Project Scope:

Extend existing 3‐lane section of US‐56 near Bullpup Dr. in Baldwin City westward through the E 1600 Rd. intersection.

KDOT#: 56‐23‐KA‐2294‐0

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments: KDOT Corridor Management Project


LocalLocal

PEROW

$66$8

LocalLocalState

UtilitiesCEConst

$10$55$551


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion

Page 12 of 24



Project Name: K‐10 Access Point Consolidation

Project Type: Road

Route (to/from location): K‐10 from US 59 (Iowa St.) E. to O'Connell Rd.

Length:

Work Type:

Project Scope:

Consolidation of Access Points

KDOT#: K‐9667‐01

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014



LocalLocalStateLocal

UtilitiesCEConstConst

$25$101$367$355


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion


Project Name: K‐10/15th St./Bob Billings Pkwy Interchange

Project Type: Interchange

Route (to/from location): K‐10/15th Street/Bob Billings Pwky

Length:

Work Type: Interchange

Project Scope:

Construct Interchange

KDOT#: KA‐1826‐01

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments: PE in 2010. Utilites, CE and Const using AC. $13,693,664 will be converted to National Highway System funds in 2016.


State ROW $280 State Utilities $280 StateState

CEConst

$1,338$17,841


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion

NHSNHSNHS

UtilitiesCEConst

$224$1,070$14,273

Page 13 of 24



Project Name: 9th & Tennessee Intersection Improvements

Project Type: Intersection

Route (to/from location): 9th & Tennessee St. Intersection

Length:

Work Type: Signal, Intersection Improvement

Project Scope:

Replace existing traffic signal pole 2 mast arm. Widen roadway to add turn lanes.

KDOT#:

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments:


FedLocal

ConstConst

$175$125


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion


Project Name: 23rd & Iowa Geometric Improvements


Route (to/from location): 23rd & Iowa St. Intersection

Length:

Work Type: Geometric/Intersection Improvements

Project Scope:

Widen roadway to add dual left lanes for east and westbound traffic.

KDOT#:

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments:


StateLocal

ConstConst

$500$1,500


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion

Page 14 of 24



Project Name: 6th & Iowa Geometric Improvements


Route (to/from location): 6th & Iowa St. Intersection

Length:

Work Type: Geometric/Intersection Improvements

Project Scope:

Widen roadway to add west bound left turn lane.

KDOT#:

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments:


Local Const $900


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion


Project Name: Wakarusa Reconstruction

Project Type: Road

Route (to/from location): Wakarusa: Oread West to Research Park

Length: .15


Project Scope:

Reconstruction of Wakarusa from Oread West Drive to Research Parkway

KDOT#:

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments:


Local Const $1,000


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion

Page 15 of 24



Project Name: US‐40/K‐10 Interchange

Project Type: Interchange

Route (to/from location): US‐40/K‐10 Interchange

Length:

Work Type: Interchange

Project Scope:

Develop plans to improve ranps, widen bridge, close frontage road and address bicycle/pedestrian needs across bridge.

KDOT#: KA‐2174‐01

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments:


State PE $300


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion


Project Name: City of Lawrence Traffic Signal Coordination

Project Type: ITS

Route (to/from location): 23rd St: Iowa to east city limit.

Length:

Work Type: Special Work

Project Scope:

23rd Street Traffic Signal Coordination. Install fiber optic and other ITS devices.

KDOT#: KA‐2394‐01

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments:


StateLocal

ConstConst

$150$30


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion

Page 16 of 24


Project Sponsor: DCSS Inc. MPO#: 400

Project Name: Douglas County Senior Services Inc: 5317 Operating

Project Type: Transit/Paratransit

Route (to/from location): Lawrence

Length:

Work Type: Operating

Project Scope:

5317 Reimbursement (50%):$25,914, 5317 Administrative (10% of local match):$2,591

KDOT#:

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments:


LocalFTA:5317

OPTOPT

$26$29


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion

Project Sponsor: Indepence Inc. MPO#: 401

Project Name: Independence Inc: 5311 Operating



Length:


Project Scope:

5311 Reimbursement Operating(50%):$41,321

KDOT#:

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments: Federal Administration Share:$4,132, Local Administration Share:$1,033.


LocalStateFTA:5311

OPTOPTOPT

$28$15$45


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion

Page 17 of 24


Project Sponsor: Lawrence Transit MPO#: 402

Project Name: Operating Funds



Length:


Project Scope:

Operating and Preventative Maintenance activities.

KDOT#: KS‐90‐X???

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments: Federal Transit 5307 Funds. 2013‐2015 amounts based on 2011 levels projected.


FedLocalState

OPTOPTOPT

$1,589$1,109$250

FedLocalState

OPTOPTOPT

$1,589$1,109$250

FedLocalState

OPTOPTOPT

$1,589$1,109$250


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion

FedLocalState

OPTOPTOPT

$1,589$1,109$250


Project Name: Transit Capital Assitance



Length:


Project Scope:

Comprehensive Transportation Program. Purchase of replacement paratransit vehicles.

KDOT#: PT‐0701‐12

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments:


State CAP $180


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion

Page 18 of 24



Project Name: JARC Small Urban Funds



Length:


Project Scope:

FFY 2009 Small Urban JARC funds passed thru from KDOT. 80/20 split.

KDOT#: KS‐90‐X139

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments: Purchase vehicles.


FedLocal

CAPCAP

$248$62


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion


Project Name: Transit 5309 Funds



Length:


Project Scope:

FFY 2008 Capital 83% Fixed Route Bus Replacement

KDOT#: KS‐03‐0044

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments:


FedLocal

CAPCAP

$527$104


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion

Page 19 of 24






Length:


Project Scope:

FFY 2008 Capital‐ Bus & Bus Facilities ‐‐ Fleet Replacement 83%

KDOT#: KS‐04‐0010

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments:


FedLocal

CAPCAP

$147$30


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion





Length:


Project Scope:

FFY 2009 Capital 83% Fixed Route Bus Replacement

KDOT#: KS‐04‐0044

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments:


FedLocal

CAPCAP

$950$195


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion

Page 20 of 24



Project Name: ARRA Capital Funds



Length:


Project Scope:

FFY 2009 Capital 100% Bus Replacement and/or Bus Facilities

KDOT#: KS‐96‐X005

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments:


Fed CAP $1,000


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion


Project Name: Bus Shelters and Amenities‐5309



Length:


Project Scope:

Bus Shelters and Amenities. 80/20 split.

KDOT#: KS‐32‐0022

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments:


FedLocal

CAPCAP

$192$54


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion

Page 21 of 24


Project Sponsor: CHIP MPO#: 501

Project Name: Lawrence Safe Routes to Schools Education

Project Type: SRTS

Route (to/from location):

Length:


Project Scope:

SRTS – Phase 1 Planning Grant. Douglas County Community Health Improvement Partnership Pedestrian Safety Education Project

KDOT#: 23‐U‐0075‐01

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments:


SRTS $10


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion


Project Name: Amtrak Station

Project Type: Other

Route (to/from location): 413 East 7th Street, Lawrence, KS 66044

Length:


Project Scope:

KDOT#: 23 RF‐0026‐01

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments: Highway Safety Improvement Program funding


HSIPLocal

PEPE

$88$25


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion

Page 22 of 24



Project Name: US‐59 Seeding Project

Project Type: Other

Route (to/from location): US‐59 Franklin‐Doulgas County Line, N to 2L/4L divided.

Length:

Work Type: Seeding

Project Scope:

Permanent Seeding

KDOT#: K‐7888‐07

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments: Tied to project K‐7888‐01


STPStateSTPState

CECEConstConst

$12$3

$158$39


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion


Project Name: South Lawrence Trafficway ‐ Environmental Mitigation

Project Type: Other

Route (to/from location): K‐10 Connection from S Jct US 59 / K‐10; East to K‐10

Length: 5.5

Work Type: Other

Project Scope:

Environmental Mitigation associated with SLT.

KDOT#: K‐8392‐05

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments: Linked to K‐8392‐04


State PE $12,000


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion

Page 23 of 24



Project Name: Cable Median Barrier: K‐10 Douglas Co. near Eudora & Johnson Co. at K‐7

Project Type: Safety

Route (to/from location): K‐10 Douglas Co. near Eudora & Johnson Co. at K‐7

Length: 2

Work Type: Safety

Project Scope:

Installation of cable median barrier at 2 lcoations. K‐10 in DG Co from 5 miles W of K‐10/Church St. Interchange, east for approx. 2 miles. K‐10 in JO Co. from 1 mile west of K‐10/K‐7 Junction east for 2 miles.

KDOT#: KA‐2624‐01

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Comments: This project will occur in 2 locations along the K‐10 Corridor in JO & DG counties. It will be reflected in both TIPS. The improvement will be considered as one project and the total project cost reflects the cost for both locations.


HSIPStateHSIPHSIP

PEUtilitiesConstCE

$250$1

$1,035$80


AC Conversion


AC Conversion


AC Conversion

FY 2015


AC Conversion

Page 24 of 24

January 23, 2012

Map prepared by Lawrence-Douglas CountyMetropolitan Planning Office

Road Segments Projects

Intersections/Bridges &Other Point Projects

TIP Project Locations Map - Douglas County, Kansas

202

217 200

300

207

209

208

219

205

206

204

210212

218

213

214

211

224

203

603

602

601

225 600223

222

216

221220

201

103 104

100

105

102

101

·

2 0 21 Miles

219 300

224

602 200

206

214

210

211

212213

600223

222

221

100

105

101

0 0.5 10.25Miles

January 23, 2012

Map prepared by Lawrence-Douglas CountyMetropolitan Planning Office

·

2012 - 2015 TIP Projects for Lawrence-Douglas County MPOin Relation to Environmental Justice Areas

Note: All Environmental Justice Areas in DouglasCounty are in or near the City of Lawrence

Census 2000 Block Groups with60 Percent or More Populationhaving Low-Moderate Income StatusCensus 2010 Block Groups with20 Percent or Higher MinorityPopulation (Approximately 150%of the Average)

Census Block Groups Meeting BothLow-Moderate Income Status &Minority Population Criteria

COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT- HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLANFOR DOUGLAS COUNTY, KANSAS

Prepared for the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Organization by the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning & Development Services Department

Approved by the L-DC MPO on February 16, 2012

Funding Notes: This report was funded in part through grant[s] from the Federal Highway Administration [and Federal Transit Administration], U.S. Department of Transportation. The views and opinions of the authors [or agency] expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U. S. Department of Transportation. Title VI Note: The L-DC MPO hereby gives public notice that it is the policy of the agency to assure full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice, and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. Title VI requires that no person in the United States of America shall, on the grounds of race, color, sex, or national origin, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the L-DC MPO receives federal financial assistance. Any person who believes they have been aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory practice under Title VI has a right to file a formal complaint with the L-DC MPO. Any such complaint must be in writing and filed with the L-DC MPO’s Title VI Coordinator within one hundred and eighty (180) days following the date of the alleged discriminatory occurrence. For more information, or to obtain a Title VI Discriminatory Complaint Form, please see our website at http://www.lawrenceks.org/pds/MPO.

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction: Federal Regulatory Background ................................................................ 2

Plan Approach ............................................................................................................ 3

Demographics ............................................................................................................ 3

Douglas County .................................................................................................... 4

Lawrence ............................................................................................................. 4

Impacts to Future Services .................................................................................... 4

Inventory of Existing Transportation Providers and Services ............................................ 6

Demands and Unmet Needs - Gaps Identification ........................................................... 7

Provider Needs Summary ...................................................................................... 7

Consumer Input Summary ................................................................................... 11

Vision and Goals ...................................................................................................... 13

Vision .................................................................................................................. 13

Goals ................................................................................................................... 13

Appendix A: Meeting Attendance ................................................................................ 18

2

INTRODUCTION: FEDERAL REGULATORY BACKGROUND The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) was signed into law on August 10, 2005. This law established programs and funding for the Federal Transit Administration through federal fiscal year 2009, and this law has been extended to the present while Congress debates the development of a new surface transportation act to replace SAFETEA-LU. That law also requires the development of a Coordinated Public Transit - Human Services Transportation Plan (CPT-HSTP) for areas and transit providers to receive Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding through the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT). Applicants for KDOT’s public transportation grant program are required to participate in the CPT-HSTP development process. This plan was developed through a process that included representatives of public, private, and non-profit transportation and human service providers, as well as the public. The implementation of this plan will occur within that same inclusive process and be overseen by KDOT officials, reviewed by members of Coordinated Transit District #1 (which covers Douglas County and other counties in Northeast Kansas) and the newly formed Regional Transit Advisory Committee (RTAC) for Douglas County (which is an advisory committee of the Lawrence - Douglas County MPO).

A coordinated plan (CPT-HSTP) must include:

• A unified, comprehensive strategy for public transportation service delivery; and • Identification of the transportation needs of individuals with disabilities, older adults,

and individuals with limited incomes; and • Strategies for meeting those needs; and • Prioritization of services

Human Services Transportation is defined as transportation services for persons with disabilities, older adults (60+), and individuals with lower incomes. This could include services provided by public transit agencies, municipalities, human service agencies, and private providers such as taxi or medical livery companies.

FTA Section 5310 is the only funding program allocated in Douglas County that requires a locally coordinated CPT-HSTP. The Section 5310 Vehicle Grant Program provides vehicle grants to non-profit agencies or municipalities to provide transportation to seniors and people with disabilities.

Currently the following FTA funds are allocated through KDOT to Douglas County transit providers.

• Section 5310, Capital Independence, Inc.

• Section 5311, Capital & Operating

Independence, Inc. Douglas County Senior Services, Inc.

• Section 5307, Capital & Operating The T- Lawrence, Kansas

• State Operating funds Bert Nash Community Mental Health Center Cottonwood, Inc. Douglas County Senior Services, Inc. The T- Lawrence, Kansas

• Section 5316, Job Access &

Reverse Commute (JARC) The T- Lawrence, Kansas

3

PLAN APPROACH The process of developing this Coordinated Public Transit- Human Services Transportation Plan (CPT-HSTP) seeks to collect and analyze meaningful organizational and consumer information to create a plan for future coordination and improvement of services in Douglas County. The Lawrence – Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is committed to proactively involving all interested parties in identifying and addressing transportation issues. The goal is to foster improved two-way communication and trust between the MPO, local paratransit and human services providers, and their consumers. Although a federal requirement, the MPO feels that local contribution to transportation planning is vital for the metropolitan area. The citizens of this area deserve the advantages of better transportation planning that cannot be done without participation from and coordination between the people that provide, use, and fund transit services in Douglas County.

The process for planning this document included meetings of the local public transit and human services transportation providers. An attendance list for the organized meetings can be found in the appendix.

DEMOGRAPHICS Douglas County is 457 square miles of land. The County has a 2010 Census population of 110,826 and a population density of 243 persons per square mile. This has increased from the 219 people per square mile recorded with the 2000 Census. Douglas County is composed of unincorporated area and the following cities: Lawrence, Eudora, Lecompton, and Baldwin City. Lawrence is the major population center in Douglas County, with a 2010 Census population of 87,643, accounting for approximately 73% of the county’s population. Douglas County, Kansas

4

The following tables show a breakdown of Douglas County and Lawrence population data from the 2009 American Community Survey (ACS). The 2009 ACS totals are slightly higher than the 2010 census totals. At the time of this plan’s development the detailed 2010 census data had not been released yet, so the latest ACS data was used. However the important thing to note from this data is that the Douglas County population is growing and a substantial number of people living in the county are seniors and a substantial proportion of those seniors have disabilities. This follows national trends noted in the next section of this report.

DOUGLAS COUNTY

County Population 116,383 County Population 116,383 60 to 64 years 4,598 Senior Population >60 10,786 65 to 74 years 5,547 Senior Percent 9.27% 75 to 84 years 3,755 Disabled Population 11,482 85 years and over 1,484 Disabled Percent of Population 9.87% Senior Population >60 13.22%Disabled Population >65 3,667 Senior Population >65 9.27%% of Senior Population Disabled 34.00% Senior Population >75 4.50%Households 44,042 Senior Population >85 1.28%Senior Households >65 3,194 U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 American Community SurveyHHs with >/= 1 person >65 7,812Zero-Vehicle HHs 2,395Percent Zero Vehicle HHs 5.44%Zero-Vehicle HHs >65 999Percent Zero Vehicle HHs >65 31.28%U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey

Douglas County Demographic InformationDouglas County Senior Population

LAWRENCE

IMPACTS TO FUTURE SERVICES

Reduced funding in combination with increasing demands for public transit and human services transportation programs has made it challenging for many agencies to continue providing essential services to meet the needs of their clients and the community. Often, difficult choices have to be made between which services are provided and which are not.

City Population 92,055 City Population 92,055 60 to 64 years 3,041 Senior Population >60 6,744 65 to 74 years 3,464 Senior Percent 7.33% 75 to 84 years 2,385 Disabled Population 7,545 85 years and over 895 Disabled Percent of Population 8.20% Senior Population >60 10.63% Disabled Population >65 1,833 Senior Population >65 7.33% % of Senior Population Disabled 27.18% Senior Population >75 3.56% Households 34,605 Senior Population >85 0.97% Senior Households >65 2,304 U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey HHs with >/= 1 person >65 4,955 Zero-Vehicle HHs 255 Percent Zero Vehicle HHs 0.74% Zero-Vehicle HHs >65 785 Percent Zero Vehicle HHs >65 34.07% U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey

Lawrence Senior Population Lawrence Demographic Information

5

Below is a list of societal changes potentially impacting the future of transit services in Douglas County; these changes include (but are not limited to):

• Increase in population (Lawrence and Douglas County desire to become a retiree destination and are actively working to recruit retirees).

• Increase in number of elderly (65 and older—Baby Boomers retiring). • Increase in number of disabled (older population, disabled veterans, and cumulative

effects of obesity). • Increase in poverty due to economic conditions (layoffs, loss of nest eggs, and loss

of retirement benefits). • Requirements for environmentally friendly transportation options. • Concerns about the greenhouse effect and global warming. • Air quality requirements affecting vehicles. • Operational costs continue to rise as ability of passengers to pay continues to decline

due to the economy. • Funding streams that continue to decline and that require increased sustainability

proof.

Most, if not all, of the factors listed above are out of the control of small transit and paratransit operators trying to meet the transport needs of the elderly and disabled persons in Douglas County. It may be possible for some small incremental increases in operational efficiencies to occur and for improved coordination between agencies providing paratransit services to be enacted. However, those improvements that could be locally controlled will only go so far. Locally, the area’s paratransit providers are already coordinating to get people to where they need to go with some riders using multiple providers in a single week. That coordination is a good start. Albeit, the larger national and regional trends of demographics and higher transport costs cannot be controlled locally, and those trends will make it more difficult for small paratransit operators, especially human service agencies with tight budgets, to stay in the paratransit business. Although the trends mentioned above indicate that Douglas County will need a robust paratransit system to handle future demands, the future of the area’s paratransit and transit services is uncertain. Without changes in national and statewide attention to this paratransit segment of the transportation market the future mobility options for our citizens with disabilities and/or senior age look rather disappointing. It will be impossible for providers to continue to maintain the services to meet the growing demand without additional funding to do so.

It will be impossible for providers to continue to maintain the services to

meet the growing demand without additional funding

to do so.

6

INVENTORY OF EXISTING TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS AND

SERVICES Public transportation services in Douglas County consist of local public transportation services, university bus services, and a variety of specialized transportation services which are available to sub-segments of the community. The providers and services in Douglas County are listed (in alphabetical order) below with details on individual services provided in the following tables.

• Bert Nash Community Mental Health Center • Cottonwood, Incorporated • Douglas County Senior Services, Incorporated • Independence, Incorporated • Johnson County Transit- K-10 Connector • KU on Wheels, University of Kansas Parking & Transit • Lawrence – Douglas County Housing Authority • The T - Lawrence, Kansas

Operator Contact Information

Operator Address Contact Phone Website

Bert Nash200 Maine Street, Suite A,

Lawrence, KS 66044Tracy Kihm 785- 843-9192 BertNash.org

Cottonwood, Inc. 2801 West 31st, Lawrence KS 66047

Heather Thies & JR Condra

785-842-0550 cwood.org

Douglas County Senior Services,

Inc.

745 Vermont Street, Lawrence KS 66044

Tina Roberts 785-842-0543 dgcoseniorservices.org

Independence, Inc.2001 Haskell Avenue, Lawrence KS 66046

Patty Gibbons 785-843-5576 indepenceinc.org

Johnson County Transit

1701 West 56 Highway, Olathe KS 66061

Alice Amrein 913-782-2210 thejo.com

KU on Wheels 1501 Irving Hill Road, Lawrence KS 66047

Danny Kaiser 785-842-7275 kuonwheels.ku.edu

Lawrence - Douglas County

Housing Authority

1600 Haskell Avenue, Lawrence KS 66046

Carrie Lindsey 785-842-1533 ldcha.org

The T - Lawrence Transit

6 E 6th St, Lawrence KS 66044

Robert Nugent 785-832-3465 lawrencetransit.org

7

Operator Service Details

Operator *Fleet Size Service Hours Days of Service Service Area ClienteleAnnual

Ridership (2009)

Annual Ridership (2010)

Bert Nash 1 9 am - 7 pm Monday - FridayLawrence city

limits Elderly, Disabled 1,896 2,345

Cottonwood, Inc.3 KDOT + 36

agency 7 am - 10 pm Monday - Sunday Douglas County Disabled 5,157 5,211

Douglas County Senior Services,

Inc.4 8 am - 3 pm

Monday - Thursday Friday(medical only)

Lawrence city limits, DG

County(if possible)

Elderly approx 4,000 4,687

Independence, Inc.

5 8 am - 5 pm Monday - Friday Douglas County, KC Metro

Elderly, Disabled,

General Publicapprox 10,800 9,833

Johnson County Transit K-10 Connector

4 6 am - 11 pm Monday - Friday Johnson and Douglas Counties

General Public 119,110 128,385

KU on Wheels Fixed Route

43 7 am - 6 pm Monday - Friday (when classes in session)

Lawrence city limits

General Public 1,748,299 2,230,437

KU on Wheels JayLift

5 7 am - 6 pm Monday - Friday (when classes in session)


**General Public 4,126 2,232

Lawrence - Douglas County Housing

Authority Babcock Bus

1 8 am - 5 pm Monday - Thursday Lawrence city limits

Elderly, Disabled, Individuals

receiving housing assistance

2,136 2,105

Lawrence - Douglas County Housing

Authority Residential Services

2 9am - 5:30pm 10am - 7pm

Monday & Wednesday Tuesday & Thursday


Individuals receiving housing

assistance- 289

Lawrence Transit Fixed Route

10 6 am - 8 pm Monday - Saturday Lawrence city limits

General Public 499,017 620,592

Lawrence Transit T-Lift

11 6 am - 8 pm Monday - Saturday Lawrence city limits

**General Public 50,169 50,164

* Fleet size is measured by the number of vehicles in maximum revenue hour service for 2010.**Certification required. Other local transportation services operate in Douglas County including a shuttle to the Kansas City International Airport, taxi companies and the Greyhound Bus Lines. Persons residing in Douglas County, including people also using paratransit services may also use these other services. But there is no readily available data on that use. There is anecdotal information that some paratransit riders use taxis for transport if other services are not available, but this taxi option is viewed as a last choice option due to the cost to the rider.

DEMANDS AND UNMET NEEDS - GAPS IDENTIFICATION PROVIDER NEEDS SUMMARY

There are a variety of ride needs requested of transportation service providers in Douglas County. The transportation needs of older adults, persons with disabilities, and individuals with low incomes vary by trip purpose.

It is very important in the transportation planning process to identify and then work to fill gaps in existing services. The needs assessment provides the basis for recognizing where and how service for the population groups of concern could be improved. Significant gaps and barriers faced by transit dependent populations can be identified from the transit provider’s perspective. Gaps were identified by providers in Douglas County through their answers to the following questions. The questions and their answers are listed below.

8

Spatial gaps – Are there origins, destinations, or larger areas not served by transit and/or paratransit?

• A portion of transit dependent individuals live outside of Lawrence in more rural areas or outlying towns without access to fixed route transit services. These towns are served by human service agencies that operate out of Lawrence. Currently Independence Inc. is the only provider in the county that regularly provides demand response rides outside of the Lawrence City Limits. However, this provider denies about 20 rides per month. They cannot meet the requests of all customers. Douglas County Senior Services provides rides in Baldwin City, Eudora and Lecompton on a limited basis.

• Fixed route transit is only provided within Lawrence by Lawrence Transit and KU on Wheels. Often times the origins and destinations do not match the riders’ needs. Fixed route providers have begun experimenting with flex route services to serve low density areas, within city limits.

• The Johnson County Transit operated K-10 Connector Route is the only fixed route that operates between Douglas & Johnson Counties. There is a lack of connecting services from Douglas County to Downtown Kansas City and Topeka which are two places that riders often need or want to go.

• One provider identified lack of transportation to Baldwin City as problematic to their ability to retain tenants and maintain low vacancy rates at available housing located in Baldwin City.

• Providers agreed that with the limited resources they are doing the best job they can to match customers to ride availability.

Temporal Gaps - Hours of Operation – Is transportation via transit necessary or highly desirable outside of current service hours / days of the week?

• Providers agreed that customer travel needs are around the clock. Most services are designed for providing peak service for daytime trips to and from work and to doctor offices. This timeframe does not provide much flexibility in work scheduling and trips for events that occur on weekends. Any additional service hours would be helpful to customers of each provider. This includes, early morning, night owl and expanded weekend service.

• Lawrence Transit is working to try and cater service to demand with peak and non- peak scheduling to attract more ridership.

• The K-10 Connector only operates Monday-Friday, with no weekend trips.

Frequency – Is more frequent transit service needed to make certain types of trips?

• Lawrence Transit previously had 40/80 minute route frequencies. In the attempt to provide service based on demand, they have changed some route frequencies to

9

30/60 minutes. However, due to timing and funding some routes remain at the 40 minute frequency. Having three frequencies at four transfer points across Lawrence makes connecting and planning trips using more than one bus route somewhat difficult and confusing. Increasing frequency of fixed routes and standardizing those frequencies would help transfers. Lawrence Transit is continuing to transition all routes to 30/60 minute headways.

Connectivity – Is there difficulty transferring between transit and/or paratransit services?

• Connections between Lawrence Transit and KU on Wheels fixed route services are working better as a result of the recent coordination effort between the two services. These two services now use a joint route map/schedule guide, and they accept each others’ bus passes.

• Providers identified instances where transferring from the K-10 Connector has been difficult for some clients, based on availability of services to transfer to and ability to fund the second part of the trip.

• Providers identified coordination of services for individuals to meet their travel needs in Lawrence. This includes customers making varying legs of their trips with different providers in the county. These connections are between both different demand response and fixed route providers. These trips are coordinated on a case by case basis by the providers and customers. This arrangement seems to work well for established riders that are well known by the providers involved, but for new riders it can be difficult to find a mix of providers and trip times that works.

Paratransit Beyond ADA Requirements – Are there needs for paratransit service beyond the ADA-mandated level of service?

• Paratransit users sometimes need a level of service above and beyond what is required by the ADA, such as service provided on the same day it is requested, where and when the fixed route service does not operate, or have the ability to accommodate “uncommon” wheelchairs or mobility devices.

• Paratransit providers are often asked to provide door to door transport with assistance in carrying bags.

• Drivers, who are comfortable operating a vehicle during the day, may be limited in transportation options when the time of day and weather make travel more difficult. This is a common situation for elderly drivers who do not want to drive when it is snowy or dark outside.

Knowledge and Information – What difficulties are there in obtaining information about services offered, routes and schedules, or arranging trips? This would include telephone-based services, websites on the internet and signage and maps, including information at transfer centers.

10

• Seniors and/or people with disabilities do not know about the full range of transportation options available to them until they face the need to find travel alternatives when their access to car trips is interrupted. Information on the full range of alternative modes, including transit, paratransit, and community-based services, can be difficult to find or confusing, especially when seniors initially realize that they need transport alternatives.

• Providers agreed that in the case of weather or emergency related events information distribution that is timely and accurate is problematic. Each provider had a different strategy to address this issue. There is no one uniform place to find information.

• Paratransit providers agreed that many of their clients do not use computers or smart phones so that electronic notification is not always feasible.

Pedestrian Access to Destinations and Transit – Are amenities missing that prevent or hinder people from traveling to and from transit stops, such as missing or damaged sidewalks, lack of curb ramps, etc.?

• Low density development and disconnected sidewalk networks provide challenges to operating transportation services. Sidewalks on only one side of the street or inability to cross in a crosswalk were identified as barriers to safe travel.

• Amenities that need improvement have often been identified but lack funding to build those improvements means that often times there are no timelines for these safety improvements.

• Snow removal ordinance only applies to public sidewalks and not private property. This can create mobility problems for pedestrians that regularly use sidewalks not deemed public.

• Redevelopments of sidewalks in brick are not user friendly for elderly or disabled individuals.

Service Duplication: Is there duplication of services in your area? How can it be reduced through coordination of administration or services?

• Recent coordination between fixed route providers (Lawrence Transit and KU on Wheels) has reduced the duplication of services. This successful process has led to the realized need to consider the duplication of T Lift services and KU on Wheels Jaylift services. When KU classes are in session, KU Jaylift is a duplicated service. Consideration is now being given by the University of Kansas Transit Commission to contract out these duplicated services with Lawrence Transit. This consideration has many important issues to overcome, including differences in service expectations for customers.

Worst Case Scenario: How would your agency transport clients without state or federal funding?

11

• Providers said that cuts to available state and federal funding would be devastating to their operations. Transportation services are integral to the social service component of their operations. Some providers said they would be forced to cut other services to maintain a base transportation service to continue to be able to successfully provide their other services to clients. This would include cutting transportation services that were not absolutely critical to their social service mission. Others said they would have to cut services and a lower level of services would be available to the community. All providers agreed that the character of their operation would change with reductions in funding.

• Providers acknowledged that a reduction in funding would most likely price consumers out of transportation. The private taxi alternative is not a financial option for most of their consumers. These individuals would be unable to get to and from work, medical appointments, grocery stores, and would be forced to rely on friends, family or neighbors to meet their most basic needs.

CONSUMER INPUT SUMMARY

During the week of March 7-11th, 2011 MPO staff took to the streets and rode alongside paratransit and human service consumers in regular daily service of the following transportation services: T-Lift, Independence Inc. and Douglas County Senior Services. MPO staff conducted personal interviews of consumers at Cottonwood Inc. Due to scheduling difficulty, MPO staff provided paper survey forms to Bert Nash staff to distribute and collect from their consumers.

MPO staff did not record identifying consumer information and will not identify individual consumers in this process. MPO staff designed a set list of questions to ask on the bus and thoughtfully asked follow up questions to clarify responses. The prepared questions are listed below:

• What available services do you use? • Where do you go when you ride? • Are there places you would like to go but cannot get to with the existing services? • How frequently do you ride? • What days of the week and what times of the day do you ride? • How satisfied are you with existing services? (On a scale of 1-10 with 1 being not at

all satisfied and 10 being very satisfied) • What ways could providers improve services?

Riders were supportive of the process the MPO staff was using to obtain rider input and liked the efforts that the MPO staff made to speak with them about their individual transit experiences. All riders who were able choose to participate in the short interview process.

Riders generally chose their service provider, first based on their qualification to use the service, and secondly by the ability of the service to get them where they need to go. Consumers who use multiple services generally used a secondary service only when their primary service was unable to provide the desired ride. Riders rely on the services to maintain their ability to function in the community. This includes their ability to get to and

12

from: work, school, grocery and other shopping, hospital, doctor appointments, exercise classes, and other social functions. One paratransit passenger admitted that without the available service she would have to quit her job. This is just one example of how these passengers rely on the available paratransit services.

Consumers admitted that there were sometimes places they desired to go but could not get to on the existing services. These desired but un-served destinations were sometimes out of the providers’ service areas, but the more common situation that MPO staff heard during this survey was that a portion of the trip was outside of the providers operating hours, especially evenings and Sundays. These trips outside of the providers’ operating hours were generally social in nature and included community and church events. However, some included work shifts that varied. Passengers also acknowledged that in order to get to and from some of these destinations they are required to rely on friends, family and neighbors and in what they referred to as worst case scenario a private taxi service. Those taxi services are viewed as the worst case scenario due to their expense to the consumer. Most of the demands for evening service would be met by evening service that ended at 9:00 PM, some if not all days of the week.

A majority of passengers that MPO staff spoke with ride a majority of the days providers operate their services. A majority of the rides they individually have scheduled are subscription or reoccurring rides.

On a scale of 1-10 with 1 being not at all satisfied and 10 being very satisfied riders were generally very satisfied with the services being provided. The most common rating from riders was a 10.

Consumers’ comments on paratransit services

Riders had the following ideas about how providers could improve paratransit and human services transportation. These comments are listed in order of frequency heard, with the most frequent requests at the top of the list.

• Evening Service- The demands for evening service would be met by evening service that ended at 9:00 p.m., some if not all days of the week. One rider even suggested increasing user fees to pay for increased service.

• Weekend Service- Particularly on Sunday to allow trips to church services. • Passengers of T-Lift services acknowledged there needs to be more locations to

purchase and pick up passes. The ability to subscribe to subscription pass purchase would be helpful and would save a roundtrip every month to pick up a new pass. This service would be especially helpful if these subscription or alternative options included receiving the pass by mail at home or at their workplace. One passenger said her employer offered an automatic pass program mailed to her monthly and her employer deducts the value of the pass out of her pretax wages. Other passengers that overheard this benefit were inquiring about the possibility of having a similar service they could use.

• Improve driver communication, particularly in notifying consumers who are visually impaired so they can know when their stop has arrived.

13

• Shorter pickup window. • Driver nametags. • Heated seats.

Consumers’ comments on Fixed route services

Riders had the following ideas about how providers could improve fixed route transit services in Lawrence. These comments are listed in order of frequency heard, with the most frequent requests at the top of the list.

• Greater frequency. • Sunday service. • More bicycle racks/space on buses. • Updates of route information posted at shelters for individuals without access to the

internet.

VISION AND GOALS The following vision, goals and strategies will be used to guide the work of the Regional Transit Advisory Committee (RTAC) in formulating and recommending improvements to specialty transit services in Douglas County and coordinating those special services better with mainline fixed route urban and commuter services.

VISION Transportation providers, purchasers, riders, and the community at large will work together for mutual benefit to expand and improve transportation choices to address the unmet mobility needs of people who require transportation alternatives.

GOALS Goal 1: Improve the coordination of public transit and human services transportation to maximize the efficient and effective use of funding.

Strategy 1.1: Providers will match the needs of riders with the most appropriate transportation choices so that dollars are effectively and efficiently applied to needs.

Strategy 1.2: Reduce duplication of services.

Strategy 1.3: Improve existing informal coordination between service providers.

Strategy 1.4 Douglas County providers will match rider’s needs to best available services based on rider referral to best prevent ride denials.

Strategy 1.5 Identify vehicles that are available and/or underutilized.

Strategy 1.6 Schedule regular discussions of equipment issues at RTAC meetings.

14

Goal 2: Providers and CTD #1 will (with MPO, KDOT and FTA assistance) establish an education and training program to ensure that the community at large is aware of their transportation options.

Strategy 2.1: Partner to develop an online up to date resource for transit and paratransit information including descriptions about how to arrange rides on each service.

Strategy 2.2: Improve access to passes and schedule information.

Strategy 2.3 Offer training classes to train users about “How to get where you need to go.”

Strategy 2.4 Providers will develop a marketing campaign to share successful rider stories.

Goal 3: Work to facilitate and improve regional coordination opportunities with providers throughout the region and to coordinate available transportation alternatives.

Strategy 3.1: Encourage and facilitate coordination among all providers in the CTD #1 area including providers based in Douglas County and other providers based in the KC Metro Area.

Strategy 3.2: Contact providers in the CTD #2 area and members of the Shawnee County Paratransit Council to facilitate coordination with providers in the Capitol Area.

Goal 4: Encourage local governments to improve amenities and publications (e.g., shelters, stops, service maps and schedules, pass sales, signage, transfer points, ramps and sidewalks) to promote accessibility and mobility.

Strategy 4.1: Encourage city governments to identify sidewalk gaps near transit stops and alleviate those gaps.

Strategy 4.2: Encourage local governments to work with the RTAC and the CTD #1 providers to develop road projects that consider transit and paratransit in their design.

Strategy 4.3: Develop an effective communication process for getting the CTD #1 and RTAC concerns into the MPO and local government transportation planning and project development processes.

Goal 5: Promote land use and urban design plans and standards that support transportation alternatives and include transit friendly facilities, such as: shelters, stops, transfer points, ramps, sidewalks, and lighting.

Strategy 5.1: Encourage local planners, engineers, and developers to plan for multimodal transportation.

Strategy 5.2: Encourage coordination between local land use plans, and comprehensive plans with the CPT-HSTP.

15

Goal 6: Providers will encourage MPO staff to incorporate the CPT-HSTP recommendations and policies into the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and to coordinate the development of MTP updates with the CPT-HSTP and vice versa.

Strategy 6.1 Providers will form and participate in an ongoing process and permanent advisory group (Regional Transit Advisory Committee) to ensure that the CPT-HSTP and related documents expressing policies for transit are reviewed and updated at least once every 5 years.

Strategy 6.2 MPO staff will work with providers to review and update the CPT-HSTP in conjunction with the MTP update process and preferably before the MTP update is drafted.

THINGS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR IMPLEMENTATION

NOW AS A RESULT OF THIS CPT-HSTP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS • Regularly scheduled fall and spring RTAC meetings should be held to ensure

continued communication between providers. The RTAC should annually follow-up on where the CPT-HSTP goals and strategies stand and track the progress of work on those items through an annual summary.

• The RTAC should create a collection of copies of all the maps and documents provided to human services clients.

• The RTAC should create a comprehensive directory of available community transportation services for residents and human service agencies. Ideally, the centralized information will be available in multiple formats, including web-based and paper.

• Providers should educate themselves about all of the current and existing transportation services available in the community to best match their clients to available services.

• Development and drafting of rider stories for marketing (e.g., users of transit, paratransit, and/or bicycles to get around town and gain social freedom or economic stability) should be completed by providers, reviewed by the RTAC, and distributed.

• Ask all operators and KDOT staff about common mechanical problems and provide information to KDOT so they can evaluate those problems in drafting the next state vehicle purchase contract, and submit paratransit provider information about those common vehicle problems to the manufacturers so they can improve equipment dependability.

• Ask all transit operators and KDOT public transit staff to share a continuity of operations, emergency operations plans and contact lists for emergency management.

16

• Recognizing that currently the demand for paratransit services in Douglas County exceeds the available level of service, the RTAC will ask the MPO to support efforts by our region’s transit/paratransit providers to secure additional funding from all sources (federal, state, local, non-profit, etc.).

WHAT CAN BE DONE IN THE SHORT TERM? (NEXT 5 YEARS) The present unsure nature of funding for services makes planning further than 1-2 years into the future more uncertain and difficult than it was just a few years ago. However, there are some low-cost things that the transit providers in Douglas County can do in the short-term to improve transit planning and services.

• The RTAC should develop a training program that focuses on mobility options other than personal automobile travel for students, low-income residents, homeless people, ADA persons, etc.

• The RTAC should create and maintain a list of vehicles and financial resources that fund the operations, capital projects and maintenance of the services from each provider.

• The RTAC should contact the providers in CTD #2 and the Shawnee County Paratransit Council to facilitate coordination with providers in the Capitol Area.

• RTAC members will coordinate with planning partners and other governing bodies on behalf of RTAC providers and policies in order to carry out plan goals.

• The RTAC should participate in the planning processes to develop the Metropolitan Transportation Plan.

• The RTAC should voice their support for local government efforts in Douglas County to adopt Complete Streets Policies and support projects implementing those policies.

• The RTAC should also consider supporting state government efforts that may occur to develop a Complete Streets Policy for KDOT and other state agencies.

WHAT CAN BE DONE IN THE LONG TERM? (NEXT 5-20 YEARS) The extreme uncertainty of funding sources out 5-20 years provides a difficult nature for long range planning. The RTAC should therefore continue to update this plan and add action steps as they become relevant in the region’s planning and programming process. This is a key reason that the continued communication of this group is important and valuable.

• The RTAC should thoroughly review local development codes and then recommend changes to those development codes that address the concerns of transit and paratransit operators and riders.

17

Providers are doing the best they can with the resources

provided to meet the growing demand for services.

CONCLUSION The growing need for paratransit services is expected to place increased burdens on the providers in Douglas County. The work in Lawrence and Douglas County to attract retirees adds to the projected growing demand for specialized transportation services. However, these services cannot be provided without additional sources of funding.

During the CPT-HSTP planning process, staff found the existing informal coordination between providers to be working sufficiently. With the limits of administrative ability, staff time, and funding resources the operations are running efficiently. Without additional funding resources the ability for existing providers to expand or improve services is very limited. Providers are doing the best they can with the resources provided to meet the growing demand for services. The development of a comprehensive online and paper brochure describing the available community transportation resources appears to be the most visible improvement providers could make for clients and future clients. The development of this resource will be the most valuable improvement that can be made now with the existing information resources.

This process has provided value to all of the providers who have participated. Each provider learning more about the other services in the community and continuing to develop the working relationships they have with each other has been valuable to the staffs of those agencies and should help in the informal inter-agency coordination efforts already underway to get paratransit clients to where they need to go. These experiences and relationships will be important to keep working together towards the goals laid out in this plan.

It is important to remember that providers will only be able to meet the needs when adequate funding is available for vehicle acquisition, replacement, maintenance and operations. Providers are committed to continuing to develop ways to work together to make paratransit and human services transportation a valuable resource for Lawrence and all of Douglas County.

18

Organization Name 8/11/2011 9/8/2011 10/27/2011 12/1/2011Voting MembersLawrence Transit System Robert Nugent X X X XLawrence Housing Authority Carrie Lindsey X X XUniversity of Kansas Danny Kaiser X X X XIndependence Inc. Patty Gibbons X X XCottonwood Inc. Heather Thies X X X XDouglas County Senior Services Tina Roberts X X X XBert Nash Community Mental Health Center Tracy Kihm X X X XDouglas County Private sector providerAssisted Living Center Provider Debbie Walker XNon-Voting MembersKansas Department of Transportation Scott Lein X X X XFederal Transit Administration Region 7 Joni RoeselerAlternate Daniel NguyenOther ProvidersJohnson County Transit Shawn Strate X XStaffLawrence - Douglas County MPO Todd Girdler X X X XLawrence - Douglas County MPO Jessica Mortinger X X X XOtherDouglas County Senior Services Carleen Roberts XKansas Department of Transportation Connie Spencer XDouglas County Senior Services Anthony Prideaux X X

Regional Transit Advisory Committee (RTAC) Attendance Lawrence - Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Organization - L-DC MPO

Name Agency Email 12/8/10 1/26/11 2/18/11 4/26/11

Bob Nugent Lawrence Transit [email protected] X X X XChad LaFever Cottonwood Inc [email protected] X X X XCheryl M. Fisher KDOT [email protected] X XDanny Kaiser KU Transit [email protected] X X XHeather Thies Cottonwood Inc [email protected] X XJessica Mortinger L-DC MPO [email protected] X X X XPatty Gibbons Independence, Inc [email protected] X X X XRachel Cope The Guidance Center [email protected] XShawn Strate Johnson County Transit [email protected] X X X XTina Roberts Douglas County Senior Services [email protected] X X X XTodd Girdler L-DC MPO [email protected] X X X XTracy Kihm Bert Nash [email protected] X XStewart Nelson MARC [email protected] X XCarroll Ramseyer CTD #1, City of Olathe [email protected] X X XStephanie Watts KDOT [email protected] XJim Courtney Mr. Goodcents Foundation [email protected] X XAnthony Prideaux Douglas County Senior Services [email protected] X

Douglas County CPT-HSTP Meeting Attendance Sheet

Appendix A: Meeting Attendance

Participation in this process was key to developing the plan. Attendance records are included to display the provider’s involvement in developing the plan. The RTAC was formally created on June 16th, 2011 as a result of the CPT-HSTP development/update process.

lawrence-douglas county thursday, february 16, 2012 ... · lawrence-douglas county thursday,...

Documents