transportation improvement program fy 2010-2013

7/28/2019 Transportation Improvement Program FY 2010-2013

1/96

Report FY 2009-6

Federal Fiscal Years 2010-2013

Transportation Improvement

ProgramA regionally agreed upon list of priority projects movinggoods and people in the greater Des Moines metropolitan

areas transportation system.

Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization


2/96

The Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) prepared this report with

partial funding from the United States Department of Transportations Federal HighwayAdministration and Federal Transit Administration, and in part through local matching funds

provided by the Des Moines Area MPO member governments. These contents are the

responsibility of the Des Moines Area MPO. The United States Government and its agencies

assume no liability for the contents of this report or for the use of its contents. The Des MoinesArea MPO approved this report on July 16, 2009. Please call (515) 334-0075 to obtain

permission for use.

2009 Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization


3/96

MPO

Transportation Policy CommitteeRepresentatives

Skip Conkling Altoona

Michelle Sloan Altoona

Carl Metzger Ankeny

Steve Van Oort Ankeny

Craig Block AnkenyMark Arentsen Bondurant

Neil Ruddy Carlisle

John Edwards Clive

Scott Cirksena Clive

Jim Gifford Cumming(Associate Member)

Mark Hanson Dallas County

VACANT Des Moines

Michael Kiernan Des Moines

Frank Cownie Des Moines

Christine Hensley Des Moines

Tom Vlassis Des Moines

Brian Meyer Des Moines

Richard Clark Des Moines

Robert Mahaffey Des Moines

Chris Coleman Des Moines**

Tom Armstrong Grimes

Brian Laurenzo Johnston

Paula S. Dierenfeld Johnston

Peggy Olson Mitchellville

Jim Lane Norwalk

Martha Miller Pleasant Hill

Gary Mahannah Polk City

Angela Connolly Polk CountyTom Hockensmith Polk County*

Robert Andeweg Urbandale

Mike Carver Urbandale

Adam Obrecht Urbandale

Kevin Middleswart Warren County

Bill Peard Waukee

Ted Ohmart West Des Moines***

Jim Sandager West Des Moines

Steve Gear West Des Moines

Jerry Sullivan Windsor Heights

Advisory, non-voting members:Tom Kane Executive Director

Jonathan Wilson General Counsel

Brad Miller DART

Kristin Haar HIRTA

Craig Smith Des Moines Int'l Airport

Lorne Wazny Iowa DOT

Mark Bechtel FTA, Kansas City, MO

Tracy Troutner FHWA, Ames, IA

Jim Gifford Cumming

Tim Zisoff Indianola

MPO

Transportation Technical CommitteeRepresentatives

Vern Willey Altoona

John Shaw Altoona

Paul Moritz Ankeny

John Peterson Ankeny

Matthew L. McQuillen AnkenyLori Dunham Bondurant

Mark Crawford Carlisle

Lisa Schmidt Clive

Jim Hagelie Clive

Murray McConnell Dallas County

Gary Fox Des Moines

Larry Hulse Des Moines

Jeb Brewer Des Moines

Ken McCoy Des Moines Int'l Airport

Elizabeth Presutti DART

John Gade Grimes

Dave Cubit Johnston

David Wilwerding Johnston

Jeffrey Horne Mitchellville

Chris Nosbisch Norwalk

Ben Champ Pleasant Hill

Bill Kliegl Polk City

Kurt Bailey Polk County**

Bret VandeLune Polk County

Paul Dekker Urbandale

Dave McKay Urbandale

John Larson Urbandale

Mark Lee Warren CountyBrad Deets Waukee

Duane Wittstock West Des Moines

Joe Cory West Des Moines

Kara Tragesser West Des Moines***

Josh Heggen Windsor Heights

Advisory, non-voting members:

Tom Kane Executive Director

Lorne Wazny Iowa DOT

Tracy Troutner FHWA, Ames, IA

Mark Bechtel FTA, Kansas City, MO

Jim Gifford CummingTim Zisoff Indianola

*** Chair

** Vice-Chair

* Secretary/Treasurer


4/96

Glossary of Acronyms

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

DEMO Demonstration Award

DART Des Moines Area Metropolitan Transit Authority

DMAMPO Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

ENH Statewide Transportation Enhancement or Surface Transportation

Program Transportation Enhancement

ESP Economic Stimulus Package

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

FFY Federal Fiscal Year

HBP Highway Bridge Program

HBRRP Highway Bridge Replacement & Rehabilitation Program

HIRTA Heart of Iowa Regional Transit Authority

HRRR High Risk Rural Roads

HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program

ICAAP Iowas Clean Air Attainment Program

Iowa DOT Iowa Department of Transportation

IM Interstate Maintenance

ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991

MPO Metropolitan Planning OrganizationNHS National Highway System

PL Planning Funds

RPA Regional Planning Affiliation

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act:

A Legacy for Users

SRTS Safe Routes to School

STIP State Transportation Improvement Program

STP Surface Transportation Program

STP TE STP Transportation Enhancement

TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21stCentury

TIP Transportation Improvement Program

TTC MPO Transportation Technical Committee


5/96

Table of Contents1 Introduction...............................................................1

1.1 FEDERAL GUIDANCE ..................................................................................1Federal Transportation Planning Process............................................................................2

1.2 DES MOINES AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION........3

Responsibilities .......................................................................................................................3

Membership ............................................................................................................................3

Organization ...........................................................................................................................4

Representation........................................................................................................................5

1.3 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ......................................5

TIP Requirements ..................................................................................................................6

Plan Consistency.....................................................................................................................7

TIP Adoption ..........................................................................................................................7

Amendments and Administrative Modifications.................................................................7

Plan Organization ..................................................................................................................9

2 Project Selection Procedures..................................11

2.1 GUIDELINES FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM ANDSURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTFUNDING.....................................................................................................11

Eligibility...............................................................................................................................11

Funding .................................................................................................................................11

Project Priority Ranking .....................................................................................................13

Funding for Large, Multi-Year Projects............................................................................14

Additional Fund Availability...............................................................................................15

Status Reports.......................................................................................................................16

Interpretation .......................................................................................................................16

2.2 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM..............................................17

Purpose..................................................................................................................................17

2.3 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM TRANSPORTATIONENHANCEMENT .........................................................................................18

Purpose ........................ ....................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ............................. ...18


6/96

3 Federal Fiscal Year 2009 Status Reports............... 21

3.1 STATUS REPORTS ....................................................................................21

4 Federal Highway Administration Projects ............... 27

4.1 FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY FUNDING (TITLE 23)......................................27

Federal Funding Programs................................................................................................27

Iowa Department of Transportation Funding Programs ...............................................28

FHWA Funding Transferred to FTA ...............................................................................29

Program Format .................................................................................................................29

Program Description ..........................................................................................................30

5 Federal Transit Administration Projects..................42

5.1 FEDERAL TRANSIT ASSISTANCE (TITLE 49) ........................................42

Federal and State Funding Programs...............................................................................42

Description of Transit Investments...................................................................................44

Operating ............................................................................................................................50

6 Financial Plan .........................................................54

6.1 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION PROJECTS ..............................54

6.2 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION PROJECTS ................................56

Funding Sources....................................................................................................................57

7 Resolutions and Certifications ................................59

Metropolitan Planning Process Self-certification..............................................................61

Financial Capacity Analysis Certification .........................................................................63

MPO Resolution ...................................................................................................................65

8 Public Comment......................................................67

Public Participation..............................................................................................................67

Public Comment Summary .................................................................................................68

Submitted Written Comments ............................................................................................70


7/96

1 IntroductionA metropolitan areas transportation system is vital for the movement of people and goods to,

through, from, and within the metropolitan area. A transportation system takes on two primary roles: the

movement of people and the movement of goods. The transportation improvement program (TIP) is a

metropolitan areas regionally agreed upon list of priority projects moving goods and people in a

metropolitan areas transportation system.

1.1 FEDERAL GUIDANCECongress passed the Federal Highway Act of 1962 requiring regional agencies to conduct a

"continuing, comprehensive, and coordinated" transportation planning process. Congress took additional

steps in drafting the 1973 Highway Act by establishing Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) in

urbanized areas over 50,000 persons in population by dedicating a small portion of each state's funding

from the Highway Trust Fund. TheIntermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of1991 (ISTEA)

empowered MPOs and provided for flexibility in the use of funding, improved state-regional cooperation,

and enhanced public participation. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)

legislation of 1998 expanded the role and responsibilities of metropolitan areas exceeding 200,000 persons

in population with the designation of Transportation Management Areas (TMA). In 2005, Congresspassed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

(SAFETEA-LU).

SAFETEA-LU guarantees funding for highways, highway safety, and public transportation

through Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2009. SAFETEA-LU addresses the many challenges facing

transportation systems today. These challenges include improving safety, reducing traffic

congestion, improving efficiency in freight movement, increasing intermodal connectivity, and

protecting the environment, as well as laying the groundwork for addressing future challenges.

SAFETEA-LU promotes more efficient and effective Federal surface transportation programs by

focusing on transportation issues of national significance, while giving State and local

transportation decision makers more flexibility for solving transportation problems in their

communities.1 This flexibility is especially shown through the Surface Transportation Program

1 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/summary.htm

1


8/96

(STP) and Surface Transportation Program Transportation Enhancement (TE) process.

Federal Transportation Planning Process

Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 450, Subpart C, states that MPOs are

to carry out a:

continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive multimodal transportation planning

process, including the development of a metropolitan transportation plan and a

transportation improvement program, that encourages and promotes the safe and efficient

development, management, and operation of surface transportation systems to serve the

mobility needs of people and freight and foster economic growth and development, while

minimizing transportation related fuel consumption and air pollution.

Section 450.306 identifies eight planning factors to identify the scope of the metropolitan

transportation planning process. These eight planning factors include:

1.Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global

competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency;

2.Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized

users;

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

users;

4.Increase accessibility and mobility of people and freight;

5.Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve

consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth

and economic patterns;

6.Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and

between modes, for people and freight;

7.Promote efficient system management and operation; and,

8.Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.

2


9/96

1.2 DES MOINES AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

The Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) serves as the formal

transportation planning body for the greater Des Moines, Iowa, metropolitan area, carrying out the intent

of Title 23 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations, Section 450. In 1983, the Governor of

Iowa designated the Des Moines Area MPO as the official MPO for the Des Moines Urbanized Area, as

defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. In addition, the MPO is designated a Transportation

Management Area, per Section 450.104, because it exceeds the population threshold of 200,000 persons.

The MPO works to carry out a comprehensive, coordinated, and continuing multimodal transportation

planning process for the greater Des Moines metropolitan area.

Responsibilities

The MPO provides a regional forum to assure local, State, and Federal agencies and the public

coordinate transportation planning issues, and prepare transportation plans and programs. The MPO

develops both long-range and short-range multimodal transportation plans, selects and approves projects

for federal funding based on regional priorities, and develops ways to reduce traffic congestion.

The MPO is responsible for these transportation planning activities within a geographic area

identified as the Planning Area. The MPO approved its current Planning Area on December 20, 2007.

The Planning Area includes portions of Dallas, Madison, Polk, and Warren Counties, and includes, at a

minimum, the anticipated urbanized area for Horizon Year 2035.

Membership

Full voting membership to the MPO is open to any county or city government located, wholly or

partially, in the designated Planning Area containing a minimum population of 1,500 persons that adopts

the MPO's 28E Agreement (agreement entered into under Chapter 28E, Code of Iowa, establishing the

MPO and its responsibilities). Currently, MPO membership includes the following cities and counties:

Altoona; Ankeny;

Bondurant; Carlisle; Clive; Dallas County; Des Moines; Grimes; Johnston; Mitchellville;

Norwalk; Pleasant Hill;

Polk City; Polk County; Urbandale; Warren County; Waukee; West Des Moines; and, Windsor Heights.

3


10/96

Two entities within the Planning Area, the City of Cumming and Madison County, fall below the

minimum population threshold for full membership. The city of Cumming is an associate MPO member.

Associate membership allows a non-voting representative to participate actively in the transportation

planning process. Associate membership is available to all governments within the MPO Planning Areathat do not meet the minimum population threshold for full membership.

The Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT), the Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority

(DART), the Des Moines International Airport (DMIA), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),

the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the Heart of Iowa Regional Transportation Alliance

(HIRTA) serve as advisory non-voting, representatives to the MPO.

Organization

Three designated committees form the structure of the MPO: the Transportation TechnicalCommittee (TTC), the Executive Committee, and the Transportation Policy Committee (MPO). The

MPO member governments and agencies respective boards and councils appoint their respective

representatives to the TTC and to the MPO.

The MPO TTC is comprised primarily of representatives of member governments and agencies

technical staffs, including planners, engineers, and city administrators. The MPO annually elects

officers and at-large representatives to an Executive Committee from among MPO representatives. The

MPO is primarily comprised of elected officials that include mayors, city council members, city managers,

and county supervisors.The MPO staff supports the TTC, Executive Committee, and the MPO. The TTC offers

technical guidance and recommendations to the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee then

offers recommendations to the MPO, based on the TTCs recommendations, before the MPO takes formal

actions on transportation issues. TTC representation differs from the MPO in that the DART and the

DMIA are voting advisory members on the TTC.

Additionally, the MPO establishes and supports, as needed, other subcommittees, roundtables,

working groups, and advisory committees on various transportation-related issues relevant to the MPO's

responsibilities. The MPO requests stakeholder organizations and citizens to serve on these committees,as appropriate. As part of an adopted public participation process, the MPO strongly encourages input

and communication from citizens.

Figure 1.1 displays the MPO committees organization and their respective subcommittees. The

Figure 1.1 also identifies how the MPOs roundtables, working groups, advisory committees, and the

public offer input into the metropolitan transportation planning process.

4


11/96

FIGURE 1.1 MPO commit tee and structuralorganization chart.Prepared By: Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization.

Representation

Population determines representation on the TTC and the MPO, with each member government

receiving at least one representative. The MPO allows additional representatives to larger member

governments based on predetermined population thresholds identified in the MPOs Bylaws.

As previously noted, the Iowa DOT, the DART, the DMIA, the FHWA, the FTA, and the HIRTA

serve as advisory representatives to the MPO.

1.3 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

The MPOs Federal Fiscal Year 2010-2013 Transportation Improvement Program (FFY

2010-2013 TIP) serves as a list of federal-aid eligible transportation projects for the greater Des Moines

metropolitan area. The TIP covers a period of no less than four years and is updated annually for

compatibility with the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program development and approval process.

State Transit Assistance (STA) and Statewide Transportation Enhancement (Statewide TE) funds are the

only source of state funding shown in the TIP.

The TIP identifies all Federal funds programmed during the four-year period (FFY 2010-2013).

Additionally, the TIP identifies all projects by their Federal funding program and by FFY. Funding

TransportationPolicy Committee

(MPO)

Executive Committee

TransportationTechnical Committee

(TTC)

Policy Subcommittees

Roundtables, WorkingGroups, and Advisory

Committees

Central IowaBicycle-Pedestrian

Freight Roundtable

Public TransportationRoundtable

Stakeholders WorkingGroup

Traffic Management

Advisory Committee

TechnicalSubcommittees

Staff

TTC PlanningSubcommitte

TTCEngineeringSubcommitte

Long-RangeTransportation Plan

Task Force

SurfaceTransportation

Program Funding

Public Input

Public Comment

5


12/96

programs in Chapter 4, FHWA Projects, include the following: Planning funds, Surface Transportation

Program (STP) funds, STP Transportation Enhancement (STP TE) funds, Federal Recreational Trails

funds, Iowas Clean Air Attainment Program funds, Safe Routes to School, Highway Bridge Replacement

and Rehabilitation Program funds, Highway Safety Improvement Program funds, National Highway

Safety funds, Interstate Maintenance funds, and Demonstration Award funds. Transit funding programs

are included in Chapter 5, FTA Projects, and include the following: Metropolitan Planning Program,

Urbanized Area Formula Program, Capital Investment Program, Special Needs Program, Non-Urbanized

Area Formula Program, Rural Transit Assistance Program, Statewide Transportation Planning Program,

Job Access Reverse Commute Program, New Freedoms, Flexible Funds, and State Transit Assistance.

TIP Requirements

Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 450.324, indicates the TIP must cover a

period of no less than four years, be updated at least every four years, and be approved by the MPO and

the Governor (or Iowa DOT). Additionally, the TIP shall include:

Capital and non-capital surface transportation projects within the boundaries of the

metropolitan planning area proposed for funding;

Contain all regionally significant projects requiring an action by the FHWA or the FTA

whether or not the projects are to be funded;

All regionally significant projects proposed to be funded with Federal funds other than

those administered by FHWA or the FTA, as well as all regionally significant projects to

be funded with non-Federal funds;

A financial plan that demonstrates how the approved TIP can be implemented, indicates

resources from public and private sources that are reasonably expected to be made

available to carry out the TIP, and recommends any additional financing strategies for

needed projects and programs;

A project, or a phase of a project, only if full funding can reasonably be anticipated to be

available for the project within the time period contemplated for completion of the

project; and,

Sufficient descriptive material, estimated total project cost, amount of Federal funds

proposed to be obligated during each program year, and identification of the agencies

responsible for each project or phase.

6


13/96

Plan Consistency

Each project or project phase included in the TIP must be consistent with other MPO plans,

including the Horizon Year 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan. In addition, the MPO requires

consistency among the TIP and member governments and agencies capital improvement plans. In

particular, the MPO requires consistency among proposed short- and long-range projects, strategies, plans,

and programs.

TIP Adoption

Adoption of the MPOs FFY 2010-2013 TIP is subject to the MPOs review and approval. The

review process consists of a public comment period that offers opportunities for review and comment of

the draftFFY 2010-2013 TIP. At the conclusion of the public review period, MPO staff reviews and

summarizes all submitted comments and presents the findings to the MPO committees for consideration

into the final FFY 2010-2013 TIP. The MPO submits the final (approved) FFY 2010-2013 TIP, with a

copy of the formal resolution, to the Iowa DOT. The Iowa DOT then reviews the plan to ensure

compliance with federal regulations.

Amendments and Administrat ive Modif ications

Under Federal law, the MPO may revise the TIP at any time under procedures agreed to by the

cooperating parties consistent with the procedures established. Revisions are changes that occur between

annual updates. Additionally, any changes that affect fiscal constraint also must take place through

amendments to the TIP. The MPOs public participation procedures are used for revisions to the TIP,

except for those changes considered administrative modifications.

The MPO identifies two types of revisions to the TIP: major revisions (amendments) and minor

revisions (administrative modifications). The MPO considers the following criteria when determining the

type of major or minor revision to the FFY 2010-2013 TIP.

Amendments

An amendment is a major change to a project in the TIP, including the addition or deletion of a

project, a major change in project cost or project phase initiation dates, or a major change in the design

concept or scope (e.g. changing project termini or the number of through lanes). The MPO considers as

amendments to the FFY 2010-2013 TIP proposed changes that meet any of the following criteria:

Project cost Projects in which the recalculated project costs increase federal aid by more

than 30% or increase total federal aid by more than $2,000,000 from the original amount;

7


14/96

Schedule changes Projects which are added or deleted from the TIP;

Funding sources Receiving additional federal funding sources to a project; and,

Scope changes Changing the project termini, the amount of through traffic lanes, the

type of work from an overlay to reconstruction, or the change to include widening of the

roadway.

If the MPO considers a change to the TIP to be an amendment, the MPO must approve the

requested change and must follow the public participation process identified in the MPOs Public

Participation Plan. The MPO would schedule a public meeting to receive public comments on a date

before the MPO meeting and a summary of the public comments would be provided to the MPO prior to the

MPO taking action on the proposed amendment. If the MPO approves the amendment, the MPO would

notify the Iowa DOT, the FHWA, and the FTA. Generally, plan amendments would take a minimum of

sixty days to process.

Administrative Modifications

An administrative modification is a minor change to a project in the TIP, including minor changes

to project phase costs, funding sources or previously included projects, and project or project phase

initiation dates. The MPO considers as administrative modification to the FFY 2010-2013 TIP proposed

changes that meet any of the following criteria:

Project cost Projects in which the recalculated project costs do not increase federal aidby more than 30% or do not increase total federal aid by more than $2,000,000 from the

original amount;

Schedule changes Changes in schedules to projects which are included in the first four

years of the TIP;

Funding sources Changes to funding from one source to another; and,

Scope changes All changes to the projects scope are amendments.

If the MPO considers a change to the TIP to be an administrative modification, the MPO would

process the revision administratively. Following a thorough review of the proposed administrative

modification, the MPO staff would process the revision by notifying the Iowa DOT, the FHWA, and the

FTA. The MPO also would notify the MPO, the TTC, and the Executive Committee representatives of all

TIP administrative modifications through their monthly meeting agendas. Generally, the TIP

administrative modifications would take a minimum of thirty days to process.

8


15/96

Plan Organization

The FFY 2010-2013 TIP has seven chapters. Each chapter will build upon the proceeding chapter

to develop a complete document.

IntroductionThe Introduction explains Federal transportation planning guidelines and provides background

information on the MPOs responsibilities, representatives, and committees. The chapter also includes

information about the MPOs public participation process procedures. In addition, the chapter provides

an overview of the TIP, including its purpose, requirements, and the methodology to adopt, implement,

amend, or modify the plan.

Surface Transportation Program Guidelines

The Surface Transportation Program Guidelines chapter provides background into the MPOs

project selection procedure, including eligibility requirements, basis of funding projects, project priority

ranking, and additional funding availability. The chapter also discusses the intent of the STP and STP

TE programs.

Federal Fiscal Year 2009 Status Reports

The Federal Fiscal Year 2009 Status Reports chapter is a status listing of projects proposed for a

previous TIP.

Federal Highway Administration Projects

This Federal Highway Administration Projects chapter provides an overview of the existing

FHWA funding programs. This chapter also provides the listing of all federal-aid projects proposed for

the various FHWA funds for four federal fiscal years.

Federal Transit Administration Projects

The Federal Transit Administration Projects chapter provides an overview of the existing Federal

and State transit funding programs, including a description of the transit investments. This chapter alsoprovides the listing of all federal-aid projects proposed for FTA funds for four federal fiscal years.

Financial Plan

The Financial Plan chapter summarizes the total costs and federal-aid compiled by funding

program by year. The chapter includes the fiscal constraint of the STP and STP TE program, listing the

9


16/96

forecasted operations and maintenance expenditures, and forecasted non federal-aid revenues. The

chapter also includes a section discussing the transit funding federal-aid by year and a planning narrative

for all transit project funding sources.

Resolutions and Certifications

The resolutions and certifications chapter includes a resolution of adoption by the planning

organization, a self-certification of the metropolitan planning process, a certification of the financial

capacity analysis.

Public Comment

The public comment chapter includes a summary on the disposition of comments made as part of

the review of the TIP on May 26, 2009 and any subsequent written comments submitted to the MPO

before June 15, 2009.

10


17/96

2 Project Selection Procedures

On March 16, 1995, the MPO approved the Guidelines for Surface Transportation Program

and Surface Transportation Program Transportation Enhancement Funding (Guidelines). The MPO

amended the Guidelines on September 16, 1999, May 18, 2000, July 19, 2002, and as recently as October

16, 2003.

2.1 GUIDELINES FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AND

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT FUNDING

Eligibility

The MPO, when considering project requests for STP or STP TE funds, shall place primary

emphasis upon metropolitan-wide transportation system improvement needs as identified in the MPOs

Horizon Year 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan, how those needs impact the movement of people

and goods throughout this metropolitan area, and how the requested project will have potential benefits

and potential impacts on all communities in the Des Moines metropolitan area. The MPO shall give first

consideration to funding regionally significant transportation projects in the Plan.

All projects applying for MPO STP or STP TE funding must be sponsored by one or

more of the sixteen MPO member governments, the Iowa DOT, or the DART. Other entities

are eligible only with co-sponsorship by one of the organizations listed above. When applying

for STP or STP TE funds a sponsor must submit a resolution from that sponsors council, board

of supervisors, or similar governing body, guaranteeing the local funds for the STP match and

authorizing the project.

FundingFunding of projects with STP or STP TE funds for inclusion in the MPOs TIP shall be based on

the following:

1. The Iowa DOT annually allocates STP and STP TE funds to the MPO;

11


18/96

2. The MPO shall identify and shall consider all proposed project funding sources available

when considering project funding requests for MPO STP or STP TE funds for a projects

implementation;

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

4. Any special planning activities will be paid for from funds generated by MPO member

government assessments. The MPO will not set aside STP or STP TE funds for funding

planning related activities;

5. Jurisdictions undertaking STP projects must bear the initial expenditures of the project,

and receive reimbursement for eligible expenditures, as defined by the Iowa DOT. The

agreement with the Iowa DOT provides for reimbursement of up to 80 percent of the

project cost, or a set amount, whichever is less. Design and engineering costs are

generally incurred in the early stages of a project;

6. For roadway and STP TE projects, the amount of funds expended for work other than

direct construction and right-of-way acquisition costs must be covered by the amount of

the contribution of local funds. Federal regulations generally require a minimum local

match of 20 percent of the total project cost;

7. Each application for STP funding must include a detailed breakdown of projected costs,

including a summary of projected costs for work other than construction and

right-of-way;

8. Funding within the various STP and STP TE project categories shall be based on the

following percentages of the MPOs annual STP and STP TE funds amount, as follows:

STP:

Major construction 50 to 75%Minor construction 5 to 15%Preservation 5 to 15%Alternative transportation 5 to 15%

STP TE:

Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities 33%Scenic/Environmental 33%Historic Preservation 33%

If an insufficient number of qualified STP projects have been submitted that

would use all funding for a particular STP project category, the MPO then may allocate

the remaining funds from that STP category to any other project category;

12


19/96

9. STP funds shall be allocated to an individual project for a specific fiscal year in the TIP.

For projects extending over multiple years for implementation, funds may be allocated to

each of the necessary fiscal years within the TIP to complete the requested project;

10.If the total amount of STP or STP TE funds received by the MPO for any given fiscal

year is less than the total amount of STP or STP TE funds allocated by the MPO for that

fiscal year, then the MPO shall re-evaluate all of the projects funded for that fiscal year

and reallocate STP and STP TE funds to those projects based upon the total amount of

STP and STP TE funds actually available for that fiscal year, giving consideration to the

higher ranking projects; and,

11.The MPO shall fund a project not to exceed the STP or STP TE grant amount awarded, or

the percentage of the awarded project cost, which ever is less, except for Contingency

Fund procedures. Any STP or STP TE funds returned to the MPO for this reason shall

be included in the MPOs next fiscal year STP or STP TE funding allocation.

Project Priority Ranking

1. A new priority ranking shall be established prior to the annual development of the MPOs

TIP, to re-rank projects previously submitted, but not approved, for STP or STP TE

funding, as well as to rank any projects requesting STP or STP TE funding consideration

for the first time;

2. Prior to review of new projects to be considered for STP or STP TE funding, the MPO

shall determine the status of all prior commitments. All projects previously approved

and for which some part of STP or STP TE funds have been obligated shall receive

priority consideration for future funding, except if reasonable progress towards

completion is not maintained as determined by the MPO. However, the MPO may

reduce or eliminate multi-year funding commitments in response to revenue shortfalls,

reductions in its STP or STP TE allocation, or new priorities;

3. The MPOs TTC and MPO staff shall submit to the MPO a technical ranking of individual

project requests for MPO STP or STP TE funding assistance. The TTCs and staffs

recommendations for individual projects shall be used by the MPO in the MPOs

decision-making process for assigning STP and STP TE funds to requesting

transportation improvement projects. The TTCs and staffs recommendations shall be

based on their professional and technical expertise;

4. Once the MPO has selected projects for funding based on the MPOs current guidelines,

the MPO Executive Director shall forward a letter to the MPO STP and STP TE funds

13


20/96

recipient outlining the stipulations associated with acceptance of the MPOs funds,

including the need for the recipient to submit a project concept statement within one year

of the MPO STP or STP TE funding award and that the recipient needs to provide the

MPO Executive Director a semi-annual report on the status of and the progress on the

project which will be shared with the MPO;

5. When a jurisdiction changes the scope of a project after funds are awarded by the MPO,

the project must be reviewed again by the TTC and the MPO STP Funding Subcommittee

to determine whether the change in project scope would have materially changed the

original prioritization ranking. Based on that determination, the Subcommittee will

make a recommendation to the MPO Executive Committee, up to and including the

withdrawal of MPO approval for STP funding for the project. This is the same process

that may occur when a project does not make appropriate, scheduled progress leading to

recapture and reallocation of future funds previously designated for the project. The

MPO Executive Committee will, after due consideration, make a recommendation to the

full MPO for a final decision. Immaterial changes that would not affect the original

scoring of a project previously ranked and approved for MPO funding may be permitted

in the sound discretion of the MPO Executive Director.

Funding for Large, Multi -Year Projects

Funding of large, multi-year projects with major construction category STP funds for inclusion in

the MPOs TIP shall be based on the following criteria:

1. Any MPO member government or participating agency awarded STP funding through the

MPO must begin to use those STP funds in the original year programmed;

2. In its annual selection of STP projects, the MPO may dedicate an amount not to exceed

fifty percent (50%) of the Major Construction project category funds to multi-year

projects;

3. For an individual, multi-year project, the MPO may guarantee funding for no more than

three consecutive years. In the event the annual apportionment of funds is lower than

expected at the time of programming, a percentage of the Major Construction category

may be guaranteed. In the event the annual apportionment of funds is as expected or

higher than was expected at the time of programming, then a set amount would be

guaranteed;

14


21/96

4. If a project applicant anticipates the project continuing beyond the initial three years of

guaranteed funding, and anticipates seeking additional funding through the MPO, the

project applicant would have the ability to submit a new project funding application to

the MPO, and would need to go through the MPOs project prioritization process to seek

project funding beyond the initial three-year period; and,

5. The STP Funding Subcommittee has the ability to recommend funding for a period that

exceeds a three-year limitation for a project that the subcommittee considers of

extraordinary regional significance.

Addi tional Fund Availabili ty

In the event that STP or STP TE funds which were previously awarded to transportation projects

become available through the reduction of the reserve amount, or become available by an increase in a

particular fiscal years obligation limit, the following steps will be followed, in order, until the situation is

sufficiently resolved:

For STP Funds:

1. Additional funds will be offered to those projects which were awarded funds through the

Project Priority process, yet were not fully funded by the MPO. Projects will be

considered based on their previous scores. All project information will be updated and

considered, but no re-scoring of projects will take place. Those projects currently in

implementation will be excluded;

2. Additional funds will be offered to those projects which applied for funds, received a score,

but were not awarded funding. Projects will be considered based on the score they

received and only projects scoring above 50 points will be considered. Project

information will be updated; and,

3. Projects which have already been awarded funds, and which are programmed after the

current program year in the TIP, will be considered for funding in the current program year

if, upon review, the projects are ready to proceed with implementation.

For STP TE funds:

1. Fully funded projects which need more money;

2. Projects which were awarded part of the requested amount; and,

3. Projects in out years which can be moved forward.

15


22/96

Projects will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and funded based upon need or by a proportion

of the funds available.

Status Reports

1. The MPO shall be advised semi-annually of the status and progress of a STP or STP TE funded

project. The recipient jurisdiction/agency shall submit to the MPOs Executive Director a

written synopsis of the progress accomplished, or delays encountered, in implementing the

project.

2. If the status report is not provided to the MPO Executive Director by the date identified in the

status report request, the MPO Executive Director will issue a notice of delinquency identifying a

ten (10) calendar day cure period, beginning upon receipt of the registered notice. If the status

report is not submitted by the end of the cure period, the matter will be brought before the MPO

STP Funding Subcommittee within thirty (30) calendar days for a recommendation for action that

will be forwarded to the MPO Executive Committee for consideration and referral to the MPO.

3. If a jurisdiction/agencys STP or STP TE funded project does not make satisfactory progress, or

does not obligate the STP or STP TE funds provided within the year those funds were authorized

by the MPO and noted for that project, as previously documented, then the MPO may cancel the

remaining STP or STP TE funding for that project and return those STP or STP TE funds for

inclusion in the next fiscal years STP or STP TE funding allocation for projects. Such action to

cancel project funding shall be based on the following criteria:

a. The MPO strongly believes it necessary to maintain rapid turnover of funds and

implementation of specific projects so as not to jeopardize the loss of any

funding;

b. The MPO strongly encourages jurisdictions/agencies to have at least preliminary

project plans completed prior to submitting a project for the MPOs consideration

for funding; and,

c. The MPO strongly believes that such a stipulation shall cause

jurisdictions/agencies to provide better and more accurate project cost estimates,

detailed traffic, and engineering data, enabling both the TTC and the MPO to

evaluate a projects feasibility in a more detailed manner.

Interpretation

When, and as necessary, the STP Funding Subcommittee will exercise responsibility for

16


23/96

interpreting the applicable Guidelines, subject to review and approval, disapproval, or modification by the

MPO Executive Committee, subject to review and approval, disapproval, or modification by the full MPO

Policy Committee.

2.2 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM

Purpose

The purpose of the STP is to aid public road jurisdiction with funding for any road or bridge

projects on the federal aid system, which includes all federal functional class routes except local and rural

minor collectors. The STP is also intended to provide funding for transit capital improvements, bicycle

and pedestrian facilities, and regional transportation planning activities.

The MPO has four categories for STP projects:

Major Construction

Major Construction - New: Projects create a new facility on a new alignment, including

new interchanges or bridge replacements.

Major Construction - Existing: Projects adding capacity for a significant length of an

existing street or highway or adding lanes to an existing bridge.

Minor Construction

Projects provide spot improvements, such as arterial intersection channelization and

signalization, bridge improvements, or railroad crossing signal improvements.

Preservation

Projects that maintain or preserve the existing highway and street infrastructure, such as

pavement resurfacing, pavement replacement, and bridge restoration.

Al ternative Transportat ion

Project improvements other than for single occupant vehicle (SOV) use, such as

pedestrian ways and trails, public transportation systems, multi-modal facilities, and

carpool/vanpool and other multiple-occupancy vehicle programs.

17


24/96

2.3 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM TRANSPORTATION

ENHANCEMENT

The MPO follows the FHWAs Guidance for Transportation Enhancement Activities in the

administration of the STP TE project selection, which may be publicly accessed at

www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/te/guidance.htm.

Purpose

The purpose of the STP TE process is to fund the projects or programs related to transportation that

will enhance the environmental, scenic, or cultural quality of a site or an area. An STP TE project includes

any project that qualifies in one of the twelve categories. The MPO groups these twelve eligible activities

into three categories as follows:

Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities

Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles; provision of safety and educational

activities for pedestrians and bicyclists; and preservation of abandoned railway corridors

(including the conversion and, use thereof, for pedestrian or bicycle trails).

Historic Preservation

Acquisition of historic sites; historic highway programs (including provision of tourist and

welcome center facilities); historic preservation; rehabilitation and operation of historictransportation buildings, structures, or facilities (including historic railroad facilities and

canals); archeological planning and research; and establishment of transportation

museums.

Scenic/Environmental

Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic sites; scenic highway programs (including

provision of tourist and welcome center facilities); landscaping and other scenic

beautification; control and removal of outdoor advertising; environmental mitigation to

address water pollution due to highway runoff or reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality

while maintaining habitat connectivity.

The list of qualifying activities is intended to be exclusive, not illustrative. ONLY those activities

listed are eligible STP TE activities. Enhancement measures in the activities listed, which go beyond what

18


25/96

is customarily provided as environmental mitigation, are considered as transportation enhancements. STP

TE projects are non-motorized transportation-related activities.

The focus is on the clear and credible description of how the proposed STP TE project relates to the

surface transportation system. Several questions should be asked:

1. In what way(s) is the project related to surface transportation through present or

past use as a transportation resource?

2. Is there a direct connection to a person or event nationally significant in the

development of surface transportation?

3. What is the extent of the relationship(s) to surface transportation?

4. What groups and individuals are affected by the relationship(s)?

5. When did the relationship(s) start and end or does the relationship(s) continue?

6. Is a relationship substantial enough to justify the investment of transportation

funds?

The STP TE guidance states that proximity to a transportation facility alone is NOT sufficient to

establish a relationship. The following application types generally have been considered ineligible by the

FHWA, in cooperation with the Iowa DOT:

1. Surfacing or resurfacing of existing roads or construction of new roads;

2. Construction of surfacing of parking lots (unless trailhead parking lot);

3. Construction of low water crossings on roads;

4. Picnic shelters, picnic tables, grills (unless directly related to a trailhead);

5. Construction of new buildings (unless they are rest rooms or trailhead shelters in

conjunction with trails that will accommodate bikes or pedestrians);

6. Mitigation or NEPA Section 106 documentation of a bridge replacement;

7. Applications without a public sponsor (city, state, or county agency);

8. Historic applications where the facility or structure is not eligible for the National

Register of Historic Places (please review with the State Historic Preservation

Office);

9. Historic preservation activities which do not demonstrate some significant historic

connection with transportation system;

10.Normal environmental mitigation work.

19


26/96

The Iowa DOT retained 50 percent of the STP TE funds and is programming those funds for

Statewide TE projects. The other 50 percent of the STP TE funds goes to Metropolitan Planning

Organizations (MPO) and Regional Planning Affiliations (RPA).

20


27/96

3 Federal Fiscal Year 2009

Status Reports

3.1 STATUS REPORTS

The following is a listing of all federal-aid projects proposed for FHWA or FTA funds for

four federal fiscal years that will not be authorized until this TIP is in force October 1, 2009, plus a

status report of all previously authorized significant MPO projects still underway.

TABLE 3.1 City of A ltoona

Fund Category Project Number/Location/Description TPMS Status

ARRA

ESL-0132(615)7S-77: Adventureland Drive NW, Phase 2- From the intersection with Bass Pro Drive NW, thence east0.25 miles. 17705 August Letting

DemonstrationRPD-FE08(614)49-77: Cold Storage Spur Line - IowaCold Storage to Iowa Interstate Railroad mainline 15167

Authorized

TABLE 3.2 City of Ankeny


Demonstration

HDP-0187()3B-77: Northeast 36th Street Interchange -

Interstate 35/Northeast 36th Street Interchange 18092 Roll to 2010

STPSTP-069-4(87)2C-77: North Ankeny Boulevard - North36th Street to North 54th Street 14861 Let

ICAAP

STP-A-0187(622)86-77: Interstate 35 and East FirstStreet Interchange - Installation of traffic signal at Interstate35 (SB) off-ramp and East First Street 16700 Authorized

STP TE

STP-E-0187()8V-77: Neal Smith Connector RecreationTrail - Trail south of Oralabor Road from South AnkenyBoulevard to Southwest State Street 14871 Roll to 2010

ARRA ESP-069-4(92)2S-77: US 69 - Iowa 160 to 1st

Street 17705 July Letting

TABLE 3.3 City of Bondurant


ARRAESL-0747(603)7S-77: 2

ndStreet Multi-use Path

along 2nd

Street 17624 Authorized

21


28/96

TABLE 3.4 City of Carlis le


Demonstration

EDP-1105()7Y-91: Connection of Summerset Trail -Connection of Summerset Trail with Des Moines River,Carlisle to Des Moines 13623 Roll to 2010

Demonstration

EDP-1105(SCOTCH)7Y-91: Scotch RidgeEnvironmental Education Center - County Line Road/IA 5Intersection Improvements, Ecosystem Preservation, etc 13625 July Letting

ARRAESL-1105(603)7S-91: South 1

stStreet Highway 5

to School Street 17706 Roll to 2010

TABLE 3.5 City of Clive


ARRA

ESP-006-4(152)2S-77: Northwest 111th Street/HickmanRoad Intersection Improvement - Northwest 111thStreet/Hickman 17707 Roll to 2010

Demonstration

HDP-1425(611)71-77: University Boulevard, Phase II

Improvements - NW 84th

Street to NW 78th

Street 13627 Roll to 2010

TABLE 3.6 City of Des Moines


ARRAESL-1945(753)7S-77: 6th Avenue - University to DesMoines River Bridge 17601 April Letting

ARRAESL-1945(754)7S-91: Fleur Drive/Blue Street -Beardsley Street to Southwest 9th Street 17603 April Letting

ARRAESL-1945(755)7S-77: McKinley - South Union Street toFleur Drive 17605 July Letting

ARRAESL-1945(758)7S-77: Army Post Road - SW 9th Street toSE 5th Street 17611 Roll to 2010

ARRAESL-1945(757)7S-77: East McKinley Avenue - SouthUnion Street to Southeast 5th Street 17609 July Letting

ARRAESL-1945(756)7S-77: Southeast 5th Street - Army PostRoad to County Line Road 17607 July Letting

ARRAESL-1945(759)7S-77: Riverwalk - West Side of DesMoines River 17711 July Letting

HBPBRM-1945(729)8N-77: Easton Boulevard - Over FourMile Creek 15319 September Letting

HSIP/CAAPHSIPX-028-2(39)- -3l-77: Merle Hay Road - At UrbandaleAvenue 14873 Roll to 2010

DEMONHXS-U-1945(407)8S-77: Southeast Connector -Southwest 2ndStreet to Southeast 14th Street 13559 June Letting

DEMOSTP-1945()2C-77: Southeast Connector Improvement -Southeast 6th Street to Southeast 14th Street 15881 Roll to 2010

ICAAPSTP-A-163-1(79)22-77: Iowa 163 - Traffic SignalImprovements East University Ave. and East 30th Street 14378 Authorized

ICAAP

STP-A-1945()- -86-77: Merle Hay Road Traffic SignalInterconnect Upgrade - Along Merle Hay Road and DouglasAvenue 15446 Roll to 2010

ICAAPSTP-A-1945()86-77: Southeast 14th Street and EastIndianola Avenue Intersection Improvement 16716 July Letting

STP TESTP-E-1945(693)8V-77: Waveland Trail - Walnut CreekTrail to 56th Street 11841 May Letting

STP TE STP-E-1945()8V-77: Beaverdale Village Streetscape 14870 Roll to 2012

22


29/96

STP TE STP-E-1945()8V-77: Easter Lake Trail System 14869 Roll to 2010

STPSTP-U-1945(704)70-77: Indianola Avenue - Southeast14th Street to Army Post Road 11833 July Letting

STPSTP-U-1945(707)70-77: Second Avenue - UniversityAvenue to Grand Avenue 9178 May Letting

HBPBRM-1945(729)8N-77: Easton Boulevard - Over FourMile Creek 15319 September Letting

TABLE 3.7 City of Grimes


ARRA

ESL-3125(607)7S-77: South James Street - From 1300south of South 6th Avenue to 2200 south of Northwest 54 thAvenue 17699 July Letting

DemonstrationHDP-3125(610)71-77: IA 44 - Widening IA 44 from

North Circle Drive west to Grimes city limits 13608Expects Authorization

before October 1

TABLE 3.8 City of Pleasant Hill


ARRAESP-163-1(80)2S-77: 75

thStreet - 75

th

Street/Highway 163 17619 May Letting

TABLE 3.9 Polk County


ARRAESFM-C077(168)55-77: Northwest/Northeast 118Avenue - Polk city limits to Northeast 14th Street 16690 Authorized

STPCS-TSF-STP-C077(164)75-77: Northwest 66th Avenue -

Northwest Beaver Drive to Northwest 26 th Street 16263 Authorized

DEMOEDP-C077()7Y-77:Ankeny to Woodward Rail Trail -Ankeny to Woodward 13630 Authorized

DEMOHDP-35-3(175)7871-77: I-35/80/NW 100th Street -Interstate 35/80 at Northwest 100th Street interchange 13605 Roll to 2010

Statewide TESTP-ES-C077(162)8I-25: Ankeny to Woodward Trail -Ankeny to Woodward 16270 Authorized

HBP

BROS-C077(167)8J-77: Northeast White Oak Drive -On Northeast White Oak Drive south of Northeast 150thAvenue 15263 September Letting

STP and DEMOHDP-C077(144)6B-77: Northwest Madrid Drive - South3rdStreet in Polk City to Big Creek Diversion Dam Bridge 13598 Authorized

DEMOHDP-C077(RailSpur)71-77: Bondurant Rail Spur - HullAvenue to Northeast 88th Street 13589 Canceled

STP TE

STP-E-C077(129)8V-77: 4 Mile Creek Greenway(Gay

Lea Wilson Trail - Ankeny to Neil Smith Trail 7988 Roll to 2010

23


30/96

TABLE 3.10 City of Urbandale


ARRAESL-7875(632)7S-77: 100th Street - Hickman Road toDouglas Avenue 17712 Roll to 2010

SRTS

SRTS-U-7875(625)8U-77: Aurora Avenue PedestrianCrossing Improvements - Crosswalk locations along AuroraAvenue 16263 July Letting

STP TE

STP-E-7875(630)8V-77: Raccoon River Valley TrailConnection - Bridge over Walnut Creek and connection on

both sides 14854 June Letting

STP TESTP-E-7875()8V-77: Meredith Drive Trail Connection toGrimes - Meredith Drive to Grimes 15866 July Letting

STPSTP-U-7875(627)70-77: 86th Street/Meredith Drive - 86thStreet and Meredith Drive 17609 Roll to 2010

STPSTP-U-7875(629)70-77: Meredith Drive - 76th Street to86th Street 17088 Authorized

STPSTP-U-7875(628)70-77: 100th Street/Douglas Avenue -100th Street and Douglas Avenue 14853 Roll to 2010

TABLE 3.11 City o f Waukee


IMIMX-080-3(108)11902-25: 105th Street/Alices Road -Bridges, Roadway, Right of Way, Appurtenances 10958 Authorized

STP TE

STP-E-8177()8V-25: Sugar Creek Recreation Area -Trail Connecting Centennial Park, Warrior Park, and SugarCreek Golf Course 14872 Roll to 2011

TABLE 3.12 City o f West Des Moines


STPSTP-U-8260(620)70-77: Grand Avenue, Phase 2 -Railroad Avenue to Fuller Road 17712 Authorized

SRTSSTP-E-8260(619)8V-77: Valley Junction - 200-300Blocks of 6th Street 13180 Roll to 2010

STP TESTP-U-8260()70-77: Grand Avenue, Phase 3 - FullerRoad to Raccoon River Park Entrance 18151 August Letting

TABLE 3.13 City o f Windsor Heights


ARRAESL-8477(610)7S-77: 73rdStreet - Center Street toHickman Road 17622 May Letting

ICAAPSTP-A-6-4(149)86-77: US 6/Iowa 28 - Westover Road to63rdStreet 16701 Roll to 2010

24


31/96

TABLE 3.14 Iowa Department of Transportation


IMIM-()-13-77: Interstate 235 - In Des Moines Utilities and

Noise wall 16008 Roll to 2010

IMIM-80()-13-77: Interstate 80 - Polk, Jasper, and PoweshiekCounties 11845 July Letting

HBPBRF-35()38-77: Interstate 35 - Interstate 80 EastInterchange in Des Moines 13972 Let

HBPBHF-()2L-77: US 6 - Des Moines River 3.5 miles westof I-235 13977 Authorized

HBPBHF-()2L-77: Iowa 163 - East Four Mile Creek inPleasant Hill 13981 Let

HBPBHF-()2L-77: Iowa 163 - East Four Mile Creek inPleasant Hill (WB) 16940 Let

HBPBHF-080()2L-77: Interstate 80 - Over Walnut Creek 0.3miles west of US 6 (WB) 17765 July Letting

ARRA/STPSTP-069()2C-77: US 69 - Warren County Line to ArmyPost Road 17767 Authorized

HBPBHF-080()2L-77: Interstate 80 - Over Walnut Creek 0.3miles west of US 6 (EB) 13979 July Letting

STP

STP-163()2C-77: University Avenue - Western CityLimits of Pleasant Hill to Des Moines eastern urban area

boundary 13155 Let

IMIMX-080()--02-77: Interstate 80 - Northeast Mixmaster toUS 65 Interchange 17766 June Letting

STPSTP-065-3()2C-91: US 65 - North city limits Indianolato Iowa 5 17768 Authorized

25


32/96

TABLE 3.15 Des Moines Area Regional Transit Author ity

Fund Type Project Number/Location/Description Project StatusSTA General Operations/Maintenance/Administration On-Going/Annual

5311 Operations for Rural Services Approved

5310 Subcontracted Paratransit Operations Pending FY09 Grant

5310 One 176" WB LD Bus and a partial (Diesel, Cam & Urb) REP Pending FY09 Grant

5316 Job Access & Reverse Commute ProjectsPending FY09 FTA

Grant

5317Continue New Services: New/Expanded On-Call Services& Sunday Service EXP

Pending FY09 FTAGrant

CMAQ/STA Ankeny & Oliver Plaza DOT services EXP Approved

CMAQ/5307 One HD 40' Fixed-Route Elect-Hybrid Bus w/ Cameras EXP Approved

CMAQ Marketing Support for Unlimited Access Dem. Project Approved

5309 Purchase 16 Leased Buses from 2003 (direct earmark) EXP Pending FY09 Earmark

IG/5309/STIM Transit Hub Facility (direct earmark requests) EXPPending grantIA-96-X002

5309Alternatives Analysis Preliminary Design/Engineering(direct Earmark) EXP Roll to 2010

5309 Western Suburbs Park & Ride Facility (direct Earmark) EXP Roll to 2010

5309/STIM

Eight HD 40' Fixed-Route Buses w/ Cameras - (direct

Earmark) EXP

Pending grant

IA-96-X0025309 Environmental Technologies for Testing (direct Earmark) EXP Roll to 2010

5309/STIM Automatic Vehicle Location Technology (state Earmark) EXPPending grantIA-96-X002

5309 Four HD 40' Fixed-Route Buses w/ Cameras REPPending Grant fromstate - 5309 Funds

5309 Four HD 40' Fixed-Route Buses w/ Cameras REPPending Grant fromstate - 5309 Funds

STIM Six HD 40' Fixed-Route Buses w/ CamerasPending grantIA-96-X002

5309New Customer Facilities on University BRT (DirectEarmark) Roll to 2010

STIM Rider Communication ImprovementsPending grantIA-96-X002

5307 Planning Projects - see UPWP - Grant IA-90-X3425307 Preventive Maintenance - Grant IA-90-X342

5307 ADA Paratransit - Grant IA-90-X342

5307 Overhead Allocation (Indirect Charges) - Grant IA-90-X342

5307 Admin/Maint. Facility Engineering & Design REP/REH/EXP Grant IA-90-X342

5307/STIM Deteriorating Concrete REPGrant IA-90-X342 &

IA-96-X002

5307 Shop Equipment REP/EXP Grant IA-90-X342

5307 Miscellaneous Equipment REP/EXP Grant IA-90-X342

5307 Computer Hardware REP/EXP Grant IA-90-X342

5307 Computer Software REP/EXP Grant IA-90-X342

5307 Transit Enhancements REP/EXP Grant IA-90-X342

5307 Facility Repairs REP/EXP Grant IA-90-X342

5307/STIM DART Facility Expansion (Cont. Storage Barn from 2008) EXP

Grant IA-90-X342 &

IA-96-X002

5307/STPTwo HD 40' Fixed-Route Buses w/ Cameras ($520,000STP) REP

Pending GrantsIA-95-X007 &

IA-90-X341

5309 Seven 176" WB LD Buses (Diesel, Cam & Urb) REP Grant IA-90-X342

5307 Twenty-Two RideShare vehicles EXP/REP Grant IA-90-X342

CMAQ Transit Travel Trip Planner EXP IDOT grant for FY2010

CMAQ Sixteen RideShare vehicles EXP IDOT grant for FY2010

26


33/96

4 Federal Highway Administration

Projects4.1 FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY FUNDING (TITLE 23)

Projects programmed in the first Federal Fiscal Year (FFY 2010) are referred to as the Annual

Element. Projects for the entire four years (FFY 2010-2013) are listed together by FFY and funding

program. In addition, revenue and cost estimates for the TIP must use an inflation rate(s) to reflect year

of expenditure dollars, based on reasonable financial principles and information, developed cooperatively

by the MPO, State(s), and public transportation operator(s).

Federal Funding Programs

Some FHWA funds are distributed by statutory formulas, while other funds are discretionary

(congressionally earmarked). The primary sources of FHWA formula funding to Iowa are for:

Metropolitan Planning Program (PL). FHWA provides funding for this program

to the State of Iowa based on urbanized area population. The funds are dedicated to

support transportation planning projects in urbanized areas with more than 50,000

persons.

National Highway System (NHS). NHS or STP funds may be used to construct or

improve NHS roadways, including state highways, U.S. highways, and Interstates.

Interstate Maintenance (IM). This program is available to rehabilitate, restore, and

resurface the interstate system, but not to add capacity. Capacity additions to the

interstate system can only be funded from NHS or STP funding.

Surface Transportation Program (STP). This program is designed to address some

specific issues identified by Congress and to continue programs funded under the

previous highway bill. STP funding may be spent on:

1. Roadway and bridge projects on federal-aid routes;

2. Transportation Enhancement (TE) projects;

3. Transit capital improvements; and,

4. Planning Activities.

27


34/96

Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP). This program

provides funding for bridges on public roads. Fifteen percent of the HBRRP funding must be

spent on bridges off the federal-aid system. Eighty-five percent is to be used to fund bridge

projects on or off the federal-aid system.

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). This is a core federal-aid program that

funds projects with the goal of achieving a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious

injuries on public roads. Portions of these funds are set aside for use on high-risk rural roads.

Demonstration Funding (DEMO). Demonstration funding is a combination of different

programs and sources. The FHWA administers discretionary programs through various

offices representing special funding categories and an appropriation bill is used to provide

money to a discretionary program. Other examples can include special congressionally

directed appropriations during the reauthorization of the transportation bill or through

legislative acts such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

Iowa Department of Transportation Funding Programs

In addition to the distribution of Federal-aid formula funds, the Iowa DOT administers several

grant programs through application processes that need to be documented in the TIP. They include the

following:

Statewide Transportation Enhancements. Transportation Enhancement projects

are intended to go beyond the normal mitigation of a transportation improvement

project. Statewide Enhancement funds are made available through an application

process for projects of statewide significance. Statewide Enhancement projects are

categorized by Trail and Bicycle Facility, Historic and Archeological, and Scenic and

Environmental projects.

National Recreational Trails. This program provides federal funding for both

motorized and non-motorized trail projects.

Safe Routes to School. This federal program funds projects that increase safety and

promote walking and bicycling to school. Infrastructure and non- infrastructure

projects are eligible for funding through a competitive process.

Iowa Clean Air Attainment Program (ICAAP). The ICAAP program funds

projects which are intended to maximize emission reductions through traffic flow

28


35/96

improvements, reduced vehicle miles of travel, and reduced single occupancy vehicle

trips.

City Bridges. A portion of federal Highway Bridge Program funds are set aside for

the funding of bridge projects within cities. Eligible projects need to be classified as

structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Projects are rated and prioritized based

on four criteria in the application process.

FHWA Funding Transferred to FTA

STP funds that are designated for transit investments are required to be transferred from FHWA to

FTA for administration. These projects must be programmed in the Highway and Transit section of the

TIP in the federal fiscal year they are to be transferred. The process is initiated with a letter from the

RPA/MPO to the Iowa DOTs Office of Program Management and the Office of Public Transit requesting

the transfer of funds. The Office of Program Management will then review the request and submit it to

FHWA for processing.

STP funds used for planning efforts require projects to be included in the MPOs Unified Planning

Work Program and TIP. Funds will be transferred to a Consolidated Planning Grant by request of the

Office of Systems Planning.

Finally, transit projects receiving awards through the ICAAP also require a transfer of funds. The

process for these types of transfers is the same as transferring STP funds for transit investments, except that

no letter from the RPA/MPO requesting the transfer is required.

Program Format

The project listing is organized by TIP funding program. The sponsor name, project number,

project location, project description, project funding, programmed amounts in $1,000s by year, and

Transportation Program Management System (TPMS) identification number are shown for each project

within the different TIP funding categories. The TPMS identification number is a unique number given to

each project included in the MPOs TIP.

Under each TIP funding program, projects are listed in alphabetical order by county, then by city.

Project funding amounts are listed by year and are listed in $1,000s. Project Total refers to the total cost of

the project. Federal Aid refers to the amount of federal-aid the project has received. Regional FA

(Federal-aid) refers to the amount of federal-aid received from the MPO (i.e. Surface Transportation

Program and Surface Transportation Program Transportation Enhancement funds).

29


36/96

Program Description

Grade & PavePavePavement WideningPavement Rehabilitation/WideningPavement Rehabilitation

PatchingPavement PlanningBridge Approach RepairBridge NewBridge ReplacementBridge WideningBridge RehabilitationBridge Deck OverlayBridge RemovalBridge Rail RetrofitBridge PaintingBridge Washing

Culvert NewCulvert ReplacementCulvert ExtensionCulvert RepairGradeDitch ImprovementSlope ImprovementSubdrainsSanitary SewerFencingRip RapShoulder Grading

Granular ShouldersErosion ControlLandscapingWetland MitigationGuardrailLightingRailroad SignalsTraffic SignalsPavement Markings

Traffic SignsCorridor PreservationRight-of-WayBuildingsRest Area Improvement

Weigh Scale ImprovementSalvage & RemovalAsbestos RemovalNoise WallMiscellaneousUnder DevelopmentPlanning StudyOutside Services PlanningOutside Services EngineeringOutside Services ROWOutside Services Bridge InspectionOutside Services Survey

Transit InvestmentsTransportation PlanningTransportation Enhancements

Archaeological Planning & Research Historic Transportation (Bldg., Struc., or

Fac.)o Operationo Rehabilitation

Historic Preservation Scenic/Historic Highway Improvements Acquisition or Easement for

Scenic/Historic Site

Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilitieso Developmento Right of Wayo Gradingo Pavingo Grading & Pavingo Structureo Miscellaneous

30


37/96

MPO-26/DMAMPO

2010-2013Transportation

ImprovementProgram

TPMS

Project#

Length

ProjectFunding

ProgrammedAmounts

PA:Co:SEQ

Sponsor

Location

FHWA#

PAID#

Appr.Status

FundingProgram

Sec:Twnshp:Range

FY10FY11

FY12

FY13

STIPID#

[1]STP-SurfaceTransportationProgram

InclusioninthislistDOESNOTguaranteeFederalAidEligibility

RegionWide-00

16246

$167

$84

--

--

26:0:374

TransportationMa

nagementAssociation:Fundingfortheoperationofthe

TransportationMa

nagementAssociation

--

$90

$45

--

--

TransPlanning,M

iscellaneous

90

45

--

--

--

16247

$869

--

--

--

26:0:375

IowaDOT'sTransportationManagementCenter:UseofSTPfundstosupportthe

useoftheTransportationManagementCenter

--

$180

--

--

--

TransPlanning

180

--

--

--

--

11826

$44

$44

--

--

26:0:286

SUDAS:STATEW

IDEURBANDESIGNSTANDARDS

--

$35

$35

--

--

MAP-MPO

TransPlanning

35

35

--

--

--

PANote:Request

tocontinuetoprogramfundsforSUDASinallFYsafterFY07.WillsubmittoIDOTuponMPO'sapproalinJuly.

18123

--

--

--

$2670

:0:430

DART:6Fixed-Ro

uteBuses

--

--

--

--

$700

TransitInvestments

--

--

--

700

--

PANote:FFY201

3STPfunds(DARTproject)

15892

$1272

$1272

--

--

26:0:371

DART:FOURFIX

EDROUTEBUSES:TransitInvestments

--

$900

$500

--

--

TransitInvestments

900

500

--

--

--

16695

--

--

$2443

--

26:0:400

DART:6Fixed-Ro

uteBuses

--

--

--

$700

--

TransitInvestments

--

--

700

--

--

18119

2.25Mi

--

--

--

$3050

:0:429

SEORALABORR

D:Interstate35toIowaHighway415(StateStreet)

--

--

--

--

$450

PavementRehab

36:80:24

--

--

--

450

--

PANote:MPOaw

arded$450,000toIowaDOT(DOTsponsoredproject)

1232

$41

$41

--

--

26:0:344

IowaPavementManagement:PVMTMGMTSYSTEMIMPLEMENTATIONF

OR

DMAMPO

--

$41

$41

--

--

MAP-MPO

TransPlanning

41

41

--

--

--

PANote:$40,814

forFY10andFY11

DallasCounty-25

15879

1Mi

--

$3885

--

--

26:25:91

WIDENINGALIC

E'SROAD:UniversityAvenuetoHickmanRoad

--

--

$650

--

--

PavementWidenin

g

--

650

--

--

--

PolkCounty-77

18107

--

--

$26400

$26400

:77:508

NE36thStreetIntechange:OnInterstate35atNortheast36thStreetInterchange

--

--

--

$500

$563

GradeandPave,PavementWidening

--

--

500

563

--

31


38/96

TPMS

Project#

Length

ProjectFunding

ProgrammedAmounts

PA:Co:SEQ

Sponsor

Location

FHWA#

PAID#

Appr.Status

FundingProgram

Sec:Twnshp

:Range

FY10

FY11

FY12

FY13

STIPID#

16692

--

--

$725

--

26:77:472

86thStreet:Phase3-HickmanRoad

toUniversityAvenue

--

--

--

$288

--

PavementRehab

--

--

288

--

--

15878

0.32Mi

$1700

--

--

--

26:77:452

UNIVERSITYAVE:NW7

8thStreetto73rdStreet

--

$990

--

--

--

GradeandPave,PavementWidening,BridgeWidening

0:0:0

690

--

--

--

--

PANote:Includes$300,000ICAAP

15881

0.48Mi

$11961

$8000

$9000

--

26:77:454

SOUTHEASTCONNECTORIMPR

OVEMENT:SE6thStreettoSE14thStreet

--

$4961

$1000

$2000

--

GradeandPave

1000

1000

2000

--

--

PANote:$2,298,000isTCSPfundin

ginFY09.$1,662,500isSTPPOmnibus2009.

15889

$620

--

--

--

26:77:455

SW9

thSTREETANDDARTWAY

INTERSECTION:IntersectionofSW9

th

StreetandMTALane

--

$300

--

--

--

TrafficSignals,PavementRehab

300

--

--

--

--

15890

--

$700

--

--

26:77:456

FLEURDRIVEVIADUCTOVERTHEU.P.RAILROAD:FleurDrivenorthofBell

Avenue

--

--

$300

--

--

BridgeDeckOverlay,BridgeRehabilitation

--

300

--

--

--

14863

$625

--

--

--

26:77:368

EASTERLAKEDRIVE:Overbranc

hofEasterLake

--

$245

--

--

--

MAP-29

BridgeApproachRepair

245

--

--

--

--

16693

--

--

$690

--

26:77:473

6thAvenueBridge:OverDesMoinesRiver

--

--

--

$280

--

BridgeRehabilitation

--

--

280

--

--

17785

0.83Mi

--

--

--

$4500

:77:500

PARKAVE:MonarchCementRRTrackstoSW6

3rdStreet

--

--

--

--

$300

PavementWidening

0:0:0

--

--

--

300

--

18065

0.07Mi

--

--

--

$4200

:77:501

EGRANDAVE:OverDesMoinesR

iver

--

--

--

--

$500

BridgeRehabilitation,BridgeDeckOverlay

0:0:0

--

--

--

500

--

18104

1.07Mi

--

--

--

$16000

:77:507

EINDIANOLAAVE:McKinleyAvenuetoArmyPostRoad

--

--

--

--

$2000

GradeandPave,PavementWidening

0:0:0

--

--

--

2000

--

11833

2Mi

$3490

$5000

$5000

--

26:77:252

INDIANOLAAVE:SE14THSTtoARMYPOSTROAD

--

$1050

$1150

$900

--

MAP-12

GradeandPave,RightofWay

1050

1150

900

--

--

PANote:PA:FFY2013STPfundsfortermini:McKinleyAvenuetoArmyPostRoad

DOTNote:ROWauthorized$631,748Consauthorized$2,750,000

18070

--

--

--

$5454

:77:505

NW1

00thStreet:atNW5

4thAvenueIntersectionwithGrimesandUrbandale

--

--

--

--

$900

RightofWay,GradeandPave,Pave

mentWidening

--

--

--

900

--

16694

--

--

$561

--

26:77:474

DouglasAvenue:100thStreetto111thStreet

--

--

--

$232

--

PavementRehab

--

--

232

--

--

32


39/96

TPMS

Project#

Length

ProjectFunding

Programmed

Amounts

PA:Co:SEQ

Sponsor

Location

FH

WA#

PAID#

Appr.Status

FundingProgram

Sec:Twnshp:Range

FY10

FY11

FY12

FY13

STIPID#

18121

1M

i

$1062

--

--

--

:77:510

100THST:HickmanRoadtoDouglasAvenue

--

$189

--

--

--

PavementRehab

0:0

:0

189

--

--

--

--

18153

2.2

1Mi

$12000

$12000$

12000

$12000

:77:512

GRANDAVE-Phase4:RaccoonRiverParkEntrancetoInterstate35

--

$1000

$1000

$

451

$500

PavementRehab/Widen,GradeandPave

0:0

:0

1000

1000

4

51

500

--

8000

$16900

--

--

--

26:77:201

SWC

ONNECTOR:S1ST

toIA5

--

$3000

--

--

--

MAP-1

GradeandPave

3000

--

--

--

--

18151

0.4

8Mi

$4187

--

--

--

:77:511

GRANDAVE-Phase3:Fu

llerRoadtoRaccoonRiverParkEntrance

--

$2000

--

--

--

PavementRehab/Widen

0:0

:0

2000

--

--

--

--

14862

$17000

$17000$

17000

$17000

26:77:367

North-SouthMetroConnec

tor:NW2

6thStreetInterchangeatI-35/80

--

$1200

$750

$

750

$850

GradeandPave

1200

750

7

50

850

--

PANote:Originallycalled

I-35/I-80/NW2

6thStreet

18112

3.7

7Mi

--

--

--

$900

:77:509

NW/NE54AVE:NW2

6th

StreettoNE22ndStreet

--

--

--

--

$189

PavementRehab

13:79:24

--

--

--

189

--

16690

$881

--

$

22775

--

26:77:471

NW6

6thAvenue:NWBeaverDrivetoNW2

6thStreet

--

$734

--

$

300

--

GradeandPave,Pavement

Widening,BridgeReplacement

734

--

3

00

--

--

PANote:STPTransferfromPolkCounty'sCIRTPASTPSuballocation-FFY2009=$2

20,203,FFY2010=$733,797,Total=$954,000

16026

1M

i

--

$1125

--

--

26:77:458

US69:UNDECIDED

--

--

$325

--

--

PavementRehab/Widen

--

325

--

--

--

PANote:DMAMPOInitiative

16027

1M

i

--

$1500

--

--

26:77:459

US69:IowaHwy160toFirstStreet

--

--

$430

--

--

PavementRehab/Widen

--

430

--

--

--

DOTNote:DMAMPOInitiative

[2]NHS-NationalHighwaySystemProgram

InclusioninthislistDOESNO

TguaranteeFederalAidEligibility

Pol

transportation improvement program fy 2010-2013

Documents