Memphis Metropolitan Planning Organization Engineering and Technical Committee Thursday, September 12, 2013 1:30 PM Mata Central Station – Boardroom 545 South Main Street - Memphis, TN 38103
Note: Please fill out a comment card and turn into a MPO staff member to be given the opportunity to speak on any of the agenda items. You will be given up to two minutes to provide your comments.
1) Call to Order
2) Approval of August 1, 2013 Meeting Minutes ACTION
3) Memphis MPO Coordinator’s Report
4) Approval of LRTP Amendments and Air Quality Conformity for Shelby and DeSoto Counties ACTION Note: The following thirteen (13) LRTP Amendments were submitted to the Interagency Consultation (IAC) Group for a 30‐day review and they concur with the amendments. The changes to the LRTP are made to make the projects consistent with 2014-17 TIP projects and to include the required changes under MAP-21
# LRTP # Project Name Action TN State Road LRTP Amendments a 02020024‐02020025 SR‐14 (Austin Peay) Change in estimated project cost, update termini and length b 00820028‐00820030 US‐78/ SR‐4 Change in estimated project cost, update termini c 60010001.3 I‐240 (Airways Interchange) Change in termini d 02020027‐02020031 SR‐14 (Austin Peay) Change in estimated project cost, update termini and length e 60020002 I‐40 (I‐240 Interchange – Phase III) Remove project from 2040 LRTP MS State Road LRTP Amendments f 00820031 US‐78/ I‐22 Change in termini TN Local LRTP Amendments g 250010.1 US‐51/ Elvis Presley Blvd Move project from 2020 to Existing plus committed h 00160007‐10 Holmes Road West Move project from 2020 to Existing plus committed i 00900012 Walnut Grove Rd Middle Move project from 2040 to 2020, change in estimate project j 00450001 Sycamore View Road Remove project from 2040 LRTP MS Local LRTP Amendments k 00410003‐00410005 MS‐747 (Getwell Road) Change in estimated project cost, update termini, length, improvements, and move project from 2040 to 2020 l 00080010‐00080014 Nail Road Extension Change in estimated project cost, update termini, length, improvements, and move project from 2030 to 2020 LRTP Funding Language and Categories m Not applicable Not applicable New funding language and categories added associated to MAP‐21
5) Approval of FY 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) ACTION The 2014-2017 TIP has been reviewed by the MPO’s inter-agency consultation group including TDOT, MDOT, FHWA, FTA, and EPA. All comments from these agencies and the public have been addressed.
6) Tennessee State Route 14 (Austin Peay Highway) Functional Classification Change ACTION The Tennessee Department of Transportation is requesting to amend the Roadway Functional Classification of Tennessee State Route 14 (Austin Peay Highway) between the Memphis Urbanized Area boundary and State Route 385 (future I-269) from Rural Minor Arterial to Rural Principal Arterial, adding the road segment to the National Highway System under the provisions of MAP-21.
7) Other Business Next ETC Scheduled Meeting: November 7, 2013 1:30pm at UT Health Science Center
8) Adjourn
Memphis Metropolitan Planning Organization Engineering and Technical Committee Thursday, August 1, 2013 1:30 PM UT Health Science Center – Student Alumni Building 800 Madison Avenue - Memphis, Tennessee
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
Ms. Pragati Srivastava called the meeting to order at 1:35 PM. In addition to Ms. Pragati Srivastava, the following voting members were present at the meeting: Aury Kangelos TDOT Frank McPhail Collierville Perry Brown MDOT Andy Pouncey Germantown Rick McClanahan Bartlett Jason Allen Horn Lake Tom Needham Shelby County Darren Sanders Shelby County Ted Garrod Desoto County Darek Baskin Millington Steve Hill Arlington Bob Conrad Piperton John Lancaster MATA John Cameron Memphis Mayor Rhea Taylor Fayette County Ron Smith Southaven Phillip Stuckert Lakeland Ken Johnson Memphis B.J. Page Olive Branch
The following Interested Individuals were present: Mike Merry MDOT Tom Haysley Desoto County James Collins Kimley-Horn Regina Jones Carter Malone Group Art Wolff Citizen Stephen Edwards Memphis Mark Grey Buchart Horn Austin Cardosi Horn Lake Andy Pinkley Buchart Horn Bob Wenner Wolf River Ordis Copeland ECD Kerry Roby Pickering Alex Ray SSR Tom Word MLGW Rob Schiffer Cambridge Ian Engstrom SSR Jimmy Dickerson Buchart Horn Dennis Lynch Sierra Club Scott Henninger Collierville Esther Sykes-Wood Fayette County Josh Shumaker W. Tn. Planning Patrick Neal Pickering Brian Copeland MDOT Russ Brasfield BWSC
The following Ex-officio members were present:
Bobby Williams West Memphis MPO
The following MPO Staff members were present:
Sajid Hossain John Paul Shaffer Kate Horton Amy Doss Kyle Wagenschutz Linda Kay Lawrence Andrew Ray
A quorum was present.
Memphis Metropolitan Planning Organization Engineering and Technical Committee Thursday, August 1, 2013 1:30 PM UT Health Science Center – Student Alumni Building 800 Madison Avenue - Memphis, Tennessee
1) Call to Order @ 1:35 PM
2) Approval of April 11, 2013 Minutes
Mr. Phillip Stuckert moved to approve the minutes as presented; Mr. Andy Pouncey seconded the motion, and the motion carried without dissent.
3) Memphis MPO Coordinator’s Report a. Household Travel Survey Update Cambridge Systematics is the Lead Consultant for this project along with sub consultants Dikita Engineering, AbtSRBI and Neel Schaffer b. National Freight Advisory Committee Update Mayor AC Wharton has been selected to serve on the Committee c. TDOT Contract Process for projects in 2014-17 TIP The contracting process can begin for new projects that are in the 2014-17 TIP to be ready for execution of the contracts when the TIP receives final approval The MPO highly recommends getting contract process started with TDOT d. MDOT Quarterly Meeting The Memphis MPO will be hosting the next MDOT Quarterly Meeting in October e. MPO Upcoming Projects/Studies ITS Architecture Update- This update will be for the Memphis MPO region and the RFP will go out soon Congestion Management- we are now going to have a separate document that is not just part of LRTP as in the past. An RFP will go out soon. f. Special Call ETC Meeting to adopt the 2014-17 TIP: September 12, 2013 – 1:30 PM at MATA Central Station, 545 South Main Street, Memphis g. Wolf River Blvd. ribbon cutting will be August 16th h. Changes to TAP program and process. Mr. Kyle Wagenschutz gave an overview. Applications due August 20th by 3:00 PM. Any jurisdictions within MPO boundary can apply for funds. Funds can now be used for planning, preliminary engineering, and right-of-way, as well as for construction
4) 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Update An overview and update was given by Ms. Kate Horton.
Comment by Mr. Dennis Lynch: Commendation for the increase in bicycle and pedestrian projects. TIP project status can be misleading e.g. Shelby Farms Parkway shows carry-over from the previous TIP and the project is not yet fully approved The online link to the TIP document is broken as of the date of the meeting, please check into this.
Question from Mr. Darren Sanders: Mr. Darren Sanders asked for clarification of the contracting process with TDOT. Ms. Kate Horton responded that the contracting process for project phases can begin now, but contract execution cannot begin until the TIP receives final approval expected by January 1, 2014.
5) Approval of the MOA between TDOT and the Memphis MPO for TIP Amendments and Adjustments
Mr. Darren Sanders moved to approve the MOA between TDOT and Memphis MPO as presented; Mr. Phillip Stuckert seconded the motion, and the motion carried without dissent.
Ms. Pragati Srivastava gave the following information to think about and let the MPO know if you have comments:
There is no provision for a cost-overrun bucket as there has been in the past. A new way to address cost- overruns will need to be considered moving forward. A method for timely obligation of projects should be considered. Currently, projects will lose their obligation if no progress is achieved in two years; the possibility of reducing that to one year is recommended for consideration.
6) Approval of the Amendment to the 2013-2014 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) Ms. Pragati Srivastava gave an overview.
Mr. Rick McClanahan moved to approve the 2013 – 2014 UPWP as presented; Mr. Phillip Stuckert seconded the motion, and the motion carried without dissent.
7) 2011-2014 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendments Ms. Pragati Srivastava gave an overview.
Mr. B J Page moved to approve the 2011 – 2014 TIP Amendments as presented; Mr. Ted Garrod seconded the motion, and the motion carried without dissent.
MS State Road TIP Amendment
a. TIP Amendment MS-SSTP-2006-01-A: MS-305 Amend the TIP by adding $500,000 in FY 2014 Surface Transportation Program/State Funded-Project/National Highway Performance Program (STP/SFP/NHPP) total funds, for the PE phase, to cover the costs overruns for the MS-305 section from Lewisburg to US-78. The 5-lane widening and construction for the section from Church Road to US-78 has been completed.
TN Local Road Amendments
b. TIP Amendment HPP-2006-03: Center for Advanced Intermodal Technologies at the University of Memphis Amend the TIP by adding $2,326,285 in FY 2013 High Priority Project Local (HPP-L) total funds to cover the cost overruns for operational costs for the Intermodal Transportation Center. The project has been completed.
c. TIP Amendment ENH-2008-01: I-40/Riverside Drive Gateway Enhancements Amend the TIP by adding $107,000 in FY 2013 Enhancement (ENH) total funds for the I-40/Riverside Drive Gateway Enhancements project. The project includes landscaping and a welcome entry sign.
Transit Amendments
d. TIP Amendment 5310-2013-01: Multi-Purpose School Activity Bus Amend the TIP by adding $48,695 in FY 2013 FTA 5310 total funds for the purchase of one multi-purpose school activity bus. The bus is for the Wesley Housing Corporation of Memphis and the project has been completed.
e. TIP Amendment 5310-2013-02: Cutaway Minibus Amend the TIP by adding $42,631 in FY 2013 FTA 5310 total funds for the purchase of one cutaway minibus. The bus is for Wesley at Millington Towers and the project has been completed.
8) Presentations a. Boundary Expansion Presentation - MPO
Sajid Hossain gave an update:
Required every 10 years, following the decennial census Currently in the process of meeting with the jurisdictions and gathering information Plan/study will be completed and a recommendation will be presented in November
Mr. Rick McClanahan asked to look at the map and wanted know if the potential expansion was to the full MSA area?
Ms. Pragati Srivastava stated that the process follows the urbanized area boundaries and also looks at potential areas which will become urbanized in next 10-20 years. The process will be a cooperative process and will be up to an agreement between the MPO and jurisdictions.
b. Household Travel Survey Presentation – Cambridge Systematics
Mr. Rob Schiffer, Cambridge Systematics, Project Manager gave a presentation
Mr. Dennis Lynch stated he would like for any project related sensitivity analysis to be made available and that in the future individual transportation projects be considered and the model reused for future projects.
c. I-40/I-240 Interchange Presentation – TDOT Mr. Ian Engstrom, SSR in Memphis, gave a presentation
Phase II of this project will add new lanes as well as make traffic move more efficiently Construction of Phase II will began in the fall of 2013 and will continue until the Summer of 2017
Discussion: Mr. Frank McPhail asked how far back the construction will go on Sam Cooper. Mr. Engstrom stated to the White Station exit. Mr. John Cameron asked when will the contract actually be executed? Mr. Engstrom stated that contracts are being executed now and construction will begin by October of this year. Mr. Tom Needham asked what the effect would be on the Greenline. He also asked about a public information campaign. Mr. Engstrom stated that the Greenline will remain open at all times. He also stated that the Carter Malone group is handling the public relations regarding the project and will be available to meet with interested groups as well as public outreach and informational meetings. Mr. Rick McClanahan asked about the effect on traffic and specifically on redirection to TN-385. Mr. Engstrom responded that there will be an effort to reroute truck traffic to TN-385 and ITS architecture will be used to give advanced warning of conditions. Mr. Darren Sanders asked if any signal coordination would be performed on the roads that traffic will be using as alternate routes. Mr. Engstrom responded that there has not been any discussion of signal timing up to this point.
9) Other Business a. ETC Special Call Meeting: September 12, 2013 1:30pm at MATA Central Station b. Next ETC Scheduled Meeting: November 7, 2013 1:30pm at UT Health Science Center
Comment by Mr. Art Wolff: The I-40/I-240 interchange project should include efforts to inform the public of the project details and the expected effects on future traffic patterns. Mr. Wolff objects to the current proposal for Shelby Farms Parkway and that alternative options be considered. 10) Adjourned @ 2:45 PM
Mr. Frank McPhail moved to Adjourn; Mr. Darren Sanders seconded the motion, and the motion carried without dissent.
NOTE: The meeting minutes are a summary of the meeting. If you would like to review the tape recording of the entire meeting you may do so by scheduling an appointment with Mr. Andrew Ray, Transportation Planner at (901) 576-7216
CHAPTER # 4 – EXISTING CONDITIONS
AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table 4.1 (Continued) 2011 – 2014 Committed Projects Map ID TIP Number Project Name Termini/Intersection Project Description STP-M-2008-02 Veterans Parkway West Veterans Parkway and Dakar to Creek Construct five-lane roadway with bridge over North Fork Creek and above grade crossing of the Canadian National-Illinois Central railway. R Mill Cove and West Union MS-LSTP-2006-01 Alexander Road Goodman Road (MS-302) to MS 302 Widen existing rural two-lane road to 3-lane urban cross section. A striped bike lane will be provided. S Bypass T MS-LSTP-2006-06 Church Road From 3,300' West of Tulane Road to the Widen Church Road from two-lanes to three-lanes. Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Church Road and Tulane Road. intersection with Tulane Road U MS-LSTP-2004-01 Craft Road Goodman Road (MS 302) to U.S. 78 Widen existing two lane road to 3-lane urban cross section. A striped bike lane will be provided. V MS-LSTP-2002-02 Getwell Road Goodman Road to Tennessee State Line Widening existing two lane roadway WO / curbs and storm drains to a (two mile) five lane typical section W I curbs and storm drains and a (one-quarter mile) seven lane typical section W / curbs and storm drains. W MS-LSTP-2000-02 Nail Road From the intersection with Hurt Road to Phase 1 - Widen Nail Road from two-lanes to five-lanes from the intersection with Highway 51 to the Illinois Central Railroad with railroad the intersection with Highway 51 crossing improvements. Phase 2 - Widen Nail Road from two-lanes to five-lanes from the Illinois Central Railroad to the intersection with Hurt Road. X MS-LSTP-2008-01 Pleasant Hill Road From MS Highway 302 (Goodman Road), Widening of Pleasant Hill Road from its current two-lane rural cross-section to a five-lane urban cross-section with curb, gutter, sidewalks, and South to Nail Road landscaped medians. Y STP-M-2004-01 Winchester/Perkins Winchester at Perkins Reconstruct interchange to allow for the removal of the center pier in Winchester and construct more travel lanes on Winchester. Interchange Z STP-M-2000-13 Wolf River Blvd Kimbrough Rd to Farmington Blvd This project will connect the two ends of Wolf River Blvd in Germantown from its western terminus at Kimbrough Road to its eastern terminus at Farmington Blvd. This project will also include a Greenwaay/bike trail located on the north side of the roadway. AA STP-M-2011-06 Byhalia Road South of Shelby Post Road to SR385 Widen Byhalia Road from 2 to 4 lanes divided, including intersection improvements at Byhalia Road and Shelby Drive. Construct Shelby Drive from 1,100 feet west of Byhalia Road to Byhalia Road. Connect Byhalia Road to the 5 lane section south of the Byhalia Road/Shelby Drive Intersection. AB TN-CMAQ-2011-02 Memphis Regional SR-57, East of Neville Road Construct the CMAQ components of the intermodal facility for Norfolk Southern Railroad, which currently includes the SR-57 overpass, the Intermodal Facility Automated Gate System (AGS) and building, lift machines, etc. AC NHS-2004-01 I-40 HPP-ID# 1359, 4945 and 34, Interchange Construct I-40 flyover ramp at I-240 East of Memphis (Phase 2) AD MS-LSTP-2012-02 Tulane Road Connector From approx. 1800’ north of Goodman New 2 lane road with curb and gutter. road to Pintail drive AE NHS-2006-06 I-269 (Prop.) HPP ID# 31 & 1 - Mississippi State Line Construct new 4 lanes freeway to South of Collierville STP-M-2004-02 Beale Street Landing Construct docking facility for touring and local riverboats including floating dock and access ramp, office/ticketing facility and underground parking. R. J. Corman Railroad R. J. Corman Railroad / Tennessee TN-ARRA-S-2011-01 Ties, switch ties, surfacing, ballast and crossing work upgrade Terminal Refloor old Harahan Bridge for bike and pedestrian use and road/street improvements to accommodate bikes. The project will be done in different sections as follows: Section 1: Henry Street to the MATA North End Terminal to the Main Street Mall. Section 1 will include on-street bikeways, ADA and pedestrian improvements, drainage improvements, and trolley improvements. Section 2: Main Street Mall. Section 2 will include ADA and pedestrian improvements, streetscaping, drainage, and trolley repairs. TIGER IV-2012-01 TIGER IV-2012-01 TIGER IV-2012-01 Section 3: Main Street Mall to AMTRAK Central Station including the Cleaborn & Foote Loop. Section 3 will include ADA and pedestrian improvements, streetscaping, drainage improvements, and trolley repairs. Section 4: AMTRAK Central Station to Harahan Bridge (includes Harahan Bridge). Section 4 will include the realignment of Front Street with Florida Street to create a safe crossing of the existing CN rail spur, the widening of Channel 3 Drive Bridge over South Riverside Drive to accomodate on-street bikeways, and structural improvements to the Harahan Bridge. Section 5: Bridgeport Cove Road, I-55 Bridge to Club Road. Section 5 will include new bike-pedways in Arkansas. Construct a six lane heavily landscaped roadway adjacent to Graceland, which includes median, wide outside lanes for bikes and a bus stop turn- ENH-2010-01 US-51/SR-3 (Elvis Presley) SR-175 (Shelby Dr) to Brooks Rd out lane. From Craft to Winchester widen from four to six lanes with a median. The other two segments will have the same existing laneage,
4-4
CHAPTER # 4 – EXISTING CONDITIONS
AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
but the entire project will have improved ped/bike/bus stop and landscaping. STP-M-2002-14 Holmes Rd West Millbranch Rd to Tchulahoma Rd Widen from 4 and 2 lanes to 7 lanes Source: 2011-2014 Transportation Improvement Program
4-5
Chapter #8
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
8.0 Financial and Implementation Plan ...... 8-1 8.1 Introduction ...... 8-1 8.2 System Costs and Revenues ...... 8-2 8.2.1 Non-Transit Operations and Maintenance Revenue ...... 8-2 8.2.2 Capital Revenue ...... 8-4 8.2.3 Demonstration of Non-Transit Fiscal Constraint ...... 8-16 8.2.4 Transit Funding ...... 8-43 8.3 Alternative Funding Strategies ...... 8-47 8.4 Performance Measures ...... 8-49 8.5 Implementation ...... 8-51 8.5.1 Controlling Factors ...... 8-51 8.5.2 Action Plan ...... 8-51 8.5.3 Key Relationships ...... 8-52 8.5.4 Recommendations ...... 8-52
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 8.1 Highway Projects ...... 8-41
LIST OF TABLES Table 8.1 Existing System Operations and Maintenance Costs (Non-Transit) ...... 8-3 Table 8.2 Non-Transit O & M Costs vs. Revenues by Horizon Year Adjusted for Inflation ...... 8-3 Table 8.3 MAP-21 and SAFETEA-LU Funding Categories………………………………………………………………………………………….8-4 Table 8.4 Allocated and Projected Non-Transit Capital Revenues 2011 to 2040 by Horizon Year Adjusted for Inflation (Combined) ...... 8-14 Table 8.5 Highway Projects - 2020 Horizon Year ...... 8-17 Table 8.6 Highway Projects - 2030 Horizon Year ...... 8-22 Table 8.7 Highway Projects - 2040 Horizon Year ...... 8-29 Table 8.8 Highway Projects – Vision Projects ...... 8-35 Table 8.9 Non-Transit Capital Costs vs. Revenues by Horizon Year Adjusted for Inflation ...... 8-42 Table 8.10 Transit Costs and Revenues (in Thousands of Dollars) ...... 8-43 Table 8.11 Transit Operations and Maintenance Revenues (in Thousands of Dollars) ...... 8-43 Table 8.12 Non-Fixed Guideway Transit Capital Revenues (in Thousands of Dollars) ...... 8-44 Table 8.13 Fixed Guideway Transit Capital Revenue and Costs (in Thousands of Dollars) ...... 8-46 Table 8.14 Potential Performance Measures ...... 8-50
i
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
8.0 FINANCIAL AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
8.1 Introduction The purpose of the financial and implementation plan is to provide a framework of action upon which the programs, projects, and desires presented throughout this document can become reality. Federal legislation (MAP-21) requires the LRTP to be fiscally constrained. The financial plan shows how the proposed improvements can be implemented using funding sources that can reasonably be expected to be available over the life of the plan. Implementation is based on the goals and objectives of the plan and the actions required to implement multimodal solutions designed to improve the safety and mobility of the Memphis region.
The Memphis Urban Area Long Range Transportation Plan – Direction 2040 is financially constrained. The mix of transportation recommendations to meet the needs of the metropolitan area until 2040 is consistent with the revenue forecasts for the same time period. The financial plan details both the proposed investments for these recommendations and the revenue forecasts over the life of the plan.
The proposed recommendations were developed in collaboration with the Memphis MPO, local municipalities, Shelby County, Fayette County, DeSoto County, TDOT, MDOT, and the Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA). These projects include roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and services for the life of this plan and reflect existing and committed projects, the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and the future plans of the Memphis MPO, TDOT, MDOT, local jurisdictions, and MATA. These recommendations also reflect travel demand benefits and socioeconomic impacts studied using the congestion management and project evaluation processes. Finally, these projects result from an extensive public participation process that incorporated public workshops, small focus group meetings, and the efforts of a Transportation Plan Advisory Committee.
Revenue forecasts were developed after a review of previous state and local expenditures, current funding trends, and likely future funding levels. The revenue forecasts involved consultation with TDOT, MDOT, the Memphis MPO, MATA, and local jurisdictions. All dollar figures discussed in this section initially were analyzed in current year dollars (i.e. 2011) and then inflated to reflect projected year of expenditure dollars for funding and implementation. Based on current national and state standards, an annual inflation rate of 3% was used to forecast costs and revenues. This inflation rate is consistent with the Construction Cost Index (20 City Average) reported in Engineering News-Record.
Fierce competition for limited funds forces local decision-makers to work with citizens, business owners, and other stakeholders to identify alternate funding resources and innovative implementation techniques. To implement the long range plan, the Memphis MPO must continue to reach out to and work proactively with diverse stakeholders, including:
. Citizens and business owners . Shelby and Fayette Counties, TN; and DeSoto County, MS . Local Municipalities, including Memphis, Germantown, Collierville, Arlington, Lakeland, Bartlett, Millington, Hernando, Horn Lake, Olive Branch, Southaven, Walls, Braden, Gallaway, and Piperton . Memphis Area Transit Authority . Memphis and Shelby County Airport Authority . Private Real Estate Developers . Tennessee and Mississippi Departments of Transportation . Federal Transportation Agencies
8-1
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
. Various Freight Providers, including Memphis Port Commission, trucking companies, Federal Express, and the railroads.
This chapter provides an overview of revenue assumptions, probable cost estimates, and financial strategies along with the research results used to derive these values. This chapter also includes a discussion of proposed performance measures and guidance for implementation of the LRTP. Since this is a planning level funding exercise, all funding programs, projects, and assumptions will have to be re-evaluated in subsequent plans and as projects advance through the detailed planning and implementation phases.
8.2 System Costs and Revenues System costs and revenues are comprised of capital costs, operations and maintenance costs, and the associated revenues to fund these activities. Since the funding sources are different, the discussion of costs and revenues has been split into transit and non-transit activities in the LRTP. Non-transit activities include roadway facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, safety projects, bridge replacement and rehabilitation projects, and other activities not directly related to transit. Transit activities include construction of new transit facilities, purchase of transit vehicles, operation of transit facilities, and on-going transit related maintenance.
Funding is composed of two elements, capital and operations and maintenance. Capital revenue generally is used to fund construction activities. Operations and maintenance revenues are generally used for the day–to-day activities required to operate and maintain the transportation facilities, such as striping, signing, signal maintenance, paving, and transit vehicle maintenance. In the sections that follow, the revenue sources for non- transit operations and maintenance and transit and non-transit capital activities will be described in more detail.
8.2.1 Non-Transit Operations and Maintenance Revenue The MPO and its member agencies must ensure that the existing transportation facilities are properly operated and maintained. The maintenance of non-transit facilities within the MPO area is currently funded through a combination of state funds and local funds. The state funds are used to operate and maintain state and federal facilities such as state highways and the interstate system. Local funds are used for the facilities that are not state or federal routes, such as local streets, collector streets, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities. Operation and maintenance activities include paving, signing and marking, striping, right-of-way maintenance, surveillance and inspection, lighting, bridge and guardrail repairs, and other activities.
The funding for this activity is identified in the operating budgets for each jurisdiction. Since each jurisdiction uses their own methods and processes for recording maintenance and operations costs, how this information is reported in their budget documents varies significantly. Table 8.1 identifies the estimated costs for operation and maintenance activities for each of the MPO member jurisdictions. Table 8.2 shows the estimated revenues and costs for each jurisdiction over the life of this LRTP.
8-2
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Table 8.1 Existing System Operations and Maintenance Costs (Non-Transit) Signs & ROW Traffic Signal Surveillance and Street Jurisdiction Paving Other Total Painting Maintenance Maintenance Inspection Lighting Shelby County $465,000 $500,000 $5,750,000 $40,000 $6,755,000 Arlington $500,000 $500,000 Bartlett $443,000 $30,000 $40,000 $200,000 $1,320,000 $110,000 $2,143,000 Collierville $1,226,430 $1,275,000 $2,501,430 Germantown $1,010,000 $100,000 $50,000 $100,000 $50,000 $700,000 $2,010,000 Lakeland $200,000 $60,000 $260,000 Memphis $11,500,000 $2,352,000 $5,664,000 $2,556,000 $701,000 $12,895,000 $165,000 $35,833,000 Millington $50,000 $5,000 $180,000 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $15,000 $550,000 TOTAL $14,894,430 $2,987,000 $11,644,000 $2,786,000 $1,051,000 $16,340,000 $850,000 $50,552,430 Fayette County $300,000 $300,000 Braden $13,500 $7,000 $20,500 Gallaway $22,700 $11,400 $34,100 Piperton $10,000 $4,000 $6,000 $5,000 $25,000 TOTAL $46,200 - - - - - $323,400 $379,600 DeSoto County $908,405 $46,500 $50,000 $275,000 $1,279,905 Hernando $750,000 $300,000 $1,050,000 Horn Lake $400,000 $2,500 $6,500 $32,000 $441,000 Olive Branch $140,000 $140,000 $280,000 Southaven $250,000 $150,000 $650,000 $1,050,000 TOTAL $2,198,405 $49,000 $256,500 $200,000 $275,000 $982,000 $140,000 $4,100,905 TOTAL MPO AREA $17,139,035 $3,036,000 $11,900,500 $2,986,000 $1,326,000 $17,322,000 $1,313,400 $55,032,935
Table 8.2 Non-Transit O & M Costs vs. Revenues by Horizon Year Adjusted for Inflation 2011-2014 2015-2020 2021-2030 2031-2040 2011-2040 Plan Summary Jurisdiction Cost Revenue Balance Cost Revenue Balance Cost Revenue Balance Cost Revenue Balance Cost Revenue Balance Shelby Co. $28,260,400 $28,260,400 $ - $49,178,104 $49,178,104 $ - $104,070,875 $104,070,875 $ - $139,862,553 $139,862,553 $ - $321,371,933 $321,371,933 $ - Arlington $2,091,814 $2,091,814 $ - $3,640,126 $3,640,126 $ - $7,703,248 $7,703,248 $ - $10,352,521 $10,352,521 $ - $23,787,708 $23,787,708 $ - Bartlett $8,965,513 $8,965,513 $ - $15,601,581 $15,601,581 $ - $33,016,119 $33,016,119 $ - $44,370,903 $44,370,903 $ - $101,954,116 $101,954,116 $ - Collierville $10,465,050 $10,465,050 $ - $18,211,042 $18,211,042 $ - $38,538,269 $38,538,269 $ - $51,792,211 $51,792,211 $ - $119,006,572 $119,006,572 $ - Germantown $8,409,090 $8,409,090 $ - $14,633,307 $14,633,307 $ - $30,967,055 $30,967,055 $ - $41,617,133 $41,617,133 $ - $95,626,586 $95,626,586 $ - Lakeland $1,087,743 $1,087,743 $ - $1,892,866 $1,892,866 $ - $4,005,689 $4,005,689 $ - $5,383,311 $5,383,311 $ - $12,369,608 $12,369,608 $ - Memphis $149,911,906 $149,911,906 $ - $260,873,281 $260,873,281 $ - $552,060,942 $552,060,942 $ - $741,923,742 $741,923,742 $ - $1,704,769,871 $1,704,769,871 $ - Millington $2,300,995 $2,300,995 $ - $4,004,139 $4,004,139 $ - $8,473,572 $8,473,572 $ - $11,387,773 $11,387,773 $ - $26,166,479 $26,166,479 $ - TOTAL $211,492,511 $211,492,511 $ - $368,034,445 $368,034,445 $ - $778,835,769 $778,835,769 $ - $1,046,690,147 $1,046,690,147 $ - $2,405,052,872 $2,405,052,872 $ - Fayette Co. $1,255,088 $1,255,088 $ - $2,184,076 $2,184,076 $ - $4,621,949 $4,621,949 $ - $6,211,512 $6,211,512 $ - $14,272,625 $14,272,625 $ - Braden $85,764 $85,764 $ - $149,245 $149,245 $ - $315,833 $315,833 $ - $424,453 $424,453 $ - $975,296 $975,296 $ - Gallaway $142,662 $142,662 $ - $248,257 $248,257 $ - $525,361 $525,361 $ - $706,042 $706,042 $ - $1,622,322 $1,622,322 $ - Piperton $104,591 $104,591 $ - $182,006 $182,006 $ - $385,162 $385,162 $ - $517,626 $517,626 $ - $1,189,385 $1,189,385 $ - TOTAL $1,588,105 $1,588,105 $ - $2,763,584 $2,763,584 $ - $5,848,306 $5,848,306 $ - $7,859,634 $7,859,634 $ - $18,059,628 $18,059,628 $ - DeSoto Co. $5,354,645 $5,354,645 $ - $9,318,031 $9,318,031 $ - $19,718,850 $19,718,850 $ - $26,500,486 $26,500,486 $ - $60,892,012 $60,892,012 $ - Hernando $4,392,808 $4,392,808 $ - $7,644,265 $7,644,265 $ - $16,176,820 $16,176,820 $ - $21,740,293 $21,740,293 $ - $49,954,186 $49,954,186 $ - Horn Lake $1,844,980 $1,844,980 $ - $3,210,591 $3,210,591 $ - $6,794,264 $6,794,264 $ - $9,130,923 $9,130,923 $ - $20,980,758 $20,980,758 $ - Olive Branch $1,171,416 $1,171,416 $ - $2,038,471 $2,038,471 $ - $4,313,819 $4,313,819 $ - $5,797,412 $5,797,412 $ - $13,321,116 $13,321,116 $ - Southaven $4,392,808 $4,392,808 $ - $7,644,265 $7,644,265 $ - $16,176,820 $16,176,820 $ - $21,740,293 $21,740,293 $ - $49,954,186 $49,954,186 $ - TOTAL $17,156,657 $17,156,657 $ - $29,855,623 $29,855,623 $ - $63,180,573 $63,180,573 $ - $84,909,407 $84,909,407 $ - $195,102,260 $195,102,260 $ - TOTAL MPO AREA $230,237,273 $230,237,273 $ - $400,653,652 $400,653,652 $ - $847,864,648 $847,864,648 $ - $1,139,459,187 $1,139,459,187 $ - $2,618,214,760 $2,618,214,760 $ -
8-3
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
8.2.2 Capital Revenue The primary source of capital revenue for projects of regional significance in the Memphis MPO region is the federal government. Generally, local agencies fund local improvements for projects that are not considered regionally significant. Local and state agencies provide the local matching funds for the federal funding programs, when required.
The various federal funding programs that are used in the Memphis MPO region are identified in MAP-21, the most recent multi-year authorization for federal surface transportation programs. MAP-21, adopted in July 2012, consolidated 87 funding programs under the previous legislation (SAFETEA-LU) into fewer than 30 programs. As a reference for project funding categories contained in this chapter, Table 8.3 provides a cross-referencing of funding categories under MAP-21 against programs previously available to the region under SAFETEA-LU. This list is not all-inclusive, but serves to highlight the major federal funding categories available within the MPO area. General rules for the funding ratio of projects by program are also provided (percent of federal compared to percent of state or local funds). This table is intended to be used only as a general guideline, as there are situations in which the funding ratios may vary, based on the particular details of a project.
A summary and explanation of the federal funding sources being used in the Memphis MPO region for capital projects is provided following Table 8.3.
Table 8.3 MAP-21 and SAFETEA-LU Funding Categories MAP-21 SAFETEA-LU Federal Federal Programs Programs Description Funding Ratio National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) Provides funding to rehabilitate, restore, and resurface the Interstate System. Reconstruction Interstate is also eligible if it does not add new capacity, 90% Federal Maintenance (IM) with the exception of High-Occupancy-Vehicle 10% Non-Federal (HOV) lanes or auxiliary lanes in non-attainment Combines the areas, which can be added. Interstate Maintenance, Provides funding for major roads including the National Highway Interstate System, a large percentage of urban National Highway 80% Federal System, and on- and rural principal arterials, the Strategic System (NHS) 20% Non-Federal system Federal- Defense Highway Network (STRAHNET), and Aid Highway strategic highway connections Bridges Programs into one program. Bridge Replacement and Provides funding for on-system bridge Rehabilitation - replacement, or to rehabilitate aging or 80% Federal State substandard bridges based on bridge sufficiency 20% Non-Federal (BRR, BR, or ratings. BRBD) Highway Safety Improvement Program
Program is largely Highway Safety Provides funding for making high hazard 80% Federal the same as under Improvement improvements on state highways (and at rail- 20% Non-Federal SAFETEA-LU. Program (HSIP) highway grade crossings).
8-4
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
MAP-21 SAFETEA-LU Federal Federal Programs Programs Description Funding Ratio Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ)
Provides funding for transportation projects in Congestion Program is largely air quality non-attainment or maintenance areas. Mitigation and Air 80% Federal the same as under CMAQ projects are designed to contribute Quality Program 20% Non-Federal SAFETEA-LU. toward meeting the National Ambient Air (CMAQ) Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Surface Transportation Program
Provides funding for roads functionally classified Surface as rural major collector and above. Funds may Transportation 80% Federal be utilized on projects in Rural Areas, Urbanized Program - State 20% Non-Federal Areas, Small Urban Areas, Enhancement, Safety (STP or STP-S) and Rail-Highway Crossings.
Program is largely the same as under SAFETEA-LU Surface with the exception Transportation Provides funding to areas over 50,000 in 80% Federal that STP funds Program - population for improvements on routes 20% Non-Federal can be used on Metropolitan functionally classified urban collectors or higher. bridge projects on (STP-M) any public road and for Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) projects.
Bridge Replacement and Provides funding for off-system bridge Rehabilitation - replacement, or to rehabilitate aging or 80% Federal Local substandard bridges based on bridge sufficiency 20% Non-Federal (BRR, BR, or ratings. BRBD)
8-5
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
MAP-21 SAFETEA-LU Federal Federal Programs Programs Description Funding Ratio Transportation Alternatives Program
Provides funding for a set of exclusive activities Combines the Transportation such as bicycle and pedestrian faciltiies, Transportation Enhancements 80% Federal rehabilitation of historic transportation related Enhancements Program 20% Non-Federal structures, and a defined set of environmental Program, Safe (TE or ENH) Routes to School mitigation activities. Program, and Recreational Trails Program into one 80% Federal program. Safe Routes to Provides funding to substantially improve the 20% Non-Federal School Program ability of primary and middle school students to Changes how (SRTS) walk and bicycle to school safely. (Previously 100% some funds under Federal) this category can be used, but in general continues to support non- Recreational Trails Provides funding for the creation, rehabilitation, 80% Federal motorized Program and maintenance of multi-use recreational trails. 20% Non-Federal transportation (RTP) accommodations.
Urbanized Area Formula Grant (Section 5307) Program provides 80% Federal grants to 20% Non-Federal Urbanized Areas Federal Transit Section 5307 is a formula grant program for (Capital) for public Administration urbanized areas providing captial, operating, and transportation (FTA-5307) planning assistance for mass transportation. 50% Federal capital, planning, 50% Non-Federal job-access and (Operating) reverse-commute projects, as well as operating Jobs Access projects provide new or expanded expenses in service designed to fill gaps that exist for welfare certain recipients and other low-income individuals to circumstances. and from jobs and other employment-related 80% Federal Federal Transit services. Reverse Commute projects facilitate the 20% Non-Federal The Jobs Access Administration provision of new or expanded public mass (Capital) and Reverse Jobs Access and transportation services for the general public
Comute Program Reverse Commute from urban, suburban, and rural areas to 50% Federal was eliminated in (JARC-5316 or suburban work sites. 50% Non-Federal MAP-21, but the FTA-5316) (Operating) activities carried Under MAP-21 this program has been out under the eliminated but job-access and reverse-commute program are an projects are eligible under the Section 5307 eligible expense Program and Section 5310 Program. under Section 5307.
8-6
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
MAP-21 SAFETEA-LU Federal Federal Programs Programs Description Funding Ratio Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities (Section 5310) 80% Federal Section 5310 grants provide funding for capital Federal Transit 20% Non-Federal MAP-21 expenses of private, nonprofit groups providing Administration (Capital) consolidates the service to elderly persons or persons with Elderly & Elderly and disabilities. The State agency assures that local Disabled Program 50% Federal Disabled Program applicants and proposed projects are eligible and (FTA-5310) 50% Non-Federal and New Freedom comply with federal requirements. (Operating) Program into one The New Freedom Program provides funding to program. 80% Federal serve persons with disabilities. The purpose of Federal Transit 20% Non-Federal the program is to provide transportation services Operating Administration (Capital) that either go beyond the minimum assistance in now New Freedom requirements of the Americans with Disabilities available under Program 50% Federal Act (ADA), or provide new public this program. (FTA-5317) 50% Non-Federal transportation services which help meet the (Operating) needs of people with disabilities. State of Good Repair Formula Program 80% Federal Program provides Federal Transit Provides funding to urbanized areas with High 20% Non-Federal funding for Administration Intensity Fixed Guideway systemas and High (Capital) maintaining public Fixed Guideway Intensity Motorbus systems to replace and transportation Modernization rehabilitate vehicles, equipment, and facilities, 50% Federal systems in a state Formula Grants and to develop and implement transit asset 50% Non-Federal of good repair. (FTA-5309) management plans. (Operating) Bus and Bus Facilities Program provides capital funding to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses, Provides funding for the establishment of new vans, and related rail or busway projects (new starts), the Federal Transit equipment, and to improvement and maintenance of existing rail 80% Federal Administration construct bus- and other fixed guideway systems that are more 20% Non-Federal (FTA 5339) related facilities. than seven years old, and the upgrading of bus systems. Replaces the Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities Program.
8-7
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Summary of Funding Types for Capital Projects
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) provides funding for projects and programs for areas that are designated as air quality nonattainment or maintenance areas for ozone (NOx and VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), and/ or particulate matter (PM-10, PM-2.5). The CMAQ projects and programs in these areas are used to reduce transportation related emissions [23 USC 149(a)]. A nonattainment area is an area formally designated in the Code of Federal Regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as not meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). A maintenance area is an area that was nonattainment but has subsequently attained the NAAQS and has officially been redesignated as attainment by EPA.
Eligible Use of Funds 1. Transit and Public Transportation Programs 2. Traffic Flow Improvements 3. Travel Demand Management Strategies 4. Ride Sharing Programs 5. Pedestrian and Bicycle Programs 6. Education and Outreach 7. Inspection and Maintenance Programs 8. Extreme Cold Start Programs 9. Alternative "Clean" Fuels 10. Public/Private Partnerships 11. Experimental Pilot Projects
Delta Regional Authority Funds These funds are to be used to support and encourage multistate transportation planning and corridor development, provide for transportation project development, facilitate transportation decision making and support transportation construction in the eight States comprising the Delta Region (Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee).
Eligible Use of Funds Eligible uses are multistate highway planning, development and construction projects with projects selected on the basis of: 1. whether the project is in an area under the authority of the Delta Regional Authority (DRA) and on a Federal-aid highway, 2. endorsement of the project by a state department of transportation, and 3. evidence of the ability of the recipient of funds provided under the program to complete the project.
High Priority Projects (HPP) Program The High Priority Projects Program provides designated funding for specific projects identified in SAFETEA- LU. It is funded by contract authority and available until expended.
Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation (BRR) Program The Highway Bridge Program provides funding to enable States and local agencies to improve the condition of their highway bridges through replacement, rehabilitation, and systematic preventive maintenance.
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) The program authorized a new core Federal-aid funding program beginning in FY 2006 to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.
Eligible Use of Funds 1. Intersection safety improvements. 2. Pavement and shoulder widening (including addition of a passing lane to remedy an unsafe condition).
8-8
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
3. Installation of rumble strips or another warning device, if the rumble strips or other warning devices do not adversely affect the safety or mobility of bicyclists, pedestrians, and the disabled. 4. Installation of a skid-resistant surface at an intersection or other location with a high frequency of accidents. 5. An improvement for pedestrian or bicyclist safety or safety of the disabled. 6. Construction of any project for the elimination of hazards at a railway-highway crossing that is eligible for funding under section 130, including the separation or protection of grades at railway-highway crossings. 7. Construction of a railway-highway crossing safety feature, including installation of protective devices. 8. The conduct of a model traffic enforcement activity at a railway-highway crossing. 9. Construction of a traffic calming feature. 10. Elimination of a roadside obstacle. 11. Improvement of highway signage and pavement markings. 12. Installation of a priority control system for emergency vehicles at signalized intersections. 13. Installation of a traffic control or other warning device at a location with high accident potential. 14. Safety-conscious planning. 15. Improvement in the collection and analysis of crash data. 16. Planning integrated interoperable emergency communications equipment, operational activities, or traffic enforcement activities (including police assistance) relating to work zone safety. 17. Installation of guardrails, barriers (including barriers between construction work zones and traffic lanes for the safety of motorists and workers), and crash attenuators. 18. The addition or retrofitting of structures or other measures to eliminate or reduce accidents involving vehicles and wildlife. 19. Installation and maintenance of signs (including fluorescent, yellow-green signs) at pedestrian-bicycle crossings and in school zones. 20. Construction and yellow-green signs at pedestrian-bicycle crossings and in school zones. 21. Construction and operational improvements on high risk rural roads. 22. Roundabouts.
Interstate Maintenance (IM) Program The Interstate Maintenance (IM) program provides funding for resurfacing, restoring, rehabilitating and reconstructing (4R) most routes on the Interstate System.
National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program (NCIIP) A discretionary program that provides funding for construction of highway projects in corridors of national significance to promote economic growth and international or interregional trade. This program replaces TEA-21 section 1118, National Corridor Planning and Development program.
Eligible Use of Funds 1. A corridor linking two existing segments of the Interstate System. 2. A project facilitating major multi-state or regional mobility, economic growth and development in areas underserved by highway infrastructure. 3. A corridor on which commercial traffic in the corridor has increased since enactment of NAFTA and where traffic is projected to increase in the future. 4. A project to enhance international truck-borne commodities movement through the corridor. 5. A project to reduce congestion on an existing segment of the Interstate. 6. A project to reduce commercial and other travel time through a major freight corridor.
National Highway System (NHS) Program The program provides funding for improvements to rural and urban roads that are part of the NHS, including the Interstate System and designated connections to major intermodal terminals. Under certain circumstances, NHS funds may also be used to fund transit improvements in NHS corridors.
National Scenic Byways Program (NSBP)
8-9
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The program recognizes roads having outstanding scenic, historic, cultural, natural, recreational, and archaeological qualities and provides for designation of these roads as National Scenic Byways, All-American Roads or America's Byways.
Eligible Use of Funds 1. An activity related to the planning, design, or development of a State or Indian tribe scenic byway program. 2. Development and implementation of a corridor management plan to maintain the scenic, historical, recreational, cultural, natural, and archaeological characteristics of a byway corridor while providing for accommodation of increased tourism and development of related amenities. 3. Safety improvements to a state scenic byway, Indian tribe scenic byway, National Scenic Byway, All- American Road, or one of America’s Byways to the extent that the improvements are necessary to accommodate increased traffic and changes in the types of vehicles using the highway as a result of the designation as a State scenic byway, Indian tribe scenic byway, National Scenic Byway, All-American Road, or one of America’s Byways. 4. Construction along a scenic byway of a facility for pedestrians and bicyclists, rest area, turnout, highway shoulder improvement, overlook, or interpretive facility. 5. An improvement to a scenic byway that will enhance access to an area for the purpose of recreation, including water-related recreation. 6. Protection of scenic, historical, recreational, cultural, natural, and archaeological resources in an area adjacent to a scenic byway. 7. Development and provision of tourist information to the public, including interpretive information about a scenic byway. 8. Development and implementation of a scenic byway marketing program.
Safe Routes To School (SRTS) Program The Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program provides funding to enable and encourage children, including those with disabilities, to walk and bicycle to school; to make walking and bicycling to school safe and more appealing; and to facilitate the planning, development and implementation of projects that will improve safety, and reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air pollution in the vicinity of schools.
Eligible Use of Funds For infrastructure related projects, eligible activities are the planning, design, and construction of projects that will substantially improve the ability of students to walk and bicycle to school. These include sidewalk improvements, traffic calming and speed reduction improvements, pedestrian and bicycle crossing improvements, on-street bicycle facilities, off-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities, secure bike parking, and traffic diversion improvements in the vicinity of schools (within approximately 2 miles). Such projects may be carried out on any public road or any bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail in the vicinity of schools.
Surface Transportation Program (STP) The Surface Transportation Program provides flexible funding that may be used by states and localities for projects on any Federal-aid highway, including the NHS, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities.
Eligible Use of Funds 1. Construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, restoration, and operational improvements for highways (including Interstate highways) and bridges 2. Capital costs for transit projects eligible for assistance under chapter 53 of title 49, including vehicles and facilities, whether publicly or privately owned, that are used to provide intercity passenger service by bus. 3. Carpool projects, fringe and corridor parking facilities and programs, bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways in accordance with section 217, and the modification of public sidewalks to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).
8-10
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
4. Highway and transit safety infrastructure improvements and programs, hazard eliminations, projects to mitigate hazards caused by wildlife, and railway-highway grade crossings. 5. Highway and transit research and development and technology transfer programs. 6. Capital and operating costs for traffic monitoring, management, and control facilities and programs, including advanced truck stop electrification systems. 7. Surface transportation planning programs 8. Transportation enhancement activities. 9. Transportation control measures listed in section 108 (f)(1)(A) (other than clause (xvi)) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7408 (f)(1)(A)). 10. Development and establishment of management systems under section 303. 11. Wetlands mitigation (i.e., surface drainage and banking). 12. Programs to reduce extreme cold starts. 13. Environmental restoration and pollution abatement projects, including retrofit or construction of stormwater treatment facilities. 14. Natural habitat mitigation, but specifies that if wetland or natural habitat mitigation is within the service area of a mitigation bank, preference will be given to use the bank. 15. Privately owned vehicles and facilities that are used to provide intercity passenger service by bus. 16. Modifications of existing public sidewalks to comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 17. Infrastructure based intelligent transportation system capital improvements. 18. Preventative maintenance activities which extend the service life of the facility (pavements, bridges, and essential highway appurtenances) are eligible for federal funding.
Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Program (TCSP) The TCSP Program is intended to address the relationships among transportation, community, and system preservation plans and practices and identify private sector-based initiatives to improve those relationships.
Eligible Use of Funds Funds may be used to carry out eligible projects to integrate transportation, community, and system preservation plans and practices that: 1. Improve the efficiency of the transportation system of the United States. 2. Reduce the impacts of transportation on the environment. 3. Reduce the need for costly future investments in public infrastructure. 4. Provide efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade. 5. Examine community development patterns and identify strategies to encourage private sector development.
Transportation Enhancement (TE) Program These funds are used to strengthen the cultural, aesthetic, and environmental aspects of the Nation's intermodal transportation system.
Eligible Use of Funds All enhancement projects must relate to surface transportation and include at least one of the twelve qualifying activities listed below:
1. Pedestrian or bicycle facilities. 2. Acquisition of scenic easements or scenic historic sites. 3. Scenic or historic highway programs (including provision of tourist and welcome center facilities). 4. Landscaping and other scenic beautification. 5. Historic preservation. 6. Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities — including historic railroad facilities and canals.
8-11
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
7. Preservation of abandoned railway corridors — including conversion for use as bicycle or pedestrian trails. 8. Control and removal of outdoor advertising. 9. Archaeological planning and research. 10. Provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists. 11. Environmental mitigation to address water pollution due to highway runoff or reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity. Environmental activities must go beyond what is customarily provided in projects. 12. Establishment of transportation museums.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) On February 13, 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was signed into law in a direct response to the economic crisis. ARRA has three immediate goals: 1. Create new jobs and save existing ones 2. Spur economic activity and invest in long-term growth 3. Foster unprecedented levels of accountability and transparency in government spending 4. To strengthen the cultural, aesthetic, and environmental aspects of the Nation's intermodal transportation system.
Eligible Use of Funds 1. Restoration, repair, construction and other activities under Surface Transportation Program 2. Passenger and freight rail transportation and port infrastructure projects as described under Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)
State Funded Projects (SFP) Projects using this funding source are State of Mississippi projects that require state funds in addition to the other funding sources identified in this section.
Ferry Boat Discretionary This is a special funding category for construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities. This funding source is currently being used for improvements to the riverfront area in downtown Memphis.
Highway Enhancement through Local Partnerships (HELP) An additional funding mechanism is being used in the Mississippi portion of the Memphis MPO area. In this innovative program, the local agencies sell bonds to finance the construction of major projects. Federal funds are used to repay the funding and the state pays the debt service on the bonds. This program has allowed the Memphis MPO area to accelerate the construction of I-69/I-269 in North Mississippi.
Section 5307 FTA, Large Urban Cities Funds The Urbanized Area Formula Funding program (49 U.S.C. 5307) makes Federal resources available to urbanized areas and to Governors for transit capital and operating assistance in urbanized areas and for transportation related planning. An urbanized area is an incorporated area with a population of 50,000 or more that is designated as such by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Funding is made available to designated recipients that must be public bodies with the legal authority to receive and dispense Federal funds. Governors, responsible local officials and publicly owned operators of transit services are to designate a recipient to apply for, receive, and dispense funds for transportation management areas pursuant to 49USCA5307(a)(2). Generally, a transportation management area is an urbanized area with a population of 200,000 or over. The Governor or Governor’s designee is the designated recipient for urbanized areas between 50,000 and 200,000.
Section 5309 FTA Funds Major Capital Investments The transit capital investment program (49 U.S.C. 5309) provides capital assistance for three primary activities: 1. New and replacement buses and facilities (Bus and Bus Related Facilities program),
8-12
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
2. Modernization of existing rail systems (Fixed Guideway Modernization program), and 3. New fixed guideway systems (New Starts program and Small Starts).
The New Starts program provides funds for construction of new fixed guideway systems or extensions to existing fixed guideway systems. The Small Starts program provides funds to capital projects that either meet the definition of a fixed guideway for at least 50 percent of the project length in the peak period or are corridor-based bus projects with 10 minute peak/15 minute off-peak headways or better while operating at least 14 hours per weekday. The Federal assistance provided or to be provided under Section 5309 must be less than $75 million and the project must have a total capital cost of less than $250 million, both in year of expenditure dollars.
Section 5316 FTA Job Access Reverse Commute The Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program was established to address the unique transportation challenges faced by welfare recipients and low-income persons seeking to obtain and maintain employment. Many new entry-level jobs are located in suburban areas, and low-income individuals have difficulty accessing these jobs from their inner city, urban, or rural neighborhoods. In addition, many entry level-jobs require working late at night or on weekends when conventional transit services are either reduced or non-existent. Finally, many employment related-trips are complex and involve multiple destinations including reaching childcare facilities or other services.
Section 5137 FTA New Freedom Program The New Freedom formula grant program aims to provide additional tools to overcome existing barriers facing Americans with disabilities seeking integration into the work force and full participation in society. Lack of adequate transportation is a primary barrier to work for individuals with disabilities. The 2000 Census showed that only 60 percent of people between the ages of 16 and 64 with disabilities are employed. The New Freedom formula grant program seeks to reduce barriers to transportation services and expand the transportation mobility options available to people with disabilities beyond the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990.
Allocated and Projected Revenues To determine the level of revenue available to fund the projects in this plan, a detailed historical analysis of the various funding sources that have been used in the Memphis MPO area was conducted. This historical analysis was compared to the funding trends allocated in the 2011-2014 TIP and a conservative estimate of the projected revenues was obtained. Table 8.4 provides a summary of these analyses for the funding for Tennessee and Mississippi and the projected annual revenue by funding source for each horizon year of the plan.
8-13
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Table 8.4 Allocated and Projected Non-Transit Capital Revenues 2011 to 2040 by Horizon Year Adjusted for Inflation
Total 2011 - 2014 2015 - 2020 Total 2021 - 2030 Total 2031 - 2040 Total 2011 - 2040 Total State of Tennessee Surface Transportation Program (State) State STP $ 23,007,568 $ 132,864,605 $ 281,168,537 $ 377,867,002 $ 814,907,712 BRR-S $ 16,200,000 $ 29,485,022 $ 62,396,305 $ 83,855,417 $ 191,936,744 BRBD $ 1,195,859 $ 3,640,126 $ 7,703,248 $ 10,352,521 $ 22,891,753 Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality CMAQ (State) $ 16,150,000 $ 11,648,404 $ 24,650,392 $ 33,128,066 $ 85,576,862 National Highway Performance Program NHS $ 108,833,883 $ 105,020,303 $ 177,174,695 $ 238,107,974 $ 629,136,854 IM $ 81,557,300 $ 174,726,055 $ 369,755,884 $ 496,920,989 $ 1,122,960,229 Highway Safety Improvement Program HSIP $ 9,000,000 $ 16,380,568 $ 34,664,614 $ 46,586,343 $ 106,631,525 Discretionary Funds ARRA $ 597,820 $ - $ - $ - $ 597,820 HPP $ 41,293,725 $ 104,107,608 $ 220,312,881 $ 296,082,089 $ 661,796,304 HPP/NCIIP/CESA $ - $ - $ 2,969,969,925 $ - $ 2,969,969,925 Subtotal $ 297,836,155 $ 577,872,690 $ 4,147,796,481 $ 1,582,900,401 $ 6,606,405,727 State of Mississippi Surface Transportation Program (State) State STP $ 75,587,474 $ 128,151,312 $ 266,724,948 $ 358,456,026 $ 828,919,760 STP Bond $ 199,800,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 199,800,000 High Hazard STP $ - $ 27,300,946 $ 57,774,357 $ 77,643,905 $ 162,719,208 National Highway Performance Program NHS $ 9,200,000 $ 24,570,852 $ 51,996,921 $ 69,879,514 $ 155,647,287 IM $ 11,500,000 $ 109,203,785 $ 231,097,428 $ 310,575,618 $ 662,376,831 Transportation Alternatives Program Safe Routes to School $ - $ 728,025 $ 1,540,650 $ 2,070,504 $ 4,339,179 Discretionary Funds Federal Stimulus $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Earmark (CESA) $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 500,000 HPP/NCIIP/CESA $ - $ - $ 174,704,113 $ - $ 174,704,113 State Funding Sources State Funded $ 16,700,000 $ 55,050,425 $ 90,898,322 $ 122,159,743 $ 284,808,490 Subtotal $ 313,287,474 $ 345,005,344 $ 874,736,738 $ 940,785,310 $ 2,473,814,867 Metropolitan Planning Organization Surface Transportation Program (Local) TN Local STP $ 193,351,758 $ 145,904,177 $ 308,762,926 $ 414,951,553 $ 1,062,970,414 TN BRR-L $ 2,040,000 $ 3,712,929 $ 7,857,313 $ 10,559,571 $ 24,169,812 MS Urban STP $ 29,336,294 $ 13,955,334 $ 29,532,325 $ 39,688,976 $ 112,512,929 Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality TN CMAQ (Local) $ 47,140,246 $ 61,772,941 $ 130,724,112 $ 175,682,275 $ 415,319,573 Transportation Alternatives Program TN ENH $ 4,680,966 $ 9,100,315 $ 19,258,119 $ 25,881,302 $ 58,920,702 Discretionary Funds TN HPP $ 37,442,110 $ 67,706,346 $ 143,280,405 $ 192,556,883 $ 440,985,745 TN TCSP $ 1,180,750 $ 9,100,315 $ 19,258,119 $ 25,881,302 $ 55,420,486 TN FBD $ 669,034 $ - $ - $ - $ 669,034 TN FEMA $ - $ 14,560,505 $ 30,812,990 $ 41,410,082 $ 86,783,577 TN DEMO $ 2,951,785 $ 5,387,387 $ 11,400,806 $ 15,321,731 $ 35,061,709 Subtotal $ 318,792,943 $ 331,200,249 $ 700,887,115 $ 941,933,674 $ 2,292,813,981 Total Non-Transit Revenue $ 929,916,572 $ 1,254,078,284 $ 5,723,420,334 $ 3,465,619,385 $ 11,373,034,575
8-14
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Congestion Management Process (CMP) Projects As discussed in Chapter 5 – Transportation Strategies, several strategies to reduce congestion were examined before determining if general purpose lanes should be added. The Congestion Management Projects that employ these alternative strategies are expected to be funded in a variety of ways. Some strategies involve bicycle, pedestrian, and transit projects, which have costs included as a part of their modal analyses. Strategies such as access management improvements and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane construction have specific projects delineated as a part of the roadway project analysis. Funding for the other CMP strategies is anticipated to be provided using CMAQ funds at an annual value of $9.1 million, inflated 3% annually after the conclusion of the 2011-2014 TIP. This value accounts for the implementation of rideshare, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), signal system improvements, and other projects such as those currently receiving funding in the TIP.
Highway Safety Improvement Program/Spot Safety/Intersection Improvements Intersection-level spot safety improvements through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) are a great way to improve safety and operations at key intersections. These low-cost solutions can be implemented quickly and have a large impact. The current average annual funding of $2,250,000 was assumed to continue annually after the conclusion of the 2011-2014 TIP, with an inflation rate of 3% annually. This matches the amount currently allocated for HSIP in the TIP.
Safe Routes to School There is a documented need for more sidewalks and bike lanes in the vicinity of schools throughout the region. In addition to the more traditional funding sources for providing these facilities (i.e., local jurisdiction funds) SRTS funding provides an additional source to improve safety for children going to and from school. The current average annual funding from the SRTS program in the MPO area of $100,000 was assumed to continue annually beyond the conclusion of the 2011 – 2014 TIP, with an annual inflation rate of 3%. This matches the amount currently allotted for SRTS in the TIP.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Funding There has been a renewed interest in funding bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the Memphis MPO area. Local jurisdictions have begun to routinely include bicycle lanes and pedestrian paths in roadway construction and repaving projects. Off roadway projects, such as the Memphis Greenline project along the abandoned CSXRR tracks adjacent to Shelby Farms and the various Greenway trails along the Wolf River have been well received and are heavily used by the public. Some of these projects have been funded with Transportation Enhancement funds and others with local funds. More recently, these types of projects have also been funded with CMAQ funds.
While it is understood that the Transportation Enhancement funds, or other similar programs that might be included in future transportation bills, are obtained through competitive grant programs, conservative historical averages of the funds obtained by the Memphis region can be used to project the level of funding that can be available for this program. The historical average funding for Transportation Enhancement projects within the Memphis MPO area is approximately $1,250,000 annually. The CMAQ funding for these types of projects has a shorter history, but is averaging approximately $1,170,000 annually. Therefore, it is assumed that approximately $2,420,000 will be available for this program annually, resulting in a total of $70,000,000 being available during the term of this LRTP, adjusted for inflation.
Capital Highway Projects The largest component of highway capital costs is composed of recommended projects. These projects have been identified utilizing the CMP analysis and the evaluation matrix detailed in Chapter 5 and meetings held with the public and the project stakeholders. Through this process, projects were prioritized based on factors such as when congestion is expected to occur, levels of congestion relief, and benefits and impacts to the community.
8-15
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
While it would be ideal to implement all projects, only a portion can be accommodated within the funding available. Therefore, workshops were held with the project stakeholders to identify those projects that were most important to the region.
Costs were assigned to each project identified. Many of the more near term projects have already had cost estimates developed based on specific project information. Where available, that data was used. When project specific cost data was not already available, project costs were developed using project cost data provided by the TDOT Long Range Planning Division. This data allows for consideration of various factors in developing the project costs including terrain, type of improvement (new road, widening, etc), the character of the land use where the project is to be developed, and project specific special features. Project costs include engineering, right- of-way, and construction.
From the input obtained in the stakeholder and public meetings and based on the funding available and projected costs, the projects are shown in five groups: projects to be completed prior to 2015, projects to be completed between 2015 and 2020, projects to be completed between 2021 and 2030, projects to be completed between 2031 and 2040, and projects to be completed beyond 2040, also known as the ―Vision Plan‖.
Table 8.5 through Table 8.7 identify the projects to be completed by 2020, 2030, and 2040. Projects that were identified through the public participation process, by the congestion analyses, or through stakeholder meetings but cannot be funded as part of this plan are included in a separate list identified as the Vision Plan that is provided in Table 8.8. All of the above mentioned projects are illustrated in Figure 8.1.
8.2.3 Demonstration of Non-Transit Fiscal Constraint The costs and revenues previously identified for non-transit projects have been compared. The costs and revenues for capital projects have been compared by funding program, state, and horizon year and are provided in Table 8.9. The costs and revenues for operating and maintenance have been compared by jurisdiction and horizon year and are provided in Table 8.2. As can be seen in these tables, both the non-transit capital and non- transit operating and maintenance programs are fiscally constrained.
8-16
Table 8.5 Highway Projects - 2020 Horizon Year *Refer to Table 8.3 for updated funding categories under MAP-21.
Jurisdictio Length Estimated Project Completio Funding ID LRTP No. TIP No. Facility Termini Type of Improvement n (Miles) Cost (inflated) n Date Source* State of Tennessee Canada Rd to Seed Tick 502 02360002 Beverle Rivera Dr New 4 lane (divided) Lakeland 0.70 $8,338,197 2020 TN-LSTP Rd Whitten Rd to Raleigh 36 2180002.1 Dexter Rd Widen from 4 to 6 lanes (divided) Memphis 0.25 $1,766,066 2020 TN-LSTP Lagrange Rd Construct new six lane roadway with a median and a bike path. The project also includes an 1,100 foot extension STP-M- Forest Hill-Irene Walnut Grove to Macon 48 01010012-13 of Trinity Road from Sanga Creek Memphis 2.53 $12,931,864 2020 TN-LSTP 2000-22 Rd Road Road to Forest Hill Irene. Trinity Road will maintain a seven lane cross section. 00990006 - Stateline Rd to SR-175 87 Hacks Cross Rd Widen to 7 lanes Shelby Co 1.78 $21,970,689 2020 TN-LSTP 00990007 (Shelby Dr) 126 60010001.1 I-240 NB I-55 to I-240 N Widen from 2 to 3 lanes Memphis 1.40 $20,223,143 2020 TN-IM SR-177 (Germantown Widen from 6 lanes to 8 lanes NHS-2006- 144 1040017 I-40 Pkwy) to East of Canada (includes high occupancy vehicle Memphis 4.50 $57,087,495 2020 TN-IM 10-A Road lanes) Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes NHS-2006- East of Canada Road to 146 1040021 I-40 (includes high occupancy vehicle Arlington 3.90 $41,407,807 2020 TN-IM 10-B SR-205 (Airline Rd) lanes) TN-IM- Interchange at Crump 156 60030002 I-55 Interchange Modification Memphis $37,406,285 2020 TN-IM 2011-01 Blvd 157 20000001 I-69 SR-300 to SR-385 New 4 lane Interstate Memphis 12.83 $99,031,574 2020 TN-HPP East of US-51 near NHS-2008- 158 20000001 I-69 Millington to Tipton New 4 lane Interstate Millington 4.80 $37,058,429 2020 TN-HPP 03 County Line
184 02860005 New Allen Rd Raleigh Millington Rd Realignment Memphis 0.48 $3,201,233 2020 TN-LSTP
8-17
Table 8.5 Highway Projects - 2020 Horizon Year *Refer to Table 8.3 for updated funding categories under MAP-21.
Jurisdictio Length Estimated Project Completio Funding ID LRTP No. TIP No. Facility Termini Type of Improvement n (Miles) Cost (inflated) n Date Source*
Improve North Second Street corridor to a parkway design including right-of way acquisition, reconstruction of sidewalks, provisions for bicycles, landscaping, and utility relocation. STP-M- North Second Cedar to South of the 189 02540002-5 From Cedar Avenue to the Wolf River Memphis 1.02 $14,174,849 2020 TN-SSTP 2000-09 Street Wolf River Bridge Bridge, widen Second Street from two to four lanes with a raised median. Bicycle lanes will be provided along the improved North Second Street corridor.
Widen to 4 lane (divided) with median STP-M- Old Brownsville SR-14 (Austin Peay) to 190 01460005-6 openings and turn lanes for existing Bartlett 2.21 $22,098,349 2020 TN-LSTP 2006-03 Rd Kirby Whitten driveways 01670006 - Raleigh 604 Egypt Central to Fite Rd Bridge over Looshatchie River Memphis 0.20 $12,915,235 2020 FEMA 01670007 Millington Rd 01670006 - Raleigh 212 Egypt Central to Fite Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Memphis 2.02 $20,309,025 2020 TN-LSTP 01670007 Millington Rd Repaving, Bicycle, and Sidewalks, Repaving, and Handicap Regionwide Tennessee $24,138,304 2020 TN-LSTP Pedestrian Ramp Replacement Strategies SR-204 (Singleton 02020024 - SR-14 (Austin 6 Parkway) to east of Old Widen from 2 to 5 Lanes Shelby Co 2.60 $26,500,000 2020 TN-HPP 02020025 Peay) Covington Pike SR-177 55 00790003.1 (Germantown Winchester to Callis Creek Widen from 2 to 7 lanes Memphis 0.69 $10,467,916 2020 TN-SSTP Rd) SR-196 (Hickory US-64/SR-15 to I-40 620 02590010 Intersection Improvements Fayette Co 1.90 $7,334,481 2020 TN-SSTP Withe Rd) (Intersections) SR-3 (North 609 60020007 Interchange at I-40 Interchange Modification Memphis $14,352,505 2020 TN-IM Second St) SR-57 (Poplar 209 01120039 SR-385 to SR-196 Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Piperton 0.95 $11,001,721 2020 TN-SSTP Ave) 8-18
Table 8.5 Highway Projects - 2020 Horizon Year *Refer to Table 8.3 for updated funding categories under MAP-21.
Jurisdictio Length Estimated Project Completio Funding ID LRTP No. TIP No. Facility Termini Type of Improvement n (Miles) Cost (inflated) n Date Source* 01120037 - SR-57 (Poplar SR 205 (Collierville 108 Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Collierville 0.91 $13,070,513 2020 TN-SSTP 01120038 Ave) Arlington Rd) to SR-385 US-70/US- 01200026.1 - 115 79/SR-1 I-40 to Elmore Widen to 7 lanes Memphis 3.15 $26,529,408 2015 TN-SSTP 01200029 (Summer Ave) Construct new interchange and widen US-78/SR-4 94 60030008.1 Interchange at Holmes Rd Holmes 1000 ft east to 7 lanes with Memphis 0.50 $33,020,303 2020 TN-NHS (Lamar Ave) service roads 00820028 - US-78/SR-4 MS/TN Stateline to south 167 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes (divided) Memphis 1.1 $72,000,000 2020 TN-NHS 00820030 (Lamar Ave) of SR-175 (Shelby Dr)
Widen existing four lane roadway to six lane parkway with landscaping. STP-M- Walnut Grove Rd Kirby Whitten to SR-177 247 00900012 This project will have adjacent paths Memphis 2.86 $19,880,742 2020 TN-LSTP 2000-11 Middle (Germantown Pkwy) for bikes and pedestrians designed in conjunction with the parkway.
00340020 - 618 Winchester Rd Ridgeway to Hacks Cross Add median Memphis 2.70 $7,192,558 2020 TN-ENH 00340023 State Congestion CMAQ projects including traffic Mitigation and TN-CMAQ 702 90000015 Regionwide signal improvements, signal systems, Regionwide $11,648,404 2020 Air Quality (State) and ITS projects. Improvement Regionwide Bridge Replacement, rehabilitation, systematic 705 70000003 Regionwide Regionwide $29,485,022 2020 TN-BRR-S Replacement and preventative maintenance of bridges Rehabilitation Regionwide Highway Safety Highway safety projects to reduce 708 30000007 Regionwide Regionwide $16,380,568 2020 TN-HSIP Improvement fatalities and severe injuries Program Regionwide Bridge Replacement, rehabilitation, systematic Replacement and 711 70000004 Regionwide preventative maintenance of bridges Regionwide $3,640,126 2020 TN-BRBD Rehabilitation - using advanced procedures Bridge Bond Program Local Bridge Local replacement, rehabilitation, 720 70000005 Replacement and Regionwide systematic preventative maintenance Regionwide $3,712,929 2020 TN-BRR-L Rehabilitation of bridges using advanced procedures 8-19
Table 8.5 Highway Projects - 2020 Horizon Year *Refer to Table 8.3 for updated funding categories under MAP-21.
Jurisdictio Length Estimated Project Completio Funding ID LRTP No. TIP No. Facility Termini Type of Improvement n (Miles) Cost (inflated) n Date Source* Local Congestion Local CMAQ projects including traffic Mitigation and TN-CMAQ 723 90000016 Regionwide signal improvements, and signal Regionwide $61,772,941 2020 Air Quality (Local) systems. Improvement State of Tennessee Total $675,408,690 State of Mississippi Pepper Chase Rd to 23 00060011 Church Rd Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Southaven 0.74 $7,470,467 2020 MS-LSTP Airways Blvd Sloans Way to McIngvale 27 02810008 Commerce St Widen from 4 to 6 lanes (divided) Hernando 0.30 $5,782,634 2020 MS-LSTP Rd 00770008 - Olive 33 Craft Rd Old Lamar to Stateline Rd New 4 lane road (divided) 1.03 $12,717,779 2020 MS-SFP 00770009 Branch 00990004 - MS-302 (Goodman Rd) to Olive 86 Hacks Cross Rd Widen from 5 to 6 lanes (divided) 2.23 $15,478,737 2020 MS-SFP 00990005 Stateline Rd Branch Nail Rd to MS-302 Olive 85 00990002 Hacks Cross Rd Widen from 5 to 6 lanes (divided) 1.05 $7,281,402 2020 MS-SSTP (Goodman Rd) Branch MS-NHS- Church Rd to MS-302 152 01330009 I-55/I-69 Widen to 8 lanes Southaven 1.75 $12,112,050 2020 MS-IM 2006-01 (Goodman Rd) 01330007 - MS-NHS- 151 I-55/I-69 I-269 to Church Rd Widen to 8 lanes DeSoto Co 5.24 $39,138,473 2020 MS-IM 01330008 2006-02 MS-302 76 00100007 Hurt Rd to US-51 Widen from 5 to 6 lanes (divided) Horn Lake 0.60 $3,891,119 2020 MS-NHS (Goodman Rd) MS-302 Olive 80 60070001 Old Lamar Off Ramp Reconfigure ramp for safety 0.25 $1,930,127 2020 MS-NHS (Goodman Rd) Branch 00100010 - MS-302 Airways Blvd to 78 Widen from 5 to 6 lanes (divided) Horn Lake 2.02 $13,096,668 2020 MS-NHS 00100012 (Goodman Rd) Tchulahoma Rd 00410001 - MS-747 (Getwell Byhalia Rd to Pleasant Hill 70 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Hernando 1.14 $11,412,897 2020 MS-SFP 00410002 Rd) Rd 00040007 - MS-NHS- 234 Star Landing Rd Tulane Rd to Getwell Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) DeSoto Co 5.00 $57,903,795 2020 MS-SSTP 00040011 2008-02 00140005 - 240 Stateline Rd Horn Lake Rd to US-51 Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Horn Lake 2.17 $28,130,314 2020 MS-SSTP 00140011 MS-302 (Goodman Rd) to Olive 124 00820031 US 78/ I-22 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes (divided) 2.51 $46,460,301 2020 MS-IM MS/TN State Line Branch
8-20
Table 8.5 Highway Projects - 2020 Horizon Year *Refer to Table 8.3 for updated funding categories under MAP-21.
Jurisdictio Length Estimated Project Completio Funding ID LRTP No. TIP No. Facility Termini Type of Improvement n (Miles) Cost (inflated) n Date Source* 00250003 - 105 US-51 Church Rd to Stateline Rd Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Horn Lake 4.16 $32,079,580 2020 MS-SSTP 00250006 Regionwide Highway Safety Highway safety projects to reduce 714 30000007 Regionwide Regionwide $27,300,946 2020 MS-HHSTP Improvement fatalities and severe injuries Program 00410003 - MS-747 (Getwell Star Landing Road to Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) with 71 Southaven 4.00 $15,441,012 2020 MS-SFP 00410005 Rd) Church Road bike lanes 00080010 - Nail Rd Elmore Road to Swinnea 181 Widen two lane to five lanes Southaven 0.51 $2,240,000 2020 MS-SSTP 00080014 Extension Road Sidewalk and crossing improvements, Regionwide Safe bike facilities and other items that 717 30000008 Routes to School Regionwide Regionwide $728,025 2020 MS-SRTS encourage walking and biking to Program school State of Mississippi Total $313,083,576 Total All 2020 Projects $988,492,267
8-21
Table 8.6 Highway Projects - 2030 Horizon Year *Refer to Table 8.3 for updated funding categories under MAP-21.
Estimated Length Project Cost Completion Funding ID LRTP No. TIP No. Facility Termini Type of Improvement Jurisdiction (Miles) (inflated) Date Source State of Tennessee US-51/SR-3 to Raleigh Improve roadway with bicycle and 9 02850001 Big Creek Rd Millington 1.21 $2,170,080 2025 TN-ENH Millington Rd pedestrian facilities Forest Hill-Irene Rd Ext. to 617 002180005 Dexter Rd New 2 lane road Memphis 0.86 $8,923,114 2030 TN-LSTP Houston Levee Rd 02180002 - Raleigh Lagrange Rd to SR- 37 Dexter Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Memphis 2.40 $27,951,013 2025 TN-LSTP 02180003 177 (Germantown Rd) 40 02420001.2 Donelson Pkwy SR-385 to Airline Rd New 4 lane road (divided) Arlington 0.76 $8,043,254 2030 TN-TCSP 01010016 - Forest Hill- Cordova Park to US- Widen and construct new 6 lane road 49 Memphis 2.82 $35,093,496 2030 TN-LSTP 01010017 Irene Rd 64/SR-15 (divided) US-61/SR-14 (South Third Widen from 2 to 5 lanes with 510 00160001 Holmes Rd Memphis 0.49 $6,593,132 2025 TN-LSTP St) to SR-175 (Weaver Rd) intersection improvements at US 61 Houston Levee Wolf River Blvd to the 512 01090008 Widen to 6 lanes (divided) Collierville 0.71 $5,751,509 2025 TN-LSTP Rd Wolf River 01090009 - Houston Levee The Wolf River to Walnut 100 - Widen from 2 to 6 lanes (divided) Shelby Co 1.67 $26,841,394 2025 TN-LSTP 01090010 Rd Grove Rd 01090011 - Houston Levee Walnut Grove Rd to Macon 101 - Widen to 4 lanes (divided) Shelby Co 2.14 $28,816,189 2030 TN-LSTP 01090012 Rd Rd SR-23 (Walnut Grove Rd) 137 02500014 I-240 Widen from 8 to 10 lanes Memphis 1.59 $18,405,109 2025 TN-HPP to I-40 Airways Blvd to US-78/SR- 132 02500007 I-240 Widen from 8 to 10 lanes Memphis 2.05 $31,242,639 2030 TN-IM 4 (Lamar Ave) US-78/SR-4 (Lamar Ave) 133 02500008 I-240 Widen from 8 to 10 lanes Memphis 1.07 $15,538,012 2030 TN-IM to SR-176 (Getwell Rd) 127 60010001.2 I-240 SB I-240 to I-55 S Add lane Memphis 1.00 $17,506,449 2025 TN-IM 131 60010001.3 I-240 Airways Blvd Reconstruct interchange Memphis $58,134,873 2025 TN-IM
125 60010001.4 I-240 NB I-55 ramp to I-55 Widen to 2 lanes Memphis 1.27 $27,448,608 2030 TN-IM 02500005 - 130 I-240 I-55 to Airways Blvd Widen from 6 to 8 lanes Memphis 2.21 $29,585,251 2030 TN-IM 02500006 SR-204 (Covington Pike) to 141 01040011 I-40 Widen from 6 to 8 lanes Memphis 1.79 $21,494,418 2030 TN-IM I-240
8-22
Table 8.6 Highway Projects - 2030 Horizon Year *Refer to Table 8.3 for updated funding categories under MAP-21.
Estimated Length Project Cost Completion Funding ID LRTP No. TIP No. Facility Termini Type of Improvement Jurisdiction (Miles) (inflated) Date Source Appling Rd to SR-177 143 01040020 I-40 Widen from 8 to 10 lanes Memphis 1.44 $20,856,921 2025 TN-IM (Germantown Pkwy) 245 60020003 I-40 US-64/SR-15 Reconstruct interchange Memphis 0.50 $5,002,607 2025 TN-IM TN-IM- Interchange at SR-196 214 60020005 I-40 Construct new interchange Fayette Co 0.00 $34,789,564 2025 TN-IM 2011-05 (Hickory Withe Rd) 92 60030004 I-55 Holmes Construct new interchange Memphis 0.50 $31,015,369 2025 TN-IM Berryhill Rd to Houston 169 02220006 Macon Rd Widen to 4 lanes (divided) Shelby Co 1.73 $22,522,911 2025 TN-LSTP Levee Rd 02010006 - Holmes Rd to SR-175 175 Malone Rd Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Memphis 0.96 $12,881,143 2025 TN-LSTP 02010007 (Shelby Dr) Mullins Station Whitten Rd to Raleigh 178 02160002.1 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Memphis 1.13 $15,261,340 2030 TN-LSTP Rd Lagrange Rd Design and Construction of a new four STP-M- New Canada lane divided highway between 522 01150005-7 I-40 to US-70/SR-1 Lakeland 2.23 $19,914,156 2025 TN-LSTP 2006-01 Rd Interstate 40 (Exit 20) and U.S. Highway 70 (State Route #1).
New Frontage South of US-64/SR-15 at 187 02870001 New 2 lane road Fayette Co 2.17 $11,458,537 2025 TN-LSTP Rd Cherry Road to SR-196
Improve 3,000 feet along Plough- Airways Blvd. south from Brooks Rd. and improve 3,000 feet along Winchester east of original at-grade section. The improvements will provide a grade-separated interchange to replace the existing at-grade STP-M- Plough Blvd. Interchange 199 00340012-12.1 Plough Blvd condition at the Plough- Memphis 0.00 $30,251,794 2025 TN-HPP 2006-04 with Winchester Rd. Airways/Winchester Rd. intersection. The final design will maintain the present direct connectors between Plough Blvd. and the airport. the preliminary planning will include coordination with MATA to address future light rail service to the airport Repaving, Bicycle, and Sidewalks, Repaving, and Handicap Regionwide Tennessee $35,070,121 2030 TN-LSTP Pedestrian Ramp Replacement Strategies 8-23
Table 8.6 Highway Projects - 2030 Horizon Year *Refer to Table 8.3 for updated funding categories under MAP-21.
Estimated Length Project Cost Completion Funding ID LRTP No. TIP No. Facility Termini Type of Improvement Jurisdiction (Miles) (inflated) Date Source Widen from 2 to 5 lanes with grade 226 00180001.1 Shelby Dr Sewanee Rd to Weaver Rd Memphis 1.69 $35,338,539 2025 TN-HPP separation at rail road track Shelby Dr Paul Lowry Rd to Sewanee New 4 lane road (divided) with grade 225 266001 Memphis 1.90 $43,882,300 2025 TN-HPP Extension Rd separation at rail crossing Singleton Pkwy SR-205 (Navy Rd) to 233 00570013 New 4 lane road with bike lanes Millington 1.38 $19,782,615 2025 TN-HPP Extension Bethuel Rd Southern West Memphis to Shelby Construct new multimodal bridge over 257 01040019 Shelby Co 0.00 $3,144,674,038 2025 HPP/NCIIP Gateway Co/DeSoto Co Miss. River 02020027 - SR-14 (Austin East of Old Covington Pike 7 Widen from 2 to 4 (divided) Shelby Co 3.99 $41,016,232 2025 TN-SSTP 02020031 Peay) to SR-385 02020032 - SR-14 (Austin 8 SR-385 to Tipton Co Line Widen from 2 to 4 (divided) Shelby Co 8.65 $77,123,320 2025 TN-SSTP 02020036 Peay) SR-175 (Shelby 228 00180024.1 Jasper Park to Shelby Post Widen from 2 to 6 lanes (divided) Collierville 0.96 $17,926,405 2030 TN-LSTP Dr) SR-175 (Shelby US-78/SR-4 (Lamar Ave) 227 00180014 Widen from 5 to 6 lane (divided) Memphis 0.97 $27,533,690 2030 TN-SSTP Dr) to Mendenhall Rd Realign Intersection at Third Street and SR-175 Holmes Rd to US-61/SR- 520 00070011 widen Weaver to 3 lanes. Add left turn Memphis 0.47 $4,868,244 2025 TN-LSTP (Weaver Rd) 14 (South Third St) lanes on US 61 00410010.2 - SR-176 State line to SR-175 (Shelby 74 Widen from 4 to 7 lanes Memphis 1.53 $15,840,650 2030 TN-SSTP 00410011 (Getwell Rd) Dr) SR-177 Callis Creek to Crestridge 56 00790003.2 (Germantown Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Memphis 0.53 $6,165,794 2025 TN-SSTP Rd Rd) SR-177 Poplar Pike to US-72/SR- Realign Germantown Rd with a 5 lane 59 00790004.4 (Germantown Germantown 0.59 $6,227,887 2025 TN-SSTP 57 (Poplar Ave) cross section Rd) SR-177 Intersection at Wolf River 509 60100001 (Germantown Intersection Capacity Improvements Germantown 0.50 $1,500,782 2025 TN-SSTP Blvd Rd) SR-193 (Macon 171 02220012.1 SR-385 to Fisherville Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Fayette Co 0.96 $14,878,259 2030 TN-LSTP Rd) SR-196 215 02590010 (Hickory Withe I-40 to Main Street Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Fayette Co 0.62 $8,384,285 2030 TN-SSTP Rd) SR-205 (Airline Donelson Farm Pkwy to I- 1 01190005.1 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Arlington 0.95 $10,033,155 2025 TN-HPP Rd) 40 8-24
Table 8.6 Highway Projects - 2030 Horizon Year *Refer to Table 8.3 for updated funding categories under MAP-21.
Estimated Length Project Cost Completion Funding ID LRTP No. TIP No. Facility Termini Type of Improvement Jurisdiction (Miles) (inflated) Date Source SR-205 (Airline 2 01190005.2 I-40 to Douglas Rd Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Arlington 1.67 $15,012,937 2025 TN-HPP Rd) SR-205 (Airline US-64/SR-15 to Donelson 501 01190004 Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Arlington 3.10 $43,904,836 2030 TN-SSTP Rd) Farm Pkwy SR-205 SR-57 (Poplar Ave) to 25 02170001.1 (Collierville Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Collierville 0.45 $6,816,052 2025 TN-LSTP Fletcher Rd Arlington Rd) 01760001.1 - SR-205 (Navy US-51/SR-3 to Veterans 183 Add raised median with streetscape Millington 1.05 $3,775,350 2025 TN-ENH 01760001.3 Rd) Parkway 218 00730003 SR-385 Kirby Rd to Winchester Rd Widen from 6 lanes to 8 lanes Memphis 1.10 $37,075,325 2030 TN-IM 00730001 - 217 SR-385 I-240 to Kirby Rd Widen from 6 lanes to 8 lanes Memphis 2.51 $39,591,945 2030 TN-IM 00730002 00250007 - US 51/SR-3 Stateline Rd to SR-175 106 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes (divided) Memphis 2.04 $19,022,929 2030 TN-SSTP 00250008 (Elvis Presley) (Shelby Dr) 606 60030007.1 US-61/SR-14 Holmes Intersection Improvements Memphis 0.50 $2,838,800 2025 TN-NHS 00030012 - Stateline Rd to SR-175 111 US-61/SR-14 Widen from 4 to 7 lanes Memphis 3.17 $28,396,488 2025 TN-NHS 00030014 (Shelby Dr) US-70/US- SR-385 to Collierville 120 01200035 Widen from 4 to 5 lanes Arlington 1.36 $12,136,990 2025 TN-SSTP 79/SR-1 Arlington Rd/Chester Rd US-70/US- 01200031.2 - US-64/SR-15 (Stage Rd) to 117 79/SR-1 Add two way left turn lane (TWLTL) Bartlett 3.26 $16,904,751 2030 TN-SSTP 01200031.5 SR-177 (Germantown Rd) (Summer Ave) US-72/SR-57 201 60010008 I-240 Interchange Add one through lane per direction Memphis 0.30 $6,185,613 2030 TN-HPP (Poplar Ave) US-72/SR-57 200 60010008.1 I-240 off ramp to Yates Add WB lane Memphis 0.31 $1,664,734 2025 TN-LSTP (Poplar Ave) US-78/SR-4 Raines Rd to SR-176 165 00820026 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes (divided) Memphis 1.62 $48,694,863 2030 TN-HPP (Lamar Ave) (Getwell Rd) US-78/SR-4 SR-175 (Shelby Dr) to 607 00820027 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes (divided) Memphis 1.67 $43,244,940 2025 TN-NHS (Lamar Ave) Raines Rd US-78/SR-4 Interchange at Winchester 258 60030008.3 Construct new interchange Memphis 1.00 $94,165,686 2030 TN-NHS (Lamar Ave) Rd 00900016- Walnut Grove Construct 4 lane road on new 250 - Houston Levee to SR-385 Shelby Co 5.06 $83,989,837 2030 TN-HPP 00900020 Rd alignment
8-25
Table 8.6 Highway Projects - 2030 Horizon Year *Refer to Table 8.3 for updated funding categories under MAP-21.
Estimated Length Project Cost Completion Funding ID LRTP No. TIP No. Facility Termini Type of Improvement Jurisdiction (Miles) (inflated) Date Source Widen existing four and two lane roadway to six lanes with a median, STP-M- Walnut Grove Walnut Bend Rd to Rocky eliminate sharp curves and realign 248 0090013-14 Memphis 2.39 $18,477,405 2025 TN-HPP 2000-16 Rd East Point Rd Rocky Point Road intersection to improve safety. This project will provide wide outside lanes for bikes.
SR-176 (Getwell Rd) to SR- Reconstruct Interchange (add turn 254 60080001 Winchester Rd Memphis 0.25 $4,456,278 2030 TN-LSTP 385 lanes) State Congestion CMAQ projects including traffic signal TN-CMAQ 703 90000015 Mitigation and Regionwide improvements, signal systems, and ITS Regionwide $24,650,392 2030 (State) Air Quality projects. Improvement Regionwide Bridge Replacement, rehabilitation, systematic 706 70000003 Replacement Regionwide Regionwide $62,396,305 2030 TN-BRR-S preventative maintenance of bridges and Rehabilitation Regionwide Highway Safety Highway safety projects to reduce 709 30000007 Regionwide Regionwide $34,664,614 2030 TN-HSIP Improvement fatalities and severe injuries Program Regionwide Bridge Replacement Replacement, rehabilitation, systematic 712 70000004 and Regionwide preventative maintenance of bridges Regionwide $7,703,248 2030 TN-BRBD Rehabilitation - using advanced procedures Bridge Bond Program Local Bridge Local replacement, rehabilitation, Replacement 721 70000005 Regionwide systematic preventative maintenance of Regionwide $7,857,313 2030 TN-BRR-L and bridges using advanced procedures Rehabilitation Local Congestion Local CMAQ projects including traffic TN-CMAQ 724 90000016 Mitigation and Regionwide signal improvements, and signal Regionwide $130,724,112 2030 (Local) Air Quality systems. Improvement
8-26
Table 8.6 Highway Projects - 2030 Horizon Year *Refer to Table 8.3 for updated funding categories under MAP-21.
Estimated Length Project Cost Completion Funding ID LRTP No. TIP No. Facility Termini Type of Improvement Jurisdiction (Miles) (inflated) Date Source State of Tennessee Total* $4,610,094,958 State of Mississippi 02810012 - Commerce St Commerce St to MS-747 28 New 4 lane road (divided) DeSoto Co 1.52 $25,222,419 2030 MS-LSTP 02810013 Extension (Getwell Rd) 01010001 - Forest Hill- MS-302 (Goodman Rd) to 43 New 2 lane road DeSoto Co 2.23 $19,993,826 2025 MS-SFP 01010002 Irene Rd Stateline Rd 83 00990001.2 Hacks Cross Rd College Rd to US-78 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Olive Branch 0.66 $8,902,874 2030 MS-SSTP 981 01430004 Horn Lake Rd DeSoto Rd to Stateline Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Southaven 1.00 $11,690,328 2025 MS-SSTP 150 01330006 I-55 Commerce St to I-69/I-269 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Hernando 2.57 $25,940,752 2025 MS-IM 153 01330010.1 I-55/I-69 Stateline Rd to State Line Widen from 8 to 10 lanes Southaven 0.30 $2,826,287 2030 MS-IM 02010004 - MS-302 (Goodman Rd) to 173 Malone Rd Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Olive Branch 2.03 $27,191,265 2025 MS-SFP 02010005 Stateline Rd MS-302 Hacks Cross Rd to Center 82 00100028 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes (divided) Olive Branch 3.05 $28,486,642 2030 MS-NHS (Goodman Rd) Hill Rd 00100016 - MS-302 79 Pleasant Hill Rd to US-78 Add raised median Olive Branch 2.61 $20,313,704 2030 MS-NHS 00100018 (Goodman Rd) MS-305 MS-302 (Goodman Rd) to 54 00810006 (Germantown Widen from 5 to 6 lane (divided) Olive Branch 1.48 $9,912,581 2025 MS-SSTP Stateline Rd Ext) MS-305 US-78 to MS-302 53 00810005 (Germantown Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Olive Branch 1.61 $14,405,047 2025 MS-SSTP (Goodman Rd) Ext.) MS-LSTP- MS-747 73 00410010.2 Stateline Rd to State Line Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Southaven 0.46 $4,142,850 2025 MS-LSTP 2002-02 (Getwell Rd) 00080017 - Pleasant Hill Rd to MS-305 182 Nail Rd New 2 lane road Olive Branch 3.96 $41,782,638 2025 MS-SFP 00080018 (Germantown Extension) 00140019 - Kirby Rd to Hacks Cross 241 Stateline Rd Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Olive Branch 3.01 $40,443,637 2025 MS-SSTP 00140021 Rd 00130001 - 244 Tulane Rd I-69 to Church Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) DeSoto Co 4.55 $63,041,902 2030 MS-SSTP 00130005 122 00820036 US 78/ I-22 I-269 to Hacks Cross Rd Widen from 4 to 6 lanes (divided) DeSoto Co 2.66 $66,157,875 2030 MS-IM 00820034 - Hacks Cross Rd to 123 US 78/ I-22 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes (divided) Olive Branch 3.96 $84,865,486 2025 MS-IM 00820035 Goodman Rd
8-27
Table 8.6 Highway Projects - 2030 Horizon Year *Refer to Table 8.3 for updated funding categories under MAP-21.
Estimated Length Project Cost Completion Funding ID LRTP No. TIP No. Facility Termini Type of Improvement Jurisdiction (Miles) (inflated) Date Source 00250001.2 - 104 US-51 I-69 to Star Landing Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Hernando 2.86 $38,554,426 2030 MS-SSTP 00250001.3 US-78/ I-22 Construct new interchange and 168 6003008 Interchange at Stateline Rd Olive Branch 1.00 $49,825,462 2025 MS-IM (Lamar Ave) connecting roadways Regionwide Highway Safety Highway safety projects to reduce 715 30000007 Regionwide Regionwide $57,774,357 2030 MS-HHSTP Improvement fatalities and severe injuries Program Regionwide Sidewalk and crossing improvements, Safe Routes to 718 30000008 Regionwide bike facilities and other items that Regionwide $1,540,650 2030 MS-SRTS School encourage walking and biking to school Program State of Mississippi Total* $583,700,000 Total All 2030 Projects $5,193,794,958
* - The Tennessee and Mississippi total project costs have been adjusted to reflect the division of state matching funds for the Southern Gateway project.
8-28
Table 8.7 Highway Projects - 2040 Horizon Year *Refer to Table 8.3 for updated funding categories under MAP-21. Estimated TIP Length Completion Funding ID LRTP No. Facility Termini Type of Improvement Jurisdiction Project Cost No. (Miles) Date Source (inflated) State of Tennessee Beverle Rivera Seed Tick Rd to Chambers 503 02360003 New 4 lane (divided) Lakeland 1.36 $33,830,243 2040 TN-LSTP Dr Chapel Rd US-70/US-79/SR-1 Canada Rd 16 01150008 (Summer Ave) to Old Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Lakeland 0.73 $15,318,695 2040 TN-LSTP Extension Brownsville Rd 00770010 - Stateline Rd to SR-175 159 Crumpler Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Memphis 1.80 $32,560,513 2040 TN-LSTP 00770011 (Shelby Dr) Egypt Central Raleigh-Millington Rd to 507 01400002.1 Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Memphis 0.64 $13,452,880 2040 TN-LSTP Rd Coleman Rd Forest Hill- Winchester Rd to Poplar 46 01010007 Widen from 2 to 6 lane (divided) Germantown 1.06 $26,506,453 2040 TN-LSTP Irene Rd Pike Milton Wilson Rd to SR- 508 02590011.1 Forrest St Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arlington 1.61 $25,208,394 2035 TN-LSTP 196 Germantown 59 00790004.4 Poplar Pike to Poplar Ave Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Germantown 0.59 $8,215,923 2040 TN-SSTP Rd 01090013 - Houston Levee 102 - Macon Rd to US-64/SR-15 Widen to 4 lanes (divided) Shelby Co 3.51 $54,959,749 2035 TN-LSTP 01090014 Rd SR-385 to US-72/SR-57 135 02500012 I-240 Widen from 8 to 10 lanes Memphis 1.72 $46,604,902 2035 TN-IM (Poplar Ave) US-72/SR 57 (Poplar Ave) 136 02500013 I-240 Widen from 8 to 10 lanes Memphis 1.68 $54,490,734 2035 TN-IM to Walnut Grove Rd 02500009 - SR-176 (Getwell Rd) to SR- 134 I-240 Widen from 8 to 10 lanes Memphis 2.79 $69,387,205 2035 TN-IM 02500011 385 NHS- 128 0250001-4 I-240 Midtown I-55 to I-40 Widen from 6 to 8 lanes Memphis 5.46 $225,146,583 2035 TN-HPP 2002-01 01040004 - SR-14 (Jackson Ave) to 139 I-40 Widen from 6 to 8 lanes Memphis 0.90 $21,605,113 2040 TN-HPP 01040005 Chelsea Ave 140 01040005 I-40 Chelsea Ave to SR-300 Widen from 6 to 8 lanes Memphis 1.35 $30,059,277 2040 TN-IM Interchange at Chambers 19 60020008 I-40 Construct new interchange Lakeland 0.50 $40,061,614 2040 TN-IM Chapel Rd. 01040013 - Sycamore View Rd to 142 I-40 Widen from 8 to 10 lanes Memphis 3.32 $56,855,117 2040 TN-IM 01040014 Appling Rd 01330011 - State line to SR-175 (Shelby 154 I-55 Widen from 8 to 10 lanes Memphis 1.84 $31,228,081 2035 TN-IM 01330012 Dr)
8-29
Table 8.7 Highway Projects - 2040 Horizon Year *Refer to Table 8.3 for updated funding categories under MAP-21. Estimated TIP Length Completion Funding ID LRTP No. Facility Termini Type of Improvement Jurisdiction Project Cost No. (Miles) Date Source (inflated) 01330013 - SR-175 (Shelby Dr) to 155 I-55 Widen from 8 to 10 lanes Memphis 2.89 $44,069,410 2035 TN-IM 01330014 Winchester Rd US-64/SR-15 to Donelson 513 02880005 Inglewood Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Arlington 2.18 $31,728,241 2035 TN-LSTP Farm Pkwy 174 02010006 Malone Rd Stateline Rd to Holmes Rd Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Memphis 1.00 $18,066,365 2035 TN-LSTP Pleasant Hill Holmes Rd to SR-175 198 01990010 Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Memphis 1.06 $14,752,216 2040 TN-HPP Rd (Shelby Dr) STP-M- SR-175 13 01270005 Shelby Dr to SR-385 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes (divided) Collierville 0.62 $6,566,702 2040 TN-SSTP 2011-06 (Byhalia Rd) SR-177 61 00790011.1 (Germantown Wolf River to Walnut Bend Widen from 7 to 8 lanes (divided) Memphis 0.61 $6,416,457 2040 TN-SSTP Pkwy) SR-177 62 00790012.1 (Germantown Walnut Bend to Trinity Rd Widen from 6 to 8 lanes (divided) Memphis 1.45 $15,284,910 2040 TN-SSTP Pkwy) SR-177 63 00790013.1 (Germantown Trinity Rd to Cordova Rd Widen from 6 to 8 lanes (divided) Memphis 1.09 $11,556,835 2040 TN-SSTP Pkwy) SR-177 64 00790014.1 (Germantown Cordova Rd to Dexter Rd Widen from 6 to 8 lanes (divided) Memphis 1.06 $11,242,322 2040 TN-SSTP Pkwy) SR-177 65 00790015.1 (Germantown Dexter Rd to Bellevue Pkwy Widen from 6 to 8 lanes (divided) Memphis 0.77 $9,389,301 2040 TN-SSTP Pkwy) SR-177 Widen from 6 to 8 lanes (divided), 66 00790016.1 (Germantown Bellevue Pkwy to I-40 Memphis 0.76 $8,071,154 2040 TN-SSTP construct new NB lane Pkwy) SR-177 Intersection at Wolf River 605 60100001 (Germantown Construct Interchange Germantown 0.50 $56,563,243 2040 TN-SSTP Blvd Rd) SR-204 SR-15 (Stage Rd) to SR-14 31 00570007 (Covington Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Memphis 2.02 $24,404,800 2035 TN-SSTP (Austin Peay) Pike) SR-205 (Navy 600 01760010 Armor to SR-14 New 4 lane road Millington 1.66 $37,035,510 2040 TN-SSTP Rd) Interchange at Raleigh 612 60040002 SR-385 New Interchange Collierville 0.50 $58,816,487 2040 TN-HPP Lagrange 251 60040004 SR-385 Walnut Grove Rd Construct new interchange Shelby Co 0.50 $50,735,619 2035 TN-IM
8-30
Table 8.7 Highway Projects - 2040 Horizon Year *Refer to Table 8.3 for updated funding categories under MAP-21. Estimated TIP Length Completion Funding ID LRTP No. Facility Termini Type of Improvement Jurisdiction Project Cost No. (Miles) Date Source (inflated) 00730004 - Winchester Rd to Forest 219 SR-385 Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes Shelby Co 3.71 $65,519,426 2040 TN-IM 00730005 Hill-Irene Rd SR-57 (Poplar 603 01120040 SR-196 to SR-194 Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Piperton 4.53 $101,489,887 2040 TN-SSTP Ave) Tchulahoma SR-175 (Shelby Dr) to 243 00370008.2 Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Memphis 1.59 $28,608,211 2035 TN-LSTP Rd Christine Rd 01320022 - 112 US-64/SR-15 Berryhill Rd to Canada Rd Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Lakeland 1.23 $15,439,914 2040 TN-SSTP 01320023 US-70/US- Construct a raised median (4 lanes 119 01200034 Canada Rd to SR-385 Lakeland 4.20 $29,311,645 2040 TN-SSTP 79/SR-1 divided) Collierville Arlington US-70/US- 121 01200036 Rd/Chester Rd to Milton Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Arlington 0.95 $22,141,757 2040 TN-SSTP 79/SR-1 Wilson Rd US-70/US- 01200032 - SR-177 (Germantown Rd) 118 79/SR-1 Widen to 6 lanes (divided) Shelby Co 2.80 $31,262,233 2040 TN-HPP 01200033 to Canada Rd (Summer Ave) US-70/US- 01200030 - 116 79/SR-1 Elmore to Stage Rd Add two way left turn lane (TWLTL) Bartlett 1.36 $10,592,617 2040 TN-SSTP 01200031.1 (Summer Ave) 01120039.1 - US-72/SR-57 Dogwood Rd to Brachton 203 Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Germantown 1.61 $22,413,544 2040 TN-HPP 01120039.2 (Poplar Ave) Ave US-78/SR-4 161 00820012.3 Melrose St Willet St Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Memphis 0.23 $47,396,586 2040 TN-HPP (Lamar Ave) US-78/SR-4 162 00820013 McLean Blvd to S Parkway Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Memphis 0.72 $37,134,806 2040 TN-HPP (Lamar Ave) US-78/SR-4 Interchange at SR-175 166 60030008.2 Construct new interchange Memphis $215,476,175 2035 TN-NHS (Lamar Ave) (Shelby Dr) 00820019 - US-78/SR-4 Semmes St to American Widen from 5 to 7 lanes (excluding 164 Memphis 0.91 $19,844,091 2040 TN-NHS 00820021 (Lamar Ave) Way bridge) Walnut Grove Rocky Point Rd to Houston 249 00900015 Widen 2 to 6 lanes (divided) Shelby Co 0.98 $29,808,444 2040 TN-HPP Rd Levee Rd
01860003 - Veterans Parkway to Quito 252 West Union Rd Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Millington 1.90 $40,974,315 2035 TN-LSTP 01860004 Rd
Wilkinsville at US-51/SR-3 523 01590001.1 Wilkinsville Rd New 5 lane road Millington 0.77 $17,193,489 2040 TN-TCSP to Veterans Pkwy
8-31
Table 8.7 Highway Projects - 2040 Horizon Year *Refer to Table 8.3 for updated funding categories under MAP-21. Estimated TIP Length Completion Funding ID LRTP No. Facility Termini Type of Improvement Jurisdiction Project Cost No. (Miles) Date Source (inflated)
255 00340030 Winchester Rd Byhalia Rd to US-72/SR-86 New 4 lane Rd (divided) Collierville 1.04 $19,959,683 2035 TN-LSTP
Wolf River Almadale Farms Pkwy to 256 02280009.1 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Collierville 2.09 $39,907,693 2040 TN-LSTP Blvd Stillwind Dr
State Congestion CMAQ projects including traffic signal TN-CMAQ 704 90000015 Mitigation and Regionwide improvements, signal systems, and ITS Regionwide $33,128,066 2040 (State) Air Quality projects. Improvement Regionwide Bridge Replacement, rehabilitation, systematic 707 70000003 Replacement Regionwide Regionwide $83,855,417 2040 TN-BRR-S preventative maintenance of bridges and Rehabilitation
Regionwide Highway Safety Highway safety projects to reduce 710 30000007 Regionwide Regionwide $46,586,343 2040 TN-HSIP Improvement fatalities and severe injuries Program Regionwide Bridge Replacement Replacement, rehabilitation, systematic 713 70000004 and Regionwide preventative maintenance of bridges Regionwide $10,352,521 2040 TN-BRBD Rehabilitation - using advanced procedures Bridge Bond Program Local Bridge Local replacement, rehabilitation, Replacement 722 70000005 Regionwide systematic preventative maintenance of Regionwide $10,559,571 2040 TN-BRR-L and bridges using advanced procedures Rehabilitation Local Congestion Local CMAQ projects including traffic TN-CMAQ 725 90000016 Mitigation and Regionwide signal improvements, and signal Regionwide $175,682,275 2040 (Local) Air Quality systems. Improvement State of Tennessee Total $1,984,665,563 8-32
Table 8.7 Highway Projects - 2040 Horizon Year *Refer to Table 8.3 for updated funding categories under MAP-21. Estimated TIP Length Completion Funding ID LRTP No. Facility Termini Type of Improvement Jurisdiction Project Cost No. (Miles) Date Source (inflated) State of Mississippi College Rd College Rd to Pleasant Hill 24 02820003 New 2 lane road DeSoto Co 0.86 $11,950,193 2040 MS-LSTP Extension Rd
Davidson Rd 35 02830001 Church Rd to Davidson Rd New 2 lane road Olive Branch 2.00 $24,104,433 2035 MS-LSTP Extension
Study Area boundary to 149 01330005 I-55 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Hernando 3.31 $50,181,100 2035 MS-IM Commerce St
180 60030006 I-55/I-69 Interchange at Nail Road Construct new interchange Southaven $44,721,470 2035 MS-IM
172 02010002 Malone Rd Church Rd to Nail Rd New 2 lane road Olive Branch 0.99 $11,907,558 2035 MS-SSTP
00070004 - Star Landing Rd to Church 177 MS-301 Widen from 2 to 5 lanes DeSoto Co 2.06 $48,966,960 2040 MS-SSTP 00070005 Rd MS-302 77 00100009 US-51 to Airways Blvd Widen from 5 to 6 lanes (divided) Southaven 8.50 $45,740,409 2035 MS-NHS (Goodman Rd)
00100022 - MS-302 MS-305 (Germantown Rd) 81 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes (divided) Olive Branch 2.01 $21,782,152 2035 MS-NHS 00100027 (Goodman Rd) to Hacks Cross Rd MS-305 00810001.1 - 51 (Germantown I-269 to Church Rd Widen from 2 to 5 lanes DeSoto Co 4.92 $102,907,404 2040 MS-SSTP 00810003 Ext) MS-305 00810004 - 52 (Germantown Church Rd to US-78 Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Olive Branch 0.86 $10,344,335 2035 MS-SSTP 00810005 Ext) 00080005 - 179 Nail Rd MS-301 to Tulane Rd Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Southaven 2.98 $53,799,291 2035 MS-SFP 00080006
Star Landing Rd to Church 619 00250003 US-51 Widen from 2 and 3 lanes to 5 lanes Horn Lake 2.20 $26,462,253 2035 MS-SSTP Rd
00250001.1 - 103 US-51 Commerce St to I-69 Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Hernando 2.72 $54,865,724 2035 MS-SSTP 00250001.2
8-33
Table 8.7 Highway Projects - 2040 Horizon Year *Refer to Table 8.3 for updated funding categories under MAP-21. Estimated TIP Length Completion Funding ID LRTP No. Facility Termini Type of Improvement Jurisdiction Project Cost No. (Miles) Date Source (inflated) Regionwide Highway Safety Highway safety projects to reduce 716 30000007 Regionwide Regionwide $77,643,905 2040 MS-HHSTP Improvement fatalities and severe injuries Program Regionwide Sidewalk and crossing improvements, Safe Routes to 719 30000008 Regionwide bike facilities and other items that Regionwide $2,070,504 2040 MS-SRTS School encourage walking and biking to school Program State of Mississippi Total $507,733,285 Total All 2040 Projects $2,492,938,847 Total All Horizon Years $8,674,686,072
8-34
Table 8.8 Highway Projects – Vision Projects *Refer to Table 8.3 for updated funding categories under MAP-21. TIP Length Estimated Project Completion Funding ID LRTP No. Facility Termini Type of Improvement Jurisdiction No. (Miles) Cost (inflated) Date Source State of Tennessee
Appling Rd Memphis Arlington Rd to 5 00890011.1 New 4 lane road Bartlett 0.96 $24,739,960 2041 TN-LSTP Extension Jon Stone Ln
02550002 - Sycamore View to Old 10 Billy Maher Widen from 2 to 4 (divided) Bartlett 3.75 $80,751,865 2041 TN-LSTP 02550009 Brownsville Rd Bray Station Shelton Rd to Wolf River 11 01230003 New 4 lane road (undivided) Collierville 0.41 $8,854,103 2041 TN-LSTP Rd Blvd 01270003- Stateline Rd to SR-175 12 Byhalia Rd Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Collierville 1.68 $36,114,130 2041 TN-LSTP 01270004 (Shelby Dr) Byhalia Rd Wolf River Blvd to Walnut 15 01230003 New 4 lane road (divided) Collierville 3.12 $84,673,323 2041 TN-LSTP Extension Grove North of Kingsridge Dr to 504 01150004.1 Canada Rd Widen from 4 to 6 lanes (divided) Lakeland 0.59 $7,647,986 2041 TN-LSTP I-40 Canada Rd Old Brownsville Rd to 17 01150009 New 4 lane road (divided) Lakeland 1.21 $43,996,516 2041 TN-LSTP Extension Brunswick Rd Chambers 21 01210007 I-40 to US-70/US-79/SR-1 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (undivided) Lakeland 2.14 $39,948,460 2041 TN-LSTP Chapel Rd 01210004 - Chambers 20 US-64/SR-15 to I-40 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Lakeland 2.65 $49,436,087 2041 TN-LSTP 01210006 Chapel Rd Park Ridge Pkwy to 2,500 ft 26 00180024.1 Collierville Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (undivided) Collierville 1.64 $30,595,209 2041 TN-LSTP east of Byhalia Rd 00570003 - 29 Covington Pike Macon Rd to I-40 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Memphis 0.56 $7,273,421 2041 TN-LSTP 00570006 1,000 feet east of Houston Crooked Creek 34 02890001 Levee Rd to Bailey Station New 4 lane road (undivided) Collierville 0.53 $12,286,394 2041 TN-LSTP Rd Rd Davies Davies Manor Dr to 505 02900002 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Lakeland 0.86 $16,079,105 2041 TN-LSTP Plantation Rd Canada Rd Widen to 4 lanes divided from Dewberry Dewberry Lane to Forest Lane to east of Milbrey Street and 38 02180004.2 Dexter Rd Memphis 0.71 $14,838,170 2041 TN-LSTP Hill-Irene Rd Ext. Construct 4 lane divided roadway to Forest Hill-Irene Ext.
Forest Hill-Irene Rd Ext. to 505 002180005 Dexter Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lane (divided) Memphis 0.86 $16,079,105 2041 TN-LSTP Houston Levee Rd Donelson Chambers Chapel Rd to Widen and construct new 4 lane road 39 02420001.1 Arlington 1.70 $38,333,287 2041 TN-LSTP Pkwy SR-385 (divided) 8-35
Table 8.8 Highway Projects – Vision Projects *Refer to Table 8.3 for updated funding categories under MAP-21. TIP Length Estimated Project Completion Funding ID LRTP No. Facility Termini Type of Improvement Jurisdiction No. (Miles) Cost (inflated) Date Source Donelson SR-205 (Airline Rd) to 506 02420001.3 New 4 lane road (divided) Arlington 0.42 $7,899,873 2041 TN-LSTP Pkwy Collierville-Arlington Rd McLemore Ave to US- 41 01430016 Florida St Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Memphis 0.58 $13,989,207 2041 TN-LSTP 61/SR-1 (Crump Blvd) Forest Hill- 44 01010003.1 State Line to Holmes Rd Reconstruct 2 lane road Shelby Co 0.80 $10,326,250 2041 TN-LSTP Irene Rd Forest Hill- Holmes Rd to SR-175 45 01010004 Widen to 5 lane roadway Shelby Co 1.01 $21,739,474 2041 TN-LSTP Irene Rd (Shelby Dr) Forest Hill- Wolf River Blvd to Forest 47 01010011.1 Irene Rd New 4 lane road (divided) Germantown 0.90 $34,010,061 2041 TN-LSTP Hill-Irene Rd Extension Houston Levee Rd to Bray 50 01160001 Frank Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (undivided) Collierville 1.43 $26,754,895 2041 TN-LSTP Station Rd Germantown US-70/US-79/SR-1 to Old 67 00790022 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Bartlett 1.68 $52,641,142 2041 TN-LSTP Rd Extension Brownsville Rd Germantown Old Brownsville Rd to SR- 68 00790022.1 New 4 lane road (divided) Shelby Co 3.19 $105,305,592 2041 TN-LSTP Rd Extension 385 Germantown SR-385 to SR-14 (Austin 69 00790022.2 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Shelby Co 2.35 $43,940,831 2041 TN-LSTP Rd Extension Peay) Hacks Cross Poplar Pike to US-72/SR- 88 00990012 New 4 lane road (divided) Germantown 0.68 $17,490,689 2041 TN-LSTP Rd Extension 57 (Poplar Ave) US-72/SR-57 (Poplar Ave) 90 02910011 Highland St to SR-23 (Walnut Grove Widen from 4 to 6 lanes (divided) Memphis 0.29 $4,140,659 2041 TN-LSTP Rd) Kirby Parkway to Riverdale 95 00160017.1 Holmes Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Shelby Co 1.00 $18,582,735 2041 TN-LSTP Rd Riverdale Rd to Hacks 96 00160018 Holmes Rd Widen to 4 lanes (divided) Shelby Co 2.01 $37,547,380 2041 TN-LSTP Cross Rd 614 00160022.2 Holmes Rd Reynolds to Byhalia Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Collierville 2.50 $50,682,833 2041 TN-LSTP 615 00160024.1 Holmes Rd Byhalia to US 72 New 4 lane road Collierville 3.10 $71,237,581 2041 TN-LSTP 00160019 - Hacks Cross Rd to 97 Holmes Rd Widen to 4 lanes Shelby Co 3.55 $66,197,678 2041 TN-LSTP 00160022.1 Reynolds 98 01430006 Horn Lake Rd Stateline Rd to Holmes Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Memphis 1.20 $22,440,730 2041 TN-LSTP Houston Levee Center Hill to SR-175 99 01090001.1 New 4 lane road (divided) Shelby Co 4.64 $133,283,215 2041 TN-LSTP Rd (Shelby Dr) US-72/SR-57 (Poplar Ave) Houston Levee 511 01090006.1 to 750 feet north of Poplar Widen from 2 to 3 lanes northbound Collierville 0.34 $2,959,300 2041 TN-LSTP Rd Ave 8-36
Table 8.8 Highway Projects – Vision Projects *Refer to Table 8.3 for updated funding categories under MAP-21. TIP Length Estimated Project Completion Funding ID LRTP No. Facility Termini Type of Improvement Jurisdiction No. (Miles) Cost (inflated) Date Source 170 02220007 Macon Rd Houston Levee to SR-385 Widen to 4 lanes (divided) Shelby Co 5.18 $96,669,121 2041 TN-LSTP Winchester to US-72/SR- 608 02920001 Market Blvd New 4 lane road Collierville 0.57 $14,166,518 2041 TN-LSTP 57 (Poplar) 02920003 - Green Oaks Ln to Fox Run 515 Market Blvd Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Collierville 0.51 $10,886,058 2041 TN-LSTP 02920004 Dr 176 02930003 McVay Rd Messick Rd to Riverdale Rd Geometric Improvement Germantown 0.31 $3,447,718 2041 TN-LSTP Canada Rd to Chambers 185 02940001 New E-W Rd New 4 lane road (divided) Lakeland 2.15 $49,389,300 2041 TN-LSTP Chapel Rd
North Second Street will be a four lane divided roadway from Henry Avenue to STP- Harvester Lane. Whitney Ave from M- North Second Harvester Lane to US 51 will be 610 02540002-5 Levee Rd to US-51/SR-3 Memphis 2.70 $116,793,141 2041 TN-LSTP 2000- Street reconstructed as a four lane undivided 09 roadway with left turn lanes as necessary. This project will be undertaken in phases as funding allows.
01460009 - Old Kirby Whitten to 191 Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Bartlett 2.48 $55,533,983 2041 TN-LSTP 01460010 Brownsville Rd Germantown 192 00680013 Park Ave Getwell Rd to Goodlett St Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Memphis 0.25 $4,032,103 2041 TN-LSTP 193 00550008.2 Perkins Rd Chip Rd to Park Ave Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Memphis 0.26 $7,846,279 2041 TN-LSTP Pleasant Hill 197 01990009 Stateline Rd to Holmes Rd Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Memphis 1.00 $21,437,537 2041 TN-LSTP Rd West St/Germantown Rd 210 00680017.1 Poplar Pike to US-72/SR-57 (Poplar Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Germantown 4.26 $102,581,433 2041 TN-LSTP Ave) 611 01310001 Progress Road Shelby Dr to US-72/SR-86 New 4 lane road Collierville 0.41 $9,421,745 2041 TN-LSTP Interchange at SR-176 211 60090001 Raines Rd Construct new interchange Memphis 0.00 $66,749,718 2041 TN-LSTP (Getwell Rd) SR-175 (Byhalia Rd) to 230 00180025.1 Shelby Dr Widen from 2 to 6 lanes (divided) Collierville 0.25 $8,599,078 2041 TN-LSTP Sycamore Rd Peterson Lake to 231 02280011 Shelton Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Collierville 0.79 $18,262,029 2041 TN-LSTP Collierville Arlington Rd 01270006 - SR-175 SR-385 to US-72/SR-57 14 Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Collierville 0.87 $15,258,824 2041 TN-LSTP 01270007 (Byhalia Rd) (Poplar Ave) 00410017 - SR-176 75 American Way to Park Ave Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Memphis 2.11 $43,250,265 2041 TN-LSTP 00410021 (Getwell Rd)
8-37
Table 8.8 Highway Projects – Vision Projects *Refer to Table 8.3 for updated funding categories under MAP-21. TIP Length Estimated Project Completion Funding ID LRTP No. Facility Termini Type of Improvement Jurisdiction No. (Miles) Cost (inflated) Date Source SR-177 58 00790004.3 (Germantown Stout Rd to Poplar Pike Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Germantown 0.52 $8,365,244 2041 TN-SSTP Rd) SR-196 213 2590010 (Hickory Withe US-64/SR-15 to I-40 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Fayette Co 5.14 $99,151,722 2041 TN-SSTP Rd) SR-204 00570003 - 30 (Covington I-40 to SR-14 (Stage Rd) Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Memphis 2.72 $43,001,723 2041 TN-LSTP 00570006 Pike) SR-204 00570008 - SR-14 (Austin Peay) to SR- 232 (Singleton Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Shelby Co 6.11 $109,735,693 2041 TN-LSTP 00570011 385 (Paul Barrett) Pkwy) SR-277 US-78/SR-4 (Lamar Ave) 3 01870023 Widen from 5 to 6 lanes Memphis 0.64 $15,014,111 2041 TN-LSTP (Airways Blvd) to S Parkway SR-277 4 01870023.1 S Parkway to Young Ave Widen from 5 to 6 lanes Memphis 0.34 $6,586,376 2041 TN-LSTP (Airways Blvd) SR-175 (Byhalia Rd) to SR- 221 00730019 SR-385 Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes Collierville 4.36 $76,351,697 2041 TN-IM 57 (Poplar Ave) SR-57 (Poplar Ave) to 222 00730020 SR-385 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Collierville 4.49 $90,842,170 2041 TN-IM Raleigh Lagrange Rd Raleigh Lagrange Rd to SR- 223 00730021 SR-385 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Shelby Co 3.71 $50,584,965 2041 TN-IM 193 (Macon Rd) SR-193 (Macon Rd) to US- 224 00730022 SR-385 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Shelby Co 3.94 $58,086,194 2041 TN-IM 64/SR-15 Interchange at Shelton 613 60040003 SR-385 New Interchange Collierville 0.35 $61,442,727 2041 TN-IM Road 00730006 - Forest Hill-Irene Rd to SR- 220 SR-385 Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes Shelby Co 3.91 $62,517,609 2041 TN-IM 00730007 175 (Byhalia Rd) MS Stateline to Crumpler 622 00140018 Stateline Rd New 5 lane road Memphis 1.00 $22,979,865 2041 TN-LSTP Road Salem Terrace Rd to SR- 518 01210008 Stewart Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Lakeland 1.17 $21,927,981 2041 TN-LSTP 385 00450005 - Sycamore View US-70/US-79/SR-1 to Widen from 6 to 7 lanes, add NB 242 Memphis 0.11 $1,869,383 2041 TN-LSTP 00450008 Rd Pleasant View Rd through lane Babe Howard to Veterans 107 00250014 US-51/SR-3 Access Management Millington 2.31 $16,702,209 2041 TN-NHS Parkway 114 01320027.1 US-64/SR-15 SR-385 to Sammons Widen from 4 to 6 lanes (divided) Arlington 1.53 $19,721,464 2041 TN-SSTP 01320024 - 113 US-64/SR-15 Canada Rd to SR-385 Widen from 5 to 6 lanes (divided) Memphis 4.40 $56,862,924 2041 TN-SSTP 01320026
8-38
Table 8.8 Highway Projects – Vision Projects *Refer to Table 8.3 for updated funding categories under MAP-21. TIP Length Estimated Project Completion Funding ID LRTP No. Facility Termini Type of Improvement Jurisdiction No. (Miles) Cost (inflated) Date Source US-70/US- Milton Wilson Rd to SR- 514 01200037 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Galloway 6.85 $127,989,251 2041 TN-SSTP 79/SR-1 159 US-72/SR-57 Bedford Ln to Houston 207 01120034.1 Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Collierville 0.45 $6,482,128 2041 TN-NHS (Poplar Ave) Levee Rd US-72/SR-57 SR-175 (Byhalia Rd) to US- 206 01120037 Construct new WB lane Collierville 0.26 $4,513,512 2041 TN-NHS (Poplar Ave) 72/SR-86 US-72/SR-57 Brachton Ave to Ashmont 204 01120039.3 Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Germantown 0.57 $8,233,907 2041 TN-NHS (Poplar Ave) Dr US-72/SR-57 Ashmont Dr to Forest Hill- 205 01120039.4 Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Germantown 0.33 $4,760,270 2041 TN-NHS (Poplar Ave) Irene Rd US-72/SR-57 Kirby Parkway to New 516 01120028 Widen to 7 lanes Germantown 0.87 $11,963,211 2041 TN-SSTP (Poplar Ave) Riverdale Road US-72/SR-57 Houston Levee Rd to 517 01120035.1 Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Collierville 0.55 $7,961,892 2041 TN-SSTP (Poplar Ave) Bailey Station Rd US-72/SR-57 Bailey Station Rd to Bray 208 01120036.1 Construct new EB lane Collierville 1.03 $13,308,084 2041 TN-SSTP (Poplar Ave) Station Rd US-78/SR-4 163 00820014.1 S Parkway to Trezevant St Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Memphis 0.53 $20,863,089 2041 TN-NHS (Lamar Ave) State of Tennessee Total $2,924,961,497 State of Mississippi 02840001 - 18 Center Hill Rd US-78 to State Line Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) DeSoto Co 6.53 $121,991,854 2041 MS-LSTP 02840005 MS- LSTP- Goodman Rd (MS 302) to 602 00770007 Craft Rd Widen from 3 to 5 lanes DeSoto Co 1.00 $14,362,415 2041 MS-SFP 2004- US 78 01 00770002 - 32 Craft Rd I-269 to Church Rd Widen from 2 to 5 lanes DeSoto Co 4.35 $93,714,761 2041 MS-SSTP 00770004 42 00110001 Fogg Rd MS-304 to Dean Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) DeSoto Co 3.05 $57,000,020 2041 MS-SSTP Pleasant Hill 195 01990005 Church Rd to Nail Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Olive Branch 1.00 $18,724,183 2041 MS-SFP Rd 01990003 - Pleasant Hill 194 Bethel Rd to Church Rd New 2 lane road DeSoto Co 3.40 $48,791,410 2041 MS-SSTP 01990004 Rd MS- MS-747 (Getwell Rd) to 00040012 - NHS- Star Landing 239 MS-305 (Germantown Rd) New 2 lane road DeSoto Co 6.03 $91,132,377 2041 MS-SSTP 00040014 2008- Rd at Jones Rd 02 621 00140016 Stateline Rd US-78 to State Line New 5 lane road Olive Branch 0.50 $11,489,932 2041 MS-LSTP
8-39
Table 8.8 Highway Projects – Vision Projects *Refer to Table 8.3 for updated funding categories under MAP-21. TIP Length Estimated Project Completion Funding ID LRTP No. Facility Termini Type of Improvement Jurisdiction No. (Miles) Cost (inflated) Date Source 00030007 - 109 US-61 I-69 to Church Rd Widen from 4 to 6 lanes (divided) DeSoto Co 5.80 $74,996,290 2041 MS-NHS 00030008 00030009 - 110 US-61 Church Rd to State Line Widen from 4 to 6 lanes (divided) Walls 4.78 $61,808,165 2041 MS-NHS 00030011 State of Mississippi Total $594,011,409 Total All Vision Projects $3,518,972,906
8-40 CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Figure 8.1 Highway Projects
8-41
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Table 8.9 Non-Transit Capital Costs vs. Revenues by Horizon Year Adjusted for Inflation
Project Funding Source 2011-2014 2015-2020 2021-2030 2031-2040 2011-2040 Plan Summary Cost Revenue Balance Cost Revenue Balance Cost Revenue Balance Cost Revenue Balance Cost Revenue Balance State of Tennessee Surface Transportation Program (State) State STP $ 23,007,568 $ 23,007,568 $ - $ 82,578,888 $ 132,864,605 $ 50,285,716 $ 275,762,146 $ 281,168,537 $ 5,406,391 $ 373,722,975 $ 377,867,002 $ 4,144,027 $ 755,071,578 $ 814,907,712 $ 59,836,134 BRR-S $ 16,200,000 $ 16,200,000 $ - $ 29,485,022 $ 29,485,022 $ - $ 62,396,305 $ 62,396,305 $ - $ 83,855,417 $ 83,855,417 $ - $ 191,936,744 $ 191,936,744 $ - BRBD $ 1,195,859 $ 1,195,859 $ - $ 3,640,126 $ 3,640,126 $ - $ 7,703,248 $ 7,703,248 $ - $ 10,352,521 $ 10,352,521 $ - $ 22,891,753 $ 22,891,753 $ - Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality CMAQ (State) $ 16,150,000 $ 16,150,000 $ - $ 11,648,404 $ 11,648,404 $ - $ 24,650,392 $ 24,650,392 $ - $ 33,128,066 $ 33,128,066 $ - $ 85,576,862 $ 85,576,862 $ - National Highway Performance Program NHS $ 108,833,883 $ 108,833,883 $ - $ 105,020,303 $ 105,020,303 - $ 168,645,914 $ 177,174,695 $ 8,528,780 $ 235,320,266 $ 238,107,974 $ 2,787,708 $ 617,820,366 $ 629,136,854 $ 11,316,488 IM $ 81,557,300 $ 81,557,300 $ - $ 170,477,235 $ 174,726,055 $ 4,248,821 $ 369,281,980 $ 369,755,884 $ 473,905 $ 489,011,384 $ 496,920,989 $ 7,909,605 $ 1,110,327,898 $ 1,122,960,229 $ 12,632,331 Highway Safety Improvement Program HSIP $ 9,000,000 $ 9,000,000 $ - $ 16,380,568 $ 16,380,568 $ - $ 34,664,614 $ 34,664,614 $ - $ 46,586,343 $ 46,586,343 $ - $ 106,631,525 $ 106,631,525 $ - Discretionary Funds ARRA $ 597,820 $ 597,820 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 597,820 $ 597,820 $ - HPP $ 78,735,835 $ 78,735,835 $ - $ 162,590,003 $ 171,813,955 $ 9,223,951 $ 330,054,168 $ 363,593,286 $ 33,539,118 $ 488,336,014 $ 488,638,973 $ 302,959 $ 1,059,716,020 $ 1,102,782,048 $ 43,066,028 HPP/NCIIP/CESA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,969,969,925 $ 2,969,969,925 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,969,969,925 $ 2,969,969,925 $ - Subtotal $ 335,278,265 $ 335,278,265 $ - $ 581,820,548 $ 645,579,037 $ 63,758,488 $ 4,243,128,692 $ 4,291,076,886 $ 47,948,194 $ 1,760,312,985 $ 1,775,457,284 $ 15,144,299 $ 6,920,540,491 $ 7,047,391,472 $ 126,850,981 State of Mississippi Surface Transportation Program (State) State STP $ 75,587,474 $ 75,587,474 $ - $ 128,151,312 $ 128,151,312 $ - $ 186,950,796 $ 266,724,948 $ 79,774,152 $ 255,454,235 $ 358,456,026 $ 103,001,791 $ 646,143,817 $ 828,919,760 $ 182,775,943 STP Bond $ 199,800,000 $ 199,800,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 199,800,000 $ 199,800,000 $ - High Hazard STP $ - $ - $ - $ 27,300,946 $ 27,300,946 $ - $ 57,774,357 $ 57,774,357 $ - $ 77,643,905 $ 77,643,905 $ - $ 162,719,208 $ 162,719,208 $ - National Highway Performance Program NHS $ 9,200,000 $ 9,200,000 $ - $ 18,917,914 $ 24,570,852 $ 5,652,938 $ 48,800,346 $ 51,996,921 $ 3,196,576 $ 67,522,561 $ 69,879,514 $ 2,356,953 $ 144,440,821 $ 155,647,287 $ 11,206,466 IM $ 11,500,000 $ 11,500,000 $ - $ 97,710,824 $ 109,203,785 $ 11,492,960 $ 229,615,862 $ 231,097,428 $ 1,481,566 $ 94,902,571 $ 310,575,618 $ 215,673,048 $ 433,729,257 $ 662,376,831 $ 228,647,574 Transportation Alternatives Program Safe Routes to School $ - $ - $ - $ 728,025 $ 728,025 $ - $ 1,540,650 $ 1,540,650 $ - $ 2,070,504 $ 2,070,504 $ - $ 4,339,179 $ 4,339,179 $ - Discretionary Funds Federal Stimulus $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Earmark (CESA) $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ - HPP/NCIIP/CESA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 174,704,113 $ 174,704,113 $ - $ - $ - $ 174,704,113 $ 174,704,113 $ - State Funding Sources State Funded $ 16,700,000 $ 16,700,000 $ - $ 55,050,425 $ 55,050,425 $ - $ 88,967,729 $ 90,898,322 $ 1,930,593 $ 53,799,291 $ 122,159,743 $ 68,360,452 $ 214,517,445 $ 284,808,490 $ 70,291,045 Subtotal $ 313,287,474 $ 313,287,474 $ - $ 327,859,446 $ 345,005,344 $ 17,145,898 $ 788,353,852 $ 874,736,738 $ 86,382,886 $ 551,393,067 $ 940,785,310 $ 389,392,243 $ 1,980,893,839 $ 2,473,814,867 $ 492,921,028 Metropolitan Planning Organization Surface Transportation Program (Local) TN Local STP $ 193,351,758 $ 193,351,758 $ - $ 134,634,468 $ 145,904,177 $ 11,269,710 $ 307,688,028 $ 308,762,926 $ 1,074,897 $ 381,081,435 $ 414,951,553 $ 33,870,119 $ 1,016,755,688 $ 1,062,970,414 $ 46,214,726 TN BRR-L $ 2,040,000 $ 2,040,000 $ - $ 3,712,929 $ 3,712,929 $ - $ 7,857,313 $ 7,857,313 $ - $ 10,559,571 $ 10,559,571 $ - $ 24,169,812 $ 24,169,812 $ - MS Urban STP $ 29,336,294 $ 29,336,294 $ - $ 13,253,101 $ 13,955,334 $ 702,232 $ 29,365,268 $ 29,532,325 $ 167,057 $ 36,054,627 $ 39,688,976 $ 3,634,349 $ 108,009,290 $ 112,512,929 $ 4,503,639 Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality TN CMAQ (Local) $ 47,140,246 $ 47,140,246 $ - $ 61,772,941 $ 61,772,941 $ - $ 130,724,112 $ 130,724,112 $ - $ 175,682,275 $ 175,682,275 $ - $ 415,319,573 $ 415,319,573 $ - Transportation Alternatives Program TN ENH $ 4,680,966 $ 4,680,966 $ - $ 7,192,558 $ 9,100,315 $ 1,907,757 $ 5,945,430 $ 19,258,119 $ 13,312,689 $ - $ 25,881,302 $ 25,881,302 $ 17,818,954 $ 58,920,702 $ 41,101,748 Discretionary Funds TN TCSP $ 1,180,750 $ 1,180,750 $ - $ - $ 9,100,315 $ 9,100,315 $ 8,043,254 $ 19,258,119 $ 11,214,865 $ 17,193,489 $ 25,881,302 $ 8,687,813 $ 26,417,493 $ 55,420,486 $ 29,002,993 TN FBD $ 669,034 $ 669,034 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 669,034 $ 669,034 $ - TN FEMA $ - $ - $ - $ 12,915,235 $ 14,560,505 $ 1,645,269 $ - $ 30,812,990 $ 30,812,990 $ - $ 41,410,082 $ 41,410,082 $ 12,915,235 $ 86,783,577 $ 73,868,342 TN DEMO $ 2,951,785 $ 2,951,785 $ - $ 5,387,387 $ 5,387,387 $ 11,400,806 $ 11,400,806 $ 15,321,731 $ 15,321,731 $ 2,951,785 $ 35,061,709 $ 32,109,924 Subtotal $ 281,350,833 $ 281,350,833 $ - $ 233,481,232 $ 263,493,903 $ 30,012,670 $ 489,623,404 $ 557,606,710 $ 67,983,305 $ 620,571,396 $ 749,376,791 $ 128,805,395 $ 1,625,026,865 $ 1,851,828,236 $ 226,801,371 Total Non-Transit $ 929,916,572 $ 929,916,572 $ - $ 1,143,161,227 $ 1,254,078,284 $ 110,917,057 $ 5,521,105,948 $ 5,723,420,334 $ 202,314,386 $ 2,932,277,448 $ 3,465,619,385 $ 533,341,937 $ 10,526,461,195 $ 11,373,034,575 $ 846,573,380
8-42
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
8.2.4 Transit Funding As with the non-transit portion of this plan, transit funding is composed of capital and operating revenues as well as capital and operating costs. Table 8.10 reflects the proposed costs and revenues for transit projects through the planning year 2040 for transit capital projects and maintenance.
Transit Operations and Maintenance Funding Currently, MATA receives operations and maintenance revenue from Federal funding sources such as 5307 Preventative Maintenance, 5303 Metropolitan and Statewide Planning, 5307 ADA Paratransit, and 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC). In addition, operations and maintenance revenue is provided from Tennessee State operating funds, City of Memphis operating funds, and funds generated by MATA such as fare box revenues, advertising, and leases.
To project the operations and maintenance funding levels through the 2040 planning year, data was compiled from MATA FY 2009, FY 2010, and FY 2011 approved budgets, and the Memphis MPO 2011-2014 TIP. Even though funding for advertising and leases can vary greatly from year to year historical averages have been included in the projections. However, this historical data was the best resource available for both operating and capital funding and was used as a basis for funding projections. The funding projections were inflated 3% per year through the 2040 planning year and are as shown in Table 8.11.
Table 8.10 Transit Costs and Revenues (in Thousands of Dollars) Costs Revenue Period Difference Capital Operations Total Capital Operations Total 2011-2014 $264,363 $243,615 $507,978 $264,363 $243,615 $507,978 $0 2015-2020 $905,362 $423,932 $1,329,295 $905,362 $423,932 $1,329,295 $0 2021-2030 $1,193,004 $897,127 $2,090,131 $1,193,004 $897,127 $2,090,131 $0 2031-2040 $1,737,032 $1,205,664 $2,942,696 $1,737,032 $1,205,664 $2,942,696 $0 Totals $4,099,761 $2,770,338 $6,870,099 $4,099,761 $2,770,338 $6,870,099 $0
Table 8.11 Transit Operations and Maintenance Revenues (in Thousands of Dollars) 5303 5307 Metro & 5307 ADA 5316 State Memphis Farebox Period Preventative Advertising Total Statewide Paratransit JARC Operating Operating Recovery Maintenance Planning Annual Average $14,024 $191 $1,913 $1,275 $8,318 $22,180 $9,934 $395 $58,230 2011-2014 $58,673 $800 $8,002 $5,335 $34,800 $92,793 $41,558 $1,653 $243,615 2015-2020 $102,101 $1,393 $13,925 $9,283 $60,559 $161,476 $72,319 $2,877 $423,932 2021-2030 $216,066 $2,947 $29,468 $19,645 $128,154 $341,716 $153,042 $6,089 $897,127 2031-2040 $290,374 $3,960 $39,603 $26,402 $172,229 $459,238 $205,676 $8,183 $1,205,664 Totals $667,213 $9,100 $90,998 $60,665 $395,742 $1,055,223 $472,595 $18,802 $2,770,338
Overall, there is expected to be approximately $424 million, $897 million, and $1.2 billion in transit operations and maintenance funding through the 2020, 2030, and 2040 horizon years, respectively. Operations and maintenance costs are expected to equal revenues through the planning horizon. However, the types of service improvements suggested in this document may require more funding than is presently available.
8-43
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Transit Capital Funding Transit funding has been divided into fixed guideway and non-fixed guideway for the purposes of this analysis. Each of these groups has their own unique assumptions and issues that must be addressed.
Non-fixed Guideway Capital Funding Non-fixed guideway capital funding data was obtained from the Memphis MPO 2011-2014 TIP. Non-fixed guideway transit projects in this region are funded using sources such as CMAQ, 5307 grants, 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities, 5316 JARC funds, and 5317 New Freedom grants. CMAQ funding can be used for a variety of projects such as Ozone Alert programs, school bus retrofits, transit, bicycle and pedestrian projects, traffic signal projects, or HOV lanes. As a result, CMAQ funds were projected to continue as a transit funding source through the life of the plan.
In order to determine the annual funding amount used for projecting non-fixed guideway capital transit funding, the average annual capital costs during 2011-2014 were determined. This amount was then grown by 3% annually after 2014 in order to account for inflation. The funding is summarized in Table 8.12.
Table 8.12 Non-Fixed Guideway Transit Capital Revenues (in Thousands of Dollars) 5307 Large 5309 Bus and 5316 5317 New Period CMAQ Total Urban Cities Bus Facilities JARC Freedom 2011-2014 Average $23,327 $28,603 $2,150 $766 $750 $55,596 2011-2014 $93,309 $114,412 $8,600 $3,063 $3,000 $222,384 2015-2020 $172,029 $221,520 $15,762 $5,260 $5,460 $420,030 2021-2030 $364,047 $468,781 $33,355 $11,131 $11,555 $888,870 2031-2040 $489,249 $630,003 $44,826 $14,959 $15,529 $1,194,567 Totals $1,118,634 $1,434,716 $102,543 $34,413 $35,544 $2,725,850
Overall, there is approximately $420 million, $889 million, and $1.2 billion available through the 2020, 2030, and 2040 horizon years, respectively, for non-fixed guideway capital transit projects.
Fixed Guideway Capital Funding Fixed Guideway capital projects such as bus rapid transit (BRT) and light rail (LRT) are evaluated separately from other transit capital projects due to their large scopes and variable timelines. Federal regulations require a separate Alternatives Analysis study for each corridor in which alternative technologies and alternative alignments are evaluated. Based on the results of an Alternatives Analysis, a technology and an alignment are determined. As detailed in Chapter 5, there are several corridors either currently being evaluated for fixed guideway projects or planned for evaluation during the planning period. They consist of the following:
. Downtown - Airport light rail line – TIP and CIP funding has been partially allocated for this project. The project could be constructed as either LRT or BRT. . Southeast Corridor – Could follow the Norfolk-Southern Railroad alignment, or some other alignment, and be constructed as LRT or BRT. The length varies based on the route and mode selected. The costs are estimated to range from $1.5 billion for the LRT to $180 million for the BRT. . South Corridor – This project could consist of a southward extension of the Downtown to Airport LRT, a combination of freight railroad and freeway right-of-way southward from downtown Memphis, or some other alignment, and be constructed as LRT or BRT. The length of the corridor could also vary. The cost for this project could range from approximately $520 million for LRT to $80 million for BRT. These large capital project costs have the effects of inflation included in them already, and as a result are not increased annually at 3%. For these corridors, a funding mechanism is not currently in place that would provide
8-44
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN revenue for these projects. 5309 New Starts money or other innovative financing measure should be explored as a means to fund these projects. Federal funds for LRT and BRT projects are available through the Section 5309- New Starts program. At the present time the typical federal share approved is about 50%, although SAFETEA- LU allows up to 80% federal share. Therefore, a range of 50% to 80% of federal funds has been assumed to project the funding scenario for fixed guideway projects. It is assumed for the purposes of this plan that each of these large fixed guideway capital transit projects will be funded and financially constrained within the 2040 planning horizon.
In addition to these large capital projects, there are also smaller annual capital projects such as rail facility improvements and fixed guideway modernization that, at a growth rate of 3% annually to account for inflation, have a total cost of approximately $84 million. Table 8.13 provides a summary by horizon year of the expected fixed guideway revenue and costs.
8-45
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Table 8.13 Fixed Guideway Transit Capital Revenue and Costs (in Thousands of Dollars)
Rail Facility Improvements Fixed Guideway Modernization Downtown to Airport LRT Southeast Corridor BRT South Corridor BRT/LRT* Total Period Revenue Cost Balance Revenue Cost Balance Revenue Cost Balance Revenue Cost Balance Revenue Cost Balance Revenue Cost Balance 2011-2014 $1,340 $1,340 $0 $6,150 $6,150 $0 $34,490 $34,490 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,980 $41,980 $0 2015-2020 $2,332 $2,332 $0 $10,490 $10,490 $0 $465,510 $465,510 $0 $7,000 $7,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $485,332 $485,332 $0 2021-2030 $4,935 $4,935 $0 $22,199 $22,199 $0 $0 $0 $0 $263,000 $263,000 $0 $14,000 $14,000 $0 $304,134 $304,134 $0 2031-2040 $6,632 $6,632 $0 $29,834 $29,834 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $506,000 $506,000 $0 $542,466 $542,466 $0 $1,373,911 $1,373,911 Totals $15,238 $15,238 $0 $68,672 $68,672 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $270,000 $270,000 $0 $520,000 $520,000 $0 $0 Note: * Since the mode has not been determined through an Alternatives Analysis, the higher cost for the LRT was assumed.
8-46
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
8.3 Alternative Funding Strategies Based on the fiscally constrained scenario presented in this financial plan, the total projected cost for all non- transit capital projects within the Memphis MPO Area is approximately $10.8 billion. In addition, there are over $3.5 billion in highway projects contained in the non-fiscally constrained Vision Plan. Further, unmet transit needs exist in both capital and operational categories. Based on the level of unmet needs, it is important to identify potential funding sources for these projects as well as for projects from other modes.
State and Federal revenues allocated by formula will not sufficiently fund a systematic program of constructing transportation projects and providing congestion relief in the Memphis MPO region. In addition, discussions regarding funding of the future transportation bills in Congress have emphasized the inability of the Highway Trust Fund to continue to provide all of the funding for transportation projects. Therefore, the Memphis MPO and local jurisdictions may desire to pursue alternative funding measures to supplement existing revenue streams.
Historically, public support for developer impact fees, higher gas taxes, and toll roads have received the highest level of community support. Several new funding sources may be considered and are outlined in the following discussion. However, a mix of funding strategies may be more palatable to the region as it does not focus the burden on one revenue source.
Local Option Sales Tax Local governments may elect to adopt a general-purpose sales tax to fund transportation improvements. This, however, requires state legislative authority. For Shelby County, a ½ cent sales tax could potentially generate $63 million per year (estimated based on similar sized counties and retail employees). This has been a popular option in many other communities across the country.
The revenue stream should grow in proportion to population growth, and will keep pace with inflation because the tax is a set percentage of the price of goods sold.
Vehicle Registration Fees A vehicle registration fee is a surcharge collected by the Division of Motor Vehicles at the time of vehicle registration and registration renewal within a defined jurisdiction. It is usually a fixed dollar amount. The fee can be levied on any combination of vehicle types (private, commercial, etc.). Currently, all vehicles in Shelby County are assessed a $50 wheel tax when registered. The majority of this tax is used to fund non-transportation needs. Shelby County should consider reallocation of a portion of these funds to meet the needs for transportation projects. The surrounding counties should also consider this as a source of funding.
Real Estate Transfer Tax A real estate transfer tax is a surcharge levied on the sale of certain classes of property – residential, commercial or industrial – that increases with the size of the property being sold. Sometimes sellers who have typically seen the value of their homes rise over the years will end up paying this tax. Other times the cost is imposed on buyers who, it is argued, are making an investment in the future of a community.
Local jurisdictions must get special legislative approval for any additional tax. At the local level, the real estate transfer tax can create substantial funds for infrastructure improvements, particularly in fast-growing communities. On the other hand, it can also inflate real estate values and slow the market. Since revenues from the tax fluctuate with the real estate market, income can be difficult to predict. In addition, winning approval in the face of special interest opposition has proven to be a stumbling block for some communities. With the current state of the housing and retail markets in the Memphis area, this may not be a viable alternative in the near term. However, it should be considered as an option once the economic conditions improve.
8-47
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Rental Car Fee A rental car fee is a surcharge added to all rental car bills within a defined jurisdiction. The fee, usually a fixed dollar amount, is often levied on both visitors and local residents, who may be renting a car as a replacement for a disabled/damaged personal vehicle. The rental car fee can be assessed based on gross revenues to fund future transit and highway infrastructure projects. Each car rental business is responsible for collecting and remitting the fee to the associated counties on a monthly basis. One benefit of the rental car fee is that a substantial portion of the revenues can be expected to be generated from airport rentals, which tend to be made by out of state travelers.
Impact Fees Developer impact fees and system development charges provide another funding option for communities looking for ways to fund collector streets and associated infrastructure. They are most commonly used for water and wastewater system connections or police and fire protection services, but they have been used to fund school systems and pay for the impacts of increased traffic on existing roads. Impact fees place the costs of new development directly on developers and indirectly on those who buy property in the new developments. Impact fees free other taxpayers from the obligation to fund costly new public services that do not directly benefit them. The use of impact fees requires special legislative authorization.
Transportation Bonds Transportation bonds have been instrumental in the strategic implementation of local roadways and non- motorized travel throughout the southeast. Voters in communities both large and small regularly approve the use of bonds in order to improve their transportation system. Projects that historically have been funded through transportation bonds include sidewalks, road extensions, new road construction, transit, and streetscape enhancements.
Developer Contributions Through diligent planning and early project identification, regulations, policies, and procedures can be developed to protect future arterial corridors and require contributions from developers when the property is developed. These measures reduce the cost of right-of-way and in some cases require the developer to make improvements to the roadway that would result in a lower cost when the improvement is actually constructed. Within Shelby County, developers are generally required to construct the improvements within and adjacent to their property, or pay a fee in lieu of providing the improvements. Other counties may want to consider implementing similar requirements as development activity increases in those communities.
Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles (GARVEE) Bonds GARVEE Bonds can be utilized by a community to implement a desired project more quickly than if they waited to receive state or federal funds. These bonds are let with the anticipation that federal or state funding will be forthcoming. In this manner, the community pays for the project up front, and then receives debt service from the state. GARVEE bonds also are a way to capitalize on lower present-day construction and design costs, thereby finishing a project more quickly and economically than if it was delayed to meet state timelines. Mississippi DOT funded the design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of portions of I-69/I-269 using a similar program entitled Highway Enhancement through Local Partnerships. H.E.L.P. bonds have been issued in cooperation with DeSoto County and the Marshall County Industrial Development Authority.
Toll Facilities The Tennessee legislature adopted legislation to consider the construction of toll facilities for four specific projects. TDOT is in the process of studying the feasibility of constructing toll bridges in Chattanooga and Memphis. Toll facilities allow agencies to design, construct and operate projects while using the toll concessions to offset the cost of constructing and operating the facility. The proposed third highway bridge over the
8-48
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Mississippi River, the Southern Gateway project, is one of the facilities that is being studied to determine the feasibility of constructing and operating it as a toll facility.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Funding Bicycle and pedestrian projects are often eligible for their own funding sources. For instance, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funds a grant program called Active Living by Design. The purpose of this program is to provide communities with a small grant to study bicycle, pedestrian, or other healthy living initiatives. There are other such grant programs in existence for bicycle and pedestrian projects, which would help to supplement the funding currently received by these modes through the Transportation Enhancement Program or the CMAQ program.
Transportation Enhancement Grants State and federal grants can play an important role in implementing strategic elements of the transportation network. Several grants have multiple applications, including Transportation Enhancement Grants as well as State and Federal Transit Grants. The Enhancement Grant program, established by Congress in 1991 through the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), ensures the implementation of projects not typically associated with the road-building mindset. While the construction of roads is not the intent of the grant, the construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities is one of many enhancements that the grant targets and could continue to play an important role in enhancing the pedestrian safety and connectivity in the Memphis region, provided this funding source is continued in future transportation legislation.
8.4 Performance Measures While the goals and objectives outlined in Chapter 1 – Introduction provides the framework for the LRTP, it is important to continuously monitor the performance of the transportation improvements and programs to determine if the Memphis MPO is achieving its goals and objectives. Monitoring the S.M.A.R.T. Goals progress towards achieving these goals and objectives is helped by developing Specific S.M.A.R.T. goals and objectives during the planning process. Making the goals Measureable measureable aids in establishing performance measures for the LRTP. Attainable There are many tools available to assist with the development of performance measures. Realistic The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed a Guide to Sustainable imely Transportation Performance Measures that describes performance measures that can be T applied to transportation decision-making. EPA is also working on a Guidebook for Sustainable Community Performance Measures which will establish methodologies for determining calculable baselines for quantitative measure to assess the progress made towards achieving goals and/or objectives. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Operations has established the Operations Performance Measurement Program, which is ―leading numerous activities to advance the implementation and practice of operations performance measurement at the Federal, State, and local level.‖
By implementing a method that can effectively measure the performance of the LRTP’s goals and objectives, the Memphis MPO would be able to evaluate the progress of the strategies outlined in the LRTP and help refine the direction of future goals and objectives. The performance measures in Table 8.14 have been grouped by three of the planning themes used in the development of the Plan Goals and Objectives: Mobility/Accessibility, Safety, and Congestion/Air Quality. Table 8.14 illustrates some of the potential performance measures and the correlating LRTP objectives identified in Chapter 1 that could be used to establish quantitative benchmarks. Once the performance measures and related quantitative benchmarks are determined, the performance measures could be used to evaluate progress towards achieving the LRTP Goals and Objectives.
8-49
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Table 8.14 Potential Performance Measures Categories Potential Performance Related Objectives Measures Mobility/A . Vehicle hours traveled per . Encourage transit, bicycle, and pedestrian accessible site ccessibility capita or per licensed driver design . Homes within walking distance . Improve access to and within key activity population and to retail, service, and parks employment centers . Freeway Travel Time . Encourage projects that help stimulate more Reliability employment opportunities . Arterial Street Travel Time . Support Complete Streets design Reliability . Encourage jurisdictions to coordinate greenway plans . Transit Boardings and assist in seeking funding for projects . Passenger Trips per Vehicle . Improve mobility by providing transit services to meet Revenue Mile the needs of all citizens . Jobs Served by Transit . Increase the miles of dedicated bicycle facilities and signed bike routes . Continue to focus on the maintenance or improvement of existing facilities . Encourage access management plans that emphasize shared access (drives, corridors, roads) . Enhance the connectivity and integration of the transportation system between modes . Implement policies to encourage transit ridership and explore options to provide express transit routes Congestion . Annual Vehicle Emissions . Reduce congestion using strategies that support / Air . Vehicle Miles Traveled per reduction in vehicle miles traveled, reduction in air Quality Capita or per Licensed Driver pollutant emissions, and improves system operations . Transit Miles Traveled . Encourage transportation policies, programs, and . Passenger Trips per Transit investment strategies that positively affect the overall Service Hour health of people and the environment including air . Number of Van Pools or quality, physical activity, biodiversity, and natural Rideshare Participants resources . Miles of Bike Lanes . Support projects that will reduce mobile source emissions that contribute to climate change . Implement ITS solutions to disseminate real-time information for all modes of transportation Safety . Traffic Crash Fatalities by . Maintain safe and reasonable levels of service for Vehicle Type highway, rail, transit, trail, and aviation facilities . Bicycle and Pedestrian Crash . Support projects that reduce crashes for motorized and Fatalities non-motorized system users . Speed Limit Compliance on . Support development of a system to track and monitor Freeways and Arterial Roads crash data and share with jurisdictions to help identify and prioritize solutions for problem areas . Identify transportation projects to eliminate unsafe conditions . Encourage plans and policies to increase safety
The quantitative benchmarks for these performance measures can be determined using the guidance in the EPA and FHWA documentation and resources such as the American Community Survey (ACS), existing traffic counts, U.S. Census Bureau’s ―OnTheMap‖ tool, and EPA’s approved mobile source emission model results for emissions data.
8-50
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The Memphis MPO should develop quantitative benchmark values for the selected performance measures. This will allow the MPO to establish quantitative objectives that could be measured as transportation improvements and programs are implemented.
8.5 Implementation It is recommended that attention be given to identifying alternative funding sources, careful evaluation of the feasibility of projects, garnering public support for critical projects, evaluation of the economic impact of projects, and investigation of phased implementation of improvements in order to implement this plan. Support must be provided to the agencies responsible for implementing the specific multimodal improvements.
8.5.1 Controlling Factors The execution of the implementation steps identified in this chapter may need to be phased and will be subject to a variety of factors that will determine their timing. These factors include:
. The availability of the personnel and financial resources necessary to implement the specific proposals. . Whether an implementation step is an independent project or program, or a component of the rational evaluation of a new development project. . The interdependence of the various implementation items, in particular, the degree to which implementing one item is dependent on the successful completion of another item. . The relative severity of the problem which a particular implementation item is designed to remedy. It is vital to the success of this plan that local municipalities continue to work with and educate local citizens and businesses. While public support can encourage implementation, opposition can significantly delay a project.
8.5.2 Action Plan Upon adoption of the plan, the following action items can be used to implement the recommendations of the Memphis Urban Area 2040 Long-Range Transportation Plan – Direction 2040 (LRTP). Where possible, early implementation will take advantage of momentum gained during this planning process.
1. Prioritize Projects - Use the existing Memphis MPO committees to prioritize projects and identify projects from this LRTP to be included in the next TIP. 2. Update Existing Plans - The MPO’s Congestion Management Plan, which contains the CMP strategies used in the LRTP, and the major roads plans of the MPO member jurisdictions, should be evaluated based on the input received during the development of the LRTP, and modified as appropriate. 3. Request inclusion of high-priority projects in the next update of the states’ Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). 4. Incorporate the findings of the Short Range Transit Master Plan - Incorporate the findings of the Short Range Transit Master Plan that is currently underway into the TIP, as appropriate. Develop an implementation plan for the long range transit needs identified, including additional service needs, fixed guideways, major infrastructure improvements, funding resources, and specific implementation strategies. 5. Use the Citizens Advisory Committee and the Freight Committee to encourage and educate the public, and aide in the implementation of this plan. 6. Coordinate with the development review processes of each MPO jurisdiction to integrate recommended street, bikeway, and greenway networks that create an interconnected network.
8-51
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
8.5.3 Key Relationships An important relationship exists between the community’s collective vision for the area and the plans, policies, and actions that ensure this vision becomes a desirable and functional reality. There is an understanding that the desired future is directly related to the types of transportation investments that will be made.
Another important relationship exists between the human and natural environments. It is essential that the region consider its irreplaceable natural resources when evaluating the impact of changes to its transportation system. It is inevitable that some projects will have an impact on the human and natural environments, but early screening of potential impacts of transportation projects will help to identify how to mitigate or avoid significant impacts that result from construction, pre-mature implementation, and development activities and reduce unnecessary delays and expenses throughout the implementation of the project.
The relationship between land use and transportation is also very important. How land use changes directly impacts the demand on the transportation system. This relationship was studied in detail for the region. Adherence to the long range land use plans for the member jurisdictions is key to controlling the demands placed on the transportation system.
These relationships are all related to the implementation of Smart Growth initiatives. The Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization supports the smart growth initiatives already underway — downtown reinvestment, transit-oriented development, traditional neighborhood development, and rural preservation — and promotes transportation investments that are sensitive to the overall goals of the plan. As the implementation of smart growth initiatives spread to other areas of the region, it is anticipated that this could result in lower vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled.
8.5.4 Recommendations The following recommendations are presented throughout the LRTP and are important to the successful fulfillment of the plan’s goals.
Land Use Integration Recommendations . Continue to support local initiatives that result in a more efficient, livable transportation system (street connectivity, transit system enhancements, smart growth, etc.). . Reinvest in existing infrastructure and promote infill development or redevelopment instead of sprawl out from the core of the community. . Seek state and federal funding support of activities to improve the quality of development and protect human health and the environment. Roadway Recommendations Roadway recommendations presented in Chapter 5 – Transportation Strategies of the plan include a variety of strategies aimed at reducing congestion and improving safety. With the number of projects identified and limited funds available for their implementation, project selection is very important. The recommendations summarized below should improve the quality of the transportation system for multiple modes of travel.
8-52
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Congestion Management Recommendations Congestion management is a major consideration for the Memphis region due to the status of the region’s air quality designation. Using the Congestion Management Plan process adopted by the Memphis MPO, a network of congested roadways was identified and strategies were applied to address the congestion. The following recommendations will help to implement those strategies.
. Regularly review the congested network to make sure the projects included in the TIP and LRTP will effectively reduce congestion. . Update the Congestion Management Plan including incorporating other congestion relief strategies and reviewing the effectiveness of the existing strategies. . Commit the time and resources to successfully implement carpooling, park and ride lots, HOV lanes, and growth management strategies. . Foster the interagency cooperation required to successfully implement the CMP strategies. Safety Recommendations Identify the intersections with the highest crash rates. Specific best practices to resolve safety related problems will vary based on the facility type and location. Therefore, once a problem location is identified, it is recommended that a safety audit review be performed. Federal funds are identified within SAFETEA-LU for addressing safety problems. State funds in Tennessee are available under the Spot Safety Fund and in both states under the Highway Safety Improvement Program.
For local governments to better identify and categorize crash data, it is recommended that crash data be incorporated into the Memphis MPO’s geographic information system (GIS) database. This step will allow a more complete and detailed analysis of the crash data. This data could be used to identify hot spots for specific crash types such as red light running, speed related crashes, or single vehicle crashes. This information may now be available in this format at the State level, but it is often unavailable for local use.
The need also exists for better sharing of safety data between the local and state agencies. Liability issues that potentially exist with this information would need to be resolved, but the sharing of this data in a useable format would allow the Memphis MPO to identify locations for safety improvements within its boundary.
Complete Street Recommendations The complete streets concepts attempt to incorporate all realms of travel safely and efficiently within the transportation system. Some of the recommendations to make this happen include:
. Transit Integration – Where land use and zoning policies will support transit oriented development, target those areas for high quality transit service to increase the benefits of access to all modes of transportation. . Enhance the Pedestrian Environment through providing high quality buffers between the pedestrians and moving traffic. . Road Typical Sections – adopt road typical sections that incorporate all modes of travel, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit. Access Management Recommendations The recommendations for access management can be implemented both with new developments and on existing roadways. In both cases, when properly applied access management can improve roadway safety for all modes of transportation and reduce congestion. The following items are a sample of the access management recommendations that can be employed:
. Shared Use Driveways – reduce the number of conflict points, making the roadway safer for all modes of transportation
8-53
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
. Improve On-Site Circulation – prevents internal circulation and congestion problems from affecting operations on the street. . Driveway Spacing – by keeping driveways as far from street intersections as possible and by spreading the access points as far apart as possible, the number of conflict points are reduced and access is allowed to occur in locations of reduced congestion. . Medians – improve traffic flow and make the roads safer by reducing the number of conflict points and by making the conflicts that occur less severe. Medians also help to reduce delays and provide a place of refuge for pedestrians. Properly landscaped medians will improve corridor aesthetics. . Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) – Technologies are available to assist with traffic flow management resulting in reduced congestion and delays and improve air quality. The region can proactively combat existing congestion by implementing appropriate types of access management, such as medians, shared use driveways, and coordinated signal systems.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Recommendations A proposed on-street bicycle network should be built based on the recommendations of the MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The routes identified in the bicycle and pedestrian plan should be implemented to provide a bicycle network that makes the best use of available street widths for bicycle commuting routes.
Throughout the region, it is recommended that pedestrian facilities provided along arterial roadways be separated from the roadway with landscape areas. This separation provides the pedestrian with a buffer that creates a safer walking environment.
A system of greenway trails has been identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan near the area rivers and along abandoned railroad lines. It is recommended that funding continue to be pursued to allow the development of more greenway trails. These trails not only provide recreational facilities, they help to preserve ecologically sensitive areas. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities should be coordinated with the transit routes to provide interconnection of these facilities.
Transit Recommendations The two most critical elements for transit to flourish in the region will be progressive planning and increased, preferably dedicated, funding. Many of the recommendations for transit in the Memphis area involve promoting transit as a safe, convenient, and dependable form of transportation. Long-term solutions target improvements for captive and choice riders to make sure transit exists as a sustainable transportation alternative.
Transit is a mode of transportation which cannot be considered in isolation. One way to support transit use on existing routes and services is to develop around each stop a safe, comfortable customer delivery system complete with attractive and convenient amenities including seating, shelter and information. Proximity to buildings is essential to minimize walking distance. And because most regular transit users walk or bike to and from the stop, a network of sidewalks, safe street crossings, bike facilities, multi-use paths, and pedestrian-level lighting should complement the amenities provided at the stop. The efficiency of transit also depends on an interconnected system of roads and highways that provide access to transit stops. Additional transit recommendations include:
. Enhance communication and information regarding routes and schedules, especially in Spanish for the Hispanic community . Enhance passenger amenities at well-used bus stops, including the following: o repair sidewalks and rebuild as necessary to comply with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act Guidelines o Install shelters, canopies, and other amenities and plant a shade tree nearby
8-54
CHAPTER # 8 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
o Add bike racks on all buses o Incorporate traveler information systems into heavily used stop locations . Close gaps in existing bus service
. Improve bus route system to reduce travel time for reverse commute and suburb-to-suburb travel
Freight Recommendations Five types of freight transportation were studied— marine port, airport, rail, highway, and intermodal service. Freight needs were identified not only through sites visits and visual inspections, but also by a review of published data and survey results. The key infrastructure components of each mode are documented in Chapter 5. The recommendations include:
. Embrace the recommendations of the Aerotropolis Transportation Subcommittee . Conduct a study to identify high-crash highway/rail grade crossings that can be economically converted into grade separated structures . Complete the construction of I-69 and I-269 connecting Memphis on the transcontinental highway from Toronto, Canada to Monterey, Mexico . Build a new rail/highway bridge spanning the Mississippi River, with connections to existing infrastructure . Conduct a feasibility study to evaluate the potential to develop a Memphis Rail Bypass to route through- freight movements, including the movement of hazardous materials through less populated areas.
Performance Measures Potential performance measures were identified in this chapter. Since documentation of the impacts of implemented projects is becoming more important, a system to identify, collect, record, and analyze the data should be implemented. To initiate this process, the following recommendations should be considered:
. Review the potential performance measures identified in this chapter with the member jurisdictions and agencies. . Identify the data sources currently available that will help to establish a base line to measure the success of the Plan. . Determine the performance measures that can be implemented using the existing available data . Determine the performance measures that can be implemented by the collection or sharing of data that is readily available . Establish a regional system for the collection and sharing of the data . Establish performance measurement criteria to be used in the project selection processes for future TIP and LRTP projects
8-55
2014-2017 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP)
DRAFT 08.29.13
MEMPHIS URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO)
(Programa de Mejora de Transporte para MPO de Memphis)
Memphis MPO Contact Information: 125 North Main St., Suite # 450 Memphis, TN 38103 Ph. (901) 576-7190 Fax. (901) 576-7272
This document is available in accessible formats when requested five (5) days in advance.
This document was prepared and published by the Memphis Metropolitan Planning Organization and is prepared in cooperation with or with financial assistance from all or several of the following public entities: the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, the Tennessee and Mississippi Department of Transportation, the Memphis Area Transit Authority, and the local governments in the MPO region.
It is the policy of the Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, national origin or disability in its hiring or employment practices, or in its admission to or operations of its program, services, or activities. All inquiries for Title VI and/or the American Disabilities Act, contact John Paul Shaffer at 901-576-7130 or [email protected].
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) would like to acknowledge its members, who helped with the development of the FY 2014-17 TIP:
Tennessee Department of Transportation Mississippi Department of Transportation DeSoto County, MS Fayette County, TN Shelby County, TN Town of Arlington, TN City of Bartlett, TN City of Braden, TN Town of Collierville, TN City of Gallaway, TN City of Germantown, TN City of Hernando, MS City of Horn Lake, MS City of Lakeland, TN City of Memphis, TN City of Millington, TN City of Olive Branch, MS City of Piperton, TN City of Southaven, MS City of Walls, MS International Port of Memphis Memphis Area Transit Authority Memphis and Shelby County Airport Authority Memphis and Shelby County Health Department
Federal Highway Administration—Tennessee Division Federal Highway Administration— Mississippi Division Federal Transit Administration— Region IV US Environmental Protection Agency—EPA—Region IV
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program ii
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program iii
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program iv
ACRONYMS
3R Resurfacing, Restoration and Rehabilitation (type of highway improvement) ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADT Average Daily Traffic AQ Air Quality CAA Clean Air Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIP Capital Improvement Program CMAQ Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Program CO Carbon Monoxide CONST Construction (project phase) DPD Memphis and Shelby County Division of Planning and Development DRS Department of Regional Services E+C Existing Plus Committed Transportation Network EJ Environmental Justice ENH Enhancement Grant EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ETC Engineering and Technical Committee FBD Ferry Boat Discretionary Program FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration FY Fiscal Year HOV High Occupancy Vehicle HPP High Priority Projects HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program IAC Interagency Consultation Committee IM Interstate Maintenance Program IMD Interstate Maintenance Discretionary Program ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems LOS Level of Service LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century MATA Memphis Area Transit Authority MDEQ Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality MDOT Mississippi Department of Transportation MOVES Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MSCAA Memphis and Shelby County Airport Authority MSCHD Memphis and Shelby County Health Department NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPP National Highway Performance Program NHS National Highway Systems NOx Nitrogen Oxide PE Preliminary Engineering (project phase) PE-N Preliminary Engineering-NEPA PE-D Preliminary Engineering-Design PPP Public Participation Plan ROW Right of Way (project phase)
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program v
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SFP State-Funded Project (Mississippi DOT) SIP State Implementation Plan (for air quality) SRTS Safe Routes to School Program STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program STP Surface Transportation Program TAP Transportation Alternatives Program TCM Transportation Control Measures TCSP Transportation, Community and System Preservation Program TDEC Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation TDOT Tennessee Department of Transportation TIGER Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery TIP Transportation Improvement Program Title VI Title VI of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended TMA Transportation Management Area TPB Transportation Policy Board USC United State Code V/C Volume to Capacity Ratio VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled YOE Year of Expenditure
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. What is a TIP?………………...…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 II. The MPO’s Role………...……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….2 III. Funding Sources…………...……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 IV. How is the TIP Developed?.....……………….………………………………………………………………………………………………………..5 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION A. Planning Factors & Federal Initiatives..…………….…………………………………………………………..…………………………5 B. Project Prioritization…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7 C. Air Quality Conformity……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9 D. Public Participation…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………11 E. Fiscal Constraint…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………..12
V. TIP Amendments and Administrative Adjustments………………………………………………………………………………………………...14 TDOT PROJECTS A. TIP Amendments…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...14 B. TIP Administrative Adjustments…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..15 VI. Livability, Multimodal Elements, & Active Transportation………………………………………………………………………………………...16 VII. Operations and Maintenance………………………...……………………………………………………………………………………………...19 VIII. How to Read the TIP Project Page.…………………………………………………..……………………………...……………………………..20 IX. 2014–2017 TIP Projects………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………….21 MDOT PROJECTS
PROJECTS
SECTION A. TDOT SPONSORED PROJECTS…...... 23
TDOT STP Road Project Key Map………………………………………………………………………...…………………………………...24 LOCAL TN PROJECTS I-40 (Interchange at Canada Road)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….25 I-40 (Interchange at I-240)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….26 I-55 (Interchange at Crump Boulevard)………………………………………………………..………………………………………………27 I-240 Midtown (I-40 to I-55)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...28 I-240 (Interchange at Airways)…………………………………………………………………………………………………...……………..29 I-240 Bridges……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...30 PROJECTS LOCAL MS US-78 (MS/TN Stateline to south of Shelby Drive)……………………………………………………………………………..…………….31 SR-14 (SR-204 to east of Old Covington Pike)…………………………………………………………………………………...…………..32 NHPP Various……………………………………………………………………………………………………………...……………………..33 STP Various……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….33 HSIP Various…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...…………34
CMAQ PROJECTS SECTION B. MDOT SPONSORED PROJECTS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………35 MDOT STP Road Project Key Map…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….36 I-55 (Relocated SR-304 to Church Road)...…………………………………………………………………………………………………...37 SR-304 (I-269) (East of I-55 to SR-305)……………………………………………… ………………………………………………..……..38
SR-304 (I-269) (SR-305 to the Marshall County Line)……….………………………………………………..………………………..……39 TRANSIT PROJECTS SR-304 (I-269) (I-55 to Marshall County Line) Debt Service………………………………………………………………………………...40 Intersection US-51 and Star Landing Road……………………………………………………………………………………………………41 Maintenance and Repair Grouping……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..42 I-55 Slide Repair………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...………..42
SECTION C. LOCALLY SPONSORED PROJECTS TENNESSEE…………………………………………………………………………………...43
Arlington Projects…...………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….44 APPENDICES Airline Road Improvement Phase 1(Hall Creek Bridge)……………………………………………………………………………………...45 Douglas Street & Airline Intersection Improvements……………………………………………………………………………...………….46 Highway 70 at Jetway Road Intersection Improvements…………………………………………...………………………………………..47
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS SR-205 (Airline Road) North Widening………………………………………………………………………………………………………...48 Donelson Farms Parkway……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….49 Bartlett Projects………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....50 Old Brownsville Road (Austin Peay Hwy to Kirby Whitten Road)…………………………………………………………………………...51 Collierville Projects……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..52 Byhalia Road Widening…....…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….53
SR-57 Widening…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..54 INTRODUCTION Collierville Center Connect—Phase I…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..55 Germantown Projects…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..56 Germantown Road Realignment………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..57 Germantown Road at Wolf River Boulevard Intersection Improvements…………………………………………………………………..58 Gateway Median Germantown Road…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..59 TDOT PROJECTS Lakeland Projects……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….60 New Canada Road (I-40 to US-70)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..61 Memphis Projects……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….62 Poplar Interchange (Poplar / Sweetbriar)………………………………………………………………………………………………………63 North Second Street (I-40 to US 51)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………64
Walnut Grove Road – Middle (Kirby Whitten Parkway to Germantown Parkway)………………………………………………………...65 MDOT PROJECTS Walnut Grove Road – East (Walnut Bend Road to Rocky Point Road)…………………………………………………………………….66 Forest Hill Irene (Walnut Grove to Macon Road)………………………………………………………………………….………………….67 Holmes Road – West (Mill Branch Road to Tchulahoma Road)…………………………………………………………………………….68 Winchester/Perkins Interchange………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..69 Plough Blvd (Plough Blvd Interchange with Winchester Road)……………………………………………………………...……………...70 LOCAL TN PROJECTS Holmes Road – East (Malone Road to Lamar Ave)…………………………………………………………………………………………..71 Kirby Whitten Parkway (Shelby Farms Parkway)……………………..………………………………………………………………………72 Downtown Memphis Gateways Enhancement Project……………………………………………………………………………………….73 Elvis Presley Blvd (Shelby Drive to Brooks)………………………………………………………………………………………………...... 74 University of Memphis Railroad Pedestrian Project…………………………………………………………………………………………..75
Walker Avenue Streetscape…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….76 PROJECTS LOCAL MS Highway 61—Blues Trail…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...……………77 Wolf River Greenway—Phase IV……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….78 Beale Street Landing Water Taxi and Dock Connections……………………………………………………………………………………79 Biomedical Planning District…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….80 Mainstreet to Mainstreet (Harahan Bridge Project)…………………………………………………………………………………………...81 Millington Projects………………………………………………...……………………………………………………………………………82 CMAQ PROJECTS Church Street at Navy Road intersection Improvements…………………………………………………………………………………….83 Navy Road Streetscape and Median…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...84 Singleton Parkway (Navy Road to Bethuel Road)…………………………………………………………………………………………….85 Wilkinsville Road (US 51 to Veterans Parkway)………………………………………………………………………………………………86 Shelby County Projects………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..87 Houston Levee Road Widening…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………88 TRANSIT PROJECTS Walnut Grove Road Widening…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..89 Macon Road Widening…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..90 Shelby Farms Bicycle, Pedestrian and Equine Trails…………………………………………………………………………...…………...91 Elvis Presley—Brooks Roadscape Project…………………………………………………………………………………………...……….92 Groupings (All Jurisdictions)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....93
Bike and Pedestrian Grouping…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..93 APPENDICES Signalization Grouping…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...93 Resurfacing Grouping…………………………………………………………………………………………………...……………………….94 Bridge Grouping…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..94 Transportation Alternatives……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...95
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) Grouping…………………………………………………………………………………...………………..95
SECTION D. LOCALLY SPONSORED PROJECTS MISSISSIPPI…………………………………………………………………………………...96 Olive Branch Projects……………………………………………...…………………………………………………………………………..97 Craft Road (Goodman Road to US 78)…………………………………………………………………………………………….……..…...98 Southaven Projects……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..99
Getwell Road (Star Landing Road to Church Road)………………………………………………………………………….……..…..….100 INTRODUCTION Nail Road Extension (Elmore Road to Swinnea Road)………………………………………………….………………………….………101 Horn Lake Projects……………………………………...…………………………………………………………………………………….102 Bullfrog Corner Intersection Improvements………………………………………………………………………………………………..…103 Groupings (All Jurisdictions)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….104 Resurfacing Grouping…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..104 TDOT PROJECTS Signalization Grouping………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….104 Transportation Alternatives……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……105
SECTION E. CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY PROJECTS………………………………………………………………………106 Congestion Management Program……………………………………………………………………………………………………………107
Vehicle Fuel Cap Replacement Program ……………………………………………………………………………………………………107 MDOT PROJECTS 50mi Bike/Ped Project………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………108 Shelby County Greenline: Farm Rd to Cordova……………………………………………………………………………………….....…108 PM 2.5 Diesel Emission Reduction Strategies Grouping…………………………………………………………………………………...109
SECTION F. TRANSIT PROJECTS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...110 LOCAL TN PROJECTS ADA Paratransit Services………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………111 Advanced Public Transportation Systems Phase II…………………………………………………………………………………………111 Bus Facility Improvements……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..112 Computer Hardware and Software……………………………………………………………………………………………………………112 Fixed Route Buses……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...113
Paratransit Vehicles……………………………………………………………..……………………………………………………………...113 PROJECTS LOCAL MS Preventative Maintenance……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..114 Transit Centers………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….114 Service Vehicles…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...……………………115 Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...115 Associated Transit Improvements……………………………………………………………….……………………………………………116 Preventive Maintenance (Rail Only)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..116 CMAQ PROJECTS Rail Facility Improvements……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..117 Fixed-Route Buses……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...117 Bus Facility Improvements……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..118 Bus Operations and Maintenance…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….118
APPENDICES (See Appendix Document) TRANSIT PROJECTS Appendix A Funding Categories in MAP-21 Appendix B Policy for FY 2014-17 TIP and TIP Amendment/Adjustment Procedures Appendix C Project Ranking Criteria and Supporting Documents Appendix D Status of Projects in FY 2011-14 TIP Appendix E Interagency Consultation Process
Appendix F Public Involvement Process APPENDICES Appendix G FY 2014-17 Local STP Projects and Rankings Appendix H Shelby County and Desoto County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Reports
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. WHAT IS A TIP?
The 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is Figure 1: Memphis Urban Area MPO Study Area a four (4) year long, fiscally constrained, short-range program, which provides a prioritized list of multimodal transportation projects within the Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization (Memphis MPO) area (Figure 1). The fiscal year INTRODUCTION 2014-2017 TIP covers the period from October 1, 2013, to September 30, 2017.
Preparation of the TIP is required by the federal legislation known as Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century TDOT PROJECTS (MAP-21) and by the Metropolitan Planning Regulations (23CFR 450.324) of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). Federal regulations require the Memphis MPO’s transportation planning activities, including the development of the TIP, to be carried out in a Continuing,
Cooperative and Comprehensive manner (the “3C”approach). MDOT PROJECTS
The TIP provides an overview of how transportation revenues will be invested over a four (4) year period by state and local agencies that have legal responsibility to build, operate, and
maintain the states’ highway, street and public transit systems. LOCAL TN PROJECTS Federal law requires expenditures in the TIP to be consistent with the Memphis MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The Memphis MPO’s Direction 2040 LRTP was adopted on February 23, 2012. The Memphis MPO develops the TIP collaboratively with local governments, transit and transportation agencies, and the Tennessee and Mississippi Departments of Transportation (TDOT & MDOT, respectively). Once adopted by the MPO, the TIP is then included in TDOT’s and MDOT’s Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs), and subsequently approved by the Governors of both Tennessee and Mississippi.
PROJECTS LOCAL MS To help track project delivery and the status of TIP projects, federal regulations require the Memphis MPO to publish the annual list of obligated projects report. This report, produced in the first quarter of the following fiscal year, lists all transportation projects in the Memphis MPO region for which federal funds were obligated in the preceding fiscal year.
In summation, the TIP:
Covers a minimum four (4) year period; What is Fiscal CMAQ PROJECTS Is realistic in terms of available funding (“fiscally constrained”) as opposed to simply serving as a Constraint? Fiscal constraint means "wish list" of projects; that the projected amount Has funding committed for the projects scheduled in the first two (2) years in non-attainment and of expenditures would not maintenance areas; exceed the projected Conforms with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in areas where the region is amount of revenues, thus TRANSIT PROJECTS limiting the number of designated as non-attainment or maintenance; projects to be included in Is approved by the MPO and the respective state Governors; the TIP. Lists all federally funded and regionally significant locally funded projects.
Can the TIP be changed after it is adopted? The approved TIP can be amended to add new projects, delete projects, advance projects into the first horizon year, and APPENDICES accommodate cost, phase of work and scope changes to a project. Major changes require public review and analysis of air quality impacts. More information on these processes is included in Section V: TIP Amendments and Adjustments.
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS What does the TIP show? The TIP not only lists specific projects, but also documents the anticipated schedule and cost for each project phase, for example: preliminary engineering (PE), right-of-way (ROW) acquisition, and construction (CONST). As it is primarily a funding program, the TIP does not include detailed engineering design of the projects, which are the responsibility of the sponsoring jurisdiction.
What kind of projects does the TIP include?
The TIP is multimodal, and as such, it includes bicycle, pedestrian, repaving, signalization and freight related projects, in INTRODUCTION addition to (and as elements of) the more traditional highway and public transit projects.
What funding sources are included in the TIP? Most funding sources for the projects in the TIP come from federal funds allocated to Tennessee and Mississippi under MAP-21 and administered through the US Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit TDOT PROJECTS Administration (FTA). For most funding sources, projects are funded using an 80/20 split, with 80 percent in federal funds and the remaining 20 percent in state or local matching funds. There are some funding sources that require less than a 20 percent match or are 100 percent federally funded. The share of funding is noted on each TIP project page. Tables 1, 2, and 3 illustrate the funding sources and project eligibilities in the FY 2014-17 TIP.
What happens in the four (4) year period of the TIP? MDOT PROJECTS The title of each adopted TIP contains the federal fiscal years covered under the document. What does obligated funds mean? The federal fiscal year runs from October 1st of the previous calendar year to September Funds that have been authorized by and 30th; therefore, the first year programmed in the current TIP (FY 2014) covers the period committed to legally by a federal agency from October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2014. Funds programmed to a project in the first to pay for the federal share of the two years of a TIP are committed dollars, whereas funds programmed for the next two
project cost. LOCAL TN PROJECTS years are based on reasonable projections of anticipated funds.
II. The MPO’s ROLE
The Memphis Urban Area MPO is the designated regional transportation planning organization and serves as the forum for cooperative transportation decision-making in the MPO planning area (Figure 1).The Memphis and Shelby County Division of Planning and Development PROJECTS LOCAL MS (DPD), Department of Regional Services (DRS) provides the administrative and technical staff for the MPO. The MPO is responsible for planning and programming transportation projects for a geographic area that is projected to be urbanized within the next 20 years.
Currently, the MPO area includes Shelby County, Tennessee, and the seven municipalities it contains: Arlington, Bartlett, Collierville, Germantown, Lakeland, Memphis and Millington. The MPO area also includes northern DeSoto County, Mississippi, including the
municipalities of Hernando, Horn Lake, Olive Branch, Southaven and Walls. CMAQ PROJECTS Figure 2: Memphis Urban Area MPO Composition Western Fayette County, Tennessee, including the municipalities of Braden,
Gallaway and Piperton, is also in the MPO area. The actual physical boundaries of the MPO Planning Area, based upon 2000 Census data and applicable transportation planning regulations, are shown in Figure 1. The MPO is currently
conducting a planning boundary expansion study based on 2010 Census data. The TRANSIT PROJECTS study is scheduled to be completed by early 2014.
The Memphis MPO is governed by the Transportation Policy Board (TPB). The board is composed of 25 members, including the Governors of Tennessee and Mississippi. The TPB sets policies for the Memphis MPO and also has the final decision-making responsibilities for major transportation planning and programming
issues. Serving the TPB are the various committees of the Memphis MPO, each APPENDICES charged with making recommendations to the TPB in their areas of expertise. Figure 2 illustrates the relationship between the Memphis MPO and its staff, committees and stakeholders.
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
In the preparation and development of the TIP, the Memphis MPO facilitates collaboration between various agencies involved in regional transportation planning in order to foster consensus on the projects selected for implementation. Consensus is important because the federal and state governments require assurances that all parties involved have jointly and cooperatively developed the region’s priorities before committing funds to a project.
Projects selected for the TIP are reflective of the region’s priorities in all areas of transportation, including transit, freight, roadway and INTRODUCTION highways, bicycle and pedestrian, infrastructure maintenance and rehabilitation, congestion mitigation and air quality, and transportation operations. The TIP is developed in compliance with the clean air quality regulations for the Memphis metropolitan area and has clearly identified funding sources. All transportation projects, programs, and operations receiving federal funds in the Memphis MPO area must be authorized through the Memphis MPO TIP process.
TDOT PROJECTS III. FUNDING SOURCES
There are various funding sources that are available to various types of transportation projects. Tables 1 and 3 show the list of federal funding sources under current legislation (MAP-21), match requirement and eligible projects for those funding categories included in the FY 2014-17 TIP. More detailed information about all federal funding sources under MAP-21 is available in Appendix A. Table 2 illustrates carryover funding programs for projects which were awarded under the previous federal legislation (SAFETEA-LU). MDOT PROJECTS
Table 1: Current Federal Funding Sources under MAP-21 Funding Program Abbreviations Source Available To Funding Share* Surface Transportation Program - STP-M FHWA All TN & MS Jurisdictions 80% Federal, 20% Match Metropolitan LOCAL TN PROJECTS Surface Transportation Program - State STP-S FHWA TDOT & MDOT 80% Federal, 20% Match Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality CMAQ FHWA All TN & MS Jurisdictions 80% Federal, 20% Match designated as Non-Attainment, TDOT & MDOT National Highway Performance Program NHPP FHWA TDOT & MDOT 80% Federal, 20% Match LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS Transportation Alternatives Program TAP FHWA All TN & MS Jurisdictions 80% Federal, 20% Match Highway Safety Improvement Program HSIP FHWA TDOT & MDOT 90% Federal, 10% Match
Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula 5307 FTA MATA 80% Federal, 10% State, 10% Local Section 5337 State of Good Repair 5337 FTA MATA 80% Federal, 10% State, 10% Local Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities 5339 FTA MATA 80% Federal, 10% State, 10% Local CMAQ PROJECTS *Note: Funding share can change by the type of projects - certain project types may be eligible for 100% Federal funding.
Table 2: Carryover Federal Funding Sources from Previous Transportation Bills Funding Program Abbreviations Source Available To Funding Share*
Interstate Maintenance (Discretionary) IM / IMD FHWA TDOT & MDOT 90% Federal, 10% Match TRANSIT PROJECTS National Highway System NHS FHWA TDOT & MDOT 80% Federal, 20% Match Transportation Community & System TCSP FHWA All TN & MS Jurisdictions, 80% Federal, 20% Match Preservation Program TDOT & MDOT Transportation Enhancement ENH FHWA All TN & MS Jurisdictions 80% Federal, 20% Match High Priority Project (Earmark) HPP FHWA All TN & MS Jurisdictions, 80% Federal, 20% Match TDOT & MDOT APPENDICES Ferry Boat Discretionary FBD FHWA All TN & MS Jurisdictions 80% Federal, 20% Match Safe Routes to School SRTS FHWA All TN & MS Jurisdictions 80% Federal, 10% State, 10% Local
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Type Road /Highways Asset Management Management Asset Plans Improvements Operational Mitigation Environmental Transportation Systems Intelligent Transportation Public retrofit repair/rehabilitation/seismic Bridge **Note: project *Note:
CMAQ eligibility
Per FHWA funds Major capital expenses capital Major /Pedestrian Bicycle calming Traffic Resurfacing /Pedestrian Bicycle Signalization improvements Intersection construction/modification Interchange construction/rehabilitation road Road maintenance/widening/new acquisition Right-of-way studies/ environmental engineering/ Preliminary Fixed guideway guideway Fixed under guidance are ly NHPP on INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION under available and
other MAP for funding ‐ 21, non NHPP ‐ attainment TDOT PROJECTS programs, are funds and please
available
maintenance
see T MQ HP*TPHI e 37Sc53 Sec 5339 5337 Sec Sec 5307 HSIP TAP NHPP** CMAQ* STP
for Appendix XX XXX XXX XX XXXX XX X XXX X XXX XXXXX X X XXX XX XX X XX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX X XX XX XXXX MDOT PROJECTS roads areas. on A. the Table 3: Project Type by Funding Sources by Funding 3: Project Type Table
National LOCAL TN PROJECTS Highway System (NHS) LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS
as as well non ‐ NHS highway CMAQ PROJECTS or transit
projects in TRANSIT PROJECTS an
NHS
corridor. For
more details APPENDICES
on
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS IV. HOW IS THE TIP DEVELOPED?
To ensure that the TIP development process meets the federal guidelines, the Memphis MPO must follow specific steps and consider several factors. As mentioned earlier, the primary purpose of the TIP is to provide a prioritized list of projects, which are drawn from the MPO’s most recently adopted LRTP. The LRTP is mandated by federal law and serves as the primary document that directs transportation decisions over a minimum 20-year horizon. Projects included in the LRTP reflect the region’s need based upon the future growth patterns, air quality and funding availability. Thus, the projects included in the TIP represent the short-term implementation of selected recommendations INTRODUCTION from the MPO’s LRTP. Figure 3, on the following page, shows the various steps involved in the development of the TIP and the agency responsible for those steps.
Of the various different funding sources included in the TIP, the Memphis MPO is responsible for selecting and programming projects under the following programs: Surface Transportation Program—Metropolitan (STP-M); FTA Sections 5307, 5337, and 5339; Congestion Mitigation TDOT PROJECTS and Air Quality (CMAQ); and the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) . The selection and programming of projects funded by NHPP, HSIP, STP-S, CMAQ, and TAP projects outside the Urbanized Area are the responsibility of TDOT and MDOT.
A. Planning Factors & Federal Initiatives
MAP-21 specifies eight planning factors that must be considered in developing transportation plans to ensure consistency with national goals MDOT PROJECTS and objectives (23 CFR 450.306). The planning factors remain unchanged from SAFETEA-LU, which was in effect during the development of the 2040 LRTP. The planning factors are:
1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and
efficiency; LOCAL TN PROJECTS 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 options available to people and for freight; 5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life and pro-mote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns;
6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system— across and between modes— for people and for freight; PROJECTS LOCAL MS 7. Promote efficient system management and operation, including planning for operations; and 8. Emphasize preservation of the existing transportation system.
Federal regulation 23 U.S.C. 148 requires all states to prepare an annual Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) to address safety issues for the transportation system. The SHSP provides a coordinated, statewide safety plan to reduce highway fatalities and serious injuries on public
roadways. A SHSP establishes statewide goals, objectives, and key emphasis areas developed in consultation with federal, state, local, and CMAQ PROJECTS private sector stakeholders. The SHSP for Tennessee and Mississippi are taken into account when projects are considered for addition to the LRTP and safety is a ranking criteria considered when projects are selected for inclusion in the TIP. Details of the ranking criteria are included in Appendix C.
Under MAP-21, the use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) is needed to measure and improve safety, congestion, system reliability TRANSIT PROJECTS and freight movement. The Memphis MPO’s Regional ITS Architecture is used to define the ITS projects submitted for federal funding under the FY 2014-17 TIP. A benefit to using a regional architecture to define ITS projects is that the projects can be specified in greater detail thereby allowing more realistic estimates of the costs, benefits, schedule, etc. Also, the regional ITS architecture reflects the vision for ITS in the region. The project prioritization process for the Memphis MPO’s FY 2014-17 TIP criteria awards extra points to projects that integrate ITS technology as described in the MPO’s Regional ITS Architecture (Appendix C – Table C1).
Under MAP-21, the metropolitan transportation planning process shall provide for consideration and implementation of projects, strategies, APPENDICES and services to increase the ability of the transportation system to support homeland security and to safeguard the personal security of all motorized and non-motorized users. Consideration of these planning factors was incorporated, as appropriate, in all aspects of the Memphis MPO planning process, including activities such as the formulation of the goals, objectives, performance measures, and evaluation criteria for use in developing the 2040 LRTP and the identification of prioritization criteria for projects and strategies reflected in the FY 2014-17 TIP
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 3: TIP Development Process Figure 3: TIP Process Development Call for applications new TIP and Conduct public survey to guide IAC consultation air on quality Incorporating FHWA, FTA, and finalize a preferred scenariofinalize preferred a Conduct ETC workshops to the development of project application submittal conformity analysis Finalize draft TIP by public comments scoring criteria INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Adoption of the final FY 2014-17 Submit draftTDOT, to TIP MDOT, TIP and LRTP amendments by Jurisdictionspublic hold input application submittal deadline submittal application Projectmade available list for public review and comments meetings on projects prior to and consultation agencies for scoring criteria for STP-M guidelines & draft project Prepare TIP development TDOT PROJECTS prior to adoption review (30 days) ETC & TPB
MDOT PROJECTS
finalize the guidelines & project Scoring & rankingof submitted Determination Report to FHWA FHWA to Report Determination Incorporating & MDOT TDOT ETC & TPB approval of TIP Conduct ETC workshop to projects,project using TIP Air Update draft by TIP selection criteria scoring criteria Quality Conformity
LOCAL TN PROJECTS project list (30 days) comments MPO Process
LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS Project list and Pre-Consensus STP-M and FTA Sections 5307, for publicreview comment and Scoring criteriamade available Submit adopted TIP to TDOT & Plan made availablefor to IAC Submit draftFHWA-TN, to TIP MDOT for inclusion in STIPs in inclusion for MDOT Estimate future funding for FHWA-MS & FTA for review
prior to adoption 5337, and 5339 (30 days) review State or Federal Process
CMAQ PROJECTS
Public reviewperiod & comment Prepare draft Air TIP and Quality TRANSIT PROJECTS Prepare scenarios of fiscally FHWA/FTA finalreview and guideline & projectscoring ETC & TPB approvalthe of Conformity Determination (30 days) and MPO public (30 days) and MPO meetings on DraftTIP approval (30 days) constrained TIP
Report criteria
Public Process
APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS development.
An important consideration during the selection of projects for the FY 2014-17 TIP development was to measure the potential improvements to public safety and security that the proposed project will provide to both motorized and non-motorized users of the transportation system. The criteria identified for Memphis MPO’s FY 2014-17 TIP development under Safety & Security include (Appendix C – Table C1):
1. Accident Rate INTRODUCTION 2. Project Incorporates Traffic Calming and Design Improvements 3. Project Incorporates Security Improvements
B. Project Prioritization and Selection Process
TDOT PROJECTS In considering projects for inclusion in the FY 2014-17 TIP, the Memphis MPO used a prioritization process which evaluated candidate projects for their potential contributions to both the short-term needs and long-term goals and objectives for the region’s transportation system, as described in the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). For the FY 2014-17 TIP, criteria for determining the region’s priorities were updated to reflect the LRTP goals and objectives, as well as the shift among MPO jurisdictions’ priorities towards maintenance and multimodal projects. Following are the list of goals that were identified for the current 2040 LRTP:
MDOT PROJECTS 1. Increase the safety and security of the transportation system for all users; 2. Develop a multi-modal transportation network using strategies to address congestion and air quality improvements. 3. Improve mobility and accessibility using a broad range of transportation solutions; 4. Minimize adverse impacts of transportation on social, economic, and environmental features of the community; 5. Provide a transportation system that supports sustainable land use policies of local jurisdictions and fits within the context of LOCAL TN PROJECTS the community; 6. Provide transportation improvements that support the region's economic vitality and unique position as a leader in global logistics; 7. Develop a fiscally constrained plan through a collaborative effort that supports an equitable distribution of funds throughout the region;
8. Develop solutions that preserve and enhance existing facilities and corridors while improving system efficiency and PROJECTS LOCAL MS operations; 9. Encourage and support relationships between regional and local entities through a collaborative planning effort.
Using the eight MAP-21 Planning Factors and the above LRTP goals as the basis, updated policy guidelines and project scoring criteria were formulated for use in the FY 2014-17 TIP. The updated criteria for evaluating candidate projects under the various funding programs included increased considerations for multimodal transportation elements, safety and security, and maintenance and repair. The criteria also reflect CMAQ PROJECTS the goals of the MPO’s Livability Initiative, discussed in detail in Section VI of this chapter.
The project selection process gave particular consideration to the scoring of projects eligible for those funding categories directly managed by the MPO, including the Surface Transportation Program (STP); Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ); Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) within the Memphis Urbanized Area (UZA); and FTA Sections 5307, 5337, and 5339. Projects better suited for state- managed funding programs, such as interstate and certain highway projects, were evaluated primarily for the purpose of communicated TRANSIT PROJECTS priorities to the state DOTs.
The project selection process and criteria used by the MPO included an analysis of the benefits and environmental effects of potential TIP projects on the diverse communities within the Memphis MPO planning area. This analysis gave direct consideration to communities in which Environmental Justice issues may be present, including minority and low-income communities, as well as areas with substantial concentrations of persons with limited English proficiency. Points were awarded (or subtracted for negative effects) based on the benefits a APPENDICES project is expected to provide to the surrounding Environmental Justice community; no points were awarded for projects located outside these areas.
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 7
TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 4 shows all the mapped FY 2014-17 TIP projects in relation to the Environmental Justice areas which were considered in the project selection process. This map was also used by the MPO to determine the equitable geographic distribution of investments across the diverse communities in the Memphis MPO planning area. A detailed description of the MPO’s Environmental Justice analysis for all projects within the region can be found in the Direction 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan, available online under “Plans” at www.memphismpo.org or by appointment at the offices of the MPO at 125 North Main Street, Room 450, Memphis, TN 38103.
Appendices B and C detail the STP-M and TAP project selection criteria and the policy guideline used for the FY 2014-17 TIP project INTRODUCTION prioritization and selection process.
Figure 4: Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 TIP Environmental Justice Areas TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS
Environmental Justice Areas are TRANSIT PROJECTS defined in the 2040 LRTP as Census Blocks with greater than:
55% Minor Population; or 15% Low Income
Population; or APPENDICES 1.3% Limited English Proficiency
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 8
TABLE OF CONTENTS C. Air Quality Conformity
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAAs) and the Tennessee Transportation Conformity Rules require demonstration that transportation plans, programs (TIP), and projects conform to the Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP). Conformity to a SIP means that planned transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The current federal transportation legislation, MAP-21, reinforced the need for coordinated transportation and air quality planning through the metropolitan planning provisions. INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated Memphis, TN-MS-AR as a 2008 8-hour ozone marginal non-attainment area effective July 20, 2012. The final ruling was published in the Federal Register (77 FR 30088) on May 21, 2012. Included in this designation were Shelby County, TN; Crittenden County, AR; and the portion of DeSoto County, MS within the Memphis MPO planning area boundary. The Memphis MPO is responsible for demonstrating conformity with the NAAQS for Shelby County, TN and the portion of DeSoto County, TDOT PROJECTS MS in the Memphis MPO boundary.
Figure 5: Ozone Non-Attainment Area Figure 5 illustrates the designated ozone non-attainment area under the 2008 8-hour standard for the Memphis MPO.
In 1978, the EPA designated Memphis, TN, a moderate (less than 12.7 MDOT PROJECTS parts per million) non-attainment area for carbon monoxide (CO). Due to improvements in ambient air quality, EPA redesignated all of Shelby County, shown in Figure 6 to attainment for the CO standard on August 31, 1994. EPA's reclassification of the Memphis non-attainment area to attainment status for the CO standard was published in 59 FR 44958 LOCAL TN PROJECTS (August 31, 1994). Shelby County entered into two 10-year maintenance periods for CO during which the area would have to demonstrate continued compliance with the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) amendments.
Shelby County’s attainment status for CO was revisited in the second 10
-year maintenance plan for CO and the motor vehicle emission budget PROJECTS LOCAL MS (MVEB) contained in it. The approval of the 10 year maintenance plan for CO for Shelby County was documented in 71 FR 62384 (October 25, 2006) and had an effective date of December 26, 2006. In addition to a new budget value established for the MVEB in the 10 year plan, the last Figure 6: CO Maintenance Area year of the plan is now 2017. It is required that a conformity demonstration be made for the last year of the maintenance plan, which CMAQ PROJECTS in the case of Shelby County is 2017.
To measure the impact of projects included in the TIP, an air quality conformity determination is conducted using EPA’s MOVES air quality emissions model to demonstrate the projects included in the current TIP conform to the appropriate air quality standards. Figures 7 and 8 show TRANSIT PROJECTS ozone and carbon monoxide emission levels over the designation periods for the Memphis MPO non-attainment areas. The conformity determination must be made according to 40 CFR §93.105-(a)-(2) and (e) and the requirements of 23 CFR 450 (40 CFR §93.112, Criteria and Procedures).
APPENDICES A critical step involved in the air quality conformity determination is the review of the conformity analysis by the Interagency Consultation Committee (IAC), which serves as the MPO’s Air Quality Committee. The IAC includes members of TDOT, MDOT, FHWA TN & MS, FTA–
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 9
TABLE OF CONTENTS Region 4, U.S. EPA Region 4, local air pollution control agencies, local municipalities, MATA, Tennessee Department of Environment Conservation (TDEC)— Division of Air Pollution Control, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), and other necessary agencies. The IAC reviews the procedure and results of the emission analysis and provides comments, which are included as part of the final analysis report. Details of the IAC process are listed in Appendix E, and the conformity determination report are listed in Appendix H.
Figure 7: Ozone Emissions INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION Shelby/Crittenden/Desoto County Non-Attainment Area 2008 NAAQS 8-hr Ozone Design Value 0.120
0.0973 0.0953 0.0953 0.0943 0.100 0.0927 0.0930 0.0920 0.0897 0.0873 0.0860 0.0877 0.0827 TDOT PROJECTS 0.0797 0.0780 0.0770 0.080 0.084 0.0763 2008 Update to Standard - 0.075
0.060 Ozone 8-hr NAAQS Highest 3-yr Average of the 4th Highest High
Parts Per Million (ppm) Per Parts Million 0.040 MDOT PROJECTS
0.020
0.000
Year LOCAL TN PROJECTS
Figure 8: Ozone Emissions Shelby County Carbon Monoxide Design Value 10.0
9.0 9.6 9.5 PROJECTS LOCAL MS 9.3 9.3 9.3 2011 Update to Standards-9.0 8.0 8.8 8.1 7.0
(ppm) CO 8-hr NAAQS 6.0 6.6 6.5 5.0 Two Year Highest Second High (Design Value)
Million 5.5 5.4 5.2 Per 4.0 4.8 4.8 CMAQ PROJECTS 4.0 4.0 Parts 3.0 3.6 2.9 2.9 2.0 2.2 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.0
0.0 TRANSIT PROJECTS
Year APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 10
TABLE OF CONTENTS D. Public Participation
The MPO’s Public Participation Plan (PPP) is the guiding document for providing information to citizens and gathering public input for all of its planning activities. The PPP lists detailed outreach techniques for communicating with the citizens and stakeholders in the region. For the development of the TIP, federal regulations require the MPO to provide for a reasonable opportunity for public comment in accordance with the metropolitan transportation planning process requirements. The MPO must hold a public meeting regarding the TIP, as required in all
Transportation Management Areas (TMAs). The regulations also require the publication of the proposed TIP or other methods, to make it INTRODUCTION readily available for public review and comment.
The Memphis Urban Area MPO has developed relationships and contacts with private citizens, public agencies, providers of freight services, private providers of transportation, representatives of public transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities and representatives of persons with disabilities. All of these agencies/groups are given opportunities to comment on TDOT PROJECTS the MPO’s major planning documents, including the TIP.
Consultation and coordination with area stakeholders happens at scheduled MPO board and committee meetings, at other public meetings held by the MPO and local jurisdictions, through emails, letters and other outreach efforts such as attending meetings held by partner agencies. As described in the PPP, the MPO uses a variety of methods for distributing information to the public and soliciting comments on
the planning process, including: MDOT PROJECTS
1. MPO Board and Committee meetings, which are open to the public, and their comments are accepted as part of the hearing. 2. Publication of notices of public hearings and meetings in the Memphis metropolitan daily newspaper, The Commercial Appeal, as well as several geographically and ethnically service-oriented newspapers such as The DeSoto Times, The Tri-State Defender, and La Prensa Latina. Notification is given at least 10 days prior to hearings and meetings. LOCAL TN PROJECTS 3. Publication of key documents in English and Spanish (Executive Summaries in Spanish, full document by request). 4. Distribution of key documents to the Memphis Public Library System and library systems in suburban Shelby County, DeSoto County, and Fayette County. 5. Inclusion of key documents and notices of all public hearings and meetings at www.memphismpo.org. 6. Comments by mail from the public send to: Administrator, Memphis Metropolitan Planning Organization, 125 North Main
Street, Suite 450, Memphis, Tennessee, 38103; by telephone at 901-576-7190; by fax at 901-576-7272; on-line at PROJECTS LOCAL MS www.memphismpo.org; and by email at [email protected].
For TIP amendments, the MPO again follows public involvement procedures consistent with the metropolitan transportation planning process requirements of federal legislation. These procedural requirements are lessened for TIP amendments that involve projects not considered by the State and MPO to be of appropriate scale for individual identification. Those types of projects are grouped using the project type
categories in FHWA’s categorical exclusions regulation (and transportation conformity exempt project classifications for air quality areas) [23 CMAQ PROJECTS CFR 450.326 & 23 CFR 450.324(i)]. All TIP amendments must be consistent with the LRTP and if not, include corresponding language to amend the Long-Range Transportation Plan. See Section V of this chapter for the TIP amendment procedure, including public involvement.
The development of the FY 2014-17 TIP began in September 2012, when the MPO conducted a public survey to gather input on the region’s priorities for use in redeveloping and weighting the project selection criteria for the local Surface Transportation Program (STP-M) projects. In conjunction with the public survey a 30-day public review and comment period was held from September 28, 2012 - October 29, 2012 to TRANSIT PROJECTS seek input from the public on the criteria used to rank transportation projects. Results from the public survey can be found in Appendix F. The criteria for choosing projects were organized around the planning themes and goals adopted in the MPO’s Direction 2040 LRTP. A workshop was held with the Engineering and Technical Committee (ETC) on October 15, 2012 to finalize the selection criteria, which were adopted by the TPB on November 15, 2012 following a public review and comment period. The MPO board and committee meetings, which are open to the public, also allowed an additional opportunity for the public to provide comments on the project selection criteria.
APPENDICES Following the approval of the project selection criteria, the MPO sent out a call to apply for projects under the STP-M funding program on November 20, 2012. During the submission period, applicants were notified that they would be required to hold public meetings within their jurisdictions to notify residents of the proposed projects and to gather input and comments to be submitted to the MPO with applications. These meetings were to be conducted prior to the submission deadline of January 11, 2013. The locations and dates of these public
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 11
TABLE OF CONTENTS meetings are listed in Appendix F, along with any public comments submitted to the MPO regarding the 2014-2017 TIP.
From January to March 2013, the MPO staff scored and ranked all the projects received for the FY 2014-17 TIP and presented various funding scenarios to the members of the ETC. Based on the ETC’s recommendations, the TPB adopted the final list of projects on April 25, 2013. After incorporating the adopted project list, including state-sponsored road and highway projects and funding under federal transit programs, the draft TIP document underwent an extensive state and federal review process from May to August 2013. This review process included consultation with agencies such as environmental protection, natural resource management, land use management, and historic INTRODUCTION preservation, as well as agencies responsible for local and regional planned growth and economic development, among others.
Beginning in July 2013, the Draft FY 2014-17 TIP, including updates based on comments from the state DOTs, was made available to the public for a 30-day review and comment period. During this period, the MPO held three public meetings (one in each county covered by the MPO) to present the draft and solicit public comments. These meetings were held on July 16 in Fayette County, Tennessee and Desoto TDOT PROJECTS County, Mississippi and on July 30 in Shelby County, Tennessee. The public was informed of the review period and public meetings via newspaper notice, emails to the MPO’s distribution lists, and on the MPO website (www.memphismpo.org). TIP documents were made available online, at the MPO’s offices in Memphis City Hall, and via the MPO’s library distribution network (16 locations throughout the MPO planning area). Jurisdiction and MPO meeting locations, dates, and times, including those held on individual projects prior to the FY 2014-17 TIP development, are listed in Appendix F.
MDOT PROJECTS Figure 3: TIP Development Process, shown previously, details the steps taken to develop the Memphis MPO’s FY 2014-17 TIP.
E. Fiscal Constraint What are un-programmed funds? In compliance with 23 CFR 450.324, the Memphis MPO’s FY 2014-17 TIP is a fiscally constrained It means any remaining portion LOCAL TN PROJECTS program, meaning that the expenditures included do not exceed the projected amount of revenues of allocated funds that have not available for each federal program by each fiscal year during the four-year period shown. Before been identified for use in a submitting an application for a project for inclusion into the TIP, all agencies must have the resources particular project or any available to provide the matching funds to complete the project. The TIP project sheets illustrate the additional funds not currently funding source for each phase of work, including federal, state, and local funds where applicable. identified in the TIP.
PROJECTS LOCAL MS With the adoption of SAFETEA-LU, and with the continuing requirements under MAP-21, the TIP must use an inflation rate to reflect the Year of Expenditure (YOE) dollars for projects, based on reasonable financial principles and information. The MPO assumes the responsibility of estimating the effect of inflation for projects scheduled in the mid- and long-range horizons of the regional plan. For the TIP, the process used to account for inflation on projects is left to the judgment of the sponsoring agency, as short-term inflationary pressures vary by project type and schedule. While some agencies requested no additional funds for carryover projects, local and state agencies typically include inflation costs as part of their overall project costs when submitting projects to the MPO. These inflation rates range between 0 and 3%, based on CMAQ PROJECTS standards such as the Construction Index Rate and regional cost factors.
In estimating funding for the TIP, the state DOTs, the MPO, and their partner transportation agencies rely on current and expected funding levels to determine the new funding that will likely be available to the region for the four years covered by the TIP. In addition to expected future funding, the FY 2014-17 TIP includes carryover funds under various funding categories for projects from the FY 2011-14 TIP. TRANSIT PROJECTS For the MPO-managed funding programs, the FY 2014-17 TIP yearly estimates for STP-M funds and FTA Sections 5307, 5337, and 5339 funds were based on the FY 2013 allocation under MAP-21, as well as projected funding the MPO can reasonably expect to receive for fiscal years FY 2014-17. Because of recent funding trends and past rescissions of unobligated funds, no inflation rate was applied in projecting funding for those years. For state-managed programs, including NHPP and STP-S, TDOT and MDOT provided the MPO with revenue projections, which were assumed to equal the expenditures shown for the same period.
APPENDICES The ranked list of projects, as described in Section B of this chapter, was then used to develop funding scenarios, each showing a different strategy for developing a fiscally constrained TIP. Finally, a preferred scenario was selected that reflects the region’s vision and priorities, and also demonstrates fiscal constraint. The TIP was then finalized, adopted by the Transportation Policy Board (TPB), included in the STIP of MDOT and TDOT, and submitted to FHWA and FTA for final approval.
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 12
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Detailed financial summary sheets are provided at the beginning of each project section in the TIP to illustrate the funding and expenditures by year for each funding source. Sum sheets are available for each section, including Section A:TDOT Projects; Section B: MDOT Projects; Section C: Local TN Projects; Section D: Local MS Projects; Section E: CMAQ Projects; and Section F: Transit Projects.
Figures 9 and 10 show the breakdown of the FY 2014-17 TIP by funding programs for Tennessee and Mississippi. In addition to the major funding categories under the current legislation (MAP-21), the charts account for funding under other programs that have been carried INTRODUCTION forward from previous TIPs. The funding types included under “Other” are detailed in Table 2: Carryover Federal Funding Sources from Previous Transportation Bills. Also shown is funding under discretionary programs, such as HPP and TIGER IV (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery).
Figures 11 and 12 show a breakdown of the MPO-managed STP-M projects, which includes the major road projects of the local TDOT PROJECTS jurisdictions, as well as increased funding for maintenance and multimodal projects. The federal funding programmed for the STP-M projects for the FY 2014-17 TIP, including carry-over funds from the 2011-14 TIP are $127,702,732 for Tennessee and $13,260,768 for Mississippi jurisdictions.
Figure 9: Total Tennessee TIP Funding Figure 10: Total Mississippi TIP Funding
$177,764,817 MDOT PROJECTS 25.6% $12,000,000 $111,000,000 1.7% 49.2%
$72,623,381 STP 10.5% HSIP Highway Programs* NHPP $89,717,473 State Funded Projects CMAQ 39.8% STP
TAP LOCAL TN PROJECTS TAP $85,260,000 FTA 12.3% Other *Includes STP-S and $320,600,000 $24,468,238 other NHPP/Highway- $2,890,761 $433,335 46.2% 10.8% related federal funding 0.4% 0.2% $23,034,577 programs. 3.3%
Figure 11: STP-M Tennessee Federal Funds Breakdown Figure 12: STP-M Mississippi Federal Funds Breakdown LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS $11,148,234 $9,199,600 $1,425,000 9% 7% 11% $11,862,750 $1,661,004 9% Road Projects 12% Resurfacing Projects $23,349,128 Signalization Projects Road Projects 18% Bike/Ped Projects Resurfacing Projects Bridge Projects Signalization Projects CMAQ PROJECTS
$72,143,020 57% $10,174,764 77% TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 13
TABLE OF CONTENTS V. TIP AMENDMENTS AND ADJUSTMENTS
A. TIP Amendments
An amendment is a revision to the TIP that involves major changes to a project or the overall program and must meet the requirements of 23 CFR 450.216 and 450.326 regarding public review and comment, redemonstration of fiscal constraint, and transportation conformity. An amendment is required when changes to the STIP/TIP include: INTRODUCTION
1. A major change in the total project cost (excluding groupings); or 2. Adding a new project or deleting a project from the TIP; or 3. A major change of project scope; examples include, but are not limited to, changing the number of through-lanes, adding/ deleting non-motorized facilities, changing mode (e.g., rolling stock or facility type for transit), changing capital category (i.e., TDOT PROJECTS transit funding), or changing termini; or 4. Any change requiring a new regional air quality conformity finding, where applicable (including a grouping)
A detailed description of the TIP amendment procedures, including thresholds for determining what constitutes a major change, is included in Appendix B: Policy for FY 2014-17 TIP and TIP Amendment and Adjustment Procedures.
MDOT PROJECTS The TIP Amendment Procedure
Application for an Amendment - The application to the MPO for a TIP amendment must be completed by the sponsoring jurisdiction, as defined below, and submitted to MPO staff by the quarterly amendment deadline. All information required in 23 CFR 450.324(g) and (h)
must be present in the amendment request for it to be determined to be complete. LOCAL TN PROJECTS
This information includes:
1. General location of project, (including an area map showing the project’s location if available). 2. A brief description of the type of work to be completed.
3. A project name that is descriptive of the work to be undertaken if approved. PROJECTS LOCAL MS 4. Its length, with termini when applicable. 5. The funding program under which it is seeking TIP inclusion. 6. The estimated total cost of the project, clearly broken out by local and federal funding amounts for each TIP program year. 7. An explanation of how the project will comply with the existing TIP’s fiscal constraints requirement. 8. Its location or status in the approved Long Range Transportation Plan, including a discussion of whether or not it is an
“exempt project” for purposes of the conformity determination. CMAQ PROJECTS 9. Whether or not it is an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) project or part of the ITS architecture. 10. A short narrative of any additional information, or special requests related to the proposed TIP amendment or it’s processing.
Completeness Determination - Once received by the MPO staff, each application is reviewed and a completeness determination made, which includes checking the Long Range Transportation Plan for project consistency, assuring the funding source identified is available for TRANSIT PROJECTS the type of project proposed, and other steps. If an application is determined to be incomplete, the sponsoring party will be notified in writing of the additional informational items needed to complete the amendment.
Application Processing – Air Quality Conformity - The MPO will initially evaluate the amendment for an air quality conformity determination. If the project is determined to be an “Exempt Project” under the Conformity Rules, the MPO will conduct its required interagency consultation and publish its public notice announcing the availability of the amendment information for public review.
APPENDICES If an amendment is for a non-exempt project, the MPO will conduct the required modeling of the amendment request. The purpose of the modeling will be to determine if the project can be implemented without increasing the severity or frequency of violations of any applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Calculation of the total emissions from transportation sources resulting from the TIP, as
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 14
TABLE OF CONTENTS amended, must not exceed the established emissions budget, or any other requirement that may be imposed in the future, for each non- attainment or maintenance plan pollutant.
Amendment Processing - Public Participation - Once modeling is complete, the MPO will conduct the required interagency consultation and publish a public notice announcing the availability of the amendment for public review. A public participation process will be conducted that is consistent with the MPO approved Public Participation Plan. Public comments, written, electronic or oral, on the amendment will be received and compiled by the MPO during a ten (10) day comment period. These comments must then be addressed and considered by the INTRODUCTION TPB in its final decision on the amendment. The TPB meeting to consider the amendment will serve as the public hearing on the TIP amendment.
TPB Approval and Adoption of An Amending Resolution - The TPB, based on the recommendation of the MPO Committees, either rejects the TIP amendment or adopts it by resolution. The Chairman shall sign any resolution adopted to amend the TIP and that resolution TDOT PROJECTS shall be included in the STIP amendment request.
Submission to State for STIP Inclusion - The MPO shall submit a cover letter requesting STIP inclusion of the TIP amendment. The MPO shall provide copies of all amended TIP pages; the TPB Resolution; written documentation demonstrating fiscal constraint and air quality conformity; details of the public participation process including the resolution of all comments (including copies of all written comments
received); and required certifications, within ten (10) days of the approval of the amendment by the TPB. MDOT PROJECTS
B. TIP Administrative Adjustments
A TIP administrative adjustment is a minor change from the approved TIP. Administrative adjustments must be consistent with 23 CFR 450, but they do not require public review and comment, redemonstration of fiscal constraint, or a conformity determination in nonattainment or LOCAL TN PROJECTS maintenance areas. TIP administrative adjustments are defined as follows:
1. A minor change in the total project cost (see Appendix B) 2. A minor change in project description that does not change the air quality conformity finding in maintenance and/or non- attainment areas; or
3. A minor change in project description/termini that is for clarification and does not change the project scope; or PROJECTS LOCAL MS 4. Shifting funds between projects within a TIP (i.e., funding sources and projects already identified in the TIP) if the change does not result in a cost increase greater than the amendment threshold (see Project Cost Change Thresholds, below) for the total project cost of all phases shown within the approved TIP; or 5. Adding an amount of funds already identified in the STIP/TIP for the current or previous year (s) if: The funds are currently identified in the STIP/TIP either in an existing project or as available funds and
The change does not result in a cost increase greater than the amendment threshold (see Project Cost Change CMAQ PROJECTS Thresholds, page) for the total project cost of all phases shown within the approved TIP; or 6. Moving projects from year to year within an approved TIP, except those that cross air quality horizon years; or 7. Adding a prior phase, such as environmental or location study, preliminary engineering or right-of-way, to a project in the TIP so long as such a change does not result in a cost increase greater than the amendment threshold (see Project Cost Change
Thresholds, below) for the total project cost of all phases shown within the approved TIP; or TRANSIT PROJECTS 8. Changes required to follow FHWA or FTA instructions as to the withdrawal of funds or reestablishment of funds withdrawn at the request of FHWA or FTA; or 9. Moving funds between similarly labeled groupings, regardless of percent of change; or 10. Adjustments in revenue to match actual revenue receipts APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 15
TABLE OF CONTENTS VI. LIVABILITY, MULTIMODAL ELEMENTS, & ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
Livability is about tying the quality and location of transportation facilities to broader opportunities such as access to good jobs, affordable housing, and safer streets and roads. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) supports livable communities through funding transportation related projects and sponsoring activities like Context Sensitive Solutions and public involvement that help enable people to live closer to jobs, save households time and money, and reduce pollution.
INTRODUCTION A key livability principle focuses on expanding transportation choices. This typically means making it convenient for people to meet some or all of their daily travel needs without having to drive. This goal requires the development and evaluation of different multimodal transportation improvement strategies at the regional or corridor level. Additionally, balancing the needs of a variety of road users including pedestrians and bicyclists as well as transit and freight vehicles plays a key role in creating livable communities.
TDOT PROJECTS The project ranking criteria used to develop the TIP helped to achieve this balance of transportation modes by rewarding projects that were multimodal, safety focused, and improved accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists with higher scores than projects that sought to accomplish more narrowly defined goals. The results are indicated below and represent TIP projects that will help to create a more livable, vibrant community in which to live, work, and play.
ADA Compliant Pedestrian Improvements Fig. 13: All Local Projects (TN & MS) MDOT PROJECTS Containing ADA Accessible Pedestrian 84% (122 out of 146) of all locally sponsored projects (Tennessee and Improvements Mississippi) contain improvements to ADA compliant pedestrian facilities, as shown in Figure 13 . These 122 projects represent 96% of the total funding 16% for locally managed projects and are found in a variety of project types. Yes LOCAL TN PROJECTS 100% of all major road and bicycle/pedestrian projects include ADA compliant pedestrian improvements, as do 90% of signalization projects, No 83% of resurfacing projects, and 48% of bridge projects. A breakdown of 84% the projects by state is shown in Figures 14 and 15
. PROJECTS LOCAL MS
Fig. 14: TN Local Projects by Type Fig. 15: MS Local Projects by Type Containing ADA Accessible Pedestrian Improvements Containing ADA Accessible Pedestrian Improvements 100% 100% 100% 100% 00% 00% 86% 89%
80% 80%
57% CMAQ PROJECTS 60% 60% 48% 50%
40% 40% 33%
20% 20%
0% 0% All projects Roadway Bike/Ped Resurfacing Signalization Bridge All projects Roadway Resurfacing Signalization TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 16
TABLE OF CONTENTS Bicycle Improvements Fig. 16: All Local Projects (TN & MS) Containing Bicycle Improvements 75% (110 out of 146) of all locally sponsored projects contain improvements to bicycle facilities, as shown in Figure 16. These 110 projects represent 86% of the total funding for locally managed projects and are found in a variety of project types. 100% of all bicycle/pedestrian grouping projects 25%
include improvements to bicycle facilities, as do 86% of major roadway Yes INTRODUCTION projects, 81% of signalization projects, 78% of resurfacing projects, and No 42% of bridge projects. A breakdown of the projects by state is shown in 75% Figures 17 and 18.
TDOT PROJECTS
Fig. 17: TN Local Projects by Type Fig. 18: MS Local Projects by Type Containing Bicycle Improvements Containing Bicycle Improvements 100% 100% 100% 95% 94% 100% 85% 80% 80% 80% MDOT PROJECTS
60% 60% 42% 40% 40% 29%
20% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% All projects Roadway Bike/Ped Resurfacing Signalization Bridge All projects Roadway Resurfacing Signalization LOCAL TN PROJECTS
Improvements to Freight Corridors or Goods Movement Fig. 19: All Local Projects (TN & MS) Containing Improvements to Freight Corridors 41% (60 out of 146) of the locally sponsored projects contain improvements or Goods Movement
to freight corridors or goods movement, as shown in Figure 19. These 60 PROJECTS LOCAL MS projects represent 46% of the total funding for locally managed projects and are found in a variety of project types. 55% of bridge projects include Yes improvements to freight corridors or goods movement, as do 45% of 41% No signalization projects, 43% of resurfacing projects, and 38% of all major 59% road projects. A breakdown of the projects by state is shown in Figures 20
and 21. CMAQ PROJECTS
Fig. 20: TN Local Projects by Type Fig. 21: MS Local Projects by Type Containing Improvements to Freight Corridors or Goods Containing Improvements to Freight Corridors or Goods Movement Movement TRANSIT PROJECTS
00% 00%
80% 80%
55% 60% 53% 60% 50% 43% 39% 42% 40% 40% 21% 25% 20% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% APPENDICES All projects Roadway Bike/Ped Resurfacing Signalization Bridge All projects Roadway Resurfacing Signalization
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 17
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Improvements to Transit Corridors
41% (60 out of 146) of the locally sponsored projects contain improvements to existing or new transit corridors, as shown in Figure 22. These 60 projects represent 56% of the total funding for locally managed projects and are found in a variety of project types. 74% of signalization projects include improvements to transit corridors, as do 69% of bicycle/pedestrian projects, 39% of resurfacing projects, and
30% of all major road projects. A breakdown of projects by type for Tennessee is shown in Figure 23. Mississippi does not currently offer INTRODUCTION public transit services.
Fig. 22: All Local Projects (TN & MS) Fig. 23: TN Local Projects by Type Containing Improvements to Transit Corridors Containing Improvements to Transit Corridors TDOT PROJECTS 00% 86% 80% 69%
Yes 60% 41% 45% 47% 59% No 40% 33% MDOT PROJECTS 20% 0% 0% All projects Roadway Bike/Ped Resurfacing Signalization Bridge LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 18
TABLE OF CONTENTS VII. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
In addition to the growth of, and improvements to, the transportation network discussed and programmed in many areas of this TIP, the MPO and its members must also assure the maintenance and efficient operation of the existing infrastructure components that make up the Memphis MPO’s transportation network. Maintenance activities are those that occur primarily in reaction to situations that have an immediate or imminent adverse impact on the safety or availability of transportation facilities, such as pavement resurfacing and markings, bridge repair, guardrail and sign replacement and traffic signal maintenance. Operations may include more routine items such as painting INTRODUCTION and right of way maintenance. While these activities are not funded through or scheduled in the TIP, they are included here for information purposes.
Categories of operation and maintenance include: 1. Paving or repaving TDOT PROJECTS 2. Signs and Painting 3. Right-of-way Maintenance (includes guard rails) 4. Traffic Signal Maintenance 5. Surveillance, Inspections and Repair (includes bridge inspections, general pavement condition, construction activities) 6. Street Lighting
7. Other (includes minor sidewalk improvements, intersection improvements, etc.) MDOT PROJECTS
The varied and complex systems used to maintain the efficiency of the MPO area transportation system are difficult to quantify and present. Each jurisdiction and agency has unique methods of accounting for these activities. They may also have varying goals and priorities they are seeking to achieve. The MPO will act as a reporting agency for these activities in the TIP in order to provide the public with a clearer
picture of the efforts undertaken. The jurisdictions involved in the MPO process provided information on their existing system’s operations LOCAL TN PROJECTS and maintenance costs, shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Existing System Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs Surveillance Signs & ROW Traffic Signal Street Jurisdiction Paving and Other Total Painting Maintenance Maintenance Lighting Inspection
Shelby County $3,000,000 $450,000 $1,200,000 $55,000 $400,000 $150,000 $5,255,000 PROJECTS LOCAL MS Arlington $290,000 $21,000 $110,000 $14,000 $43,000 $295,000 $30,000 $803,000 Bartlett $1,925,000 $120,000 $495,000 $30,000 $296,828 $1,207,000 $4,073,828 Collierville $907,000 $23,000 $204,000 $34,000 $50,000 $1,233,000 $137,000 $2,588,000 Germantown $1,100,000 $25,000 $485,000 $45,000 $50,000 $800,000 $2,505,000 Lakeland $270,000 $81,000 $351,000 Memphis $12,600,000 $2,644,000 $2,500,000 $3,050,000 $1,250,000 $12,000,000 $34,044,000 Millington $67,500 $6,750 $243,000 $67,500 $135,000 $202,500 $20,250 $742,500 TOTAL $20,159,500 $3,289,750 $5,237,000 $3,295,500 $2,224,828 $15,737,500 $418,250 $50,362,328 CMAQ PROJECTS
Fayette County $405,000 $405,000 Braden $18,225 $9,450 $27,675 Gallaway $30,645 $15,390 $46,035 Piperton $45,000 $1,500 $10,000 $500 $4,000 $61,000
TOTAL $93,870 $1,500 $10,000 $500 $4,000 $429,840 $539,710 TRANSIT PROJECTS
DeSoto County $1,226,347 $62,775 $67,500 $371,250 $1,727,872 Hernando $250,000 $800 $250,800 Horn Lake $250,000 $10,000 $40,000 $45,000 $30,000 $160,000 $40,000 $575,000 Olive Branch $189,000 $189,000 $378,000 Southaven $1,990,000 $56,000 $400,000 $15,000 $120,000 $720,000 $270,000 $3,571,000 TOTAL $3,905,347 $129,575 $440,000 $127,500 $521,250 $880,000 $499,000 $6,502,672 APPENDICES
TOTAL MPO AREA $24,158,717 $3,420,825 $5,687,000 $3,423,500 $2,746,078 $16,621,500 $1,347,090 $57,404,710
Transit System Operations and Maintenance Costs Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA) $58,200,000
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 19
TABLE OF CONTENTS VIII. HOW TO READ THE TIP PROJECT PAGE
Figure 24: Sample TIP Page
Project number Project number Year by which the The agency assigned by the MPO assigned by TDOT or project is expected to responsible for the MDOT be completed
project INTRODUCTION
If the project triggers air County in which the Length of the project Project number quality conformity (non- project will be assigned in the MPO’s exempt) or if it doesn’t implemented LRTP (exempt) TDOT PROJECTS
TIP # TDOT PIN # Horizon Year Lead Agency
County Length LRTP # Conformity MDOT PROJECTS
Project Name Name of the project Total Cost
Termini/Intersection Extent of the project
Provides description of the projects, which includes the type of improvements that will be Project Description undertaken LOCAL TN PROJECTS
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS
Remarks CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS
Federal fiscal year Type of funding Federal Funds Local Funds (starts October ends in programmed to the programmed to the programmed to the September of next project project project
Funds obligated for the Phase of the project Total (federal, state State Funds Total cost of APPENDICES fiscal year (PE, ROW, CONST, and local) Funds programmed to the completing the project, OPERATIONS, or programmed to the project including all the phases PURCHASE) project of the project
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 20
TABLE OF CONTENTS IX. 2014-2017 TIP PROJECTS
The following pages detail the individual TIP projects, including the TIP project number, TDOT or MDOT project identification number (PIN), LRTP cross-reference, lead agency, county, conformity status, termini (when applicable), total cost, project description, and fiscal year phase and funding breakdowns. When possible, there are maps associated with the projects.
The projects are broken into the following six sections: INTRODUCTION
SECTION A—TDOT Sponsored Projects—This section details projects submitted by TDOT. The funding sources in this section are STP, HPP, HSIP, IMD, and NHPP. Where a match is required, the State of Tennessee provides that match.
SECTION B—MDOT Sponsored Projects—This section details projects submitted by MDOT. The funding sources in this section are TDOT PROJECTS NHPP, STP, NHS, SFP, IM, bonds, and various earmarks. Where a match is required, the State of Mississippi provides that match.
SECTION C—Locally Sponsored Projects Tennessee—This section details STP projects that are ranked by the MPO with the criteria in Appendix C, as well as projects under the additional funding sources CMAQ, ENH, FBD, NHPP, HPP, DEMO, SRTS, TAP, TCSP, and TIGER IV. In most cases, the local jurisdiction provides any required match.
MDOT PROJECTS SECTION D—Locally Sponsored Projects Mississippi—This section details STP projects that are ranked by the MPO with the criteria in Appendix C, as well as projects under the additional funding source TAP. In most cases, the local jurisdiction provides any required match.
SECTION E—Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Projects—This section contains all of the current CMAQ projects, except those
CMAQ funds shown under Locally Sponsored Projects or Transit Projects when applicable. LOCAL TN PROJECTS
SECTION F—Transit Projects—This section details FTA funded transit projects in the region. Funding categories include 5307, 5337, and 5339.
Figure 25 shows the location of all FY 2014-17 TIP roadway projects by project sponsor within the Memphis MPO, with the exception of grouping, CMAQ, and transit projects. PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 21
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 25: Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 TIP Roadway Projects by Sponsor INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 22
TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION A TDOT SPONSORED PROJECTS Funding & Expenditures Fiscal Years 2014 - 2017 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Funding Sources Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 STP Federal Funds $2,400,000 $2,400,000 $2,400,000 $2,400,000 $9,600,000 STP State Funds $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $2,400,000 Total STP Funds $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $12,000,000
HPP Federal Funds $7,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $7,500,000 TDOT PROJECTS HPP State Funds $1,875,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,875,000 Total HPP Funds $9,375,000 $0 $0 $0 $9,375,000 HSIP Federal Funds $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $10,800,000 HSIP State Funds $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $1,200,000 Total HSIP Funds $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $12,000,000 IMD Federal Funds $940,419 $0 $0 $0 $940,419 MDOT PROJECTS IMD State Funds $104,491 $0 $0 $0 $104,491 Total IMD Funds $1,044,910 $0 $0 $0 $1,044,910 NHPP Federal Funds $241,100,000 $5,600,000 $5,600,000 $5,600,000 $257,900,000 NHPP State Funds $36,900,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $41,100,000
Total NHPP Funds $278,000,000 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $299,000,000 LOCAL TN PROJECTS
TOTAL FUNDING $294,419,910 $13,000,000 $13,000,000 $13,000,000 $333,419,910 TOTAL $294,419,910 $13,000,000 $13,000,000 $13,000,000 $333,419,910 EXPENDITURE BALANCE$0$0$0$0$0 LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 23
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 24
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # NHS-2002-04 TDOT PIN # 101604.00 Horizon Year E+C Lead Agency TDOT
County Shelby Length NA LRTP # 60020001 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name I-40 Total Cost $25,000,000
Termini/Intersection Interchange @ Canada Road INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Interchange improvements including replacing bridges, reconstructing acceleration and deceleration lanes and tapers, including the Project Description widening of I-40 within the interchange limits LM 23.69 to LM 24.06 TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 CONST NHPP $19,800,000 $17,820,000 $1,980,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 25
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # NHS-2004-01 TDOT PIN # 102240.00 Horizon Year E+C Lead Agency TDOT
County Shelby Length NA LRTP # 60020002 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name I-40 Total Cost $140,923,775
Termini/Intersection Interchange @ I-240 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Project Description Construct I-40 flyover ramp at I-240 East of Memphis (Phase 2)
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds TDOT PROJECTS
2014 CONST HPP $9,375,000 $7,500,000 $1,875,000 2014 CONST NHPP $128,000,000 $115,200,000 $12,800,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks HPP-ID# 1359, 4945 and 34
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 26
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # TN-IM-2011-01 TDOT PIN # 101742.00 Horizon Year 2020 Lead Agency TDOT
County Shelby Length NA LRTP # 60030002 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name I-55 Total Cost $34,279,910
Termini/Intersection Interchange at Crump Boulevard INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Project Description Interchange modification TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 PE/ROW IMD $1,044,910 $940,419 $104,491 2014 ROW NHPP $3,200,000 $2,880,000 $320,000 2014 CONST NHPP $32,500,000 $29,250,000 $3,250,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 27
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # NHS-2002-01 TDOT PIN # 100330.00 Horizon Year 2035 Lead Agency TDOT
County Shelby Length 6.0 miles LRTP # 0250001-4 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name I-240 Midtown Total Cost $38,500,000
Termini/Intersection I-40 to I-55 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Project Description Widen 6 lanes to 8 lanes
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds TDOT PROJECTS
2014 ROW NHPP $1,000,000 $800,000 $200,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # TN-IM-2012-01 TDOT PIN # 107913.00 Horizon Year 2025 Lead Agency TDOT
County Shelby Length 0.48 miles LRTP # 60010001.3 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name I-240 Total Cost $45,000,000
Termini/Intersection Interchange at Airways Blvd. INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Project Description Modify Interchange in Memphis TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 PE-D NHPP $1,500,000 $1,350,000 $150,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 29
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TN-NHPP- TIP # 2014-01 TDOT PIN # 118737.00 Horizon Year E+C Lead Agency TDOT
County Shelby Length 0.28 LRTP # Consistent W/ LRTP Conformity Exempt
Project Name I-240 Bridges Total Cost $25,000,000
Termini/Intersection Replacement of 3 Overhead Bridges INTRODUCTION
Replacement of 3 Overhead Bridges; Norfolk Southern RR (LM 15.45), Poplar Ave (SR-57 EB LM 15.57), and Poplar Ave (SR-57 WB LM Project Description 15.73) TDOT PROJECTS
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 PE-N NHPP $1,000,000 $900,000 $100,000 2014 PE-D NHPP $1,000,000 $900,000 $100,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 30
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TN-NHPP- TIP # TDOT PIN # 100339.01 Horizon Year 2020 Lead Agency TDOT 2014-02 00820028- County Shelby Length 1.1 LRTP # Conformity Non-Exempt 00820030
Project Name SR-4 (US-78 / Lamar Avenue) Total Cost $72,000,000
Termini/Intersection Mississippi state line to South of Shelby Drive INTRODUCTION
Project Description Reconstruct and widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes (divided). TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds
2014 ROW NHPP $34,000,000 $27,200,000 $6,800,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 31
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TN-NHPP- TIP # 2014-03 TDOT PIN # 101608.01 Horizon Year 2020 Lead Agency TDOT 02020024- Shelby 2.6 County Length LRTP # 02020025 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name SR-14 Total Cost $26,500,000 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION Termini/Intersection (Austin Peay Highway) From SR-204 (Singleton Pkwy) to east of Old Covington Pike
Project Description Reconstruct and widen from 2 lanes to 5 lanes. TDOT PROJECTS
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 CONST NHPP $21,000,000 $16,800,000 $4,200,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 32
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TN-NHPP- TIP # 2014-04 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency TDOT
County Shelby-Fayette Length NA LRTP # NA Conformity Exempt
Project Name NHPP Various Total Cost $56,000,000
Termini/Intersection Memphis MPO Area INTRODUCTION
Resurfacing, guardrail, slide repair, signs, signals, marking, intersection / interchange modifications, sight distance modifications, noise walls, wetland and or stream mitigation, safety improvements, bridge replacement, repair, rehabilitation, preservation, rockfall mitigation, Project Description sidewalks traffic calming, pedestrian and or bicycle facilities, its operations, maintenance, power, communications, construction, operate the tn 511 system, freeway service patrols, traffic diversion, non-infrastructure, school and other flashing signals, bridge and tunnel inspection, rail-highway grade crossing improvements, enhancement activities, etc. TDOT PROJECTS
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 CONST NHPP $35,000,000 $28,000,000 $7,000,000 2015 CONST NHPP $7,000,000 $5,600,000 $1,400,000 2016 CONST NHPP $7,000,000 $5,600,000 $1,400,000 2017 CONST NHPP $7,000,000 $5,600,000 $1,400,000 MDOT PROJECTS
Remarks LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS
TIP # TN-STP-2014-01 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency TDOT
County Shelby-Fayette Length NA LRTP # NA Conformity Exempt
Project Name STP Various Total Cost $12,000,000
Termini/Intersection Memphis MPO Area CMAQ PROJECTS
Resurfacing, guardrail, slide repair, signs, signals, marking, intersection / interchange modifications, sight distance modifications, noise walls, wetland and or stream mitigation, safety improvements, bridge replacement, repair, rehabilitation, preservation, rockfall mitigation, Project Description sidewalks traffic calming, pedestrian and or bicycle facilities, its operations, maintenance, power, communications, construction, operate the tn 511 system, freeway service patrols, traffic diversion, non-infrastructure, school and other flashing signals, bridge and tunnel inspection, rail-highway grade crossing improvements, enhancement activities, etc. TRANSIT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 CONST STP $3,000,000 $2,400,000 $600,000 2015 CONST STP $3,000,000 $2,400,000 $600,000 2016 CONST STP $3,000,000 $2,400,000 $600,000 2017 CONST STP $3,000,000 $2,400,000 $600,000 APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 33
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # TN-HSIP-2014-01 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency TDOT
County Shelby-Fayette Length NA LRTP # NA Conformity Exempt
Project Name HSIP Various Total Cost $12,000,000
Termini/Intersection Memphis MPO Area INTRODUCTION
Any strategy, activity or project on a public road that is consistent with the State Strategic Highway Plan (SHSP) and corrects or improves a hazardous road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. including workforce development, training and education Project Description activities, alignment, intersection interchange improvements, signalization, guardrail, lighting, marking, railroad crossings, railroad crossing pads, bells, lights, gates, pavement markings, bridge and tunnel inventory and inspections on all public roads, etc. TDOT PROJECTS
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 CONST HSIP $3,000,000 $2,700,000 $300,000 2015 CONST HSIP $3,000,000 $2,700,000 $300,000 2016 CONST HSIP $3,000,000 $2,700,000 $300,000 2017 CONST HSIP $3,000,000 $2,700,000 $300,000 MDOT PROJECTS
Remarks LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 34
TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION B MDOT SPONSORED PROJECTS Funding & Expenditures Fiscal Years 2014 - 2017
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year INTRODUCTION Funding Sources Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 NHPP/STP/Earmark Federal $0 $9,760,000 $0 $0 $9,760,000 Funds NHS/STP/Earmark State $0 $2,440,000 $0 $0 $2,440,000 Funds
NHS/STP/Earmark Total TDOT PROJECTS $0 $12,200,000 $0 $0 $12,200,000 Funds STP Federal Funds $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,200,000 STP State Funds $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 STP Total Funds $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,500,000 SFP/Bonds Federal Funds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
SFP/Bonds State Funds $0 $0 $111,000,000 $0 $111,000,000 MDOT PROJECTS SFP/Bonds Total Funds $0 $0 $111,000,000 $0 $111,000,000 IM/NHS/NHPP/STP/SFP $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $6,400,000 Federal Funds IM/NHS/NHPP/STP/SFP $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $1,600,000 State Funds LOCAL TN PROJECTS IM/NHS/NHPP/STP/SFP $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $8,000,000 Total Funds STP/NHS/SFP Federal $13,857,348 $13,650,973 $13,653,993 $13,651,663 $54,813,977 Funds
STP/NHS/SFP State Funds $3,464,337 $3,412,744 $3,413,499 $3,412,916 $13,703,496 LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS STP/NHS/SFP Total Funds $17,321,685 $17,063,717 $17,067,492 $17,064,579 $68,517,473
IM Federal Funds $900,000 $0 $0 $0 $900,000 IM State Funds $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 IM Total Funds $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000
TOTAL FUNDING $21,821,685 $31,263,717 $130,067,492 $19,064,579 $202,217,473 CMAQ PROJECTS TOTAL EXPENDITURE $21,821,685 $31,263,717 $130,067,492 $19,064,579 $202,217,473 BALANCE$0$0$0$0$0 TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 35
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 36
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # MS-NHS-2006-02 MDOT # 100222/205000 Horizon Year 2020 Lead Agency MDOT
County Desoto Length 3.9 miles LRTP # 01330011 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name I-55 Total Cost $90,000,000
Termini/Intersection Relocated MS 304 to Church Road INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Project Description Widen to 8 lanes
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds TDOT PROJECTS NHPP/STP/ 2015 ROW $12,200,000 $9,760,000 $2,440,000 Earmark MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 37
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # MS-SSTP-2006-04 MDOT # 102556/319 Horizon Year E+C Lead Agency MDOT
County Desoto Length 20.0 miles LRTP # NA Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name SR-304 /I-269 Total Cost $133,500,000
Termini/Intersection SR-304/I-269 from east of I-55 to SR-305 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Project Description Paving of new 4-lane freeway
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds TDOT PROJECTS 2016 CONST SFP/Bonds $67,000,000 $0 $67,000,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 38
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # MS-SSTP-2006-04 MDOT # 102556/319 Horizon Year E+C Lead Agency MDOT
County Desoto Length 20.0 miles LRTP # NA Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name SR-304 /I-269 Total Cost $133,500,000
Termini/Intersection SR-304/I-269 from east of I-55 to SR-305 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Project Description Paving of new 4-lane freeway
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2016 CONST SFP/Bonds $67,000,000 $0 $67,000,000 TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 39
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # MS-SSTP-2011-01 MDOT # 501561/605000 Horizon Year NA Lead Agency MDOT
County Desoto Length NA LRTP # NA Conformity Exempt
Project Name SR-304 /I-269 Total Cost $210,064,969
Termini/Intersection I-55 to Marshall County Line (Debt Service) INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Project Description Repayment of bonds for the construction of SR-304/I-269 in Desoto County
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds TDOT PROJECTS 2014 Debt Service STP/NHS/SFP $17,321,685 $13,857,348 $3,464,337 2015 Debt Service STP/NHS/SFP $17,063,717 $13,650,973 $3,412,744 2016 Debt Service STP/NHS/SFP $17,067,492 $13,653,993 $3,413,499 2017 Debt Service STP/NHS/SFP $17,064,579 $13,651,663 $3,412,916 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
This project details the repayment of debt service on a HELP bond issue for the construction of I-269 in Mississippi Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 40
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # MS-SSTP-2014-01 MDOT # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency MDOT
County Desoto Length NA LRTP # NA Conformity Exempt
Project Name Intersection US-51 & Star Landing Rd Total Cost $1,500,000
Termini/Intersection Intersection US-51 & Star Landing Rd and License Dr INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Project Description Intersection Improvements
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 CONST STP $1,500,000 $1,200,000 $300,000 TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 41
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # MS-SSTP-2011-02 MDOT # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency MDOT
County Desoto Length NA LRTP # NA Conformity Exempt
Project Name Maintenance and Repair Grouping Total Cost $8,000,000
Termini/Intersection Various locations INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Project Description Funds will be used for operation, maintenance or minor reconstruction works
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds TDOT PROJECTS PE-N/PE-D/ IM/NHS/NHPP/ 2014 $2,000,000 $1,600,000 $400,000 ROW/CONST STP/SFP PE-N/PE-D/ IM/NHS/NHPP/ 2015 $2,000,000 $1,600,000 $400,000 ROW/CONST STP/SFP PE-N/PE-D/ IM/NHS/NHPP/ 2016 $2,000,000 $1,600,000 $400,000 ROW/CONST STP/SFP PE-N/PE-D/ IM/NHS/NHPP/ MDOT PROJECTS 2017 $2,000,000 $1,600,000 $400,000 ROW/CONST STP/SFP LOCAL TN PROJECTS Remarks LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS
TIP # MS-SSTP-2014-02 MDOT # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency MDOT
County Desoto Length NA LRTP # NA Conformity Exempt
Project Name I-55 Total Cost $1,000,000 CMAQ PROJECTS Termini/Intersection I-55 Slide Repair
Project Description Slide Repair TRANSIT PROJECTS
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 CONST IM $1,000,000 $900,000 $100,000 APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 42
TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION C LOCAL TENNESSEE SPONSORED PROJECTS Funding & Expenditures Fiscal Years 2014 - 2017
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Funding Sources Total INTRODUCTION 2014 2015 2016 2017
Carry Over Funds (Federal STP) $67,456,586 $52,844,035 $21,346,873 $12,414,793 $67,456,586
Annual STP-M Federal Funds $15,240,318 $15,270,847 $15,270,847 $15,270,847 $61,052,859
Total STP-M Federal Funding $82,696,904 $68,114,882 $36,617,720 $27,685,640 $128,509,445 TDOT PROJECTS STP-M Local Funds $6,782,171 $10,987,831 $5,560,061 $6,379,061 $29,709,122 STP-M Expenditure $36,635,040 $57,755,840 $29,762,988 $33,420,988 $157,574,854 STP-S Federal Funds $6,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,200,000 STP-S State Funds $1,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,550,000 STP-S Expenditure $7,750,000 $0 $0 $0 $7,750,000 CMAQ Federal Funds $850,000 $0 $0 $0 $850,000 MDOT PROJECTS CMAQ Local Funds $212,000 $0 $0 $0 $212,000 CMAQ Expenditure $1,062,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,062,000 ENH Federal Funds $6,337,622 $0 $0 $0 $6,337,622 ENH State Funds $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 ENH Local Funds $1,583,407 $0 $0 $0 $1,583,407 ENH Expenditure $7,922,029 $0 $0 $0 $7,922,029 LOCAL TN PROJECTS FBD Federal Funds $800,000 $0 $0 $0 $800,000 FBD Local Funds $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 FBD Expenditure $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 NHPP Federal Funds $3,760,000 $5,440,000 $12,400,000 $0 $21,600,000 NHPP State Funds $940,000 $1,360,000 $3,100,000 $0 $5,400,000 NHPP Expenditure $4,700,000 $6,800,000 $15,500,000 $0 $27,000,000
HPP Federal Funds $5,902,867 $0 $3,438,838 $8,415,520 $17,757,225 PROJECTS LOCAL MS HPP Local Funds $1,475,717 $0 $859,710 $2,103,880 $4,439,307 HPP Expenditure $7,378,584 $0 $4,298,548 $10,519,400 $22,196,532 DEMO Federal Funds $2,951,785 $0 $0 $0 $2,951,785 DEMO Expenditure $2,951,785 $0 $0 $0 $2,951,785 SRTS Federal Funds $224,125 $0 $0 $0 $224,125 SRTS Expenditure $224,125 $0 $0 $0 $224,125
TAP Federal Funds $2,312,609 $0 $0 $0 $2,312,609 CMAQ PROJECTS TAP Local Funds $578,152 $0 $0 $0 $578,152 TAP Expenditure $2,890,761 $0 $0 $0 $2,890,761 TCSP Federal Funds $225,000 $0 $0 $0 $225,000 TCSP Local Funds $56,250 $0 $0 $0 $56,250 TCSP Expenditure $281,250 $0 $0 $0 $281,250
TIGER IV Federal Funds $14,939,000 $0 $0 $0 $14,939,000 TRANSIT PROJECTS
TIGER IV Local / Private Funds $16,648,801 $0 $0 $0 $16,648,801
TIGER IV State Funds $2,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 TIGER IV Expenditure $33,587,801 $0 $0 $0 $33,587,801 FTA (5309) Federal Funds $2,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,200,000 FTA (5309) Local Funds $550,000 $0 $0 $0 $550,000 FTA 5309 Expenditure $2,750,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,750,000 APPENDICES
TOTAL FUNDING $161,977,409 $85,902,713 $61,976,329 $44,584,101 $267,834,850 TOTAL $109,133,374 $64,555,840 $49,561,536 $43,940,388 $267,191,137 EXPENDITURE BALANCE $52,844,035 $21,346,873 $12,414,793 $643,713 $643,713 Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 43
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 44
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # STP-M-2011-01 TDOT PIN # 115659.00 Horizon Year NA Lead Agency Arlington
County Shelby Length 0.1 miles LRTP # Consistent W/ LRTP Conformity Exempt
Project Name Airline Road Improvement Phase 1 Hall Creek Bridge Total Cost $2,081,000
Termini/Intersection Airline Road Bridge over Hall Creek INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Widen the existing 2-lane bridge over Hall Creek to a 5-lane bridge. The roadway capacity approaching the bridge is not being increased, Project Description and the bridge and roadway approaches will be striped for one through lane in each direction. Project scope will include designated bicycle facilities and ADA accessible pedestrian improvements.
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds TDOT PROJECTS 2015 PE-D STP-M $175,000 $112,000 $63,000 2017 CONST STP-M $1,800,000 $1,152,000 $648,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 45
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # STP-M-2011-05 TDOT PIN # 115660.00 Horizon Year NA Lead Agency Arlington
County Shelby Length 0.6 miles LRTP # Consistent W/ LRTP Conformity Exempt
Project Name Douglas & Airline Intersection Improvements Total Cost $1,576,250
Termini/Intersection Douglas Street & Airline Road INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION This project will improve the existing intersection of Douglas Street and Airline Road and upgrade existing traffic signal. Improvements will include the addition of curb & gutter and sidewalk at the southwest corner of the intersection; along the south side of Douglas Street (to the Project Description east); along the south side of Memphis-Arlington Road (to the west); and along the west side of Airline Road (to the south). Project scope will include designated bicycle facilities and ADA accessible pedestrian improvements.
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds TDOT PROJECTS 2015 CONST STP-M $1,376,250 $1,101,000 $275,250 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 46
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # STP-M-2014-09 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year 2025 Lead Agency Arlington
County Shelby Length 0.3 miles LRTP # 1200035 Conformity Exempt
Project Name Highway 70 at Jetway Rd Improvements Total Cost $1,700,000
Termini/Intersection US 70 at Jetway Rd INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Widen Highway 70 from 4 lanes to 5 lanes from just east of SR-385 to just west of Airline Road. The widening is to provide for a left turn lane associated with the installation of a traffic control signal, which will not increase roadway capacity. Project includes the installation of a Project Description traffic signal at the Highway 70 - Jetway Road intersection. This project is a portion of 2040 LRTP Project No. 01200035. Project scope will include designated bicycle facilities and ADA accessible pedestrian improvements. TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 PE-N STP-M $20,000 $16,000 $4,000 2015 PE-D STP-M $135,000 $108,000 $27,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 47
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # STP-M-2014-10 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year 2025 Lead Agency Arlington
County Shelby Length 0.75 miles LRTP # 1190005.2 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name SR-205 (Airline Road) North Widening Total Cost $3,300,000
Termini/Intersection From the Hall Creek bridge at I-40 north to 1,100' north of the Airline - Milton Wilson intersection INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
The project includes the widening of SR-205 (Airline Road) from 2 lanes to 5 lanes, with the addition of curb & gutter, drainage Project Description improvements, sidewalks, bike lanes and other amenities. The project extends from I-40 on the south end to 1,100' north of the Airline - Milton Wilson Intersection. TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 PE-N STP-M $35,000 $28,000 $7,000 2015 PE-D STP-M $260,000 $208,000 $52,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 48
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # TCSP-2012-01 TDOT PIN # 118492 Horizon Year 2030 Lead Agency Arlington
County Shelby Length 0.50 miles LRTP # 02420001.2 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name Donelson Farms Parkway Total Cost $1,325,000
Termini/Intersection From SR-385 (Future I-269) to Airline Road INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
This project consists of the design and construction of approximately 2,400 linear feet of 2-lanes of the Donelson Farms Parkway. The Project Description ultimate roadway is intended to be a 4-lane urban collector with a median, bike and pedestrian facilities. TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 PE-N TCSP $75,000 $60,000 $15,000 2014 PE-D TCSP $206,250 $165,000 $41,250 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 49
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 50
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # STP-M-2006-03 TDOT PIN # 010619 Horizon Year 2020 Lead Agency Bartlett
County Shelby Length 2.3 miles LRTP # 01460005-6 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name Old Brownsville Rd Total Cost $19,400,000
Termini/Intersection Austin Peay to Kirby Whitten INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Widen to a four lane divided roadway with a raised median and median openings and turn lanes for access to existing driveways. Project Project Description scope will include designated bicycle facilities and ADA accessible pedestrian improvements. TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 ROW STP-M $3,000,000 $2,400,000 $600,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 51
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 52
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # STP-M-2011-06 TDOT PIN # 108916.00 Horizon Year E+C Lead Agency C'ville/TDOT
County Shelby Length 0.95 Miles LRTP # 01270005 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name Byhalia Road Widening Total Cost $8,800,000
Termini/Intersection South of Shelby Post Rd. to SR-385 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Widen Byhalia Rd from 2 lanes to 4 lanes divided between Shelby Dr and SR-385 including intersection improvements at Byhalia Rd and Project Description Shelby Dr. Construct Shelby Dr from approximately 1,100 feet west of Byhalia Rd to Byhalia Rd. Connect Byhalia Rd to the five lane section south of the Byhalia Rd/Shelby Dr intersection. TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 CONST STP-S $7,750,000 $6,200,000 $1,550,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
STP-S funding for 2014 is programmed for the portion of the project on Shelby Dr from approximately 1,100 feet west of Byhalia Rd to Remarks Byhalia Rd and north on Byhalia Rd to SR-385.
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 53
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Collierville/ TIP # STP-M-2014-01 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year 2020 Lead Agency Piperton
County Shelby Length 1.86 miles LRTP # 1120039 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name SR-57 Widening Total Cost $40,110,000
Termini/Intersection Collierville-Arlington Rd/Eastley St to SR 196 INTRODUCTION
Project involves the widening of SR 57 from an existing two lane rural cross section to a five lane urban cross section. Project scope will Project Description include designated bicycle facilities and ADA accessible pedestrian improvements. TDOT PROJECTS
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 PE-N STP-M $625,000 $500,000 $125,000 2015 PE-D STP-M $1,250,000 $1,000,000 $250,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 54
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # ENH-2012-05 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency Collierville
County Shelby Length 0.2 miles LRTP # Consistent w/ LRTP Conformity Exempt
Project Name Collierville Center Connect - Phase I Total Cost $1,240,819
Termini/Intersection Center Street from South Rowlett to South Street INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Project Description Streetscape and Pedestrian Improvements TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 CONST ENH $946,058 $756,846 $189,212 MDOT PROJECTS
Remarks LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 55
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 56
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # STP-M-2014-02 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year 2025 Lead Agency Germantown
County Shelby Length 0.5 miles LRTP # 00790004.40 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name Germantown Rd Realignment Total Cost $6,030,000
Termini/Intersection Poplar Pike/ McVay to 1000 Feet South of Poplar INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION Realignment and construction of a 5 lane road to make Germantown Road continuous through the City of Germantown. The project includes the realignment of West Street and Old Germantown Roads to form an intersection with the Realigned Germantown Road north of Project Description the NSRR tracks. As part of the project, the railroad at-grade crossing will be improved to current NSRR standards and Old Germantown Road will be improved from Poplar Pike to the intersection of Old Germantown Road with Germantown Road Realigned. Project scope will include shared auto/bike facilities and ADA accessible pedestrian improvements. TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 PE-N STP-M $50,000 $40,000 $10,000 2014 PE-D STP-M $80,000 $64,000 $16,000 2015 ROW STP-M $2,400,000 $1,920,000 $480,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 57
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # STP-M-2014-07 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year 2040 Lead Agency Germantown
County Shelby Length 0.34 miles LRTP # Consistent W/ LRTP Conformity Exempt
Project Name Germantown Road at Wolf River Boulevard Intersection Improvements Total Cost $1,370,000
Termini/Intersection Germantown Road at Wolf River Boulevard Intersection INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Project provides intersection improvements consisting of a double left turn for Southbound Germantown Road and a double left for Project Description westbound Wolf River Blvd, and related traffic signal modifications. Project scope will include shared auto/bike facilities and ADA accessible pedestrian improvements. TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 PE-N STP-M $50,000 $40,000 $10,000 2014 PE-D STP-M $100,000 $80,000 $20,000 2015 ROW STP-M $510,000 $408,000 $102,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 58
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # ENH-2009-01 TDOT PIN # 105525.17 Horizon Year N/A Lead Agency Germantown
County Shelby Length 300' LRTP # Consistent w/ LRTP Conformity Exempt
Project Name Gateway Median Germantown Road Total Cost $90,028
Termini/Intersection North of Neshoba Road and south of Brierbrook Road INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
This project is located within the existing right-of-way in the median of State Highway 177 / Germantown Road, and will include installation Project Description of landscape plantings surrounding a 5-foot diameter flush-mounted limestone city seal, and will meet Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards. TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 CONST ENH $90,028 $72,022 $18,006 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 59
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 60
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # STP-M-2006-01 TDOT PIN # 107036 Horizon Year 2025 Lead Agency Lakeland
County Shelby Length 2.3 miles LRTP # 01150005-7 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name New Canada Road Total Cost $13,475,000
Termini/Intersection I-40 to US-70 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Design and Construction of a new four lane divided highway between Interstate 40 (Exit 20) and U.S. Highway 70 (State Route #1). Project Project Description scope will include designated bicycle facilities and ADA accessible pedestrian improvements. TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2016 UTILITIES STP-M $1,000,000 $800,000 $200,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 61
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 62
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # STP-M-2000-04 TDOT PIN # 110296 Horizon Year E+C Lead Agency Memphis
County Shelby Length 0.5 miles LRTP # 690001 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name Poplar(US 72)/Sweetbriar Interchange Total Cost $4,040,000
Termini/Intersection Poplar at Sweetbriar INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Modify the Poplar/Sweetbriar interchange by widening the ramp from Sweetbriar to westbound Poplar Avenue (Ramp B) to two lanes. Project Description Poplar will be widened as necessary to accommodate the merging of traffic from the new ramp lane. Project scope will include ADA accessible pedestrian improvements. TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 CONST STP-M $3,620,000 $2,896,000 $724,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 63
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # STP-M-2000-09 TDOT PIN # 101968 Horizon Year E+C Lead Agency Memphis
County Shelby Length 2.5 miles LRTP # 02540002-5 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name North Second Street Total Cost $55,528,100
Termini/Intersection I-40 to US 51 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Improve North Second Street corridor to a parkway design including right-of-way acquisition, reconstruction of sidewalks, provisions for bicycles, landscaping, and utility relocation. From I-40 to A.W. Willis Avenue, Second Street and Third Street will both be improved to provide two-lane two-way roadways with two-way left-turn lanes. From A.W. Willis Avenue to Henry Avenue Second Street will be improved to provide a two-lane two-way roadway. From A.W. Willis Avenue to Chelsea Avenue, Third Street will be improved to provide a two-lane two-way roadway. North Third Street will be extended on new alignment as a two lane roadway from Chelsea Avenue to intersect Project Description North Second Street at Henry Avenue at a roundabout. From Chelsea Avenue to the Wolf River Bridge, Second Street will be widened to
four lanes with a raised median. From the Wolf River bridge to Harvester Lane, North Second Street will be constructed on new alignment TDOT PROJECTS as a 4 lane divided roadway. From Harvester Lane to US 51, North Second Street / Whitney Avenue will be widened from 2 to 4 lanes. Bicycle lanes will be provided along the improved North Second Street corridor. This project will be undertaken in phases as funding allows. Phase one will be from I-40 to Cedar Avenue as approved in TDOT contract #080029.
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds MDOT PROJECTS 2014 PE-D DEMO Sec. 133 $2,951,785 $2,951,785 2016 ROW HPP-1007 TN124 $1,799,799 $1,439,839 $359,960 2016 ROW HPP-4929 TN201 $2,498,749 $1,998,999 $499,750 2017 CONST HPP-4929 TN201 $8,750,000 $7,000,000 $1,750,000 2017 CONST HPP-383 TN256 $1,769,400 $1,415,520 $353,880 LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 64
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # STP-M-2000-11 TDOT PIN # 010775 Horizon Year 2020 Lead Agency Memphis
County Shelby Length 3.0 miles LRTP # 0900012 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name Walnut Grove Road Middle Total Cost $19,000,000
Termini/Intersection Kirby/Whitten Pkwy to Germantown Pkwy INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Widen existing four lane roadway to six lane parkway with landscaping. This project will have adjacent paths for bikes and pedestrians Project Description designed in conjunction with the parkway. TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2015 PE-N STP-M $200,000 $160,000 $40,000 2015 PE-D STP-M $796,000 $636,800 $159,200 2016 CONST STP-M $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $1,000,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 65
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # STP-M-2000-16 TDOT PIN # 010620 Horizon Year 2025 Lead Agency Memphis
County Shelby Length 2.5 miles LRTP # 0090013-14 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name Walnut Grove Road East Total Cost $14,585,750
Termini/Intersection Walnut Bend Road to Rocky Point Road INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Widen existing four and two lane roadway to six lanes with a median, eliminate sharp curves and realign Rocky Point Road intersection to Project Description improve safety. This project will provide wide outside lanes for bikes. Project scope will include ADA accessible pedestrian improvements. TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 ROW STP-M $5,356,000 $4,284,000 $1,072,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 66
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # STP-M-2000-22 TDOT PIN # 103376 Horizon Year 2020 Lead Agency Memphis
County Shelby Length 3.03 miles LRTP # 01010012-13 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name Forest Hill Irene Total Cost $12,931,864
Termini/Intersection Walnut Grove to Macon Road INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Construct new six lane roadway with a median, adjacent bike path, sidewalks, and curb ramps. The project also includes an 1,100 foot Project Description extension of Trinity Road from Sanga Creek Road to Forest Hill Irene. Trinity Road will maintain a seven lane cross section. TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2016 ROW STP-M $2,342,000 $1,873,000 $469,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 67
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # STP-M-2002-14 TDOT PIN # 107040 Horizon Year E+C Lead Agency Memphis
County Shelby Length 3.0 miles LRTP # 00160007-10 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name Holmes Road-West Total Cost $30,078,728
Termini/Intersection Mill Branch to Tchulahoma INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Widen existing four and two lane roadway to seven lanes. Project will include sidewalk improvements, crosswalks, bike facilities, curb Project Description ramps, and modern traffic signals with camera detection and emergency vehicle preemption. TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 ROW STP-M $2,003,400 $1,602,720 $400,680 2015 CONST STP-M $12,996,600 $10,397,280 $2,599,320 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 68
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # STP-M-2004-01 TDOT PIN # 107290 Horizon Year E+C Lead Agency Memphis
County Shelby Length 0.3 miles LRTP # 60020002 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name Winchester/Perkins Interchange Total Cost $13,265,000
Termini/Intersection Winchester at Perkins INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Reconstruct interchange to allow for the removal of the center pier in Winchester and construct more travel lanes on Winchester. Project Project Description scope will include ADA accessible pedestrian improvements. TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2015 CONST STP-M $12,000,000 $9,600,000 $2,400,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 69
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # STP-M-2006-04 TDOT PIN # 102619 Horizon Year 2025 Lead Agency Memphis
County Shelby Length 1.5 miles LRTP # 00340012-12.1 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name Plough Blvd. Total Cost $30,000,000
Termini/Intersection Plough Blvd. Interchange with Winchester Rd. INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION Improve 3,000 feet along Plough-Airways Blvd. south from Brooks Rd. and improve 3,000 feet along Winchester east of original at-grade section. The improvements will provide a grade-separated interchange to replace the existing at-grade condition at the Plough- Project Description Airways/Winchester Rd. intersection. The final design will maintain the present direct connectors between Plough Blvd. and the airport. the preliminary planning will include coordination with MATA to address future light rail service to the airport TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds HPP-4936 2014 ROW $2,812,189 $2,249,751 $562,438 TN208 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 70
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # STP-M-2006-09 TDOT PIN # 108701 Horizon Year E+C Lead Agency Memphis
County Shelby Length 1.7 miles LRTP # 00160013-14 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name Holmes Road East Total Cost $8,437,060
Termini/Intersection Malone to Lamar INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Widen existing two lane roadway to seven lanes. Project will include sidewalk improvements, crosswalks, bike facilities, curb ramps, and Project Description modern traffic signals with camera detection and emergency vehicle preemption. TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2015 CONST STP-M $6,294,000 $5,034,000 $1,260,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 71
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # STP-M-2006-10 TDOT PIN # 109182 Horizon Year E+C Lead Agency Memphis
County Shelby Length 2.5 miles LRTP # 00499002.1-2 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name Kirby/Whitten Parkway (Shelby Farms Parkway) Total Cost $24,512,900
Termini/Intersection Walnut Grove Road to Macon Road INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Widen Walnut Grove Road from 4 lanes to 6 lanes from just east of the Wolf River to the proposed Walnut Grove/Kirby-Whitten interchange with a heavily landscaped median. Construct a 4 lane heavily landscaped roadway with a variable width median from the proposed interchange to Mullins Station Road. Construct and/or widen Kirby-Whitten from 2 lanes to 4 lanes with a two-way left-turn lane Project Description from Mullins Station Road to Macon Road. The proposed interchange at Walnut Grove Road and Kirby-Whitten and the associated ramps are included in the project. Adjacent pedestrian and bicycle paths will be designed in conjunction with this project. Two grade separated trail crossings will be provided along Kirby-Whitten and one grade separated trail crossing will be provided along Walnut Grove. TDOT PROJECTS
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 PE-D STP-M $3,120,900 $2,496,720 $624,180 2015 ROW STP-M $742,000 $593,000 $149,000 2017 CONST STP-M $15,000,000 $12,000,000 $3,000,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 72
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # ENH-2008-01 TDOT PIN # 105525.25 Horizon Year N/A Lead Agency Memphis
County Shelby Length 0.3 miles LRTP # Consistent w/ LRTP Conformity Exempt
Project Name I-40 / Riverside Drive Gateway Enhancements Total Cost $107,000
Termini/Intersection Riverside Drive from Interstate 40, Tennessee Exit 1A ramp to Jefferson Avenue INTRODUCTION
The landscaping enhancements planned for the I-40 and Riverside Drive gateway consist of tree plantings and ground cover for three sections of the exit area. Trees will be planted along a median strip primarily visible by traffic entering Downtown from westbound I-40. Project Description Another cluster of trees and ground cover will be planted in an exit area median strip that is visible to traffic exiting from both I-40 eastbound and westbound lanes. In addition, landscaping will be replaced adjacent to the Tennessee Visitors Center. A welcome entry
sign will be installed at the bottom of the Exit 1A ramp. TDOT PROJECTS
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 CONST ENH $107,000 $85,600 $1,000 $20,400 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 73
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # ENH-2010-01 TDOT PIN # 113028 Horizon Year E+C Lead Agency Memphis
County Shelby Length 2.85 miles LRTP # 00250010.1 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name Elvis Presley Blvd Total Cost $50,000,000
Shelby Drive to Brooks Road Termini/Intersection INTRODUCTION
Construct a six lane heavily landscaped roadway adjacent to Graceland, which includes median, wide outside lanes for bikes and a bus Project Description stop turn-out lane. From Craft to Winchester widen from four to six lanes with a median. The other two segments will have the same existing laneage, but the entire project will have improved ped/bike/bus stop and landscaping. TDOT PROJECTS
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 CONST ENH $1,476,485 $1,181,188 $295,297 2014 CONST NHPP $4,700,000 $3,760,000 $940,000 2015 CONST NHPP $6,800,000 $5,440,000 $1,360,000 2016 CONST NHPP $15,500,000 $12,400,000 $3,100,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Section 1 - 113028.02 Commercial Parkway to South of Winchester. Remarks Section 2 - 113028.03 South of Winchester to Craft Road Section 3 - 113028.04 Craft Road to Shelby Road
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 74
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # ENH-2012-02 TDOT PIN # 106907.01 Horizon Year N/A Lead Agency Univ. of Memphis
County Shelby Length 0.35 miles LRTP # Consistent w/ LRTP Conformity Exempt
Project Name University of Memphis Railroad Pedestrian Project Total Cost $1,250,000
Termini/Intersection North of Southern Avenue and south of Walker Avenue; Norfolk Southern rail on south side of University of Memphis campus INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Project Description Construction of pedestrian crossings, bollards, signage, landscaping, fencing, and lighting
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds TDOT PROJECTS 2014 PE/CONST ENH $1,250,000 $1,000,000 $250,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 75
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # ENH-2012-03 TDOT PIN # 114979.01 Horizon Year NA Lead Agency Memphis
County Shelby Length 0.15 miles LRTP # Consistent w/ LRTP Conformity Exempt
Project Name Walker Avenue Streetscape Total Cost $661,795
Termini/Intersection Highland Ave to Brister St INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Modification of existing roadway to accommodate new streetscape including new curb and gutter, sidewalks, landscaping, lighting, bike Project Description lanes, and street parking. TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 CONST ENH $661,795 $529,436 $132,359 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 76
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # ENH-2012-04 TDOT PIN # 116805.00 Horizon Year NA Lead Agency Memphis
County Shelby Length 13 miles LRTP # Consistent w/ LRTP Conformity Exempt
Project Name Highway 61 - Blues Trail Total Cost $357,430
Termini/Intersection Tennessee/Mississippi State Line to I-40 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Trail marker signage, way finding signage, historic site designation signage, blues music crosswalks, gateway art projects and landscaping Project Description along Highway 61. TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 CONST ENH $357,430 $285,944 $71,486 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 77
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # ENH-2012-06 TDOT PIN # 110445.04 Horizon Year NA Lead Agency Memphis
County Shelby Length 1.1 miles LRTP # Consistent w/ LRTP Conformity Exempt
Project Name Wolf River Greenway - Phase 4 Total Cost $833,154
Termini/Intersection McLean Ave to Hollywood St INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Project Description 1.1 mile segment of 10' asphalt trail for multi-purpose use. TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 CONST ENH $833,154 $666,523 $166,631 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 78
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # FBD-2012-01 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year E+C Lead Agency Memphis
County Shelby Length NA LRTP # Consistent w/ LRTP Conformity Exempt
Project Name Beale Street Landing Water Taxi and Dock Connections Total Cost $1,000,000
Termini/Intersection Riverside Drive and Beale Street, Memphis, TN INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Design and construction of water taxi service for Wolf River Harbor, to include design and construction of docking connections and the Project Description purchase of water taxis. TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 PE-D FBD $75,000 $60,000 $15,000 2014 PE-D FBD $25,000 $20,000 $5,000 2014 CONST FBD $100,000 $80,000 $20,000 2014 CONST FBD $800,000 $640,000 $160,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks Beale Street Landing Water Taxi and Dock Connections Project is associated with the Beale Street Landing Project, TIP # STP-M-2004-02.
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 79
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # HPP-2006-04 TDOT PIN # 108676 Horizon Year NA Lead Agency Memphis
County Shelby Length NA LRTP # Consistent W/ LRTP Conformity Exempt
Project Name Biomedical Planning District Total Cost $5,896,560
Termini/Intersection INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Project Description Reconstruction of sidewalks and curbs and streetscape improvements along roadways in this district
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds TDOT PROJECTS 2014 CONST HPP-4942 TN214 $4,566,395 $3,653,116 $913,279 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 80
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # TIGER IV-2012-01 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year E+C Lead Agency Memphis
County Shelby Length 11.80 miles LRTP # Consistent W/ LRTP Conformity Exempt
Project Name Mainstreet to Mainstreet Multimodal Connector Total Cost $37,399,801
Termini/Intersection Henry Avenue at N. Main Street in Memphis, TN to Broadway Avenue at Club Road in West Memphis, AR Refloor old Harahan Bridge for bike and pedestrian use and road/street improvements to accommodate bikes. The project will be done in different sections as follows: INTRODUCTION Section 1: Henry Street to the MATA North End Terminal to the Main Street Mall. Section 1 will include on-street bikeways, ADA and pedestrian improvements, drainage improvements, and trolley improvements. Section 2: Main Street Mall. Section 2 will include ADA and pedestrian improvements, streetscaping, drainage improvements, and trolley repairs. Sections 2 & 3 will include transit-related improvements to the trolley system that will be paid for by FTA (5309) funds and administered by MATA. Section 3: Main Street Mall to AMTRAK Central Station including the Cleaborn & Foote Loop. Section 3 will include ADA and pedestrian Project Description improvements, streetscaping, drainage improvements, and trolley repairs.
Section 4: AMTRAK Central Station to Harahan Bridge (includes Harahan Bridge). Section 4 will include curb, gutter and sidewalk repair. It will TDOT PROJECTS eliminate ADA barriers and trip hazards. It will connect the end of the trolley line with Cleaborn & Foote Bike Loop. Pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic will cross under the railroad structure on West Carolina on City of Memphis right of way. Within the structure, pedestrians will be separated from traffic by a 54” fence. The pedestrian path will be lit. Bicycle traffic will utilize new sharrows placed on the existing roadway. At Virginia Avenue, the street will be reconfigured to accommodate two-way traffic with parking areas for visitors to the Harahan Bridge. Virginia Avenue will be the direct approach to access the Harahan Bridge Trail. Section 5: Bridgeport Cove Road, I-55 Bridge to Club Road. Section 5 will include new bike-pedways in Arkansas. Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 PE-D LOCAL MATCH $889,036 $889,036 MDOT PROJECTS 2014 PE-D PRIVATE MATCH $750,011 $750,011 2014 PE-D FTA (5309) $20,000 $16,000 $4,000 2014 CONST TIGER IV $18,673,750 $14,939,000 $3,734,750 2014 CONST TDOT MATCH $2,000,000 $2,000,000 2014 CONST LOCAL MATCH $10,413,015 $10,413,015 2014 CONST PRIVATE MATCH $249,989 $249,989 LOCAL TN PROJECTS 2014 CONST CMAQ $1,062,000 $850,000 $212,000 2014 CONST FTA (5309) $2,730,000 $2,184,000 $546,000 2014 OTHER LOCAL MATCH $612,000 $612,000 LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
The TIGER 2012 Grant was awarded on June 22, 2012 in the amount of $14,939,000. An additional $850,000 in CMAQ funds will be provided Remarks from AR. The local funding type includes multiple funding sources from the City of Memphis and Shelby County,Tourist Development Zone (TDZ) tax revenues, and other corporation contributions. The private funding type includes funding sources from different private investors.
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 81
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 82
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # STP-M-2009-09 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency Millington
Consistent W/ County Shelby Length 0.11 miles LRTP # Conformity Exempt LRTP
Project Name Church Street at Navy Road Intersection Improvements Total Cost $450,000
Termini/Intersection South of Buford Ave to Navy Rd INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Widening Church Street north of Navy Road to provide additional southbound lane, drainage improvements, and replacement of traffic signal Project Description including emergency vehicle preemption and video detection.
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds PE-D, ROW, TDOT PROJECTS 2014 STP-M $203,750 $163,000 $40,750 CONST MDOT PROJECTS
Remarks LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 83
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # STP-M-2014-05 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year 2025 Lead Agency Millington
01760001.1- County Shelby Length 1.05 miles LRTP # Conformity Exempt 01760001.3
Project Name Navy Rd Streetscape and Median Total Cost $2,500,000
Termini/Intersection US 51 to Veterans Parkway INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
This is the second phase of the Navy Road Streetscape project. It includes the construction of additional medians, paved crosswalks, sidewalk Project Description improvements, streetscape improvements, and the realignment of the intersection of Navy and Easley. Project scope will include shared auto/bicycle facilities.
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds TDOT PROJECTS 2014 PE-N STP-M $20,000 $16,000 $4,000 2015 PE-D STP-M $180,000 $144,000 $36,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 84
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # STP-M-2014-08 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year 2025 Lead Agency Millington
County Shelby Length 1.38 miles LRTP # 570013 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name Singleton Parkway Total Cost $13,000,000
Termini/Intersection Navy Rd to Bethuel Rd INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Construct an extension of Singleton Parkway from Navy Road north and east to Bethuel Road consisting of 4 lanes (divided) with bike Project Description lanes. Project scope will include ADA accessible pedestrian improvements. TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 PE-N STP-M $300,000 $240,000 $60,000 2015 PE-D STP-M $700,000 $560,000 $140,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 85
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # STP-M-2014-11 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year 2040 Lead Agency Millington
County Shelby Length 0.74 miles LRTP # 1590001.1 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name Wilkinsville Rd Total Cost $13,240,000
Termini/Intersection US 51 to Veterans Parkway INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Extension of a 5 lane road through a newly developing area of the City. This project will create a pedestrian friendly roadway through a Project Description mixed use center that will function as the town center, cross the CNRR and connect to Veterans Parkway in the Millington Industrial Park. Project scope will include designated bicycle facilities and ADA accessible pedestrian improvements. TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 PE-N STP-M $480,000 $384,000 $96,000 2015 PE-D STP-M $1,120,000 $896,000 $224,000 2016 ROW STP-M $800,000 $640,000 $160,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 86
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 87
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # STP-M-2014-03 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year 2025 Lead Agency Shelby County
01090009- County Shelby Length 1.67 miles LRTP # 01090010 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name Houston Levee Road Widening Total Cost $18,000,000
Termini/Intersection Walnut Grove Road to Wolf River Bridge INTRODUCTION
This project improves Houston Levee Road by widening the segment from Walnut Grove Road to the Wolf River Bridge from two to six Project Description lanes. The roadway segment will include a median and landscaping. Project scope will include designated bicycle facilities and ADA accessible pedestrian improvements. TDOT PROJECTS
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 PE-N STP-M $300,000 $225,000 $75,000 2016 PE-D STP-M $1,500,000 $1,125,000 $375,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 88
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # STP-M-2014-04 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year 2040 Lead Agency Shelby County
County Shelby Length 1.0 miles LRTP # 00900015 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name Walnut Grove Road Widening Total Cost $13,750,000
Termini/Intersection Rocky Point to Houston Levee INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
This project widens Walnut Grove Road from two to six lanes from Rocky Point Road to Houston Levee Road with a bridge over Gray's Project Description Creek. Project scope will include designated bicycle facilities and ADA accessible pedestrian improvements. TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 PE-N STP-M $300,000 $225,000 $75,000 2016 PE-D STP-M $1,000,000 $750,000 $250,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 89
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # STP-M-2014-06 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year 2025 Lead Agency Shelby County
County Shelby Length 1.73 miles LRTP # 02220006 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name Macon Rd Widening Total Cost $21,000,000
Termini/Intersection Berryhill to Houston Levee INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
This project provides improvements for widening of Macon Road from two to four lanes from Berryhill Road to Houston Levee Road with a Project Description bridge over Gray's Creek. Project scope will include designated bicycle facilities and ADA accessible pedestrian improvements. TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 PE-N STP-M $350,000 $262,500 $87,500 2016 PE-D STP-M $1,500,000 $1,125,000 $375,000 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 90
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # ENH-2011-01 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency Shelby County
County Shelby Length 3.31 Miles LRTP # Consistent W/ LRTP Conformity Exempt
Project Name Shelby Farms Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Equine Trails Total Cost $2,107,620
Termini/Intersection INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Project Description Facilities for pedestrian or bicycles and landscaping or other scenic beautification TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 CONST ENH $2,050,844 $1,640,675 $410,169 MDOT PROJECTS
Remarks LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 91
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # ENH-2012-01 TDOT PIN # 105525.44 Horizon Year NA Lead Agency Shelby County
County Shelby Length LRTP # Consistent W/ LRTP Conformity Exempt
Project Name Elvis Presley-Brooks Roadscape Project Total Cost $149,235
Termini/Intersection Elvis Presley Boulevard @ Brooks Road INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Project Description Pedestrian & Landscape Improvements TDOT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 CONST ENH $149,235 $119,388 $29,847 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 92
TABLE OF CONTENTS TIP # STP-M-2009-04 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency Various
County Shelby Length NA LRTP # NA Conformity Exempt
Project Name Bike and Pedestrian Grouping Total Cost $13,935,294
Termini/Intersection INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION This grouping will be used to fund Greenways, Sidewalks, Bicycle Facilities and Amenities, Streescaping, etc. throughout the Tennessee Project Description portion of the Memphis MPO area.
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds
PE-N/PE-D/ TDOT PROJECTS 2014 STP-M $3,483,824 $2,787,059 $696,765 ROW/CONST PE-N/PE-D/ 2015 STP-M $3,483,824 $2,787,059 $696,765 ROW/CONST PE-N/PE-D/ 2016 STP-M $3,483,823 $2,787,058 $696,765 ROW/CONST PE-N/PE-D/ 2017 STP-M $3,483,823 $2,787,058 $696,765 MDOT PROJECTS ROW/CONST
Remarks LOCAL TN PROJECTS
TIP # STP-M-2009-06 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency Various
County Shelby Length NA LRTP # NA Conformity Exempt LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS Project Name Signalization Grouping Total Cost $11,862,750
Termini/Intersection
This grouping will be used to fund Upgrades, Replace, Improve Traffic Signals and Signal Systems throughout the Tennessee portion of Project Description the Memphis MPO area. CMAQ PROJECTS
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds PE-N/PE-D/ 2014 STP-M $2,965,688 $2,965,688 ROW/CONST
PE-N/PE-D/ TRANSIT PROJECTS 2015 STP-M $2,965,688 $2,965,688 ROW/CONST PE-N/PE-D/ 2016 STP-M $2,965,687 $2,965,687 ROW/CONST PE-N/PE-D/ 2017 STP-M $2,965,687 $2,965,687 ROW/CONST APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 93
TABLE OF CONTENTS TIP # STP-M-2009-03 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency Various
County Shelby Length NA LRTP # NA Conformity Exempt
Project Name Resurfacing Grouping Total Cost $29,186,410
Termini/Intersection INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION This grouping will be used to fund road resurfacing and other preventative maintenance throughout the Tennessee portion of the Memphis Project Description MPO area.
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds
PE-N/PE-D/ TDOT PROJECTS 2014 STP-M $7,296,603 $5,837,282 $1,459,321 ROW/CONST PE-N/PE-D/ 2015 STP-M $7,296,603 $5,837,282 $1,459,321 ROW/CONST PE-N/PE-D/ 2016 STP-M $7,296,603 $5,837,282 $1,459,321 ROW/CONST PE-N/PE-D/ 2017 STP-M $7,296,603 $5,837,282 $1,459,321 MDOT PROJECTS ROW/CONST
Remarks LOCAL TN PROJECTS
TIP # STP-M-2014-12 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency Various
County Shelby Length NA LRTP # NA Conformity Exempt LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS Project Name Bridge Grouping Total Cost $11,499,500
Termini/Intersection
This grouping will be used to fund bridge replacement, rehabilitation, preservation, systematic repairs & Seismic retrofit projects throughout Project Description the Tennessee portion of the Memphis MPO area. CMAQ PROJECTS
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds PE-N/PE-D/ 2014 STP-M $2,874,875 $2,299,900 $574,975 ROW/CONST
PE-N/PE-D/ TRANSIT PROJECTS 2015 STP-M $2,874,875 $2,299,900 $574,975 ROW/CONST PE-N/PE-D/ 2016 STP-M $2,874,875 $2,299,900 $574,975 ROW/CONST PE-N/PE-D/ 2017 STP-M $2,874,875 $2,299,900 $574,975 ROW/CONST APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 94
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # TAP-2014-01 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency Various
County Shelby-Fayette Length NA LRTP # NA Conformity Exempt
Project Name Transportation Alternatives Total Cost $2,890,761
Termini/Intersection Various This grouping will be used to fund the Transportation Alternatives Program, which provides funding for programs and projects defined as INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION transportation alternatives, including on- and off-road pedestrian and bicycle facilities, infrastructure projects for improving non-driver access to public transportation and enhanced mobility, community improvement activities, and environmental mitigation; recreational trail program Project Description projects; safe routes to school projects; and projects for the planning, design or construction of boulevards and other roadways largely in the right-of-way of former Interstate System routes or other divided highways under MAP-21 throughout the Tennessee portion of the Memphis MPO area. Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds
PE-N/PE-D/ TDOT PROJECTS 2014 TAP $2,890,761 $2,312,609 $578,152 ROW/CONST MDOT PROJECTS
Remarks The 2014-2017 TIP combines the TAP FY 2013 Federal Fund allocation of $1,155,147 and FY 2014 Federal Fund allocation of $1,157,462. LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS TIP # SRTS 2008-01 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency Various
County Shelby Length LRTP # NA Conformity Exempt
Project Name Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Grouping Total Cost $224,125
Termini/Intersection CMAQ PROJECTS This grouping funds annual Safe Routes to School grant awards to Tennessee MPO jurisdictions. Amounts may be amended or adjusted Project Description as the Governor awards new grants. Safe Routes to School programs represented a good mix of educational activities, major projects such as sidewalk segments and shared-use paths and minor improvements such as sign packages, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals.
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds TRANSIT PROJECTS PE, ROW, 2014 SRTS $224,125 $224,125 CONST APPENDICES
Rozelle Elem - $220,000 Remarks Frayser Elem - $4,125 (remaining carry-over after $224,235 previous obligations)
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 95
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION D LOCAL MISSISSIPPI SPONSORED PROJECTS
Funding & Expenditures Fiscal Years 2014 - 2017 INTRODUCTION
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Funding Sources Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 Carry Over Funds (Federal $9,917,392 $6,975,968 $8,396,093 $4,705,003 $9,917,392 STP-M) Annual STP-M Federal $2,425,626 $2,425,626 $2,425,626 $2,425,626 $9,702,504 TDOT PROJECTS Funds Total STP-M Federal $12,343,018 $9,401,594 $10,821,719 $7,130,629 $19,619,896 Funding STP-M Local Funds $1,252,700 $162,313 $1,829,517 $103,813 $3,348,342 TAP Federal Funds $346,668 $0 $0 $0 $346,668 TAP Local Funds $86,667 $0 $0 $0 $86,667 MDOT PROJECTS TAP Expenditure $433,335 $0 $0 $0 $433,335
TOTAL FUNDING $14,029,053 $9,563,907 $12,651,236 $7,234,442 $23,401,573 TOTAL $7,053,085 $1,167,814 $7,946,233 $875,314 $17,042,445 EXPENDITURE BALANCE $6,975,968 $8,396,093 $4,705,003 $6,359,128 $6,359,128 LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 96
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 97
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # MS-LSTP-2004-01 MDOT # Horizon Year E+C Lead Agency Olive Branch
County Desoto Length 1.0 miles LRTP # 00770007 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name Craft Road Total Cost $4,013,187
Termini/Intersection Goodman Road (MS 302) to U.S. 78 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Widen existing rural two-lane road to 5-lane urban cross-section. Project scope will include designated bicycle facilities and ADA accessible Project Description pedestrian improvements.
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds TDOT PROJECTS 2014 CONST STP-M $4,013,187 $3,210,550 $802,637 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 98
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 99
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # MS-LSTP-2014-01 MDOT # Horizon Year 2020 Lead Agency Southaven
00410003- County Desoto Length 4.0 miles LRTP # 00410005 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name Getwell Road Total Cost $5,312,219
Star Landing Road to Church Road
Termini/Intersection INTRODUCTION
Widen existing variable width road to a four-lane divided typical section with curbs and storm drains. A 10' wide multi-use Bike-Ped lane will Project Description be provided.
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds TDOT PROJECTS 2014 PE-D STP-M $350,000 $280,000 $70,000 2015 ROW STP-M $127,500 $102,000 $25,500 2016 CONST STP-M $4,834,719 $3,867,775 $966,944 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 100
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # MS-LSTP-2014-02 MDOT # Horizon Year 2020 Lead Agency Southaven
00080010- County Desoto Length 0.51 miles LRTP # 00080014 Conformity Non-Exempt
Project Name Nail Road Extension Total Cost $2,586,200
Termini/Intersection Elmore Road to Swinnea Road INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Widen the section of roadway from Elmore Road to Landau Drive to a five-lane typical section with six foot wide bike lanes on each side. Project Description Widen the section from Landau Drive to Swinnea Road from two-lanes to five-lanes with curb and gutter and storm drains and six foot bike lanes on each side. Project scope will include ADA accessible pedestrian improvements.
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds TDOT PROJECTS 2014 PE-D STP-M $185,000 $148,000 $37,000 2015 ROW STP-M $165,000 $132,000 $33,000 2016 CONST STP-M $2,236,200 $1,477,440 $758,760 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 101
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 102
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # MS-LSTP-2014-03 MDOT # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency Horn Lake
County Desoto Length 0.24 miles LRTP # Consistent W/ LRTP Conformity Exempt
Project Name Bullfrog Corner Intersection Improvements Total Cost $1,196,249
Termini/Intersection Highway 51 and Goodman Road INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Project Description Install shared-use sidewalk (8' wide) and Pedestrian Signals/Crossings on all four corners of the intersection.
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds TDOT PROJECTS 2014 CONST STP-M $1,196,249 $956,999 $239,250 MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 103
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # MS-LSTP-2014-04 MDOT # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency Various
County Desoto Length NA LRTP # NA Conformity Exempt
Project Name Resurfacing Grouping Total Cost $2,076,255
Termini/Intersection INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
This grouping will be used to fund road resurfacing and other preventative maintenance throughout the Mississippi portion of the Memphis Project Description MPO area.
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds
PE-N/PE-D/ TDOT PROJECTS 2014 STP-M $519,064 $415,251 $103,813 ROW/CONST PE-N/PE-D/ 2015 STP-M $519,064 $415,251 $103,813 ROW/CONST PE-N/PE-D/ 2016 STP-M $519,064 $415,251 $103,813 ROW/CONST
PE-N/PE-D/ MDOT PROJECTS 2017 STP-M $519,064 $415,251 $103,813 ROW/CONST
Remarks LOCAL TN PROJECTS
TIP # MS-LSTP-2014-05 MDOT # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency Various LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS County Desoto Length NA LRTP # NA Conformity Exempt
Project Name Signalization Grouping Total Cost $1,425,000
Termini/Intersection
This grouping will be used to fund for Upgrade, Replace, Improve Traffic Signals and Signal Systems throughout the Mississippi portion of
Project Description CMAQ PROJECTS the Memphis MPO area.
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds PE-N/PE-D/ 2014 STP-M $356,250 $356,250 ROW/CONST PE-N/PE-D/ TRANSIT PROJECTS 2015 STP-M $356,250 $356,250 ROW/CONST PE-N/PE-D/ 2016 STP-M $356,250 $356,250 ROW/CONST PE-N/PE-D/ 2017 STP-M $356,250 $356,250 ROW/CONST APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 104
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # MS-TAP-2014-01 MDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency Various
County Desoto Length NA LRTP # NA Conformity Exempt
Project Name Transportation Alternatives Total Cost $433,335
Termini/Intersection Various
This grouping will be used to fund the Transportation Alternatives Program, which provides funding for programs and projects defined as INTRODUCTION transportation alternatives, including on- and off-road pedestrian and bicycle facilities, infrastructure projects for improving non-driver access to public transportation and enhanced mobility, community improvement activities, and environmental mitigation; recreational trail program Project Description projects; safe routes to school projects; and projects for the planning, design or construction of boulevards and other roadways largely in the right-of-way of former Interstate System routes or other divided highways under MAP-21 throughout the Mississippi portion of the Memphis MPO area.
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds TDOT PROJECTS
PE-N/PE-D/ 2014 TAP $433,335 $346,668 $86,667 ROW/CONST MDOT PROJECTS
Remarks The 2014-2017 TIP combines the TAP FY 2013 Federal Fund allocation of $173,334 and FY 2014 Federal Fund allocation of $173,334. LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 105
TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION E CONGESTION MITIGATION & AIR QUALITY PROJECTS Funding & Expenditures Fiscal Years 2014 - 2017 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Funding Sources Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 Carry Over Funds (Federal $21,204,327 $382,000 $191,000 $0 $21,204,327 CMAQ-M) Annual CMAQ-M Federal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Funds TDOT PROJECTS Total Federal CMAQ-M $21,204,327 $382,000 $191,000 $0 $21,204,327 Funds CMAQ-M Local Match $672,750 $47,750 $47,750 $0 $768,250 CMAQ-S Federal Funds $1,925,707 $0 $0 $0 $1,925,707 CMAQ-S Local Funds $481,427 $0 $0 $0 $481,427
Total CMAQ-S Expenditure $2,407,134 $0 $0 $0 $2,407,134 MDOT PROJECTS
TOTAL FUNDING $24,284,211 $429,750 $238,750 $0 $24,379,711 TOTAL $23,902,211 $238,750 $238,750 $0 $24,379,711 EXPENDITURE BALANCE $382,000 $191,000 $0 $0 $0 LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 106
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # CMAQ-2002-09 TDOT PIN # 115241.00 Horizon Year NA Lead Agency Shelby County
County Shelby Length NA LRTP # 90000001 Conformity Exempt
Project Name Congestion Management Program Total Cost $21,128,996
Termini/Intersection Various Locations INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
This project is the continuation of a very effective program to provide improvements to intersections throughout Shelby County, including Project Description the installation of coordinated signal systems, vehicle detection improvements, isolated signal improvements, and isolated unsignalized intersection improvements in accordance with the approved Shelby County Congestion Management Program.
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds TDOT PROJECTS PE-N/PE-D/ 2014 CMAQ-M $18,406,327 $18,406,327 ROW/CONST MDOT PROJECTS
Remarks LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS
TIP # CMAQ-2011-01 TDOT PIN # 115242 Horizon Year NA Lead Agency Memphis
County Shelby Length NA LRTP # NA Conformity Exempt
Project Name Vehicle Fuel Cap Replacement Program Total Cost $716,250
Termini/Intersection CMAQ PROJECTS
This is a gas cap replacement program that would allow the inspection program to issue a voucher toward the purchase of a new gas cap if Project Description the cap is missing or failed for leaks by a vehicle during inspection. TRANSIT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 PURCHASE CMAQ-M $238,750 $191,000 $47,750 2015 PURCHASE CMAQ-M $238,750 $191,000 $47,750 2016 PURCHASE CMAQ-M $238,750 $191,000 $47,750 APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 107
TABLE OF CONTENTS TIP # CMAQ -2012-01 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency Memphis
County Shelby Length 50 miles LRTP # NA Conformity Exempt
Project Name 50 Mile Bike/Ped Project Total Cost $1,750,000
Termini/Intersection Various Locations INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Project Description Installation of approximately 50 miles of bicycle facilities along Memphis city streets.
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds TDOT PROJECTS 2014 CONST CMAQ-M $1,750,000 $1,400,000 $350,000 MDOT PROJECTS
Remarks LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS TIP # CMAQ-2012-02 TDOT PIN # 116836 Horizon Year NA Lead Agency Shelby County
County Shelby Length 4.3 miles LRTP # NA Conformity Exempt
Project Name Shelby County Greenline Total Cost $4,400,000
Termini/Intersection Farm Road to Cordova CMAQ PROJECTS
This project is a continuation of the existing Shelby Farms Greenline, beginning at Farm Road and continuing east 4.3 miles to the Old Project Description Cordova Train Station utilizing inactive CSX Railroad right-of-way.
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds TRANSIT PROJECTS ROW, PE, 2014 CMAQ-M $1,100,000 $825,000 $275,000 CONST APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 108
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # CMAQ-2014-01 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency Shelby County
County Shelby Length NA LRTP # NA Conformity Exempt
Project Name PM 2.5 Diesel Emission Reduction Strategies Grouping Total Cost $2,407,134
Termini/Intersection NA INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Project Description Dedicated funds for projects to reduce PM 2.5 emissions from heavy-duty diesel engines (e.g., diesel retrofits)
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds TDOT PROJECTS
2014 PURCHASE CMAQ-S $2,407,134 $1,925,707 $481,427 MDOT PROJECTS
Dedicated funds for projects to reduce PM 2.5 emissions from eligible onroad and nonroad heavy-duty diesel vehicles and equipment. Remarks Open to public and private entities. LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 109
TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION F TRANSIT PROJECTS Funding & Expenditures Fiscal Years 2014 - 2017 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Funding Sources Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 5307 FTA Funds $13,592,000 $13,672,000 $13,672,000 $13,672,000 $54,608,000 5307 State Funds $1,699,000 $1,709,000 $1,709,000 $1,709,000 $6,826,000 5307 Local Funds $1,699,000 $1,709,000 $1,709,000 $1,709,000 $6,826,000
5307 Total Funds $16,990,000 $17,090,000 $17,090,000 $17,090,000 $68,260,000 TDOT PROJECTS 5337 FTA Funds $1,160,000 $1,160,000 $1,160,000 $1,160,000 $4,640,000 5337 State Funds $145,000 $145,000 $145,000 $145,000 $580,000 5337 Local Funds $145,000 $145,000 $145,000 $145,000 $580,000 5337 Total Funds $1,450,000 $1,450,000 $1,450,000 $1,450,000 $5,800,000 5339 FTA Funds $1,060,000 $1,060,000 $3,060,000 $3,780,000 $8,960,000
5339 State Funds $132,500 $132,500 $382,500 $472,500 $1,120,000 MDOT PROJECTS 5339 Local Funds $132,500 $132,500 $382,500 $472,500 $1,120,000 5339 Total Funds $1,325,000 $1,325,000 $3,825,000 $4,725,000 $11,200,000
TOTAL FUNDING $19,765,000 $19,865,000 $22,365,000 $23,265,000 $85,260,000 TOTAL
EXPENDITURE $19,765,000 $19,865,000 $22,365,000 $23,265,000 $85,260,000 LOCAL TN PROJECTS BALANCE$0$0$0$0$0 LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 110
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # 5307-2006-01 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency MATA
County Shelby Length NA LRTP # 40000002 Conformity Exempt
Project Name ADA Paratransit Services Total Cost $6,000,000
Termini/Intersection INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
MATA is permitted to use up to 10% of their annual apportionments under Section 5307 to cover operating expenses for its demand- Project Description response service known as MATAplus.
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 OPERATIONS 5307 $1,500,000 $1,200,000 $150,000 $150,000 TDOT PROJECTS 2015 OPERATIONS 5307 $1,500,000 $1,200,000 $150,000 $150,000 2016 OPERATIONS 5307 $1,500,000 $1,200,000 $150,000 $150,000 2017 OPERATIONS 5307 $1,500,000 $1,200,000 $150,000 $150,000 MDOT PROJECTS
Remarks LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS
TIP # 5307-2006-02 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency MATA
County Shelby Length NA LRTP # 40000013 Conformity Exempt
Project Name Advanced Public Transportation Systems Phase II Total Cost $1,800,000 CMAQ PROJECTS Termini/Intersection
Advanced Public Transportation Systems apply advanced technologies to address public transportation needs. These systems may Project Description include communication systems, fare collection systems, security systems, mobility management software, project administration, and other management systems. TRANSIT PROJECTS
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 PURCHASE 5307 $450,000 $360,000 $45,000 $45,000 2015 PURCHASE 5307 $450,000 $360,000 $45,000 $45,000 2016 PURCHASE 5307 $450,000 $360,000 $45,000 $45,000 2017 PURCHASE 5307 $450,000 $360,000 $45,000 $45,000 APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 111
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # 5307-2006-03 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency MATA
County Shelby Length NA LRTP # 40000005 Conformity Exempt
Project Name Bus Facility Improvements Total Cost $2,000,000
Termini/Intersection INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Includes various routine improvements to bus-related facilities, such as construction and repairs to maintenance, operations, and Project Description passenger facilities. Typical items include roof repairs, equipment repairs, painting, security elements, HVAC modifications, paving, etc.
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 PE-D/CONST 5307 $500,000 $400,000 $50,000 $50,000 TDOT PROJECTS 2015 PE-D/CONST 5307 $500,000 $400,000 $50,000 $50,000 2016 PE-D/CONST 5307 $500,000 $400,000 $50,000 $50,000 2017 PE-D/CONST 5307 $500,000 $400,000 $50,000 $50,000 MDOT PROJECTS
Remarks LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS
TIP # 5307-2006-04 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency MATA
County Shelby Length NA LRTP # 40000007 Conformity Exempt
Project Name Computer Hardware and Software Total Cost $400,000
Termini/Intersection CMAQ PROJECTS
These systems are used to maintain accurate records and keep various department tasks such as finance, purchasing, scheduling, Project Description transportation, maintenance, grants, planning, marketing and human resources operational. TRANSIT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 PURCHASE 5307 $100,000 $80,000 $10,000 $10,000 2015 PURCHASE 5307 $100,000 $80,000 $10,000 $10,000 2016 PURCHASE 5307 $100,000 $80,000 $10,000 $10,000 2017 PURCHASE 5307 $100,000 $80,000 $10,000 $10,000 APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 112
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # 5307-2006-05 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency MATA
County Shelby Length NA LRTP # 40000003 Conformity Exempt
Project Name Fixed Route Buses Total Cost $4,000,000
Termini/Intersection INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
This project provides funding for the purchase of up to 12 buses between FY 2014 and FY 2017 using Section 5307 funds. These buses Project Description generally have a service life of 12 years or 500,000 miles, whichever comes first, and will replace up to 12 diesel buses that have met their useful service life. All buses will be replaced in accordance with FTA's currently rolling stock policy.
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds TDOT PROJECTS 2014 PURCHASE 5307 $1,000,000 $800,000 $100,000 $100,000 2015 PURCHASE 5307 $1,000,000 $800,000 $100,000 $100,000 2016 PURCHASE 5307 $1,000,000 $800,000 $100,000 $100,000 2017 PURCHASE 5307 $1,000,000 $800,000 $100,000 $100,000 MDOT PROJECTS
Remarks LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS
TIP # 5307-2006-06 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency MATA
County Shelby Length NA LRTP # 40000004 Conformity Exempt
Project Name Paratransit Vehicles Total Cost $4,000,000
Termini/Intersection CMAQ PROJECTS
This project provides funding for the purchase of paratransit vehicles between FY 2014 and FY 2017 using Section 5307 funds as follows: Project Description up to six in FY 2014; up to six in FY 2015; up to six in FY 2016, and up to six in FY 2017. These vehicles will replace up to 24 diesel paratransit buses that have met their useful life. All vehicles will be replaced in accordance with FTA's currently rolling stock policy. TRANSIT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 PURCHASE 5307 $1,000,000 $800,000 $100,000 $100,000 2015 PURCHASE 5307 $1,000,000 $800,000 $100,000 $100,000 2016 PURCHASE 5307 $1,000,000 $800,000 $100,000 $100,000 2017 PURCHASE 5307 $1,000,000 $800,000 $100,000 $100,000 APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 113
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # 5307-2006-07 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency MATA
County Shelby Length NA LRTP # 40000001 Conformity Exempt
Project Name Preventative Maintenance Total Cost $47,000,000
Termini/Intersection INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Preventive Maintenance provides funds for materials and supplies, inspections and routine maintenance needed to maximize the efficiency Project Description and service life of MATA's capital assets, including MATA's fixed-route and demand-response bus fleets, rail fleets, service vehicles, infrastructure and facilities.
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds TDOT PROJECTS 2014 PURCHASE 5307 $11,750,000 $9,400,000 $1,175,000 $1,175,000 2015 PURCHASE 5307 $11,750,000 $9,400,000 $1,175,000 $1,175,000 2016 PURCHASE 5307 $11,750,000 $9,400,000 $1,175,000 $1,175,000 2017 PURCHASE 5307 $11,750,000 $9,400,000 $1,175,000 $1,175,000 MDOT PROJECTS
Remarks LOCAL TN PROJECTS
TIP # 5307-2006-09 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency MATA LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS County Shelby Length NA LRTP # 40000008 Conformity Exempt
Project Name Transit Centers Total Cost $2,000,000
Termini/Intersection
MATA plans to construct a system of transit centers in various locations throughout MATA's service area. Bus routes in each area will be adjusted to serve the centers, and schedules will be adjusted to minimize waiting time for transfers. The Transit Center Program may be Project Description CMAQ PROJECTS funded with a comination of Section 5307, Section 5339 and possibly CMAQ funds. Transit centers typically consist of a small off-street passenger waiting area and bus bething area.
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds PE-N/PE-D/ 2014 5307 $500,000 $400,000 $50,000 $50,000 ROW/CONST TRANSIT PROJECTS PE-N/PE-D/ 2015 5307 $500,000 $400,000 $50,000 $50,000 ROW/CONST PE-N/PE-D/ 2016 5307 $500,000 $400,000 $50,000 $50,000 ROW/CONST PE-N/PE-D/ 2017 5307 $500,000 $400,000 $50,000 $50,000 ROW/CONST APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 114
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # 5307-2006-11 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency MATA
County Shelby Length NA LRTP # 40000011 Conformity Exempt
Project Name Service Vehicles Total Cost $300,000
Termini/Intersection INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
This project involves periodic replacement of MATA's service vehicles between FY2014 and FY2017 using Section 5307 funds as follows: Project Description up to five in FY2015; up to five in FY2016 and up to five in FY2017. The service life of these vehicles is typically four years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first. These vehicles will replace service vehicles that have met their useful service life.
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2015 PURCHASE 5307 $100,000 $80,000 $10,000 $10,000 TDOT PROJECTS 2016 PURCHASE 5307 $100,000 $80,000 $10,000 $10,000 2017 PURCHASE 5307 $100,000 $80,000 $10,000 $10,000 MDOT PROJECTS
Remarks LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS
TIP # 5307-2012-02 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency MATA
County Shelby Length NA LRTP # NA Conformity Exempt
Project Name Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment Total Cost $160,000 CMAQ PROJECTS Termini/Intersection
Project Description Includes various purchases and replacement of MATA's capital assets such as furniture, office equipment or site furnishings. TRANSIT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 PURCHASE 5307 $40,000 $32,000 $4,000 $4,000 2015 PURCHASE 5307 $40,000 $32,000 $4,000 $4,000 2016 PURCHASE 5307 $40,000 $32,000 $4,000 $4,000 2017 PURCHASE 5307 $40,000 $32,000 $4,000 $4,000 APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 115
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # 5307-2013-01 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency MATA
County Shelby Length NA LRTP # NA Conformity Exempt
Project Name Associated Transit Improvements Total Cost $600,000
Termini/Intersection
Includes various projects designed to enhance public transportation service or use and that is physically or functionally related to transit. INTRODUCTION Eligible projects include: historic preservation, rehabilitation and operation of historic public transportation buildings, structures, and Project Description facilities intended for use in public transportation service; bus shelters; landscaping and streetscaping, including benches, trash receptacles, and street lights; pedestrian access and walkways; bicycle access or storage equipment; signage; or enhanced access for persons with disabilities to public transportation.
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds
PE-N/PE-D/ TDOT PROJECTS 2014 5307 $150,000 $120,000 $15,000 $15,000 ROW/CONST PE-N/PE-D/ 2015 5307 $150,000 $120,000 $15,000 $15,000 ROW/CONST PE-N/PE-D/ 2016 5307 $150,000 $120,000 $15,000 $15,000 ROW/CONST
PE-N/PE-D/ MDOT PROJECTS 2017 5307 $150,000 $120,000 $15,000 $15,000 ROW/CONST LOCAL TN PROJECTS Remarks LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS
TIP # 5337-2013-01 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency MATA
County Shelby Length NA LRTP # NA Conformity Exempt
Project Name Preventive Maintenance - Rail Only Total Cost $5,400,000 CMAQ PROJECTS Termini/Intersection
Preventive Maintenance provides funds for materials and supplies, inspections and routine maintenance needed to maximize the efficiency Project Description and service life of MATA's capital assets, including MATA's rail fleet, service vehicles, infrastructure and facilities. TRANSIT PROJECTS
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 PURCHASE 5337 $1,350,000 $1,080,000 $135,000 $135,000 2015 PURCHASE 5337 $1,350,000 $1,080,000 $135,000 $135,000 2016 PURCHASE 5337 $1,350,000 $1,080,000 $135,000 $135,000 2017 PURCHASE 5337 $1,350,000 $1,080,000 $135,000 $135,000 APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 116
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # 5337-2014-01 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency MATA
County Shelby Length NA LRTP # NA Conformity Exempt
Project Name Rail Facility Improvements Total Cost $400,000
Termini/Intersection INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
This project includes various routine improvements to rail related facilities. Such improvements include repairs to tracks, switches, Project Description crossties, the catenary system, bridges, substations, stations and the Trolley Maintenance and Storage Facility.
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 PE-D/CONST 5337 $100,000 $80,000 $10,000 $10,000 TDOT PROJECTS 2015 PE-D/CONST 5337 $100,000 $80,000 $10,000 $10,000 2016 PE-D/CONST 5337 $100,000 $80,000 $10,000 $10,000 2017 PE-D/CONST 5337 $100,000 $80,000 $10,000 $10,000 MDOT PROJECTS
Remarks LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS
TIP # 5339-2013-01 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency MATA
County Shelby Length NA LRTP # NA Conformity Exempt
Project Name Fixed-Route Buses Total Cost $4,800,000
Termini/Intersection CMAQ PROJECTS
This project provides funding for the purchase of up to 12 buses between FY2014 and FY2017 using Section 5339 funds. These buses Project Description generally have a service life of 12 years or 500,000 miles, whichever comes first, and will replace up to 12 diesel buses that have met their useful service life. All buses will be replaced in accordance with FTA's currently rolling stock policy. TRANSIT PROJECTS Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 PURCHASE 5339 $1,200,000 $960,000 $120,000 $120,000 2015 PURCHASE 5339 $1,200,000 $960,000 $120,000 $120,000 2016 PURCHASE 5339 $1,200,000 $960,000 $120,000 $120,000 2017 PURCHASE 5339 $1,200,000 $960,000 $120,000 $120,000 APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 117
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TIP # 5339-2013-02 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency MATA
County Shelby Length NA LRTP # NA Conformity Exempt
Project Name Bus Facility Improvements Total Cost $500,000
Termini/Intersection INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Includes various routine improvements to bus-related facilities such as construction and repairs to maintenance, operations and passenger Project Description facilities. Typical items include roof repairs, equipment repairs, painting, security elements, HVAC modifications, paving, etc.
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2014 PE-D/CONST 5339 $125,000 $100,000 $12,500 $12,500 TDOT PROJECTS 2015 PE-D/CONST 5339 $125,000 $100,000 $12,500 $12,500 2016 PE-D/CONST 5339 $125,000 $100,000 $12,500 $12,500 2017 PE-D/CONST 5339 $125,000 $100,000 $12,500 $12,500 MDOT PROJECTS
Remarks LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS LOCAL MS TIP # 5339-2014-01 TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency MATA
County Shelby Length NA LRTP # NA Conformity Exempt
Project Name Bus Operations and Maintenance Facility Total Cost $5,900,000
Termini/Intersection CMAQ PROJECTS MATA completed a feasibility study in 2012 which recommended gradual relocation of MATA's existing Bus Operations, Maintenance and Administration functions from 1370 Levee Road to another site as funding permits. The existing facility was built on a former landfill and Project Description continues to sink causing numerous problems that are expected to worsen in the future. Funding is programmed in FY2016 for land acquisition and in FY2017 for the design and engineering.
Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds
PE-N/PE-D/ TRANSIT PROJECTS 2016 5339 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $250,000 $250,000 ROW/CONST PE-N/PE-D/ 2017 5339 $3,400,000 $2,720,000 $340,000 $340,000 ROW/CONST APPENDICES
Remarks
Memphis MPO FY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 118
2014-2017 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) APPENDIX
Adopted 09.12.13
MEMPHIS URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO)
(Programa de Mejora de Transporte para MPO de Memphis)
Memphis MPO Contact Information: 125 North Main St., Suite # 450 Memphis, TN 38103 Ph. (901) 576-7190 Fax. (901) 576-7272
This document is available in accessible formats when requested five (5) days in advance.
This document was prepared and published by the Memphis Metropolitan Planning Organization and is prepared in cooperation with or with financial assistance from all or several of the following public entities: the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, the Tennessee and Mississippi Department of Transportation, the Memphis Area Transit Authority, and the local governments in the MPO region.
It is the policy of the Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, national origin or disability in its hiring or employment practices, or in its admission to or operations of its program, services, or activities. All inquiries for Title VI and/or the American Disabilities Act, contact John Paul Shaffer at 901-576-7130 or [email protected].
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix A Funding Provisions in MAP-21………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 Appendix B Policy for FY 2014-17 TIP and TIP Amendment/Adjustment Procedures………………….…….…………………………………...12 Appendix C Project Ranking Criteria and Supporting Documents……………………………………………………………………………………20 Appendix D Status of Projects in FY 2011-14 TIP……………………………………………………………………………………………………...30
Appendix E Interagency Consultation Process …………………………………………..…………………………………………………………….43 APPENDIX A Appendix F Public Involvement Process…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………56 Appendix G 2014-17 Local STP Projects and Rankings……………………………………………………………………………………………….72 Appendix H Shelby County and Desoto County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Reports…………………………………………………77
APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX-A Funding Provisions in MAP-21
Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) The Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) is a system of designated corridors and roadways within the 13 States that make up the Appalachian Region. The ADHS Program is aimed at timely completion of the designated ADHS. APPENDIX A Bridge and Tunnel Inspection In order to protect the safety of the traveling public and support the movement of people and goods on which the economy relies, there are Federal requirements for the inventory and inspection of bridges and tunnels on all public roads and the standards used for the inventory and inspections. This provides a basis for a data-driven, risk-based approach to, and cost-effective strategy for, bridge and tunnel investment.
Funding may be used to carry out provisions related to bridge and tunnel inspections, standards for inspection, and related training. APPENDIX B
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) provides funding for projects and programs in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM-10, PM-2.5) which reduce transportation related emissions. [23 USC 149(a)]. Because CMAQ funds are intended to improve air quality, funds must be spent in nonattainment or maintenance areas. A nonattainment area is an area formally designated (in the Code of Federal Regulations) by EPA as APPENDIX C not meeting the NAAQS. A maintenance area is an area that was nonattainment but has subsequently attained the NAAQS and was officially re-designated to attainment by EPA.
Eligible Use of Funds 1. Establishment or Operation of Traffic Monitoring, Management, and Control Facility 2. Traffic Flow Improvements APPENDIX D 3. Travel Demand Management Strategies 4. Purchase of Emergency Communications Equipment 5. Diesel Retrofits 6. Alternative "Clean" Fuels 7. Transit Operations APPENDIX E 8. Workforce Development, Training, and Education
Construction of Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal Facilities This program provides funding for the construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.
Emergency Relief Program (ER) APPENDIX F The Emergency Relief program provides funds for emergency repairs and permanent repairs on Federal-aid highways and roads on Federal lands that the Secretary finds have suffered serious damage as a result of natural disasters or catastrophic failure from an external cause. Funds are allocated to the States based on an assessment of repair costs following a disaster.
Eligible Use of Funds APPENDIX G 1. Emergency repair work to restore essential travel, minimize the extent of damage, or protect the remaining facilities 2. Addition of transit service as a temporary substitute for highway traffic service 3. Debris removal (eligibility requirements) 4. Repair or construct comparable facilities
Federal Lands Access Program APPENDIX H The Federal Lands Access Program (Access Program) provides funds for projects on Federal Lands access transportation facilities that are located on or adjacent to, or that provide access to Federal lands.
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS Eligible Use of Funds 1. Transportation planning, maintenance, and construction that provides access to Federal Land 2. Operation and maintenance of transit facilities 3. Any transportation project eligible for assistance under title 23 of the United States Code that provides access to Federal Land.
Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) APPENDIX A The FLTP funds projects that improve access within the Federal estate (national forests, national parks, national wildlife refuges, national recreation areas, and other Federal public lands) on transportation facilities in the national Federal Lands transportation inventory and owned and maintained by the Federal government.
Eligible Use of Funds
1. Transportation planning, maintenance, and construction that provides access to Federal Lands APPENDIX B 2. Operation and maintenance of transit facilities 3. Any transportation project eligible for assistance under title 23 of the United States Code that provides access to Federal Land
Highway Research and Development Program The Highway Research and Development Program funds strategic investment in research activities that address current and emerging APPENDIX C highway transportation needs.
Eligible Use of Funds 1. Improving Highway Safety 2. Improving Infrastructure Integrity
3. Strengthening Transportation Planning and Environmental Decisionmaking APPENDIX D 4. Reducing Congestion, Improving Highway Operations, and Enhancing Freight Productivity 5. Exploratory Advanced Research 6. Operation of the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center 7. Infrastructure Investment Needs Report
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) APPENDIX E MAP-21 continues the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-State-owned public roads and roads on tribal lands. The HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that focuses on performance.
Eligible Use of Funds APPENDIX F 1. An intersection safety improvement 2. Pavement and shoulder widening (including addition of a passing lane to remedy an unsafe condition) 3. Installation of rumble strips or another warning device, if the rumble strips or other warning devices do not adversely affect the safety or mobility of bicyclists, pedestrians, and the disabled 4. Installation of a skid-resistant surface at an intersection or other location with a high frequency of accidents
5. An improvement for pedestrian or bicyclist safety or safety of the disabled APPENDIX G 6. Construction of any project for the elimination of hazards at a railway-highway crossing that is eligible for funding under section 130, including the separation or protection of grades at railway-highway crossings 7. Construction of a railway-highway crossing safety feature, including installation of protective devices 8. The conduct of a model traffic enforcement activity at a railway-highway crossing 9. Construction of a traffic calming feature
10. Elimination of a roadside obstacle APPENDIX H 11. Improvement of highway signage and pavement markings 12. Installation of a priority control system for emergency vehicles at signalized intersections 13. Installation of a traffic control or other warning device at a location with high accident potential
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS 14. Safety-conscious planning 15. Improvement in the collection and analysis of crash data 16. Planning integrated interoperable emergency communications equipment, operational activities, or traffic enforcement activities (including police assistance) relating to work zone safety 17. Installation of guardrails, barriers (including barriers between construction work zones and traffic lanes for the safety of motorists and workers), and crash attenuators 18. The addition or retrofitting of structures or other measures to eliminate or reduce accidents involving vehicles and wildlife APPENDIX A 19. Installation and maintenance of signs (including fluorescent, yellow-green signs) at pedestrian-bicycle crossings and in school zones 20. Construction and yellow-green signs at pedestrian-bicycle crossings and in school zones 21. Construction and operational improvements on high risk rural roads 22. Roundabouts
APPENDIX B Highway Trust Fund and Taxes Generally, extends the imposition of highway-user taxes through September 30, 2016 with no change to the tax rates. These taxes consist of gallonage taxes on highway motor fuel and truck related taxes, including an annual tax on heavy vehicle use, a load rating-based tax on heavy truck tires and a retail sales tax on truck and trailer sales. The heavy vehicle use tax is extended through September 30, 2017. The taxes on highway motor fuel will continue past September 30, 2016, but at a reduced rate of 4.3 cents per gallon. APPENDIX C Highway Use Tax Evasion Projects The Highway Use Tax Evasion Projects program provides funding to the Internal Revenue Service, other Federal agencies and the States to carry out intergovernmental enforcement efforts along with training and research to reduce evasion of payment of motor fuel and other highway use taxes.
APPENDIX D Eligible Use of Funds 1. Expand efforts to enhance motor fuel tax enforcement 2. Supplement motor fuel tax examinations and criminal investigations 3. Fund additional Internal Revenue Service staff for functions related to highway use tax evasion 4. Develop automated data processing tools to monitor motor fuel production and sales
5. Evaluate and implement registration and reporting requirements for motor fuel taxpayers APPENDIX E 6. Reimburse State expenses that supplement existing fuel tax compliance efforts 7. Analyze and implement programs to reduce tax evasion 8. Support efforts between States and Indian tribes to address issues relating to State motor fuel taxes 9. Analyze and implement programs to reduce tax evasion associated with imported fuel
National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) APPENDIX F The NHPP provides support for the condition and performance of the National Highway System (NHS), for the construction of new facilities on the NHS, and to ensure that investments of Federal-aid funds in highway construction are directed to support progress toward the achievement of performance targets established in a State's asset management plan for the NHS.
Eligible Use of Funds APPENDIX G 1. Construction, or operational improvements of NHS segments 2. Construction, replacement, rehabilitation, preservation, and protection of NHS bridges and tunnels 3. Bridge and tunnel inspection and evaluation on the NHS and inspection and evaluation of other NHS highway infrastructure assets 4. Training of bridge and tunnel inspectors
5. Construction, rehabilitation, or replacement of existing ferry boats and facilities, including approaches, that connect road APPENDIX H segments of the NHS 6. Construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, and preservation of, and operational improvements for, a Federal-aid highway not on the NHS, and construction of a transit project eligible for assistance under chapter 53 of title 49, if-
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS the project is in the same corridor and in proximity to a fully access-controlled NHS route; the construction or improvements will reduce delays or produce travel time savings on the fully access-controlled highway and improve regional traffic flow; and if the improvement is more cost-effective (as determined by a benefit-cost analysis) than an NHS improvement 7. Bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways 8. Highway safety improvements on the NHS 9. Capital and operating costs for traffic and traveler information, monitoring, management, and control facilities and programs 10. Development and implementation of a State Asset Management Plan for the NHS including data collection, maintenance and APPENDIX A integration, software costs, and equipment costs 11. Infrastructure-based ITS capital improvements 12. Environmental restoration and pollution abatement 13. Control of noxious weeds and establishment of native species 14. Environmental mitigation related to NHPP projects
15. Construction of publicly owned intracity or intercity bus terminals servicing the NHS APPENDIX B
Railway-Highway Crossings Program This program funds safety improvements to reduce the number of fatalities, injuries, and crashes at public grade crossings.
Eligible Use of Funds APPENDIX C 1. Crossing elimination by new grade separations, relocation of highways, relocation of roadways, relocation of railroads, and crossing closure without other construction 2. Reconstruction of existing grade separations 3. Crossing improvement by: installation of standard signs and pavement markings, installation of STOP signs, installation or replacement of active traffic control devices (including track circuit improvements and interconnection with highway intersection traffic signals), crossing illumination, crossing surface improvements, or general site improvements APPENDIX D
Significant Freight Provisions MAP-21 includes a number of provisions to improve the condition and performance of the national freight network and support investment in freight-related surface transportation projects. This program authorizes DOT to allow a maximum Federal share of 95% for an Interstate System project (or of 90% for a non-Interstate System project) if the project makes a demonstrable improvement in the efficiency of freight movement and is identified in a State freight plan (as described in section 1118 of MAP-21). [§1116] APPENDIX E
Surface Transportation Program (STP) The Surface Transportation Program (STP) provides flexible funding that may be used by States and localities for projects to preserve and improve the conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway, bridge and tunnel projects on any public road, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects, including intercity bus terminals. APPENDIX F
Eligible Use of Funds 1. Construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, restoration, preservation, and operational improvements for highways (including Interstate highways) and bridges 2. Replacement, rehabilitation, preservation, protection, and anti-icing/deicing for bridges and tunnels on any public road,
including construction or reconstruction necessary to accommodate other modes. APPENDIX G 3. Construction of new bridges and tunnels on a Federal-aid highway. 4. Inspection and evaluation of bridges, tunnels and other highway assets as well as training for bridge and tunnel inspectors. 5. Capital costs for transit projects eligible for assistance under chapter 53 of title 49, including vehicles and facilities, whether publicly or privately owned, that are used to provide intercity passenger service by bus. 6. Carpool projects, fringe and corridor parking facilities and programs, including electric and natural gas vehicle charging infrastructure, bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways in accordance with section 217, and the modification of public APPENDIX H sidewalks to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.). 7. Highway and transit safety infrastructure improvements and programs, installation of safety barriers and nets on bridges, hazard eliminations, projects to mitigate hazards caused by wildlife, and railway-highway grade crossings.
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS 8. Highway and transit research and development and technology transfer programs. 9. Capital and operating costs for traffic monitoring, management, and control facilities and programs, including advanced truck stop electrification systems. 10. Surface transportation planning programs 11. Transportation alternatives --newly defined, includes most transportation enhancement eligibilities. 12. Transportation control measures. 13. Development and establishment of management systems . APPENDIX A 14. Environmental mitigation efforts (as under National Highway Performance Program). 15. Intersections with high accident rates or levels of congestion. 16. Infrastructure-based ITS capital improvements. 17. Environmental restoration and pollution abatement. 18. Control of noxious weeds and establishment of native species.
19. Congestion pricing projects and strategies, including electric toll collection and travel demand management strategies and APPENDIX B programs. 20. Recreational trails projects. 21. Construction of ferry boats and terminals. 22. Border infrastructure projects. 23. Truck parking facilities.
24. Development and implementation of State asset management plan for the NHS, and similar activities related to the APPENDIX C development and implementation of a performance based management program for other public roads. 25. Surface transportation infrastructure modifications within port terminal boundaries, only if necessary to facilitate direct intermodal interchange, transfer, and access into and out of the port. 26. Construction and operational improvements for a minor collector in the same corridor and in proximity to an NHS route if the improvement is more cost-effective (as determined by a benefit-cost analysis) than an NHS improvement and will enhance APPENDIX D NHS level of service and regional traffic flow
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) MAP-21 establishes a new program to provide for a variety of alternative transportation projects, including many that were previously eligible activities under separately funded programs. The TAP replaces the funding from pre-MAP-21 programs including Transportation
Enhancements, Recreational Trails, Safe Routes to School, and several other discretionary programs, wrapping them into a single funding APPENDIX E source.
Eligible Use of Funds Funds may be used for projects or activities that are related to surface transportation and described in the definition of “Transportation Alternatives.” [23 USC 101(a)(29)] 1. Construction, planning, and design of on-road and off-road trail facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other nonmotorized APPENDIX F forms of transportation. 2. Construction, planning, and design of infrastructure-related projects and systems that will provide safe routes for non-drivers, including children, older adults, and individuals with disabilities to access daily needs. 3. Conversion and use of abandoned railroad corridors for trails for pedestrians, bicyclists, or other nonmotorized transportation users. APPENDIX G 4. Construction of turnouts, overlooks, and viewing areas. 5. Community improvement activities, which include but are not limited to: inventory, control, or removal of outdoor advertising; historic preservation and rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities; vegetation management practices in transportation rights-of-way to improve roadway safety, prevent against invasive species, and provide erosion control; and archaeological activities relating to impacts from implementation of a transportation project eligible under 23 USC.
6. Any environmental mitigation activity, including pollution prevention and pollution abatement activities and mitigation to— APPENDIX H address stormwater management, control, and water pollution prevention or abatement related to highway construction or due to highway runoff; or reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality or to restore and maintain connectivity among terrestrial or aquatic habitats.
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS 7. The recreational trails program under 23 USC 206. 8. The safe routes to school program under §1404 of SAFETEA–LU. 9. Planning, designing, or constructing boulevards and other roadways largely in the right-of-way of former Interstate System routes or other divided highways.
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)
The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) Program provides Federal credit assistance to eligible surface APPENDIX A transportation projects, including highway, transit, intercity passenger rail, some types of freight rail, and intermodal freight transfer facilities. The program is designed to fill market gaps and leverage substantial private co-investment by providing projects with supplemental or subordinate debt.
Eligible Use of Funds
Funds may be used to carry out eligible projects to integrate transportation, community, and system preservation plans and practices that: APPENDIX B 1. Projects eligible for assistance under title 23 or chapter 53 of title 49. 2. International bridges and tunnels. 3. Intercity passenger bus or rail facilities and vehicles, including those owned by Amtrak. 4. Public freight rail projects. 5. Private freight rail projects that provide public benefit for highway users by way of direct highway-rail freight interchange (a APPENDIX C refinement of the SAFETEA-LU eligibility criterion). 6. Intermodal freight transfer facilities. 7. Projects providing access to, or improving the service of, the freight rail projects and transfer facilities described above. 8. Surface transportation infrastructure modifications necessary to facilitate direct intermodal interchange, transfer and access into and out of a port.
APPENDIX D Workforce Development and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises MAP-21 continues programs designed to foster the training and development of surface transportation-related workforces and to support disadvantaged business enterprises (DBEs). Eligible Use of Funds 1. Tuition and direct educational expenses (other than salaries) in connection with the education and training of employees of
State and local transportation agencies. APPENDIX E 2. Employee professional development. 3. Student internships. 4. University or community college support. 5. Education activities, including outreach, to develop interest and promote participation in surface transportation careers. 6. NHI course participation. 7. Local technical assistance programs (LTAP). [§52004(4)(A); 23 USC 504(e)] APPENDIX F
Source: FHWA and FTA
APPENDIX G
APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS TDOT Metropolitan Groupings
Allowable Work Types for TDOT’s Metropolitan Groupings Activities delivered from TDOT’s metropolitan groupings are limited to work types that are: 1. Located in metropolitan areas – any located in a non-metropolitan or rural area must be programmed in the STIP, 2. Not considered to be of appropriate scale for individual identification in a given program year,
3. Environmentally-neutral as categorical exclusions under 23 CFR 771.117(c) and (d), APPENDIX A 4. Non-regionally significant, in nonattainment and maintenance areas, and 5. Exempt as defined in the EPA’s transportation conformity regulations in 40 CFR Part 93, in nonattainment and maintenance areas.
Activities that do not meet these requirements must be individually identified in the respective MPO’s TIP or TDOT’s STIP.
APPENDIX B Metropolitan, Non-metropolitan, and Rural Areas TDOT’s map of metropolitan, non-metropolitan, and rural areas is available at: http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/longrange/mpo.htm.
Regional Significance and Air Quality Attainment Status Regionally significant project means a transportation project that is on a facility which serves regional transportation needs (such as access to and from the area outside the region; major activity centers in the region; major planned developments such as new retail malls, sports APPENDIX C complexes, or employment centers; or transportation terminals) and would normally be included in the modeling of the metropolitan area's transportation network. At a minimum, this includes all principal arterial highways and all fixed guideway transit facilities that offer a signifi- cant alternative to regional highway travel, per 23 CFR 450.104. Regional significance is collaboratively determined by each nonattainment and/or maintenance area’s respective Interagency Consultation group, per 40 CFR 93.105. The EPA’s “Green Book” of nonattainment and maintenance statuses is available at: http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/anay_tn.html.
APPENDIX D NHPP and STP Funding Qualifications National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) funds are limited to projects on the National Highway System (NHS) unless otherwise not- ed in Title 23 of the U.S. Code. FHWA’s NHS maps are available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/ tennessee/index.cfm. Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds can only be used on Federal-aid Highways – any functionally-classified road except local roads
and rural minor collectors – unless otherwise noted in Title 23 of the U.S. Code. TDOT’s functional classification maps are available at: APPENDIX E http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/longrange/functionalclass.htm. APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 7
TABLE OF CONTENTS TDOT Groupings—Allowable Work Type by Category Grouping
Surface Transportation Program (STP) Grouping (TIP# TN-STP-2014-01)
Function of Grouping Activities: Projects for the preservation and improvement of the conditions and performance of Federal-aid highways and public roads, including:
Rehabilitation, resurfacing, restoration, preservation, and operational improvements on Federal-aid highways and designated APPENDIX A routes of the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) and local access roads under 40 U.S.C. 14501, Traffic operations on Federal-aid highways, Bridge and tunnel improvements on public roads, Safety improvements on public roads, Bicycle and pedestrian improvements on public roads, and APPENDIX B Environmental mitigation
Allowable Work Types Minor rehabilitation, pavement resurfacing, preventative maintenance, restoration, and pavement preservation treatments to ex- tend the service life of highway infrastructure, including pavement markings and improvements to roadside hardware or sight dis-
tance APPENDIX C Highway improvement work including slide repair, rock fall mitigation, drainage repairs, or other preventative work necessary to maintain or extend the service life of the existing infrastructure in a good operational condition Minor operational and safety improvements to intersections and interchanges such as adding turn lanes, addressing existing geo- metric deficiencies, and extending on/off ramps Capital and operating costs for intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and traffic monitoring, management, and control facilities APPENDIX D and programs: Infrastructure-based intelligent transportation systems (ITS) capital improvements Traffic Management Center (TMC) operations and utilities Freeway service patrols Traveler information
Bridge and tunnel construction, replacement, rehabilitation, preservation, protection, inspection, evaluation, and inspector training APPENDIX E and inspection and evaluation of other infrastructure assets, such as signs, walls, and drainage structures Development and implementation of a State Asset Management Plan including data collection, maintenance and integration, soft- ware costs, and equipment costs that support the development of performance-based management systems for infrastructure Rail-highway grade crossing improvements Highway safety improvements: APPENDIX F Installation of new or improvement of existing guardrail Installation of traffic signs and signals/lights Spot safety improvements Sidewalk improvements Pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities
Traffic calming and traffic diversion improvements APPENDIX G Transportation Alternatives as defined by 23 U.S.C. 213(B), 23 U.S.C. 101(A)(29), and Section 1122 of MAP-21 Noise walls Wetland and/or stream mitigation Environmental restoration and pollution abatement Control of noxious weeds and establishment of native species APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 8
TABLE OF CONTENTS TDOT Groupings—Allowable Work Type by Category Grouping (continued)
National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) Grouping (TIP# TN-NHPP-2014-04)
Function of Grouping Activities Projects for the preservation and improvement of the conditions and performance of the National Highway System (NHS), including:
Rehabilitation, resurfacing, restoration, preservation, and operational improvements, APPENDIX A Traffic operations, Bridge and tunnel improvements, Safety improvements, Bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and Environmental mitigation. APPENDIX B
Allowable Work Types Minor rehabilitation, pavement resurfacing, preventative maintenance, restoration, and pavement preservation treatments to ex- tend the service life of highway infrastructure, including pavement markings and improvements to roadside hardware or sight dis- tance
Highway improvement work including slide repair, rock fall mitigation, drainage repairs, or other preventative work necessary to APPENDIX C maintain or extend the service life of the existing infrastructure in a good operational condition Minor operational and safety improvements to intersections and interchanges such as adding turn lanes, addressing existing geo- metric deficiencies, and extending on/off ramps Capital and operating costs for intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and traffic monitoring, management, and control facilities and programs: APPENDIX D Infrastructure-based intelligent transportation systems (ITS) capital improvements Traffic Management Center (TMC) operations and utilities Freeway service patrols Traveler information Bridge and tunnel construction, replacement, rehabilitation, preservation, protection, inspection, evaluation, and inspector training
and inspection and evaluation of other infrastructure assets, such as signs, walls, and drainage structures APPENDIX E Development and implementation of a State Asset Management Plan including data collection, maintenance and integration, soft- ware costs, and equipment costs that support the development of performance-based management systems for infrastructure Rail-highway grade crossing improvements Highway safety improvements: Installation of new or improvement of existing guardrail APPENDIX F Installation of traffic signs and signals/lights Spot safety improvements Sidewalk improvements Pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities Traffic calming and traffic diversion improvements
Noise walls APPENDIX G Wetland and/or stream mitigation Environmental restoration and pollution abatement Control of noxious weeds and establishment of native species APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 9
TABLE OF CONTENTS TDOT Groupings—Allowable Work Type by Category Grouping (continued)
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Grouping (TIP# TN-HSIP-2014-01)
Function of Grouping Activities Any strategy, activity or project on a public road that is consistent with the data-driven State Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and
corrects or improves a hazardous road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem, including workforce development, training APPENDIX A and education activities.
Eligibility of specific projects, strategies, and activities is generally based on: Consistency with SHSP, Crash experience, crash potential, or other data-supported means, Compliance with the requirements of Title 23 of the U.S. Code, and APPENDIX B State’s strategic or performance-based safety goals to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.
Allowable Work Types Intersection safety improvements
Pavement and shoulder widening (including a passing lane to remedy an unsafe condition) APPENDIX C Installation of rumble strips or another warning devices, if they do not adversely affect the safety or mobility of bicyclists and pe- destrians Installation of skid-resistant surface at intersections or locations with high crash frequencies Improvements for pedestrian or bicyclist safety Construction and improvement of a railway-highway grade crossing safety feature, including installation of protective devices The conduct of a model traffic enforcement activity at a railway-highway crossing APPENDIX D Construction of a traffic calming feature Elimination of a roadside hazard Installation, replacement, and other improvements of highway signage and pavement markings, or a project to maintain minimum levels of retroreflectivity that addresses a highway safety problem consistent with the SHSP
Installation of emergency vehicle priority control systems at signalized intersections APPENDIX E Installation of traffic control or other warning devices at locations with high crash potential Transportation safety planning Collection, analysis, and improvement of safety data Planning integrated interoperable emergency communications equipment or operational or traffic enforcement activities (including police assistance) related to work zone safety APPENDIX F Installation of guardrails, barriers (including barriers between construction work zones and traffic lanes), and crash attenuators The addition or retrofitting of structures or other measures to eliminate or reduce crashes involving vehicles and wildlife Installation of yellow-green signs and signals at pedestrian and bicycle crossings and in school zones Construction and operational improvements on high risk rural roads Geometric improvements to a road for safety purposes that improve safety
Road safety audits APPENDIX G Roadway safety infrastructure improvements consistent with FHWA’s “Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestri- ans” (FHWA-RD-01-103) Truck parking facilities eligible for funding under Section 1401 of MAP-21 Systemic safety improvements Workforce development, training, and education activities APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 10
TABLE OF CONTENTS TDOT Groupings—Allowable Work Type by Category Grouping (continued)
PM 2.5 Emission Reductions Strategies (CMAQ) Grouping (TIP# CMAQ-2014-01)
Function of Grouping Activities Projects to reduce PM 2.5 emissions from on-road heavy-duty diesel engines and non-road construction equipment, including:
Diesel retrofits, APPENDIX A Idling reduction, and Other strategies to reduce PM 2.5 emissions.
This grouping is open to public and private entities in CMAQ eligible counties.
Allowable Work Types APPENDIX B Diesel retrofit and idling reduction projects for on-road motor vehicles and non-road construction equipment, including: Vehicle replacement Repowering Engine rebuilding
Other technologies as determined by EPA as appropriate for reducing emissions from diesel engines APPENDIX C Outreach activities that provide information exchange and technical assistance to diesel owners and operators on retrofit option APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 11
TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX-B Policy for the FY 2014‐2017 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
1. Minimum Eligibility Requirements
At a minimum, projects submitted to the Memphis MPO staff must be on the Memphis Urban Area 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), and can include projects eligible for Surface Transportation Program-Metropolitan (STP-M) funding or programs and broad planning APPENDIX A activities that support Direction 2040 and its policies. Additionally, lead agency must also have 20% matching funds in their CIP budget to qualify.
2. Commitment to Implement Project and Project Delays
APPENDIX B The submission and approval of a request using STP-M funds shall constitute a commitment to complete the project in a timely manner as described in the application form by the project’s lead agency. Any part of the project scope credited in awarding evaluation points becomes a permanent part of the project scope and must be implemented.
To ensure that all allocated funds made available to the Memphis MPO are used, all lead agencies with funding requests will work with
appropriate DOT and the Memphis MPO to ensure that all state and federal requirements are met, and that the project follows the APPENDIX C programming schedule in the TIP. Failure to do so may result in loss of funds.
The Memphis MPO will program STP-M funds for any transportation project over a 4‐year period within the TIP. All STP-M projects in the TIP have been applied for by the local municipalities with the commitment to complete the project in a timely manner. A project phase not completed within the FY listed in the TIP will be given a maximum three month grace period, to the end of the calendar year, to have the funds obligated. APPENDIX D
Projects not moving forward will be penalized, except when the delay is requested by the MPO or results from the project process through the state DOT. A delay in project funding obligations will be tracked quarterly by the MPO in a project database system. Please be aware if any project doesn’t get started in a 10 year time period, then the lead agency will be responsible for reimbursing the federal funds.
APPENDIX E 3. Carryover Projects
Projects carried over from the 2011‐2014 TIP (i.e., funds shown in Federal fiscal year 2011 to 2014) must be re‐submitted for inclusion in the 2014‐2017 TIP. Carryover projects will be given priority by awarding additional 10 points if four conditions are met in the lead agency’s re‐submittal:
APPENDIX F a. The project scope is not reduced; b. If not more than 30% of additional federal funds are requested; c. The TDOT / MDOT acknowledges that the lead agency has demonstrated readiness to start the contracting process; and d. If a single delay has occurred, the MPO will review the quarterly database tracking system to ensure only one delay has occurred and review any documented progress.
APPENDIX G 4. Overmatching Funds
Project seeking additional points by providing more than the required 20% match will be required to provide documentation. Documentation of the commitment to the higher match amount could include but is not limited to the following: signed letter from the Mayor, 2) CIP page, and 3) resolution from local legislative board. The federal percentage and the corresponding funds for the project will be changed to reflect the overmatching provided by the applicant. APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 12
TABLE OF CONTENTS 5. Cost Increases / Cost Over-runs
In cases where a project that is awarded MPO-managed federal grant funds does not have sufficient funding to fulfill the scope of the project as originally programmed, the project sponsor may be granted the flexibility to shift funding across phases and/or years (pending the availability of funding) to cover increased cost estimates for the affected phase. Should additional funding be required to implement the phase, the project sponsor will be responsible for securing that additional funding from an alternative source of revenue or compete for additional funds at the next available MPO call for projects. In such competition, priority will be given to viable projects previously programmed in the TIP. APPENDIX A
The responsibility for any cost over-run on a project already under contract shall be determined by the prevailing contractual agreement between the state DOT and the project sponsor. Such contractual agreement shall not bind the MPO to pay for cost over-runs with MPO- managed federal grant funds. The project sponsor may shift funding across phases and/or years (pending the availability of funding) to cover increased costs. However, should additional funding be required to conduct the programmed phase, the project sponsor will be APPENDIX B responsible for securing that additional funding from an alternative source of revenue or compete for additional funds at the next available MPO call for projects. In such competition, priority will be given to viable projects previously programmed in the TIP.
APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 13
TABLE OF CONTENTS Memorandum of Agreement for TIP Amendments & Adjustments*
The following Memorandum of Agreement describes procedures used by the Memphis MPO to process amendments and adjustments to projects in the TIP and STIP for projects in Tennessee, based on based on terms agreed to by the MPO and the Tennessee Department of Transportation. The Mississippi Department of Transportation and FHWA Mississippi Division have agreed to terms of this Agreement for processing changes to projects in Mississippi. APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H
* MPO NOTE: This MOA was adopted by the TPB August 29, 2013 and has been forwarded to the Commissioner of TDOT for his signature. When executed by the Commissioner’s office, the signed version will be included in the final FY 2014-17 TIP, as will documentation from MDOT stating that they will follow the terms of the MOA.
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 14
TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 15
TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 16
TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 17
TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 18
TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 19
TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX-C Project Ranking Criteria and Supporting Documents
Table C1: 2014-17 STP-M Project Selection Criteria (Road Projects) rvlTm eas10 14 4 4 4 16 Travel Time Delays 4 Existing Volume to Capacity Ratio (V/C) Congestion Transit Related Improvements 4 in th as a Priority Identified Project Improvements Related Pedestrian 1 Bicycle Related Improvements Multimodal Improvements Security Incorporates Project Etc) Humps, Speed Pavement, (Chicanes, Textured Speed Control (Bullbouts/Neckdow Safety Pedestrian cietRt 8 16 Ca Traffic Incorporates Project Accident Rate & Security Safety Change Travel Patterns (Roundabouts, Rea (Roundabouts, Patterns Travel Change einIpoeet Ra ein odieHrwr,Ipoe ing,Ec 1 Design Improvements (Road Design, Roadside Hardware, Improved Signage, Etc) ea euto esta .0mn0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 Management Utilizes Congestion min 0.20 less than Delay reduction min to 0.80 0.20 Delay reduction min to 1.20 0.80 Delay reduction min to 1.60 1.20 Delay reduction 0 2.0 min to 1.60 Delay reduction min 2.0 than more Delay reduction 1 0 0.59 or less 0.60 to 0.79 0 0.80 to 0.89 More than0.90 1 improvement related transit any include not does scope Project routes Project scope includes transit related impr 2 2 facilities pedestrian include not does scope Project pe includes scope Project Project scope includes marked crosswalks Project scope includes ADA accessible sidewalks, curb ramps, or shared use path bicycle facility include not does scope Project signs bicycle wayfinding includes scope Project shoulder paved or design roadway shared includes scope Project path Project scope includes signed and painted bicycle lanes, cycle track, or shared use cietRt esta .0 0 1 2 4 6 8 2.00 than Rate less Accident to 4.00 Rate 2.01 Accident to 6.00 Rate 4.01 Accident to 10.00 Rate 6.01 Accident to 15.00 Rate 10.01 Accident more or 15.01 Rate Accident APPENDIX A etinwyidn in 1 signs wayfinding destrian mn n einIpoeet 4 lming and Design Improvements APPENDIX B einlBcceadPdsra ln4 e Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan rcs CP taeisX 2 Strategies Process (CMP) s etrIlns ietr,Ec 1 ns, Center Islands, Diverters, Etc) rtraPoints Criteria ovements on existing or proposed transit transit proposed on existing or ovements indItretos rfi ice,Ec 1 Etc) Circles, Traffic Intersections, ligned APPENDIX C 2014-2017 STP Road Project Road Ranking STP Criteria2014-2017 APPENDIX D 4 3 and incorporates facility improvements. A facility improvements. incorporates and is a Regional that as identified project accident rate. Projects incorporating traffic calming calming traffic incorporating Projects rate. accident Related Improvements and the Pedestrian Rela the Pedestrian and Improvements Related be given to projects that enhance mobility for non-automotive non-automotive mobility for enhance that given to projects be on project the of impact the considers criterion multimodal The document. is included in the support improvements design additional safety and security, the higher the score for the potential project. A detailed list of traffic calming improvements and systems, or any other additional security considerations. The greater the potential improvement to overall transportation be awarded for any project that incorporates security impr Travel Time Delay) for the project and The congestion criterion quantifiesthe predicted improvements incongestion the levels (Volumeto CapacityRatio and types of facilities with an additional 1 point of facilities types with an additional be modeled to estimate the travel time savings by comparing the the by comparing time travel savings the to estimate modeled be (C Strategies Management the Congestion of any incorporate 2 points (Delay reduction 0.80 to 1.20 min) X 2 points min) to 1.20 0.80 (Delay reduction points 2 total4 points for of sign and include of 0.9 minutes intersection you and reduction than the points received from the Travel Time Delay can be multiplied by two. For example, if your project has a delay project of the to construction prior LRTP 2040 in the discussed as (CMP) Strategies Management of 8 Congestion any the security and willsafety given to the potential be consideration an motorized It applies to both will provide. project proposed po the to measure is intended criterion safety security and The modes of transportation including bicycle and pedestrians. Up to points to 8 Up pedestrians. bicycle and including transportation of modes to capacity ratios capacity to points each for increased bicycle, pedestrian, and/or trans and/or bicycle, increased pedestrian, each for . Up to 10 points APPENDIX E Travel Time Delays. Travel will be given to projects that result in more hours saved in terms of travel time delay and and of travel time delay in terms saved hours result in that more projects to will be given , Primary, or Secondary priority in t priority Secondary or , Primary, major parallel faciliti parallel major awarded for wayfinding signage. An additional 4 points An additional signage. wayfinding for awarded detailed list of transit related improvemen list detailed related transit of APPENDIX F ted Improvementscategories up3 points to and design improvements will be awarded up to points to 4 up will be awarded improvements design and (CMP Strategy) = 4 points total for Travel Time Time Delays Travel for total points Strategy) 4 = (CMP Definitions ovements such as lighting, ovements such as lighting, it access and mobility, for a total of 12 points 12 of total a for mobility, and it access es. Up to 4 points d non-motorized users of the transportation system. Principal transportation of the users d non-motorized MP) as discussed in the 2040 LRTP. Submitted projects will LRTP. in the projects Submitted 2040 as discussed MP) modes of transportation. Projects will be awarded up up to 4 will awarded Projects be of transportation. modes improvements directly related to directly related improvements alization improvements than your project will be awarded a will awarded be project your than improvements alization tential improvements to public the region's mobility and accessibility for all users. Points accessibility all users. and w mobility for region's the travel time with or without t he MPO's Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Bicycle Pedestrian he MPO's and Regional will be awarded to projects that have a higher a higher have that to projects will be awarded will be given to projects that have high volume volume high have that to projects will given be APPENDIX G ts is included in the support document. support ts in the is included surveillance cameras, warning warning cameras, surveillance will be awarded for different different for will awarded be he project. If a project utilizes If a project he project. safety and security that the the proposed project for all for project proposed the will be awarded to a . Within the Bicycle APPENDIX H . 4 points. will ill
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 20
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table C1 (continued): 2014-17 STP-M Project Selection Criteria (Road Projects) rmr ik 4 12 4 12 4 1 link 2 links 3 links links more 4 or Project Provides Linkages Between Different Land Uses Use Land (ADT) Traffic Daily Average Existing Preservation System od oeet6 6 12 Goods Movement Opportunity Economic Movement Opportunity / Goods Economic ,9 rls 0 1 2 3 4 Projectin an is located land use impacts positive co adopted with Project is consistent 2 4,999less or 5,0009,999 to 10,000 to 29,999 30,000 to 49,999 50,000 or more ITS Technology Integrates Project Impr (Design Route Upgrades Project Project Improves or Maintains an Exi rjc evsmjrwrhueo itiuincnes2 1 2 2 3 1 2 2 3 centers distribution or warehouse major serves Project movements freight related port or rail, air, enhances Project traffic (4% high truck with routes on more) or includes improvements Project property commercial or industrial acres of 10-49 Project serves property or commercial of industrial acres 50-499 Project serves property commercial or acres industrial of more or 500 Project serves and/ areas growth high supports Project Project serves 0-99 jobs jobs 100-499 Project serves Project serves 500 or more jobs an existing near located Project Project serves a strategic area target area a strategic serves Project negative land use impacts co adopted with Project is inconsistent and has positive la APPENDIX A nd use nd impacts area without adopted compre adopted area without d proposed employment centers: employment d proposed dfrdvlpetb uidcin2 jurisdiction by development for ed tn oda rTastOeain3 Operation or Transit Roadway sting or revitalizes existing developed zones: developed existing revitalizes or mprehensive and/or road plans and has vmns opeeSres t. 3 Etc.) Streets, Complete ovements, mprehensive and/or road plans and has APPENDIX B hensive and/or road plans plans road and/orhensive APPENDIX C -6 6 1 2 3 3 The system preservation criterion considers the maintenance and improvements made to existing roadways. 3 points breaks and other incentives. revitalization. These zones may be recognized by the muni have on the area as well as the impact projects will have on will have on well as impact as projects the area the on have takes criterion movement goods and opportunity economic The Projects that are inconsistent with loca inconsistent are that Projects industrial, residential, ITS ArchitectureITS Up Report. to 4 points air, or port related movement. A detailed list of freight list of freight A detailed movement. related port or air, Goods movement focuseson projects thatim well as to the to jobs of projects as service mobility and The land use impact criterion takes into consideration the relationship between transportation and land use. 6 points use for a maximum total of 4 points An additional 2 points An additional land positive and of negative Examples category. Projects that are located in areas without an adopted plan and has positive land use impacts will be awarded 3 points use impacts will land awarded has positive be and plan an adopted without in areas located are that Projects adjacent development. potential for significant change to the charac Examples of negative land use impacts include, but are not limited to, displacement of existing businesses or residents, Projects that provide linkages between diffe between linkages provide that Projects sp use plans, land plans, comprehensive plan. adopted the of recommendations land use and goals, awarded to projects that are consistent with locally adopted plans. The project should substantially advance the vision, LRTP. An additional 2 points LRTP. An additional upgrades provide that projects both economic opportunity and goods movement for a total of 12 points be awarded to projects that improve or maintain an existing roadway or transit operations. points 3 operations. transit or existing roadway an maintain or improve that to projects awarded be APPENDIX D and open space, space, etc. open and will be awarded to projects that serve a strategic a strategic serve that to projects will awarded be will be awarded to projects that integrate ITS integrate that to projects will awarded be such as design improvements and complete streets strategies as discussed in the 2040 for 4 or more links. Examples of different land uses include retail/commercial, office, office, retail/commercial, include uses land of links. Examples different more 4 or for APPENDIX E lly adopted plans and have a have and plans lly adopted will be given to projects that have high existing average daily traffic (ADT) daily traffic (ADT) counts. average existing high have that to projects will be given ecial district plans, or road plans. road or plans, ecial district rent land uses will be awarded 1 point uses land will awarded rent be ter of an area, potential to of an ter prove freight routes with heavy truck tra truck with heavy routes freight prove use impacts are included in the support document. support in the included are impacts use related improvements is included in the support document. is included in the support improvements related developed or developable industrial or commercial properties. properties. commercial or industrial developable or developed cipality as locations targeted for development through tax through development for targeted as locations cipality Plans to be considered include, but are not not limited to, but are include, to be considered Plans freight movement. Projects will be awarded up up to 6 points will awarded movement. Projects be freight into account the overall econom the overall account into APPENDIX F negative impact on land use use on land impact negative spur development that is incompatible with existing that is incompatible development spur zone targeted by the jurisdiction for development by or jurisdiction for development the targeted zone . Economic opportunity focuses on the accessibility accessibility the on focuses opportunity . Economic technology as described in the MPO's Regional in the MPO's Regional as described technology for each connection to a different land land different to a connection each for ffic as well as those that enhance rail, rail, enhance that ffic as well as those ic impact that projects will that ic impact will be awarded -6 -6 points will awarded be APPENDIX G will be awarded to will be awarded will be in this will for for . APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 21
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table C1 (continued): 2014-17 STP-M Project Selection Criteria (Road Projects) rjc edns 10 10 10 Readiness Project Overmatch Funding Local Points Bonus otEfciees6 Effectiveness Cost ewr otniy6 Network Continuity Environmental Preservation, Air Environmental 0%-2%LclMth0 5 10 20 % - 24% Local Match 25% 35% - Match Local 36%more Local or Match esta $0 otprVTprml 6 per VMT mile Cost $500 than More per VMT per mile Cost to $499 $201 mile per VMT per Cost $200 than Less einlNtokcniut 6 2 No Network continuity NetworkLocalized continuity continuity Network Regional Project included in 2040 LRTP (Tier I, II, III) iia niomna mat 2 Negative Envir Minimal Environmental Impacts Impact Justice Environmental Negative EnvironmentalMinimal Justice Impact Environmen Positive onmental Impacts onmental APPENDIX A a utc mat2 Impact Justice tal oa ons(nl ou ons 120 points) (incl. Points Total bonus ult niomna utc 6 Quality & Environmental Justice oa ons100 Points Total APPENDIX B APPENDIX C -2 -2 0 4 0 3 0 20% by local lead agency. This criterion awards bonus points to projects for which lead agency can overmatch the minimum Most federal funded programs requires a match of 80-20 i.e. 20% match require points -2 which will receive EJ impact, negative as splits will be considered and community residents the that displaces project widening road major projecta that improvessafety improvementsinan EJ communi project was originally submitted. 10 points 10 submitted. was originally project This criterion applies only carryover projectswhich havedemonstrated advance workandhave progressed sincethe i.e. cost 20% in the match funds project included minimum if only the are awarded demolishing a historic site, etc. Projects will be considered will be considered site, etc. Projects a historic demolishing A project will be awarded 2 points A project will awarded be applied. were LRTP in 2040 discussed guideline. should be given to projects that increase the efficiency for the overall transportation system. For example, 6 points The network continuity criterion considers the need for overall system efficiency for each evaluated project. Higher scores such as wetlands and cultural resources. 2 points resources. cultural and wetlands such as the evaluates criterion environmental The lead agency. 5 points agency. lead included in the 2040 LRTP through the 2040 horizon year has demonstrated Air Quality Conformity for the region. the for Conformity Quality Air demonstrated has year horizon the 2040 through LRTP 2040 in the included Whereas a projectwill receive -2 points projects costing less that $200 per mile. Projects VMT per per $200 less that costing projects Under Environmental Justice, 2 points Environmental Under physical environment. the justice communities and environmental The environmental preservation, air quality, and environmental environmental and air quality, preservation, environmental The Regional network continuity are those projec those are continuity network Regional impact. a significant has regional and corridors connects freight existing or facilities connects existing bicycle pedestrian The cost effectiveness criterion evaluates the costs of the evaluates criterion cost effectiveness The only has localized benefits. awarded to a project that either widens a segment of road APPENDIX D ment. 10 points ment. 10 will be awarded if only 25%-35% will be awarded willNo points agency. be the lead by be of local can provided match . APPENDIX E if it is included within the 2040 LRTP 2040 if within the it is included will be awarded to projects for which 36% or more local match can be provided by the will be awarded for projects that positively impact the EJ communities. For example if if it adversely impacts the environment su will be awarded if advance work conditions are met as identified in the policy in the TIP identified as met are conditions work if advance will awarded be impact of a project and the mitigation of impacts on the physical environment physical on the impacts of environment mitigation the of a project and impact ts that foster greater connection region connection greater ts that foster will be awarded if the projects have minimal environmental impacts. impacts. minimal environmental have projects if the will be awarded the project to the benefits it will create. 6 points it will create. to the benefits the project that already connects two two prev connects already that costing more than $500 per VMT per mile will receive 0 0 mile will receive points per VMT per $500 than costing more having minimal impacts if proper mitigation strategies as mitigation minimal impactshaving if strategies proper APPENDIX F 80% of the funds are provided by the federal government and and government 80% the by federal provided of the funds are ty will be considered as a po ty will considered be justice criterion considers considers the criterion justice (2020, 2030, 2040 horizon years). A project A project years). horizon 2040 2030, (2020, ch as crossing a established wetland or or wetland established as a ch crossing wide, whereas local networkcontinuity iously widened segments, or or segments, widened iously APPENDIX G sitive EJ Impact. Whereas, a impacts of the project on the will be awarded to will be awarded will be will be APPENDIX H .
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 22
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table C2: 2014-17 STP-M Project Selection Criteria (Grouping Projects) eetinRltdIpoeet 3 Pedestrian Related Improvements Pavement Condition Index (PCI) 20 Existing Intersection Level of Service (LOS) 15 Proximity to Land Uses (within 1/2 mile ped, 3 mi 3 ped, mile 1/2 (within Uses Land to Proximity 15 (LOS) Service of Level Intersection Existing 20 (PCI) Index Condition Pavement rih eae mrvmns3 Freight Related Improvements 8 Proximity to Landuses rni eae mrvmns3 Improvements Related Transit 3 Bicycle RelatedImprovements D 10 ADT 0-6 5LSE1 Prs2Fi 10 5 20 Fair 2 Good Poor 2 2 2 6 8 Centers Retail Local and Major Centers Employment Major Parks 8 6 10 Colleges and Schools 15 30,000 to 49,999 2 8 more or 50,000 4 D LOS C LOS LOS E 10 5 F LOS 15 Residential 20 Office or Retail Commercial, Industrial 85 than More 85 - 66 40 - 65 40 than Less 000o oe10 more or 50,000 ,0 o99943 oNtokcniut ,9 rls 1 3 4,999 or less 0 9,999 to 5,000 10 No Network continuity 4 benefits localized has that projects continuity Network Localized 6 8 10 20 30 2 45 4 more or 60 6 8 or less 4,999 5,000to 9,999 29,999 to 10,000 49,999 to 30,000 rjc cp osnticuebccefclt 0 1 facility bicycle include not does scope Project Project scope includes bicycle wayfinding signs curb ramps Project scope includes ADA accessible sidewalks, crosswalks,or rjc cp nldssae oda eino ae hudr1 Project scope includes shared roadway design or paved shoulder rjc cp osnticueaytastrltdipoeet0 0 Project scope does not include any transit related improvement 1 proposed transit routes Project scope includes transitrelated improvements on existing or Project scope does not include pedestrian facilities Project scope includes pedestrianwayfinding signs or more) Project includes improvements onroutes with high truck traffic (4% lanes Project scope includes cycle trackor signed andpainted bicycle eufcn rtrattlpit 5 inlzto rtrattlpit 5 iyl n eetinCiei oa ons 0Bridge 50 points total Criteria Pedestrian and Bicycle 50 points total Criteria Signalization 50 points total Criteria Resurfacing eufcn rtraSoeSgaiainCiei cr iyl n eetinCiei cr rdeCiei Score Criteria Bridge Score Criteria Pedestrian and Bicycle Score Criteria Signalization Score Criteria Resurfacing APPENDIX A APPENDIX B 2 3 3 2 ossetwt P' einlISAcietr 3 3 3 3 Architecture ITS Regional MPO's with Consistent Will newertechnology be used forthis project project signal coordinated of part project the Is transportation of modes other Benefits cietRt 5 Rate Accident D 8 15 Continuity Network 10 ADT (sec/vehicle) Delay in Reduction te 12 Other O rB4 rni ots25,0 rmr 15 0 1 50,000or more 2 3 2 1 4 5 2 4 2.00 than less Rate Accident 4.00 to 2.01 Rate Accident 2 6.00 to 4.01 Rate Accident 10.00 to 6.01 Rate Accident 15.00 to 10.01 Rate Accident more or 15.01 Rate Accident Transit Routes 4,999 or less 4 5,000 to9,999 10,000 to 29,999 10 or less LOS A or B APPENDIX C 2014-2017 STP Grouping STP Criteria 2014-2017 APPENDIX D Project Addresses Location with History of Fatal Bike/Ped Crashes Bike/Ped Fatal of History with Location Addresses Project noprtsTafcCligadDsg mrvmns4 8 Incorporates Traffic Calming and Design Improvements 5 Improvements Related Pedestrian Freight Related Improvements 8 Bicycle Related Improvements wide Regional Network continuity projects that foster greater connection region Piay 2 Primary rjc cp nldssge n ane iyl ae 3 Project scopeincludes signed and paintedbicycle lanes Scnay1 3 0 2 1 Plan andincorporates facility improvements facilities pedestrian include not does scope Project 2 Project scopeincludes pedestrian wayfinding signs crosswalks marked includes scope Project path use shared or ramps, curb sidewalks, accessible ADA includes scope Project Project scope includesADA accessible pedestrian facility 0 Secondary 1 2 Regional Plan andincorporates facility improvements: Pedestrian and Bicycle Regional Project the in scope priority a includes as identified signed Project and/or painted bicycle facility Project scopedoes notinclude bicycle facility 2 Project scopeincludes bicyclewayfinding signs 4 Project scopeincludes sharedroadway designpaved or shoulder Project scopeincludes cycle track or shared-use path Project identified as a priority in the Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian and Bicycle Regional the in priority a as identified Project APPENDIX E ebcce 0Big odto 20 Condition Bridge 10 bicycle) le APPENDIX F
51,0 o2,9 5 to 29,999 10,000 15 2 3 5 iyl n eetinRltdIpoeet 5 Improvements Related Pedestrian and Bicycle ewr otniy5 Network Continuity D 15 ADT oNtokcniut 0 3 Nocontinuity Network benefits localized has that projects continuity Network Localized wide region connection greater foster that projects continuity Network Regional 10 to 49,999 30,000 Project identified as a priority in the Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian more) or (4% traffic truck high with routes on improvements includes Project Plan and incorporates facility improvements facility incorporates and Plan APPENDIX G Ciei oa ons 50 points total Criteria APPENDIX H
5 1 5
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 23
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table C3: 2013-14 Transportation Alternatives Program Project Selection Criteria
The ATAC will perform a qualitative evaluation of each project, scoring applications from 0 (worst) to 5 (best) Benefits to Active Transportation 20 within each of the following narratives provided by the applying jurisdictions: The scope of the project Provide Safe Traveling Options for Pedestrians and Bicyclists 5 should:
Provide Opportunities for Physical Activity Throughout Transp. System 5 1. Provide safe traveling options for pedestrians and bicyclists (up to 5 points), 2. Provide opportunities for physical activity among users throughout the transportation system (up to 5 Increase Connectivity Among a Mix of Land Uses 5 points),
3. Increase connectivity among a mixture of land uses (up to 5 points), and APPENDIX A Provide Last‐Mile Connectivity for Users of Public Transportation 5 4. Provide last‐mile connectivity for users of public transportation (up to 5 points). The safety and security criterion is intended to measure the potential improvements to public safety and Safety & Security 16 security that the proposed project will provide. It applies to all users of the transportation system. The Accident Rate 4 greater the potential improvement to overall transportation safety and security, the higher the score for the potential project. Accident Rate 10.01 or more 4 • Up to 4 points will be awarded to projects that have a higher accident rate for all roadway users. Accident Rate 6.01 to 10.00 3 • 4 points will be awarded to project that adress locations with a history of fatal bike/ped crashes.
Accident Rate 4.01 to 6.00 2 APPENDIX B • Projects incorporating traffic calming and design improvements will be awarded up to 4 points. A detailed Accident Rate 2.01 to 4.00 1 list of traffic calming improvements and additional design improvements is included in the support document. Accident Rate less than 2.00 0 • 4 points will be awarded for any project that incorporates security improvements such as lighting, Project Addresses History of Incapacitating or Fatal Bike/Ped Accidents 4 surveillance cameras, warning systems, bike racks, or any other additional security considerations. Project Incorporates Traffic Calming and Design Improvements 4
Pedestrian Safety (Bullbouts/Neckdowns, Center Islands, Diverters, Etc) 1 APPENDIX C Control Speed (Chicanes, Textured Pavement, Speed Humps, Etc) 1
Change Travel Patterns (Roundabouts, Realigned Intersections, Etc.) 1
Design Improvements (Road Design, Roadside Hardware, Etc.) 1
Project Incorporates Security Improvements 4 The multimodal criterion considers the impact of the project on the region's mobility and accessibility for all Multimodal 16 users. Points will be given to projects that enhance mobility for non‐automotive modes of transportation.
Bicycle Related Improvements 4 APPENDIX D • Within the Bicycle Related Improvements and the Pedestrian Related Improvements categories, up to 3 Project scope includes cycle track or shared‐use path 3 points will be awarded for different types of facilities with an additional 1 point awarded for wayfinding signage, bike racks, street furniture, or other end of trip facilities. Project scope includes signed and painted bicycle lanes 2 • Up to 4 points will be awarded to a project that is identified as a Regional, Primary, or Secondary priority in Project scope includes shared roadway design or paved shoulder 1 the MPO's Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and incorporates facility improvements.
Project scope does not include bicycle facility 0 • 4 points will be awarded for project that enhance connectivity and accessibility to existing or proposed transit routes. A detailed list of transit related improvements is included in the support document. Project scope includes wayfinding signs, bike racks, other EOT facilities +1 APPENDIX E Pedestrian Related Improvements 4 Project scope includes ADA accessible sidewalks, curb ramps, or 3 shared ‐use path Project scope includes pedestrian signals heads and push buttons 2
Project scope includes marked crosswalks 1
Project scope does not include pedestrian facilities 0
Project scope includes wayfinding signs, furniture, other EOT facilities +1 APPENDIX F
Project Identified as a Priority in the Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 4
Regional 4
Primary 3
Secondary 2
Project not included in the bike/ped plan 0 APPENDIX G
Transit Related Improvements (On Existing or Proposed Transit Routes) 4
Project scope includes transit‐related improvements 4
Project scope does not include any transit‐related improvement 0 APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 24
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table C3 (continued): 2013-14 Transportation Alternatives Program Project Selection Criteria
The land use impact criterion takes into consideration the relationship between transportation and land use. Land Use 16
Proximity to Land Uses (within 1/2 mile ped, 3 mile bike) 10 • Up to 10 points will be awarded for projects that provide linkages between different land uses. 1 point will be awarded for each land use within the proximity of pedestrian (1/2 mile) or bike access (3 miles). Schools and Colleges 1 + 1 • 3 points will be awarded to projects that are consistent with locally adopted plans. Plans to be considered Parks 1 + 1 include, but are not limited to, comprehensive plans, land use plans, special district plans, or road plans. • Projects that are located in areas without an adopted plan, but have positive land use impacts will be
Major and Local Retail Centers 1 + 1 awarded 2 points. APPENDIX A • Projects that are inconsistent with locally adopted plans or have a negative impact on land use will be Major Employment Centers 1 + 1 awarded ‐3 points. Examples of negative land use impacts include, but are not limited to, displacement of existing businesses or residents, potential for significant change to the character of an area, potential to spur Transit Routes 1 + 1 development that is incompatible with existing adjacent development. Project is consistent with local adopted plans and has positive land use 3 impacts • An additional 3 points will be awarded to projects that serve a strategic zone targeted by the jurisdiction Project is located in an area without locally adopted plans and has positive for development or revitalization. These zones may be recognized by the municipality as locations targeted 2 land use impacts for development through tax breaks and other incentives. Project is inconsistent with locally adopted plans or has negative land use ‐3 impacts
Project serves a strategic area targeted for development by jurisdiction 3 APPENDIX B The system preservation criterion considers the maintenance and improvements made to existing roadways. System Preservation 6 • 2 points will be awarded to projects that improve an existing roadway or transit operations. Project Improves or Maintains an Existing Roadway or Transit Operation 2 • 2 points will be awarded to projects that provide upgrades such as design improvements and complete streets strategies as discussed in the 2040 LRTP. Project Upgrades Route (Design Improvements, Complete Streets, Etc.) 2 • An additional 2 points will be awarded to projects that integrate ITS technology as described in the MPO's Regional ITS Architecture Report. Project Integrates ITS Technology 2 The environmental preservation and environmental justice criterion considers the impacts of the project on Environmental Preservation & Environmental Justice 6 the environmental justice communities and the physical environment.
Positive Environmental Justice Impact 3 APPENDIX C • Under Environmental Justice, 3 points will be awarded for projects that positively impact any EJ Minimal Environmental Justice Impact 0 communities. For example if a project that improves safety improvements in an EJ community will be considered as a positive EJ Impact. Whereas, a project that displaces residents and splits the community will Negative Environmental Justice Impact ‐3 be considered as negative EJ impact, which will receive ‐3 points. • The environmental criterion evaluates the impact of a project and the mitigation of impacts on the physical Minimal Environmental Impacts 3 environment such as wetlands and cultural resources. Whereas a project will receive ‐3 points if it adversely impacts the environment such as crossing a established wetland. Projects will be considered having minimal Negative Environmental Impacts ‐3 impacts, 3 points, if proper mitigation strategies are applied. The network continuity criterion considers the need for overall system efficiency for each evaluated project. Network Continuity 6 • 6 points will be awarded to a project that connects existing bicycle pedestrian facilities to one another or to transit services. Regional network continuity are those projects that foster greater connection region wide. Regional Network continuity 6 APPENDIX D • 3 points will be awarded to a project that provides connection to existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, Localized Network continuity 3 but only has localized benefits.
No Network continuity 0 The cost effectiveness criterion evaluates the costs of the project compared to the number of users it will Cost Effectiveness 6 impact. Cost Per User $0‐$100 6 • 6 points will be awarded to projects costing less that $100 per User. Cost Per User $101‐$200 5 • Projects costing more than $1,000 per User will receive 0 points.
Cost Per User $201‐$350 4 APPENDIX E
Cost Per User $351‐$500 3
Cost Per User $501‐$750 2
Cost Per User $751‐$1,000 1
Cost Per User $1,001+ 0 The economic opportunity and goods movement criterion takes into account the overall economic impact Economic Opportunity / Goods Movement 6 that projects will have on the area as well as the impact projects will have on freight movement.
Project located near existing and proposed employment centers: 3 APPENDIX F • Projects will be awarded up to 6 points for impacts to economic opportunity. Economic opportunity Project serves 500 or more jobs 3 focuses on the accessibility and mobility of projects to jobs as well as the service to developed or developable industrial or commercial properties. Project serves 100‐499 jobs 2
Project serves 0‐99 jobs 1
Project supports high growth areas and/or revitalizes existing developed zones: 3
Project serves 500 or more acres of industrial/commercial property 3
Project serves 50‐499 acres of industrial/commercial property 2 APPENDIX G
Project serves 10‐49 acres of industrial/commercial property 1 The congestion criterion quantifies the predicted improvements in the congestion levels for the project and Congestion & Air Quality 2 major parallel facilities. Projects will be awarded 2 points if the scope identifies a utilization any of the 8 Utilizes Congestion Management Process (CMP) Strategies 2 Congestion Management Strategies (CMP) as discussed in the 2040 LRTP.
Total Points 100 The Transportation Alternatives Program requires a match of 80‐20 i.e. 80% of the funds are provided by the Bonus Points 10 federal government and 20% by local lead agency. This criterion awards bonus points to projects for which lead agency can overmatch the minimum 20% match requirement.
Local Funding Overmatch 10 APPENDIX H
36% or more Local Match 10 • 10 points will be awarded to projects for which 36% or more local match can be provided by the lead agency. 25% ‐ 35% Local Match 5 • 5 points will be awarded if only 25%‐35% of local match can be provided by the lead agency. • 0 points will be awarded if only the minimum match funds i.e. 20% are included in the project cost 20 % ‐ 24% Local Match 0
Total Points (incl. bonus points) 110
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 25
TABLE OF CONTENTS Table C4: Examples of Traffic Calming Improvements Improvements Description Example Photo
Curb extensions at intersections that reduce curb-to-curb roadway travel Bulbouts/Neckdowns/Chokers lane widths APPENDIX A
Raised islands located along the centerline of a roadway that narrow the Center Islands width at that location APPENDIX B
Curb extensions that alternate from one side of the roadway to the other, Chicanes/Lateral Shifts forming s-shaped curves APPENDIX C
Barriers placed diagonally across an intersection, blocking certain Diverters movements APPENDIX D
Raised islands located on approaches to an intersection that block certain Forced Turn Lanes movements APPENDIX E
Raised islands located along the centerline of a roadway and continuing Median Barriers through an intersection to block cross traffic APPENDIX F
Changes in alignments that convert T-intersections with straight Realigned Intersections approaches into curving roadways meeting at right angles APPENDIX G
Barriers placed in the middle of an intersection, directing all traffic in the Roundabouts same direction APPENDIX H
Rounded raised pavement devices placed across roadways to slow and/ Speed Humps or discourage traffic
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 26
TABLE OF CONTENTS Table C4: Examples of Traffic Calming Improvements (continued) Improvements Description Example Photo
Speed Tables/Textured Flat-topped speed humps often constructed with a brick or other
Pavement/Raised Crossings textured material to slow traffic APPENDIX A
Barriers placed in the middle of an intersection, directing all traffic in the Traffic Circles same direction. Usually larger than roundabouts APPENDIX B
Rumble Strips Low bumps across road make noise when driven over
Source: FHWA APPENDIX C
Table C5: Examples of Additional Design Improvements APPENDIX D Improvements Description Example Photo
Road Design Features Such as sight distance and cross section design improvements APPENDIX E
Roadside hardware Such as guardrail, crash cushions, bridge rails, etc APPENDIX F Improved signage Such as retro reflective signs, pavement markings, etc
Source: FHWA APPENDIX G APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 27
TABLE OF CONTENTS Table C6: Examples of Transit Related Improvements Improvements Description Example Photo
Curb extensions or cuts at bus stops allowing efficient Bus Bulb outs/Bus Pull outs movement of transit and local traffic APPENDIX A
Intersection Improvements Such as turning radii, etc APPENDIX B
Signalization Improvements Transit priority signalization system (signal preemption) APPENDIX C
Transit only lanes Adding bus only lanes
Source: FHWA APPENDIX D
Table C7: Examples of Freight Related Improvements Improvements Description Example Photo APPENDIX E
Intersection Improvements Such as turning radii, grade separation etc APPENDIX F Truck only lanes Adding truck only lanes
Resurfacing the road with higher quality materials, which APPENDIX G Road Surface Improvements are stronger and more duarable than asphalt only paving
Signalization Improvements coordinated signalization, etc APPENDIX H
Source: Various
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 28
TABLE OF CONTENTS Table C8: Examples of positive Land use Impacts Improvements Example Photo
Increase accessibility and connectivity to existing and planned development APPENDIX A
Encourage redevelopment in areas served by existing infrastructure (Brownfield,
Grayfield, and/or infill development) APPENDIX B
Encourage mixed land use APPENDIX C Source: Various APPENDIX D Table C9: Examples of negative Land use Impacts Improvements Example Photo
Substantially change the character, land use mix, or development patterns of an APPENDIX E existing neighborhood
Encourage development at the urban fringe or previously undeveloped land (ie-
APPENDIX F Greenfield development)
Encourage homogenous and disconnected land use and development patterns and/or encourage single-use residential development APPENDIX G
Source: Various APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 29
TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX-D Status of Projects in the FY 2011-2014 TIP
Table D1: Project Status
Project Name Project ID Project Description Status TDOT Projects APPENDIX A PE, NEPA & Design fund obligated. I-40 [SR-177 (Germantown Rd.) to East Widen to 8 lanes and include HOV NHS-2006-10-A Construction fund not added in 2014-17 of Canada Road] lanes TIP. PE, NEPA & Design fund obligated. I-40 [1.0 mile East of Canada Rd to Widen to 8 lanes and include HOV NHS-2006-10-B Construction fund not added in 2014-17 SR-205 (Collierville-Arlington Rd.)] lanes
TIP. APPENDIX B Install traffic cameras, dynamic I-40 [SR-177 to SR-196] TN-CMAQ-01 message boards and associated Under construction hardware/software etc. Interchange improvements including replacing bridges, I-40 [Interchange @ Canada Road NHS-2002-04 Carry over into new TIP reconstructing acceleration and deceleration lanes and tapers APPENDIX C
I-40 [HPP-ID# 1359, 4945 and 34, Inter- change @ I-240 East of Memphis NHS-2004-01 Construct I-40 flyover ramp Carry over into new TIP (Phase 2)]
I-55 [Welcome Center near the Replacement of buildings and site TN-IM-2010-01 Under construction APPENDIX D Mississippi State Line] upgrade
I-55 [Interchange at Crump Boulevard] TN-IM-2011-01 Interchange modification Carry over into new TIP
I-69 (Prop.) [TN055 (Section 378 of FY01
Appropriations Act) East of US-51 near NHS-2008-03 Construct new 4-lane Interstate Removed from TIP APPENDIX E Millington to Tipton County Line]
I-240 [HPP ID # 2456 Poplar Avenue TN-NHS-2011-01 Widen 6 lanes to 8 lanes Under construction (SR-57) to Walnut Grove Road (SR-23)]
I-240 Midtown [HPP ID # 230 - I-40 to APPENDIX F NHS-2002-01 Widen 6 lanes to 8 lanes Carry over into new TIP I-55]
I-269 (Prop.) [HPP ID# 31 & 1 - NHS-2006-06 Construct new 4 lanes freeway Under construction Mississippi State Line to 385]
I-269 (Prop.) [North of SR-57 to South of APPENDIX G NHS-2009-01 Construct new 4 lanes freeway Under construction Raleigh-Lagrange Road]
SR-57/US-72 [Miller Farms Road to TN-ES-S-2009-02 Widen 5 to 7 lanes Under construction Dogwood Road in Germantown]
SR-177 [Crestridge Road to Stout Road] SSTP-2008-01 Widen 2 lanes to 4 lanes Under construction APPENDIX H
SR-86 (US-72) [Quinn Road to SR-57 in Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes with TN-ES-S-2009-01 Under construction Collierville (HPP ID # 19, TN088)] a raised median
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 30
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table D1: Project Status (continued)
Project Name Project ID Project Description Status TDOT Projects Construct the CMAQ components of the intermodal facility for Norfolk APPENDIX A Memphis Regional Intermodal Facility TN-CMAQ-2011-02 Southern Railroad, which currently Completed [SR-57, East of Neville Road] includes the SR-57 overpass, the ags and building, lift machines, etc
I-40 [at SR-196] TN-IM-2011-05 Construct new interchange ROW fund obligated
R. J. Corman Railroad upgrade [R. J. Ties, switch ties, surfacing, ballast APPENDIX B TN-ARRA-S-2011-01 Completed Corman Railroad / Tennessee Terminal] and crossing work
I-240 [Interchange at Airways Blvd.] TN-IM-2012-01 Modify interchange Carry over into new TIP
Lamar Avenue/US 78 [MS-TN State Line Capacity improvement along DRTDP-2012-01 Carry over into new TIP to Getwell Road] Lamar Avenue APPENDIX C
I-40 [Bridge over Mississippi River] NHS-2008-19 Seismic Retrofit Completed
Operations, utilities/power/ Grouped under NHPP & STP funds in Memphis ITS Major Phase NHS-2002-03B communication, maintenance, 2014-17 TIP
construction, etc. APPENDIX D Bridge replacement, rehabilitation, preservation, systematic repair & seismic retrofit projects in urban- Grouped under NHPP & STP funds in Memphis MPO Bridge Fund-State TN-BRR-S-2011-01 ized areas to be determined 2014-17 TIP during the annual bridge selection process (State) Bridge replacement, rehabilitation, APPENDIX E preservation, systematic repair & seismic retrofit funds to cover cost Overrun groupings removed from the Memphis MPO Bridge Overruns-State TN-BRR-S-2011-02 overruns on project phases which TIP were included in previous STIPs (State) Surface Transportation Program Memphis MPO Surface Transportation funds to cover cost overruns on Overrun groupings removed from the APPENDIX F TN-STP-S-2011-01 Program Overruns project phases which were TIP included in previous STIPs Surface Transportation Program funds to cover projects contained Memphis MPO Surface Transportation Overrun groupings removed from the TN-STP-S-2011-02 in the current STIP where cost Program Current STIP Overruns TIP overruns have resulted in an APPENDIX G increased cost of less than 30% National Highway System funds to Memphis MPO National Highway System cover overruns on project phases Overrun groupings removed from the TN-NHS-2011-02 Overruns which were included in previous TIP STIPs APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 31
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table D1: Project Status (continued)
Project Name Project ID Project Description Status TDOT Projects National Highway System funds to cover projects contained in the APPENDIX A Memphis MPO National Highway System Overrun groupings removed from the TN-NHS-2011-03 current STIP where cost overruns Current STIP Overruns TIP have resulted in an increased cost of less than 30%
Interstate Maintenance funds to Memphis MPO Interstate Maintenance cover overruns on project phases Overrun groupings removed from the
TN-IM-2011-02 APPENDIX B Overruns which were included in previous TIP STIPs
Interstate Maintenance funds to cover projects contained in the Memphis MPO Interstate Maintenance Overrun groupings removed from the TN-IM-2011-03 current STIP where cost overruns Current STIP Overruns TIP have resulted in an increased cost of less than 30% APPENDIX C Such as signalization, intersection modification, sight distance modifi- Memphis MPO Spot Safety Improvement cation, adding turn lanes, school Grouped under NHPP & STP funds in TN-STP-S-2011-03 Program flashing signals, flashing becons, 2014-17 TIP acquisition of land, R/R grade crossing improvements, etc APPENDIX D Such as alignment, spot, intersec- tion improvements, signalization, Memphis MPO- Safety (Highway Hazard guardrail, lighting, marking, & rail- Grouped under HSIP & STP funds in TN-HSIP-2011-01 Elimination) road crossings -such as install 2014-17 TIP pads, bells, lights, pavement, marking, etc.
Resurfacing, slide repair, guardrail, APPENDIX E Memphis MPO Interstate 3R Grouped under NHPP & STP funds in TN-IM-2011-04 signing, signalization, marking, etc. Improvements 2014-17 TIP & other preventative maintenance.
Resurfacing, slide repair, guardrail, Memphis MPO State Route 3R Grouped under NHPP & STP funds in TN-STP-S-2011-04 signing, signalization, marking, etc. Improvements 2014-17 TIP & other preventative maintenance. APPENDIX F
Operation of Motorist Assistance Grouped under NHPP funds in 2014-17 Memphis MPO - Freeway Service Patrols TN-STP-S-2011-05 Service TIP APPENDIX G
Bridge Replacement, Rehabilita- tion, Systematic Repair & Preser- vation Projects in the Urbanized Memphis MPO Bridge Replacement Grouped under NHPP & STP funds in TN-BRBD-S-2011-01 Areas. (STATE) (projects using Bucket 2014-17 TIP this funding category will be pro-
cessed thru the advance construc- APPENDIX H tion procedures)
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 32
Table D1: Project Status (continued) MDOT Projects Project Name Project ID Project Description Status I-55 (relocated SR-304 to Church Rd) MS-NHS-2006-02 Widen to 6 Lanes Carry over into new TIP I-55 (Church Rd to SR-302) MS-NHS-2006-01 Widen to 6 Lanes Removed from TIP SR-305 (Lewisburg to Church Road) MS-SSTP-2006-01-A Construct 5 lanes Removed from TIP
SR-305 (US 78 to Goodman Road) MS-SSTP-2006-01-B Construct 5 lanes Under construction
SR-304 /I-269 (I-55 to SR-305) MS-SSTP-2006-04 Construct new 4-lane freeway Carry over into new TIP SR-304 /I-269 (SR-305 to Marshall MS-SSTP-2008-02 Construct new 4-lane freeway Carry over into new TIP County Line)
Star Landing Corridor (US 61 to US 78) MS-NHS-2008-02 Upgrade to multilane facility Removed from TIP
Repayment of bonds for the con- SR-304 /I-269 (I-55 to Marshall County MS-SSTP-2011-01 struction of SR-304/I-269 in Deso- Carry over into new TIP Line) to County Funds will be used for operation, Maintenance and Repair Bucket MS-SSTP-2011-02 maintenance or minor reconstruc- Carry over into new TIP tion works Local TN Projects Project Name Project ID Project Description Status Widen the existing 2-lane bridge Airline Road Improvement Phase 1 Hall over Hall Creek to a 5-lane bridge. Creek Bridge [Hall Creek Bridge over STP-M-2011-01 The roadway capacity Carry over into new TIP Airline Road] approaching the bridge is not been increased Reconstruction of sidewalks and curbs and streetscape improve- Biomedical Planning District HPP-2006-04 Carry over into new TIP ments along roadways in this district Widen Byhalia Rd from 2 lanes to 4 lanes divided between Shelby Drive Rd and SR 385 including intersection improvements at Byhalia Rd and Shelby Drive. Byhalia Road Widening [South of STP-M-2011-06 Construct Shelby Drive from Carry over into new TIP Shelby Post Rd. to SR 385] approximately 1,100 feet west of Byhalia Rd to Byhalia Rd. Connect Byhalia Rd to the five lane section south of the Byhalia Rd/Shelby Drive intersection. Widening Church Street north of Navy Road to provide additional Church Street at Navy Road southbound lane, drainage im- Waiting on ROW fund to get obligated. Intersection Improvements [South of STP-M-2009-09 provements, and replacement of Not included in 2014-17 TIP. Buford Ave to Navy Rd] traffic signal including emergency vehicle preemption and video detection.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table D1: Project Status (continued)
Cobblestone Landing Restoration Intersection of Union Avenue and [Intersection of Union Avenue and HPP-2006-01 Funds obligated, project not carried over Riverside Drive Riverside Drive] APPENDIX A
This project will improve the exist- ing intersection of Douglas St and Airline Road and upgrade the existing traffic signal. Improve- ments will include the addition of curb & gutter and sidewalk at the Douglas & Airline Intersection Improve- APPENDIX B STP-M-2011-05 southwest corner of the intersec- Carry over into new TIP ments [Douglas Street & Airline Road] tion; along the south side of Doug- las St. (to the east); along the south side of Memphis-Arlington Road (to the west); and along the west side of Airline Road (to the south). APPENDIX C Construct a six lane heavily land- scaped roadway adjacent to Graceland, which includes medi- an, wide outside lanes for bikes and a bus stop turn-out lane. From Elvis Presley Blvd [Shelby Drive to Craft to Winchester widen from ENH-2010-01 Carry over into new TIP
Brooks Road] four to six lanes with a median. APPENDIX D The other two segments will have the same existing laneage, but the entire project will have improved ped/bike/bus stop and landscaping.
The road improvements consist of the construction of a 4-lane urban APPENDIX E minor arterial on a new alignment Fite Road-Section II [Woodstock Blvd. between Highway 51 and Wood- ROW completed. Construction funds to STP-M-2002-07 to US-51] stock Boulevard. The project in- be obligated by August 2013 cludes a bridge over the CN Rail- road and a new traffic signal at the intersection with Highway 51. APPENDIX F Construct new six lane roadway with a median and a bike path. The project also includes an 1,100 Forest Hill Irene [Walnut Grove to STP-M-2000-22 foot extension of Trinity Road from Carry over into new TIP Cordova Park] Sanga Creek Road to Forest Hill Irene. Trinity Road will maintain a seven lane cross section. APPENDIX G
Widen existing two lane roadway Holmes Road East [Malone to Lamar] STP-M-2006-09 Carry over into new TIP to seven lanes.
Holmes Road-West [Mill Branch to Widen existing four and two lane STP-M-2002-14 Carry over into new TIP
Tchulahoma] roadway to seven lanes. APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 34
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table D1: Project Status (continued)
Widen Walnut Grove Road from 4 lanes to 6 lanes from just east of the Wolf River to the proposed Walnut Grove/Kirby Whitten inter- change with a heavily landscaped APPENDIX A median. Construct a 4 lane divided roadway from the proposed inter- change to Mullins Station Road. Construct and/or widen Kirby- Kirby/Whitten Parkway [Walnut Grove Whitten from 2 lanes to 4 lanes STP-M-2006-10 Carry over into new TIP Road to Macon Road] from Mullins Station Road to Ma-
con Road. Kirby-Whitten will be APPENDIX B constructed with a raised median. The proposed interchange at Wal- nut Grove Road and Kirby-Whitten and the associated ramps are in- cluded in the project. Adjacent pedestrian and bicycle paths will
be designed in conjunction APPENDIX C with this project.
Milton Wilson Road (South) [From Construct a new 5-lane urban sec- STP-M-2009-02 Completed Airline Road to Chester Street] tion.
Milton Wilson Blvd. Middle will APPENDIX D connect Milton Wilson Blvd. be- tween the current termini in Ken- sington Subdivision on the north and White Oak Subdivision (Phase Milton Wilson Road Middle [From 2,600' 1) on the south. The proposed Submitted plans and bid books to TDOT. south of the intersection of Milton Wilson project involves constructing a STP-L-2011-01 Waiting on obligation of construction and Forrest to 1,600' north of the inter- 4-lane roadway with a raised medi- APPENDIX E fund. section of Milton Wilson and Chester] an. The typical section would provide two (2) 12’ traffic lanes in each direction, with a 12’ raised median, curb/gutter and 5’ side- walks. The right-of-way(ROW) width for the roadway is 84’. APPENDIX F
Design and Construction of a new four lane divided highway between New Canada Road [I-40 to US-70] STP-M-2006-01 Carry over into new TIP Interstate 40 (Exit 20) and U.S. Highway 70 (State Route #1). APPENDIX G APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 35
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table D1: Project Status (continued) The project is to improve the North Second Street corridor to a park- way design including right-of-way acquisition, reconstruction of side-
walks, bike route, landscaping, and APPENDIX A utility relocation. Third Street will be converted to a one-way street with three northbound lanes from I-40 to Auction Avenue, and two north- bound lanes from Auction Avenue to Henry Avenue. Second Street
will be converted to a one-way APPENDIX B street with three southbound lanes North Second Street [I-40 to US 51] STP-M-2000-09 from I-40 to Auction Avenue and Carry over into new TIP two southbound lanes from Auction Avenue to Henry Avenue. North Second Street will be a four lane divided roadway from Henry Ave- nue to Harvester Lane. Whitney APPENDIX C Ave from Harvester Lane to US 51 will be reconstructed as a four lane undivided roadway with left turn lanes as necessary. This project will be undertaken in phases as funding allows. Phase one will be from I-40 to Cedar Avenue as ap- proved in TDOT contract #080029. APPENDIX D
Old Brownsville [Austin Peay to Kirby STP-M-2006-03 Construct five lane major arterial. Carry over into new TIP Whitten]
Improve 3,000 feet along Plough- Airways Blvd. south from Brooks Rd. and improve 3,000 feet along APPENDIX E Winchester east of original at grade section. The improvements will provide a grade-separated interchange to replace the existing Plough Blvd.[Plough Blvd. Interchange at-grade condition at the Plough- STP-M-2006-04 Carry over into new TIP with Winchester Rd.] Airways/Winchester Rd. intersec- tion. The final design will maintain APPENDIX F the present direct connectors between Plough Blvd. and the airport. the preliminary planning will include coordination with MATA to address future light rail service to the airport APPENDIX G Modify the Poplar/Sweetbriar inter- change by widening the ramp from Sweetbriar to westbound Poplar Poplar (US 72)/Sweetbriar Interchange STP-M-2000-04 Avenue (Ramp B) to two lanes. Carry over into new TIP [Poplar at Sweetbriar] Poplar will be widened as neces- sary to accommodate the merging of traffic from the new ramp lane. APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 36
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table D1: Project Status (continued)
Veterans Parkway-South [Raleigh Construct five-lane roadway STP-M-2006-06 Completed Millington Road to Navy Road] including bridge APPENDIX A Construct five-lane roadway with Veterans Parkway-West [Veterans Park- bridge over North Fork Creek and way and Dakar to Creek Mill Cove and STP-M-2008-02 above grade crossing of the Completed West Union] Canadian National-Illinois Central railway.
Widen existing four and two lane roadway to six lanes with a APPENDIX B median, eliminate sharp curves Walnut Grove Road East [Walnut Bend STP-M-2000-16 and realign Rocky Point Road Carry over into new TIP Road to Rocky Point Road] intersection to improve safety. This project will provide wide outside lanes for bikes.
Widen existing four lane roadway APPENDIX C to six lane parkway with Walnut Grove Road Middle [Kirby/ landscaping. This project will have STP-M-2000-11 Carry over into new TIP Whitten Pkwy to Germantown Pkwy] adjacent paths for bikes and pedestrians designed in conjunc- tion with the parkway.
Reconstruct interchange to allow APPENDIX D Winchester/Perkins Interchange for the removal of the center pier in STP-M-2004-01 Carry over into new TIP [Winchester at Perkins] Winchester and construct more travel lanes on Winchester.
This bucket will be used to fund for Greenways, Sidewalks, Bicycle Facilities and Amenities, Bike and Pedestrian Bucket STP-M-2009-04 Carry over into new TIP APPENDIX E Streescaping, etc. throughout the Tennessee portion of the Memphis MPO area.
This bucket will be used to fund for Upgrade, Replace, Improve Traffic Signalization Bucket STP-M-2009-06 Signals and Signal Systems Carry over into new TIP APPENDIX F throughout the Tennessee portion of the Memphis MPO area.
This bucket will be used to fund for road resurfacing, bridge repair, related intersection/signal improve- Pavement Resurfacing & Bridge Repair STP-M-2009-03 ments and other preventative Carry over into new TIP and Replacements Bucket APPENDIX G maintenance throughout the Ten- nessee portion of the Memphis MPO area.
This bucket will be used to fund for guardrail and road marking Guardrails and Road Marking Bucket STP-M-2009-05 Category removed throughout the Tennessee portion APPENDIX H of the Memphis MPO area.
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 37
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table D1: Project Status (continued)
Construct docking facility for tour- ing and local riverboats including Beale Street Landing STP-M-2004-02 floating dock and access ramp, Carry over into new TIP office/ticketing facility and under- ground parking. APPENDIX A
Facilities for pedestrian or bicycles Shelby Farms Bicycle, Pedestrian, and ENH-2011-01 and landscaping or other scenic Carry over into new TIP Equine Trails beautification
This bucket funds cost increases Overrun groupings removed from the
Project Contingency Overruns STP-M-2011-03 of projects in this TIP that are 30% APPENDIX B TIP or less.
This bucket funds cost increases of projects from previous TIPs and Overrun groupings removed from the Project Cost Overruns STP-M-2011-04 eliminates the need to amend TIP those projects into the current TIP.
Bridge replacement, rehabilitation, APPENDIX C preservation, systematic repair & seismic retrofit projects in urban- Memphis MPO Bridge Fund-local BRR-L-2011-01 Grouped under Bridge Groupings ized areas to be determined during the annual bridge selection process (Local)
Bridge replacement, rehabilitation, APPENDIX D preservation, systematic repair & seismic retrofit funds to cover cost Overrun groupings removed from the Memphis MPO Bridge Overruns-Local BRR-L-2011-02 overruns on project phases which TIP were included in previous STIPs (Local) Local MS Projects Project Name Project ID Project Description Status APPENDIX E Alexander Road [Goodman Road (MS- Goodman Road (MS-302) to MS MS-LSTP-2006-01 Under construction 302) to MS 302 Bypass] 302 Bypass Widen Church Road from two- Waiting on obligation of construction Church Road [From 3,300' West of lanes to three-lanes. Install a fund. Tulane Road to the intersection with MS-LSTP-2006-06 traffic signal at the intersection of Tulane Road] APPENDIX F Church Road and Tulane Road.
Widen existing rural two-lane road Craft Road [Goodman Road (MS 302) MS-LSTP-2004-01 to 5-lane urban cross-section. A Carry over into new TIP to U.S. 78] striped bike land will be provided.
Widening existing two lane road- way WO / curbs and stormdralns APPENDIX G to a (two mile) five lane typical Getwell Road [Goodman Road to Waiting on obligation of construction MS-LSTP-2002-02 section W I curbs and stormdrains Tennessee State Line] fund. and a (one-quarter mile) seven lane typical section W / curbs and stormdrains.
APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 38
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table D1: Project Status (continued)
McIngvale Road [McIngvale and Byha- Signalize intersection and provide MS-LSTP-2008-02 Construction fund obligated lia Roads] minor lane improvements.
Phase 1 - Widen Nail Road from APPENDIX A two-lanes to five-lanes from the intersection with Highway 51 to the Illinois Central Railroad with rail- Nail Road [From the intersection with road crossing improvements. Hurt Road to the intersection with High- MS-LSTP-2000-02 Removed from TIP way 51] Phase 2 - Widen Nail Road from
two-lanes to five-lanes from the APPENDIX B Illinois Central Railroad to the intersection with Hurt Road.
Widening of Pleasant Hill Road from its current two-lane rural Pleasant Hill Road [From MS Highway cross-section to a five-lane urban 302 (Goodman Road), South to Nail MS LSTP 2008-01 Removed from TIP
cross-section with curb, gutter, APPENDIX C Road] sidewalks, and landscaped medians.
This bucket funds cost increases Overrun groupings removed from the Project Contingency Overruns MS-STP-M-2011-01 of projects in this TIP that are 30% TIP or less.
TN CMAQ Projects APPENDIX D Project Name Project ID Project Description Status This project is the continuation of a very effective program to provide improvements to intersections throughout Shelby County, including the installation of APPENDIX E coordinated signal systems, vehicle detection improvements, isolated signal improvements, and Congestion Management Program CMAQ-2002-09 Carry over into new TIP isolated unsignalized intersection improvements in accordance with the approved Shelby County
Congestion Management APPENDIX F Program. Over the four year period of this TIP, it is expected that improvements will be made to over 100 intersections. This is a gas cap replacement program that would allow the inspection program to issue a APPENDIX G Vehicle Fuel Cap Replacement CMAQ-2011-01 voucher toward the purchase of a Carry over into new TIP Program new gas cap if the cap is missing or failed for leaks by a vehicle during inspection.
Connect the traffic signals along Coordinated Signal System Year 1 this segment of Lamar Avenue APPENDIX H CMAQ-2008-03 Under construction [Cleveland and Semmes] with communication fiber to tie into a centralized control system.
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 39
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table D1: Project Status (continued) Coordinated Signal System Year 3 Connect the signals along these [Segments of Quince, Mt. Moriah, CMAQ-2004-01 segments with communication Under construction Mendenhall, Airways and Shelby.] fiber to tie into centralized control.
Memphis Area Transit Authority APPENDIX A (MATA) plans to replace 15 existing diesel buses that have reached their useful life as Waiting on funds to be obligated. Not MATA Hybrid Bus Purchase CMAQ-2011-02 determined by Federal Transit included in 2014-17 TIP. Administration (FTA) policy with new hybrid electric buses that will
be used in fixed-route service. APPENDIX B This project consists of the instal- lation of a new traffic signal at the Poplar at Oakleigh Traffic Signal CMAQ-2010-05 Completed intersection of Poplar and Oakleigh in Germantown, TN
Transit Projects APPENDIX C Project Name Project ID Project Description Status
MATA covers costs associated with a portion of its MATA plus ADA Paratransit Services 5307-2006-01 Carry over into new TIP paratransit service under this line item. APPENDIX D Advanced Public Transportation Systems apply advanced technol- ogies to address public transportation needs. These systems may include, communication systems, computer -aided dispatch/automated vehicle APPENDIX E location (CAD/AVL) devices, Advanced Public Transportation 5307-2006-02 automated passenger counters Carry over into new TIP Systems Phase II (APC), automated vehicle an- nouncement (AVA) systems, auto- mated vehicle health monitoring systems (AVM), security cameras, fare collection systems, mobility management software, project APPENDIX F administration, and other management systems.
Includes various routine improve- ments to bus-related facilities, such as construction and repairs to maintenance and operations APPENDIX G Bus Facility Improvements 5307-2006-03 facilities and passenger facilities. Carry over into new TIP Typical items include roof repairs, equipment repairs, painting, security elements, and HVAC modifications.
These systems are used to APPENDIX H maintain accurate records and keep various department tasks Computer Hardware and Software 5307-2006-04 Carry over into new TIP such as finance, purchasing, scheduling, transportation, and employee benefits operational
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 40
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table D1: Project Status (continued) This project provides funding for the purchase of up to 13 buses Fixed Route Buses 5307-2006-05 annually using both 5307 and Carry over into new TIP 5309 funds over the next four year
period. APPENDIX A This project provides funding for the purchase of paratransit buses Paratransit Buses (Demand-Response) 5307-2006-06 Carry over into new TIP over the next four years using both 5307 and 5309 funds. Preventive Maintenance provides funds for inspections and routine APPENDIX B maintenance needed to maximize Preventative Maintenance 5307-2006-07 the efficiency and service life of Carry over into new TIP MATA's capital assets, including fixed route fleet, demand response fleet, rail fleet, and facilities.
Various routine improvements to APPENDIX C rail related facilities. Such Rail Facility Improvements 5307-2006-08 improvements include repairs to Carry over into new TIP under 5337. tracks, crossties, catenary poles, bridges, rectifers, and rail stations.
Periodic service vehicle replace-
ment. These vehicles comprise a APPENDIX D portion of the non-revenue fleet for the transportation, maintenance and other MATA departments. Service Vehicles 5307-2006-11 MATA plans to replace up to Carry over into new TIP seventeen service vehicles in 2011 and eight in each year following. The service life of the- APPENDIX E ses vehicles is typically four years or 100,000 miles. Includes various routine improvements to the rail operations and maintenance Fixed Guideway Modernization 5309-2006-01 facility, rail lines, rail vehicles and Carry over into new TIP under 5337
components, and other rail-related APPENDIX F infrastructure that have been in service at least seven years.
The project includes remaining funds from the Madison Avenue Regional Rail System 5309-2002-03 line that are available for various Removed from the TIP
rail related improvements and/or APPENDIX G maintenance activities.
This project provides funding for Bus Operations and Maintenance MATA's existing Operations & 5309-2006-03 Carry over into new TIP under 5339 Facility Maintenance facility replacement or major upgrade. APPENDIX H This project provides funding for the purchase of up to 22 buses in Fixed Route Buses 5309-2011-01 2011 using 5309 funds and up to Carry over into new TIP under 5339 four annually over the next three year period.
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 41
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table D1: Project Status (continued) MATA plans to construct a system of transit centers in various locations in suburban areas. Bus Transit Centers 5307-2006-09 routes in each area will be Carry over into new TIP
adjusted to serve the centers and APPENDIX A schedules will be adjusted to mini- mize waiting time for transfers. Includes various enhancements to transit facilities. Typical projects include modifications to historic transit facilities, public art, bus Transit Enhancements 5307-2006-10 Carry over into new TIP APPENDIX B shelters, signage, landscaping and scenic beautification and the installation of additional passenger amenities. Funding is for Jobs Access Reverse Commute (JARC)
programs or projects that provide APPENDIX C Job Access/Reverse Commute 5316-2006-01 transportation for low income Carry over into new TIP under 5307 individuals who may live in the city core and work in suburban locations. Funding is for the New Freedom Program which includes services and facility improvements that APPENDIX D address the transportation needs New Freedom 5317-2007-01 Carry over into new TIP under 5307 of persons with disabilities that go above and beyond existing Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). APPENDIX E
These systems are used to maintain accurate records and Computer Hardware and Software keep various department tasks 5309-2011-02 Carry over into new TIP under 5307 (5309 Funded) such as finance, purchasing, scheduling, transportation, and employee benefits operational APPENDIX F
APPENDIX G APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 42
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX-E Interagency Consultation Process
Email to IAC May 1, 2013
Dear IAC Members,
APPENDIX A Please find the attached Memphis Urban Area MPO 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and amended 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) project list for your review and comment. Projects in the main tab are listed by agency and category. Specific projects shown in groups are provided in the grouping project list tabs for Tennessee and Mississippi. We are waiting on clarification of the description for TDOT Project number 7 (SR-4/US-78/Lamar Avenue), and will forward any updates to the IAC when it is received.
Also attached is a copy of the draft pre-consensus plan for the air quality conformity analysis associated with the 2014-2017 TIP and the amended 2040 LRTP for your review and comment. Please provide your questions and comments on both the project list and the pre- consensus plan as soon as possible as we intend to provide the full draft analysis and conformity report to the IAC for review on Friday, May APPENDIX B 17, 2013. The following is our proposed schedule for the air quality conformity analysis:
- Complete draft conformity report and distribute to IAC on May 17, 2013 for 30 day review. - Receive IAC and agency comments on June 17, 2013. - Air quality conformity documentation to FHWA for 30 day review on September 3, 2013. - Receive Federal approval of air quality conformity by October 3, 2013. APPENDIX C Let me know if you have any questions or comments.
Thank you, Kenneth Monroe, P.E. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 6625 Lenox Park Drive, Suite 117 Memphis, TN 38115 APPENDIX D Phone: (901) 374-9109
Email to IAC May 2, 2013
Dear IAC Members,
I failed to mention in the email below that we need your concurrence on the project list (exempt/non-exempt status, regional significance, APPENDIX E etc.) on or before Wednesday, May 15. At this point, we have not scheduled an IAC conference call to discuss the project list or the pre- consensus memorandum. If any IAC member feels it would be beneficial, please let me know and I will schedule a call for the group. If we do not hear back from you by the review deadline, we will assume that you concur with the 2014-2017 TIP project list. Let me know if you have any questions or comments.
Thank you,
Kenneth Monroe, P.E. APPENDIX F Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 6625 Lenox Park Drive, Suite 117 Memphis, TN 38115 Phone: (901) 374-9109
Email to IAC May 2, 2013
APPENDIX G Dear IAC Members,
We received confirmation from TDOT that the description Project Number 7 (SR-4/US-78/Lamar Avenue) as shown in the project list spread- sheet is correct. The project is to reconstruct and widen SR-4/US-78 from 4 lanes to 6 lanes from the Mississippi State line to just south of Shelby Drive. Let me know if you any questions or comments in you review.
Thank you, APPENDIX H Kenneth Monroe, P.E. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 6625 Lenox Park Drive, Suite 117 Memphis, TN 38115 Phone: (901) 374-9109
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 43
TABLE OF CONTENTS IAC Comment #1 May 14, 2013
Kenny & Pragati,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Memphis Urban Area MPO’s 2014-2017 TIP Project List and Air Quality Pre-consensus Plan. I have a few questions and comments for you regarding the 2014-2017 TIP Project List:
-TDOT Project #6 – I-240 Bridge Replacements – Please explain how the bridge replacements will not increase roadway capacity.
APPENDIX A -Local TN Project #1 – Airline Road Improvement Phase 1 Hall Creek Bridge – Please explain how the bridge replacement will not increase roadway capacity. The project widens the existing 2-lane bridge to a 5-lane bridge.
-Local TN Project #18 – Elvis Presley-Brooks Roadscape Project – What was the reasoning for classifying this project as regionally signifi- cant?
-Local TN Project #33 – Highway 70 at Jetway Road Improvements – What was the reasoning for classifying this project as exempt? APPENDIX B
Please let me know if you need any clarification.
Regards, Corbin Davis Planning & Air Quality Specialist
Federal Highway Administration APPENDIX C Tennessee Division 404 BNA Drive Building 200, Suite 508 Nashville, TN 37217
MPO Response #1 May 15, 2013
APPENDIX D Corbin,
Thank you for your review of the project list and pre-consensus documents. Please find responses to your questions below and let me know if you have any other comments or questions.
-TDOT Project #6 – I-240 Bridge Replacements – Please explain how the bridge replacements will not increase roadway capacity. Response: To better understand the project scope, we contacted Rick Pack with TDOT. Mr. Pack confirmed that the three bridges (two roadway and one railroad bridge) over I-240 are being replaced in conjunction with the I-240 widening project and that the laneage of the APPENDIX E roadway bridges would not be modified. We consider the reconstruction of these bridges incidental to the reconstruction of I-240. We have accounted for the increase in roadway capacity on I-240 as the I-240 widening project is an E+C project in the TIP and LRTP.
-Local TN Project #1 – Airline Road Improvement Phase 1 Hall Creek Bridge – Please explain how the bridge replacement will not increase roadway capacity. The project widens the existing 2-lane bridge to a 5-lane bridge. Response: This project is a carryover project from the current 2011-2014 TIP. The exempt status was discussed in the IAC process during the last TIP development, on the IAC call on June APPENDIX F 16, 2010 (minutes attached). Although the bridge itself is being widened, the approaches are not – they will remain two lanes both north and south of the bridge.
-Local TN Project #18 – Elvis Presley-Brooks Roadscape Project – What was the reasoning for classifying this project as regionally signifi- cant? Response: The project is an enhancement project and its classification as regionally significant was in error. The designation will be updat- ed accordingly. APPENDIX G
-Local TN Project #33 – Highway 70 at Jetway Road Improvements – What was the reasoning for classifying this project as exempt? Response: The widening identified in the project description is to provide for a left turn lane associated with the installation of a traffic con- trol signal only. There are no additional
Thank you,
Kenneth Monroe, P.E. APPENDIX H Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 6625 Lenox Park Drive, Suite 117 Memphis, TN 38115 Phone: (901) 374-9109
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 44
TABLE OF CONTENTS IAC Response #2 May 15, 2013
Thank you for the responses, Kenny. The FHWA Tennessee Division has two requests regarding the 2014-2017 TIP Project List:
-Local TN Project #1 – Airline Road Improvement Phase 1 Hall Creek Bridge, please clarify the statement “roadway capacity is not being increased” with details from the June 16, 2010 IAC discussion about the approaches to the bridge.
- For Local TN Project #33 – Highway 70 at Jetway Road Improvements, please clarify the statement “Widen Highway 70 from 4 lanes to 5 lanes from just east of SR-385 to just west of Airline Road” with more descriptive information on the extent of the left turn lane. APPENDIX A
Please let me know if you need clarification or have any additional questions.
Regards, Corbin Davis
MPO Response #2 May 15, 2013 APPENDIX B
Thanks Corbin,
We have modified the project list spreadsheet to address Marc’s questions about projects of regional significance. We will add clarification of the project descriptions for the referenced projects and distribute the updated list to the IAC.
Kenny Monroe APPENDIX C
IAC Comment #3 May 14, 2013
Pragati, Kenny,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. I have two questions:
-On the project list, why are some of the projects designated with “NA” as to the potential for regional significance? APPENDIX D -On the preconsensus plan, I cannot recall the discussion; did we discuss the potential of using the more current data provided by TDOT through UT for the month VMT fractions? Has the MPO had an opportunity to consider them?
Let me know if my questions need further clarification.
Marc Corrigan Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation APPENDIX E MPO Response #3 May 17, 2013
Marc,
Thank you for your review of the project list and pre-consensus documents. We reviewed each of the projects designated with “NA” for re- gional significance on the project list and based on the project description, changed the designation to not regionally significant. We also provided clarification of the project descriptions for Local TN Project #1 (to clarify that no additional through lanes would be provided on the APPENDIX F bridge or roadway approaches) and #33 (to clarify that the widening project per comments from FHWA. Please find the attached revised project list with the amended designation for regionally significance and clarifications on TN Project #1 and #33.
Although we discussed the potential of using the month VMT fractions provided by TDOT through UT, the analysis conducted to date uses the EPA conversion tool and default data. We will review and update the default data with the local current data, and will incorporate the data in the analysis as the draft analysis and documentation is under review. Please let me know if you have any other comments or ques- tions. APPENDIX G
Kenny Monroe
IAC Comment #4 May 16, 2013
I have reviewed the Pre-consensus plan and the project list and I have a question on the consensus plan:
APPENDIX H -I see that you are using Tennessee default data from UT for “Age Distribution” for the Desoto County portion of the area. Please verify to make sure that the data used for this TIP update is at the minimum the same data as the DeSoto County 2008 Ozone conformity determina- tion. I believed you used a combination of default and local data.
Dianna Smith , EPA Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 45
TABLE OF CONTENTS MPO Response #4 May 17, 2013
Dianna,
Thank you for your review of the project list and the pre-consensus documents. You are correct. We used a combination of data sources for the age distribution for the DeSoto County Conformity analysis conducted earlier this year. Local data from motor vehicle registration infor- mation for vehicle classes 11, 21, and 31 were used. Shelby County data prepared by the University of Tennessee was applied for the re- maining vehicle source types. This is what we will use for this DeSoto County area Conformity analysis as well and the pre-consensus docu- ment was updated to reflect this (see the attached document). Please let me know if you have any other questions or comments. APPENDIX A
Thank you, Kenny Monroe
Email to IAC May 20, 2013
Dear IAC Members, APPENDIX B
Please find the attached Air Quality Conformity Documentation for Shelby County, Tennessee and DeSoto County, Mississippi associated with the Memphis Urban Area MPO 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the amended 2040 Long Range Transporta- tion Plan (LRTP) for your review and comment. The proposed schedule identified in the email below has changed slightly. The following is our proposed schedule for the remaining effort associated with approval of the conformity documentation:
- Complete draft conformity report and distribute to IAC on May 20, 2013 for 30 day review. APPENDIX C - Receive IAC and agency comments on, or before June 20, 2013. - Air quality conformity documentation to FHWA for 30 day review on September 3, 2013. - Receive Federal approval of air quality conformity by October 3, 2013.
Based on the Transportation Conformity Consultation timeline, the IAC has 30 calendar days for this review. So, please provide your com- ments to us on or before Thursday, June 20, 2013. We will conduct an IAC conference call to discuss the report and any preliminary com-
ments or questions you may have on Tuesday, May 28 at 2:00 p.m. (Central Time). APPENDIX D
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thank you,
Regards, Pragati Srivastava, AICP Memphis MPO Coordinator, 125 N Main Street, Suite # 450 APPENDIX E Memphis, TN 38103 Ph:901.576.7190 Fax:901.576.7272 Email: [email protected]
Email to IAC May 28, 2013 APPENDIX F Dear IAC Members,
I hope you all had a great Memorial Day weekend. This is a reminder of our scheduled conference call this afternoon at 2:00 p.m. (Central Time) to briefly go over the DeSoto and Shelby County air quality conformity documentation and any preliminary questions or comments you may have while we are still in the early stages of the review schedule. The call in number and conference code are below.
Thank you, APPENDIX G Kenny Monroe
IAC Comment #5 May 31, 2013
Pragati, Kenny,
Thank you for all the documentation. I have no shortage of reading material! I appreciate the color-coded LRTP chapter revisions. This APPENDIX H makes the review much easier. I appreciate the additional discussion on MAP-21, and the new programming categories.
We’ve had so much discussion on the TIP, Plan and CDR, some of my comments may be redundant, or perhaps previously discussed and agreed upon contrary to my comments (please correct me on these). So, below are some comments. If any of them are unclear, I’d be glad
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 46
TABLE OF CONTENTS to discuss them.
Comments on the Shelby County CDR and TIP:
1) Section 1.4, the TCM section, as discussed on the call, some of the impacts that are off-model are not actually reflected in the MVEB and regional emissions analysis. I find the text here to be a little confusing. The positive side of this, as Allison pointed out, the calculations are conservative and emissions might actually be less. I think this is reasonable, but we should clarify the language a bit.
2) For Shelby County, we need to use the same met data that is in the SIP. Since DeSoto County did not have met data established in the APPENDIX A SIP, we were able to develop new data. We are bound to the SIP’s temperatures and humidity values. EPA has a converted that takes the min and max temps, and the humidity, and develops a temporal distribution from these values.
3) The discussion on the age distribution data says there was some local and some default data. What did we decide? Use the old data and convert it, or look at the potentially questionable, but more recent UT data to see if it might be reasonable?
4) I think we discussed the data UT recently developed for month fractions. Does this look reasonable for use in adjusting the VMT (it APPENDIX B seems it bumps up the summer VMT from the typical annual day that comes from the TDM). Is this adjusted VMT what is reported in Table 3? I’m a little unsure of how to best use the data and make sure it is applied properly – so I’m looking to the experts!
5) Table 2 indicates we are using default fuel type and technology info (AVFT?). The discussion seems to indicate we used a modified AVFT that adjusts the CNG vehicles to diesel.
6) I think there may have been some discussion on fuel formulations for years 2012 and beyond. I believe the Shelby County Health De- APPENDIX C partment reviewed my proposed fuel formulations for those years 2012 and beyond and suggested their use.
7) I believe the Health Department will also supply IM information.
8) In section 4.6 the statement beginning “The average speed distribution…” can you provide more detail on how the average speed distri- bution was used here?
APPENDIX D 9) In section 4.7, ramp fractions, the discussion indicates percentages, while I believe the ramp fractions are fractions of VHT…
10) In the TIP, figure 22, the diagrams and names in the boxes describing the elements on the TIP page did not seem to correspond to the blanks on the page.
11) Shelby County does not include vapor loss and spillage loss from refueling in the onroad emissions inventory, and thus was not includ- ed in the MVEB. The approach used here is more conservative; including more emissions. For future MOVES runs, please check with the local air program to verify this information, and exclude these emissions if the local air program concurs. APPENDIX E
12) The emissions tables in the CDR need units (grams/day). This should specify the time frame the emissions represent for the different analyses/pollutants. Also, there should be a table illustrating the VMT that is associated with these emissions. Right now, one might con- clude those are the emissions from the VMT illustrated in table 3. The VMT for the CO analysis may be different than those for the ozone analysis. It might also be informative to see the source Type population in a table so that one can see the change in the vehicle population over time in Shelby County. APPENDIX F I wanted to get some initial comments to you as early as I could. This is a learning opportunity for me – I’m going to enjoy learning more about MOVES from the experts (thus, please excuse my uninformed questions)! Let me know if you have any questions on my comments.
Marc Corrigan
MPO Response #5 June 27, 2013 APPENDIX G Dear IAC Members,
Thank you again for your review and comment on the draft conformity analysis and documents. Please find the attached revised docu- ments, as well as the comments and responses. The TIP and associated conformity documents will be distributed for public review and comment next week. Let me know if you have any other comments or questions.
Kenneth Monroe, P.E. APPENDIX H Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
1) Another paragraph was added to this section for clarity.
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 47
TABLE OF CONTENTS 2) Temperature and humidity values were obtained from the currently adopted SIP and converted for use in MOVES. Text and analysis was adjusted accordingly.
3) It was decided to use UT data for all vehicle classes for age distribution. Table 2 has been adjusted to reflect that.
4) We reviewed the UT data for month and day fractions. This data seemed appropriate, so we have modified the analysis to use these month and day fractions. Table 2 and Section 4.4 have been modified accordingly.
5) A clarification was added in Table 2 to reflect the removal of CNG vehicles. APPENDIX A
6) The analysis has been modified to include this locally-specific information. Table 2 and Section 4.8 were also modified to reflect this change.
7) Updated Inspection and Maintenance files were used for the revised analysis. The text in Section 4.10 already reflected the appropri- ate data source, and Table 2 was adjusted accordingly.
APPENDIX B 8) This was a typo, instead meant to say “road type distribution.” This text has been modified.
9) This section has been modified.
10) This figure is intended to provide the users a description of the cell/column entries in the TIP page. The leader lines generally show the location for cell and column entries.
APPENDIX C 11) The inclusion of vapor and spillage loss emissions was discussed further with SCHD. Including vapor and spillage loss is in effect a more conservative approach to the emissions analysis. Since the SIP will be revisited in the near future, now is a good time to consider whether including these items in the transportation vs. area source emissions is the best approach. The output files were modified to include pollutant processes, meaning vapor and spillage loss emissions could be excluded in the future if desired. Text was added to section 3.7 to reflect this.
12) Text was added prior to Table 3 to explain that these VMT figures are from the travel demand model. Units were added to Tables 5, 6, APPENDIX D and 7. A new table was added to show source type populations.
Email to IAC June 3, 2013
Dear IAC Members,
Please find the attached draft meeting minutes from the IAC call last week to discuss the DeSoto County, Mississippi and Shelby County, Tennessee Air Quality Conformity analysis and documentation associated with the 2014-2017 TIP for your review and comment. Let me APPENDIX E know if you have any questions.
Thank you, Kenny Monroe
IAC Conference Call Meeting Minutes APPENDIX F To: Interagency Consultation (IAC) group From: Kenneth Monroe, P.E., PTOE Re: 2014-2017 TIP Air Quality Conformity Demonstration IAC Conference Call Meeting Minutes
An IAC conference call was conducted on Tuesday, May 28, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. to discuss the DeSoto County, Mississippi and the Shelby County, Tennessee air quality conformity demonstration associated with the 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The call was conducted to provide a summary of the analysis and conformity reports distributed to the IAC on Monday, May 20, 2013, and to re- APPENDIX G spond to any preliminary comments from the review of the draft documents. The attendees on the call were:
Dianna Smith, EPA, Region 4 Kenneth Dean, EPA, Region 4 Marc Corrigan, Tennessee Air Pollution Control Division (TAPCD) Pragati Srivastava, Memphis MPO
Kate Horton, Memphis MPO APPENDIX H John Paul Shaffer, Memphis MPO Andrew Ray, Memphis MPO Elliott Bickerstaff, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Elton Holloway, Mississippi Department of Transportation
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 48
TABLE OF CONTENTS Theodore Garrod, DeSoto County Planning Commission Denis Fritchie, Shelby County Health Department Ron Smith, City of Southaven, Mississippi Vince Malavasi, City of Horn Lake, Mississippi Allison Fluitt, Kimley-Horn Kenneth Monroe, Kimley-Horn
Analysis was conducted to demonstrate conformance with air quality conformity requirements for DeSoto County, MS and Shelby County,
TN associated with the 2014- 2017 TIP and the amended 2040 LRTP. The following schedule for the conformity determination was provid- APPENDIX A ed:
-Completed draft conformity report and distributed to IAC on May 20, 2013 for 30 day review. -Receive IAC and agency comments on, or before June 20, 2013. -Air quality conformity documentation to FHWA for 30 day review on September 3, 2013. -Receive Federal approval of air quality conformity by October 3, 2013.
APPENDIX B The documents distributed for IAC review on May 20 were:
-Draft 2014-2017 TIP – which included a list of all projects and their exemption status; -2040 LRTP Amendments; -Pre-consensus Memorandum, comments and responses; and -Draft Conformity Documents for Shelby County, Tennessee, and DeSoto County, Mississippi.
APPENDIX C The conformity reports for DeSoto County and for Shelby County were developed as separate and independent documents. The DeSoto County Conformity Document was discussed. DeSoto County was designated Marginal Non-Attainment for the 2008 8-hour Ozone stand- ard. The non-attainment area is the area of DeSoto County within the MPO Boundary. DeSoto County must reach attainment within three years (July 21, 2015) of the designation.
The emissions reduction test was conducted since no Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) are available for DeSoto County. 2011
was used as the baseline year. The analysis years were 2011, 2015, 2020, 2030, and 2040. The analysis was conducted using MOVES APPENDIX D 2010b and the runspecs are shown in page 8 of the conformity document. The runspecs inputs used were the same as previous analysis, but conducted in the INVENTORY mode rather than the RATE mode. A discussion of why the inventory mode is used will be added to the conformity document. Information from the Memphis Travel Demand Model was used to estimate:
-Future year average speed distribution, -Road type distribution, -Hourly vehicle miles traveled (VMT) distribution, -Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) vehicle type VMT, and APPENDIX E -Ramp fraction
It was asked why the emissions using rate mode are higher than the emissions using the inventory mode. The consulting team is continuing to investigate the difference between the results using the rate mode and the inventory mode. As information becomes available, it will be shared with the IAC.
For DeSoto County, registration data was available for motorcycles, passenger cars, and passenger trucks. For the remainder of source APPENDIX F types, information obtained from the University of Tennessee for Shelby County was used as it was assumed that is was reasonable to transfer the data.
The Shelby County Conformity Document was then discussed. Shelby County was designated Marginal Non-Attainment for the 2008 8-hour Ozone standard and is a maintenance area for carbon monoxide (CO). 2017 is the last year of the second 10-year maintenance plan for CO. For Shelby County, the analysis years included 2010, 2015, 2017, 2020, 2030, and 2040. All of Shelby County is included in the nonat- tainment and maintenance areas. As MVEBs are established for Shelby County, the emissions budget tests were conducted. Analysis con- APPENDIX G ducted using MOVES 2010b and the runspecs are shown in page 8 of the conformity document. The analysis was conducted with MOVES using the INVENTORY mode. As with DeSoto County, Information from the Memphis Travel Demand Model was used to estimate:
-Future year average speed distribution, -Road type distribution,
-Hourly vehicle miles traveled (VMT) distribution, APPENDIX H -Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) vehicle type VMT, and -Ramp fraction
There is currently an Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program in place in the City of Memphis, but not the reminder of Shelby County. In
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 49
TABLE OF CONTENTS the analysis, the rate of compliance in the City of Memphis and the I/M participation in the County was accounted for using the compliance factor in MOVES. The compliance rate used for the City of Memphis was 91%. When combined with the percentage of vehicle in the county not in the City of Memphis, the overall compliance rate used for the County was approximately 65%. The Shelby County Health De- partment may have more current numbers for compliance within the City of Memphis and the consulting team with coordinate with the Health Department for the most current information.
The conformity report provides a description of transportation control measures that can be employed to reduce congestion and emissions from mobile sources. It was asked how these control measures are accounted for in the analysis, either in the travel demand model or using off-model analysis. Certain types of control measures are accounted for in the travel demand model. For example, dedicated laneage, such APPENDIX A as high occupancy vehicle lanes, are included in the travel demand model results. The air quality impact in terms of a reduction in emissions due to other control measures, such as improvements to bicycle and pedestrian facilities, can be estimated using off-model analysis. Howev- er, no off-model estimates for reductions in emissions were performed for control measures not accounted for in the travel demand model. Not accounting for the benefit of some of these control measures yields a more conservative estimate of emissions when comparing them to the MVEBs. The document will be modified to specify which control measures are included in the Travel Demand Model and how they are accounted for in the analysis.
APPENDIX B With no further questions or comments, the meeting was concluded.
IAC Comment #6 June 14, 2013
Pragati, Kenny,
The Shelby County Health Department –Pollution Controls (SCHD-PCS) comments pertaining to the CDR are as follows: APPENDIX C
1) Meteorology Data (Temperature) - According to the transportation conformity rule §93.122 (a)(6), Code of Federal Regulations (July 1, 2001), “The ambient temperatures used for the regional emissions analysis shall be consistent with those used to establish the emissions budget in the applicable implementation plan.”
2) Meteorology Data (Humidity) - According to the transportation conformity rule §93.122 (a)(6), Code of Federal Regulations (July 1,
2001) … “And all other factors,” … “must be consistent with the applicable implementation plan. ” Thus, the humidity values used for the APPENDIX D regional emissions analysis must be consistent with those used to establish the emissions budget in the applicable implementation plan.
3) Source Type Population - MOVES Technical Guidance indicates that local data must be developed for the Source Type Population input. In the absence of other local source type data, the guidance describes a couple of methods with which to produce this input. The dis- cussion in table 2 indicates that the default was adjusted but it does not suggest how. It would be helpful if a brief discussion of the method employed was added.
4) Age Distribution – No comment. APPENDIX E
5) HPMS Vehicle Type VMT – Concur with use of data obtained from the local TDM.
6) Monthly VMT Fraction – Concur with use of EPA converter.
7) Daily VMT Fraction – Concur with use of EPA converter. APPENDIX F 8) Hourly VMT Fraction – Concur with use of EPA converter.
9) Average Speed Distribution - Concur with use of data obtained from the local TDM.
10) Road Type Distribution - Concur with use of data obtained from the local TDM. 11) Ramp Fraction - Concur with use of data obtained from the local TDM. APPENDIX G 12) Fuel Supply/ Fuel Formulation – The default values are acceptable for the analysis years of 2004 and 2010. However, in accordance with MOVES Technical Guidance, the fuel formulations proposed by Marc Corrigan should be used for 2012 and beyond.
13) Fuel Supply/ Fuel Formulation - Concur with use of default with adjustment that eliminate CNG fuel type.
14) I/M Program – use the I/M program provided by SCHD-PCS (see attachments).
APPENDIX H 15) Vapor and Spillage loss emissions - Vapor and spillage loss emissions should not be included in this analysis. Typically, SCHD-PCS has included these emissions categories as part of the area source emissions estimates. But more importantly, these emissions categories were not included in either the CO or ozone MVEB .
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 50
TABLE OF CONTENTS In addition, the attachment contains two MS-Excel spreadsheets which should be used instead of the one previously conveyed. Most im- portantly, the spreadsheet labeled “2015-2040 SHELBY CO. TN IMProg Compliance Factor Estimation Tool” will allow you to generate fu- ture year compliance factor estimates. To do so, follow the brief set of instruction found on each spreadsheet. As I will be out of the office next week, if you have any question please contact Denis Fritchie @ (901) 222-9580.
Thanks, Chris Boyd Pollution Control Section
Shelby County Health Department APPENDIX A 814 Jefferson Ave. Memphis, TN 38105
MPO Response #6 June 27, 2013
Dear IAC Members,
APPENDIX B Thank you again for your review and comment on the draft conformity analysis and documents. Please find the attached revised docu- ments, as well as the comments and responses. The TIP and associated conformity documents will be distributed for public review and comment next week. Let me know if you have any other comments or questions.
Kenneth Monroe, P.E. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
APPENDIX C 1) Meteorology Data (Temperature) - Temperature and humidity values were obtained from the currently adopted SIP and converted for use in MOVES. Text and analysis was adjusted accordingly.
2) Meteorology Data (Humidity) - Temperature and humidity values were obtained from the currently adopted SIP and converted for use in MOVES. Text and analysis was adjusted accordingly.
3) Source Type Population - Additional description of the specific method used was added to the text. APPENDIX D
4) Age Distribution – No action needed.
5) HPMS Vehicle Type VMT – No action needed.
6) Monthly VMT Fraction – No action needed.
7) Daily VMT Fraction – No action needed. APPENDIX E
8) Hourly VMT Fraction – No action needed.
9) Average Speed Distribution - No action needed.
10) Road Type Distribution - No action needed. APPENDIX F 11) Ramp Fraction - No action needed.
12) Fuel Supply/ Fuel Formulation – The analysis has been modified to include this locally-specific information. Table 2 and Section 4.8 were also modified to reflect this change.
13) Fuel Supply/ Fuel Formulation - Clarification added in Table 2. APPENDIX G 14) I/M Program – Updated Inspection and Maintenance files were used for the revised analysis. The text in Section 4.10 already reflect- ed the appropriate data source, and Table 2 was adjusted accordingly.
15) Vapor and Spillage loss emissions - The inclusion of vapor and spillage loss emissions was discussed further with SCHD. Including vapor and spillage loss is in effect a more conservative approach to the emissions analysis. Since the SIP will be revisited in the near future, now is a good time to consider whether including these items in the transportation vs. area source emissions is the best ap-
proach. The output files were modified to include pollutant processes, meaning vapor and spillage loss emissions could be excluded in APPENDIX H the future if desired. Text was added to section 3.7 to reflect this.
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 51
TABLE OF CONTENTS IAC Comment #7 June 17, 2013
Chris,
I think the tool you’ve provided to generate future compliance factors for IM is great. I think in the notes where you add in the default IM records for the year you are looking to analyze, I think you might also need to change the “useIMyn” from “y” to “n” for the default records, since you want to ignore the default programs and use the locally developed programs appended at the bottom of the file, right?
Marc Corrigan APPENDIX A
IAC Comment #8 June 17, 2013
Marc,
Chris is on vacation this week. I have discussed your comment with him and he agrees. The attached file is the corrected version. Thanks
for your help. APPENDIX B
Denis Fritchie
IAC Comment #9 June 20, 2013
Pragati,
APPENDIX C Please see the FHWA Tennessee Division’s comments regarding the Shelby County Conformity Determination attached to this email.
Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Com. # Doc. # FHWA Comment
B1 Page 4 Define the acronyms “TIP,” “FR,” and “MPO” the first instances they are used in the text. APPENDIX D
B2 Page 5 Complete the regulatory references for 40 CFR 93.105 (first paragraph) and 40 CFR 93.100-a (fourth paragraph). be sure to define the acronym “CFR” the first instance it is used in the text.
B3 Page 5 Define the acronyms “ppm,” “FY,” “DOT,” “FHWA,” and “FTA” the first instances they are used in the text.
B4 Pages 5, 6, 7, 19, 20 Please clarify references to [FY] 2014-2017 TIP. (i.e. FY 2014-2017 TIP) APPENDIX E B5 Page 6 Define the acronym “MOVES” the first instance it is used in the text.
B6 Page 9 Define the acronym “U.S.C.” the first instance it is used in the text.
B7 Page 11 Define the acronyms “MOBILE” and “PM2.5” the first instances they are used in the text.
B8 Page 16 Define the acronym “UTK” the first instance it is used in the text. APPENDIX F
C1 Page 4 The statement “Conformity to a SIP means that planned transportation activities will not produce new air quality viola tions, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)” could be en hanced by restating it as:
“Conformity to a SIP means that federal funds will not be spent on projects that cause or contribute to any new violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); increase the frequency or severity of NAAQS violations; or delay timely attain APPENDIX G ment of the NAAQS or any required interim milestone.” C2 Page 4 The “Introduction” section could be enhanced by including a map of the metropolitan planning area and the nonattain ment area.
C3 Page 4 The footnote at the bottom could be enhanced by including a hyperlink to the website: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ stateresources/transconf/regs/420b12046.pdf
APPENDIX H C4 Pages 4, 5, 20 The Federal Register citations could be enhanced by including hyperlinks to the Federal Register’s website for each Register notice.
C5 Page 5 The third paragraph after the “Carbon Monoxide (CO)” section could be improved by delineating this section as a sepa rate section (i.e. Purpose of Conformity Analysis) Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 52
TABLE OF CONTENTS
C6 Page 5 The in-text reference to Table 3 could be enhanced by providing a page number (i.e. page 14)
C7 Page 5 The footnote at the bottom could be enhanced by including a hyperlink to the website: http://www.memphismpo.org/ resources/plans/long-range-plan-lrtp
C8 Page 6 The footnote at the bottom could be enhanced by including a hyperlink to the website: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/ moves/documents/420b12028.pdf
APPENDIX A C9 Page 7 The reference to “Chapter 2 and Appendix A of the LRTP document” could be enhanced by including a hyperlink to the website: http://www.memphismpo.org/resources/plans/long-range-plan-lrtp
C10 Page 10 The statement “2017 carbon monoxide MVEBs were established in the Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 206, p. 62386, October 25, 2006” could be enhanced by rewording the statement so the number “2017” doesn’t lead the sentence.
D1 Page 5 What are the “local regulations” referenced in the third paragraph after the “Carbon Monoxide (CO)” section? APPENDIX B
D2 Page 6 “This conformity determination represents an update to the current determination approved in March 2013 based on modifications to the 2040 LRTP and 2014-2017 TIP project recommendations.”
Should this reference the June 4, 2013 letter from the FHWA Tennessee Division?
D3 Page 6 Why is the MPO’s travel demand model referred to as the “Memphis and Shelby County MPO Travel Demand Model”? APPENDIX C This gives the impression that the MPO is called the “Memphis and Shelby County MPO”
D4 Page 7 What is Exhibit 2? Where is it located? Will it be included in the final conformity document?
D5 Page 7 What is Exhibit 1? Where is it located? Will it be included in the final conformity document?
If Exhibit 1 is the “Consensus Comments.pdf” please revise the document to remove the redundant email messages and use an APPENDIX D index or table of contents to organize the content chronologically.
D6 Page 7 In the third paragraph of the “Interagency Consultation and Public Participation” section, how was the public “notified of the opportunities to comment on this conformity demonstration”?
Please clarify in the text.
D7 Page 7 In the third paragraph of the “Interagency Consultation and Public Participation” section, what does the statement “all APPENDIX E comments received from the public, committee members, and review agencies were addressed appropriately” mean?
Please explain what “addressed appropriately” means.
D8 Page 10 In regards to Table 1 and the “Output Emissions” row, why does the report list “location = link”?
The April 30, 2013 Pre-Analysis Consensus Memorandum stated “location = county” APPENDIX F
D9 Page 11 In regards to Table 2 and the “I/M Programs” row, why does the report say “No data entered”?
What does this mean?
The April 30, 2013 Pre-Analysis Consensus Memorandum stated the analysis would consider effects from the tailpipe test. D10 Page 15 In regards to the “Road Type” section, should the second sentence reference all five road types (instead of vehicle APPENDIX G types)?
Regards, Corbin Davis Planning & Air Quality Specialist Federal Highway Administration
Tennessee Division APPENDIX H 404 BNA Drive Building 200, Suite 508 Nashville, TN 37217
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 53
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MPO Response #9 June 27, 2013
Dear IAC Members,
Thank you again for your review and comment on the draft conformity analysis and documents. Please find the attached revised docu- ments, as well as the comments and responses. The TIP and associated conformity documents will be distributed for public review and comment next week. Let me know if you have any other comments or questions.
APPENDIX A Kenneth Monroe, P.E. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Com. # Doc. # MPO Response
B1 Page 4 Agreed. Changed per comment.
APPENDIX B B2 Page 5 Agreed. Completed references.
B3 Page 5 Agreed. Changed per comment.
B4 Pages 5, 6, 7, 19, 20 Defined FY at first instance in document.
B5 Page 6 Agreed. Changed per comment. APPENDIX C
B6 Page 9 Defined U.S.C.
B7 Page 11 Removed reference to MOBILE on page 11 and provided reference to previous EPA model on page 18. Defined PM2.5 on page 12.
B8 Page 16 Agreed. Defined UTK on page 18. APPENDIX D
C1 Page 4 Agreed. Changed per comment. C2 Page 4 Added map of MPO and non-attainment areas.
C3 Page 4 Agreed. Added hyperlink.
C4 Pages 4, 5, 20 Did not add hyperlinks to FR’s as the document started to become cluttered with links. APPENDIX E C5 Page 5 Agreed. Delineated purpose as separate section.
C6 Page 5 Inserted page number of Table 3 for reference.
C7 Page 5 Inserted hyperlink.
C8 Page 6 Inserted hyperlink. APPENDIX F
C9 Page 7 Inserted hyperlink.
C10 Page 10 Reworded sentence.
D1 Page 5 Deleted reference to local regulations. APPENDIX G D2 Page 6 Deleted this sentence as this conformity determination is not an update to the CDR for the 2011-2014 TIP, but is a new conformity report associated with the 2014-2017 TIP and the amended 2040 LRTP.
D3 Page 6 Changed references to Memphis MPO.
D4 Page 7 Exhibit 2 contains a listing of the 2014-2017 TIP and 2040 LRTP projects. Exhibit 2 will be an attachment to the final
Conformity document. APPENDIX H
D5 Page 7 Exhibit 1 contains the Interagency Consultation pre-consensus memorandum and comments/correspondence with the IAC. The exhibit will be organized to allow for easier review.
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 54
TABLE OF CONTENTS D6 Page 7 Public comments for the TIP and associated conformity will be solicited based on the processes described in the MPO Public Participation Plan (PPP). It is anticipated that the TIP and air quality will be available for public review and comment on July 10.
D7 Page 7 All comments were addressed. Deleted “appropriately”.
D8 Page 10 This is referencing the specific wording within the MOVES program on certain windows.
D9 Page 11 This was a misstatement and has been edited. APPENDIX A
D10 Page 15 Changed reference to roadway types instead of vehicle types.
APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 55
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX-F Public Involvement Process
Table F1: Local Jurisdiction Public Meetings for Current 2014-17 TIP Projects Jurisdiction Project Date Location Address
7-Jun-10 Arlington Town Hall 5854 Airline Road, Arlington, TN-38002 APPENDIX A Airline Road Imp Phase 1 Bridge 3-Dec-12 Arlington Town Hall 5854 Airline Road, Arlington, TN-38002 Douglas & Airline Intersection 3-Dec-12 Arlington Town Hall 5854 Airline Road, Arlington, TN-38002 Improvements Arlington Donelson Farms Parkway 3-Dec-12 Arlington Town Hall 5854 Airline Road, Arlington, TN-38002 Highway 70 at Jetway Road APPENDIX B 3-Dec-12 Arlington Town Hall 5854 Airline Road, Arlington, TN-38002 Improvements SR-205 (Airline Road) North 3-Dec-12 Arlington Town Hall 5854 Airline Road, Arlington, TN-38002 Widening 30-Mar-05 Rivercrest Elementary 4825 Rivercrest Ln., Bartlett TN- 38135 Bartlett Old Brownsville West
11-Dec-12 Bartlett City Hall 6400 Stage Road, Bartlett, TN 38134 APPENDIX C 500 Poplar View Parkway, Collierville, 5-May-09 Collierville Town Hall TN 38017 Byhalia Road Widening 500 Poplar View Parkway, Collierville, 1-Feb-11 Collierville Town Hall Collierville TN 38017 Collierville Center Connect - 21-Oct-10 The Historic Depot on the Square 125 N. Rowlett Street Collierville, TN Phase I APPENDIX D SR-57 Widening 21-Oct-10 The Historic Depot on the Square 125 N. Rowlett Street Collierville, TN Economic & Community 1920 South Germantown Road, Germantown Road Realignment 10-Jan-13 Development Office Germantown, TN 38138 Germantown Germantown Road at Wolf River Economic & Community 1920 South Germantown Road, Boulevard Intersection 10-Jan-13 Development Office Germantown, TN 38138
Improvements APPENDIX E 12-Apr-05 Center Point Church 3570 Canada Rd., Lakeland TN 38002 Lakeland Canada Rd 10001 U.S. Hwy 70, Lakeland, TN 12-Dec-12 Lakeland City Hall 38002 19-Aug-04 Bert Ferguson Community Center 8505 Trinity Rd., Memphis, TN-38018 Forest Hill-Irene 3030 Poplar Ave, Memphis TN 38111- 3-Jan-13 Benjamin L Hooks Central Library APPENDIX F 3527 4833 Tchulahoma Rd., Memphis, TN- 24-Feb-05 Easthaven Church of Christ 38118 Holmes Rd. East and West 3030 Poplar Ave, Memphis TN 38111- 3-Jan-13 Benjamin L Hooks Central Library 3527 7777 Walnut Grove Rd., Memphis, TN- 26-Mar-02 Agricenter International 38120 APPENDIX G Kirby Whitten Pkwy Memphis 3030 Poplar Ave, Memphis TN 38111- 3-Jan-13 Benjamin L Hooks Central Library 3527 29-Mar-07 White Station Library 5094 Poplar, Memphis, TN-38117
Poplar /Sweetbriar 3030 Poplar Ave, Memphis TN 38111- 3-Jan-13 Benjamin L Hooks Central Library 3527 APPENDIX H 31-Mar-05 Bert Ferguson Community Center 8505 Trinity Rd., Memphis, TN-38018 Walnut Grove--East 3030 Poplar Ave, Memphis TN 38111- 3-Jan-13 Benjamin L Hooks Central Library 3527
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 56
TABLE OF CONTENTS Table F1 (continued): Local Jurisdiction Public Meetings for Current 2014-17 TIP Projects Jurisdiction Project Date Location Address 7777 Walnut Grove Rd., Memphis, 26-Mar-02 Agricenter International TN 38120 Walnut Grove-Middle 3030 Poplar Ave, Memphis TN 38111- 3-Jan-13 Benjamin L Hooks Central Library 3527 4318 Graceland Drive, Memphis, APPENDIX A 26-Apr-10 Whitehaven Community Center TN 38116 Elvis Presley 3030 Poplar Ave, Memphis TN 38111- 3-Jan-13 Benjamin L Hooks Central Library 3527 4945 Winchester Rd., Memphis, 9-Dec-04 Kensington Baptist Church TN 38118 3509 Boxdale Avenue, Memphis, APPENDIX B Winchester/Perkins Interchange 8-Dec-09 Greater Harvest Church TN 38118 3030 Poplar Ave, Memphis TN 38111- 3-Jan-13 Benjamin L Hooks Central Library 3527 3030 Poplar Ave, Memphis TN 38111- Biomedical Planning District 3-Jan-13 Benjamin L Hooks Central Library Memphis 3527
3030 Poplar Ave, Memphis TN 38111- APPENDIX C North Second Street 3-Jan-13 Benjamin L Hooks Central Library 3527 Mainstreet to Mainstreet Multi- 3030 Poplar Ave, Memphis TN 38111- 3-Jan-13 Benjamin L Hooks Central Library modal Connector 3527 3030 Poplar Ave, Memphis TN 38111- Walker Avenue Streetscape 3-Jan-13 Benjamin L Hooks Central Library 3527 APPENDIX D 3030 Poplar Ave, Memphis TN 38111- Highway 61 - Blues Trail 3-Jan-13 Benjamin L Hooks Central Library 3527 3030 Poplar Ave, Memphis TN 38111- Wolf River Greenway - Phase 4 3-Jan-13 Benjamin L Hooks Central Library 3527 Beale Street Landing Water Taxi 3030 Poplar Ave, Memphis TN 38111- 3-Jan-13 Benjamin L Hooks Central Library and Dock Connections. 3527 APPENDIX E 3030 Poplar Ave, Memphis TN 38111- Beale Street Landing 3-Jan-13 Benjamin L Hooks Central Library 3527 Navy Road Streetscape and 4-Feb-13 Millington City Hall 7930 Nelson Road, Millington, TN 38053 Median
Millington Singleton Parkway 4-Feb-13 Millington City Hall 7930 Nelson Road, Millington, TN 38053 APPENDIX F Wilkinsville Road 4-Feb-13 Millington City Hall 7930 Nelson Road, Millington, TN 38053 Memphis & Shelby County Code 6465 Mullins Station, Memphis, TN Houston Levee Road Widening 3-Jan-13 Enforcement – Training Room 38134 Memphis & Shelby County Code 6465 Mullins Station, Memphis, TN Walnut Grove Road Widening 3-Jan-13 Enforcement – Training Room 38134 APPENDIX G Shelby County Memphis & Shelby County Code 6465 Mullins Station, Memphis, TN Macon Road Widening 3-Jan-13 Enforcement – Training Room 38134
Shelby Farms Bicycle, Pedestri- Memphis & Shelby County Code 6465 Mullins Station, Memphis, TN 3-Jan-13 an, and Equine Trails Enforcement – Training Room 38134 APPENDIX H Piperton SR-57 Widening 22-Jan-13 Piperton City Hall 3575 Hwy 196, Piperton, TN 38017
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 57
TABLE OF CONTENTS Table F1 (continued): Local Jurisdiction Public Meetings for Current 2014-17 TIP Projects Jurisdiction Project Date Location Address 9200 Pigeon Roost, Olive Branch, MS Olive Branch Craft Road 14-Apr-05 Olive Branch City Hall 38654 8710 Northwest Dr., Southaven MS- Southaven Getwell Rd. 14-Apr-05 Southaven City Hall 38671 APPENDIX A 3101 Goodman Road West, Horn Lake, Nail Road Extension 2-Jan-13 City Hall Auditorium MS 38637 Horn Lake Bullfrog Corner Intersection 3101 Goodman Road West, Horn Lake, 2-Jan-13 City Hall Auditorium Improvements MS 38637 APPENDIX B
Table F2: Public Meetings for 30-day Review and Comment Period 2014-17 TIP County Date Location Address Fayette County, TN 7/16/2013 Piperton City Hall 3575 TN-196, Collierville, TN-38017 Desoto County, MS 7/16/2013 Desoto County Administration Building 365 Losher Street #350, Hernando, MS-38632 APPENDIX C Shelby County, TN 7/30/2013 Benjamin L Hooks Central Library 3030 Poplar Avenue, Memphis, TN-38111 APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 58
TABLE OF CONTENTS 2014-17 TIP MPO Public Meeting Notice
PUBLIC NOTICE THE MEMPHIS URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 2014-17 TIP Review and Comment Period and Public Meetings APPENDIX A In compliance with federal regulations (23 CFR 450), the Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is hereby giving notice that the Draft 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the Air Quality Conformity Determi- nation Report will be available for a 30-day public review and comment period from July 10, 2013 to August 8, 2013. The docu- ment will be available, by appointment, from 8:00 AM until 4:30 PM Monday through Friday in the offices of the Memphis MPO located at 125 N. Main Street, Room 450, Memphis, TN 38103 or for download from the Internet at: www.memphismpo.org.
The English and Spanish language copies are also available for public review in the library systems of Shelby, Fayette, and APPENDIX B DeSoto counties. Written public comments on the draft study will be accepted through 4:30 pm on August 8, 2013. Comments may be submitted to Pragati Srivastava, Memphis MPO, 125 N. Main Street, Room 450, Memphis, TN 38103 or via email at [email protected]. During the 30-day public review period, three public meetings will be held in each county within the MPO for review and comment. The date, time and location of the public meetings are as follows:
Fayette County Public Meeting Date: July 16, 2013, 5:30 PM APPENDIX C Location: Piperton City Hall 3725 Tennessee 196 Piperton, TN 38017
Desoto County Public Meeting
Date: July 16, 2013, 5:30 PM APPENDIX D Location: Desoto County Administration Building 365 Losher St #350 Hernando, MS 38632
Shelby County Public Meeting Date: July 30, 2013, 5:30 PM Location: Benjamin L. Hooks Central Library APPENDIX E 3030 Poplar Avenue Memphis, TN 38111
It is the policy of the Memphis MPO not to discriminate on the basis of age, race, color, national origin or disability in its hiring or employment practices, or in its admissions to or operations of its program, services, or activities. All inquiries for Title VI and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or for persons with disabilities that require aids or services to participate either in the review of these documents or at the hearing may contact John Paul Shaffer at 901-576-7130, fax (901) 576-7272; or email APPENDIX F [email protected] to make accessibility arrangements no less than five days prior to the meeting.
This notice is funded (in part) under an agreement with the State of TN and MS, Departments of Transportation. APPENDIX G APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 59
TABLE OF CONTENTS 2014-17 TIP Public Comments
Comment #1 July 30, 2013
From: Art Wolff (Memphis, TN) Received: TIP Public Meeting—Shelby County
Comments: APPENDIX A
1. Regarding Public Participation: Please be specific about where this meeting was advertised to the public. 2. Regarding Bicycle, Pedestrian, and ADA Compliance: On this “Walnut Grove Improvement Project” it is inhumane. Experts say it can be improved rather inexpensively and without much effect on motorized traffic. What are the plans to improve the situation? 3. Regarding Shelby Farms Parkway: The CSS Process and the NEPA Process were flawed and most certainly were illegal, - should be redone. There is a very reasonable alternative that should be studied before any more time and money is spent. Contact me - I have proof of my comments. APPENDIX B
[For the MPO’s response to Mr. Wolff’s comments from the July 30th meeting, please see response to Comment #2 shown below.]
Comment #2 August 8, 2013
From: Art Wolff APPENDIX C Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 3:38 PM To: Srivastava, Pragati Subject: MPO-TIP Comments
I attended a Metropolitan Planning Organization public meeting regarding the TIP amendments. It was held on July 30 at the Ben Hooks Library.
APPENDIX D The location was assessable and the weather was excellent. The subject matter should concern every citizen in our area who drives a vehicle, rides public transportation, walks, rides a bike or rides a wheelchair.
Sadly, there were barely a handful of unaffiliated citizens there. I was there because I had received an e-mail from the MPO.
I asked one of the staff people present how they had notified the general public…that person politely answered that they had sent e-mails to some people and organizations. She said they had advertised in several papers. I replied APPENDIX E that I thoroughly read The Commercial Appeal but had seen nothing which would notify me and other citizens.
She agreed to send me copies of the advertisements for the public meeting. I have not yet received them. I have heard that the M.P.O. has received a commendation for their public participation. I would also like to receive a copy of that document and know from whom it came.
The format for this meeting was disturbing. There was no formal presentation where those present could have an APPENDIX F interactive discussion.
The staff was polite and (as far as I could tell) answered direct questions quite well if asked. I, like others, probably did not know of pertinent questions to ask.
Also, at that meeting there was no mention of the “Walnut Grove Improvement Project”. In discussion with the staff I reminded them that experts had analyzed the lack of humane safety measures for pedestrians, bicyclists, and APPENDIX G particular for people with disabilities. I was told that that matter was tabled because I had appealed to the Justice Department. I wish to know where the matter is now and what the M.P.O. and or the City of Memphis plans to do to improve this inhumane and illegal situation.
Also at this TIP meeting on July 30 there was no mention of the Sierra Club’s and the general citizen’s complaints about the Kirby-Whitten (Shelby Farms Parkway) study. They question the integrity and thoroughness of the study.
They insist that another alternative route be studied. APPENDIX H
At the M.P.O. Engineering and Technical Meeting of 8/1/13., another very important TIP issue was raised.
We (the people) must know the complete list of absolutely all future roads that are likely to be built or improved. We
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 60
TABLE OF CONTENTS 2014-17 TIP Public Comments mean all roads that would affect traffic through, in and around our Shelby Farms Park. That includes Mullins Sta- tion, Raleigh-LaGrange, Trinity, Macon Road, Sycamore View, Forest Hill-Irene, I-40, I-240 and I-269. Are we missing anything?
Of course the results of the study mentioned in the preceding paragraph will greatly affect the lives of all of the citi-
zens in the entire M.P.O. area. Please share this information with us at once. APPENDIX A
Art Wolff
MPO Response to Comments #1 & #2 August 12, 2013
Dear Mr. Wolff, APPENDIX B
First, thank you for your interest and comments regarding the FY 2014‐17 Transporta on Improvement Program. The MPO strives to reach out to the public in its planning process and welcomes any and all input from interested ci zens. Also, thank you for a ending the MPO’s public mee ng on July 30 at the Hooks Central Library. The mee ng was conducted in an open house format to give those a ending an opportunity to discuss the TIP documents and projects directly with staff. Please
accept the following responses to the concerns expressed in your comments submi ed in person on July 30 and vie email on APPENDIX C August 8: Public Involvement
In accordance with the Memphis MPO’s Public Par cipa on Plan, the public review process for the 2014‐17 TIP, including three public mee ngs held in each county served by the MPO, were adver sed in four newspapers in the region: the Mem‐
phis Commercial Appeal (6/28/13), the Tri‐State Defender (7/4/13), the DeSoto Times (7/4/13), and La Prensa La na APPENDIX D (7/7/13). A copy of the no ce published in the papers is a ached to this email, as is the Spanish‐language version published in La Prensa. Addi onally, the MPO distributed informa on on the TIP through its website, media releases, and an email dis‐ tribu on list comprising over 1,000 stakeholders, community groups, and interested par es throughout the region. In August 2011, the MPO underwent a cer fica on review by the Federal Highway Administra on, Federal Transit Admin‐ istra on, and U.S. Environmental Protec on Agency. It was the conclusion of this review that the MPO is mee ng or exceed‐ ing the requirements set forth by the federal government for its planning and public involvement ac vi es. The Memphis APPENDIX E MPO’s Federal Cer fica on Review Report dated September 2011 (a ached) commended the MPO regarding its public par‐ cipa on efforts, sta ng that, “The MPO is commended for the strides it has made in improving public involvement in the planning process.” Walnut Grove Improvement Project
The FY 2014‐17 TIP includes three improvement projects related to Walnut Grove Road: Walnut Grove Road Middle (Kirby/ APPENDIX F Whi en Parkway to Germantown Parkway); Walnut Grove Road East (Walnut Bend to Rocky Point Road); and Walnut Grove Road Widening (Rocky Point to Houston Levee). All three projects will include designated bicycle facili es and ADA‐accessible pedestrian improvements. Regarding the TDOT project, Walnut Grove Road West (I‐240 to east of the Wolf River Bridge), this project has been complet‐ ed for several years and is not included in the current 2011‐14 TIP or the dra 2014‐17 TIP. The MPO has been advised that no further ac on will be taken by TDOT un l they receive word from the Department of Jus ce on the results of their inves ‐ APPENDIX G ga on into the ma er. At this me, the best course of ac on on this issue would be to follow up with staff at DOJ to whom the complaint was submi ed. Shelby Farms Parkway (Kirby/Whi en Parkway)
All public comment generated through the NEPA process for this project is the responsibility of the sponsoring jurisdic on
(the City of Memphis), and is included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement and corresponding documents, available APPENDIX H at the TDOT project website (h p://www.tdot.state.tn.us/kirbyparkway/default.shtml). The MPO has received no other com‐ ments regarding this project during the public comment period for the 2014‐17 TIP. Traffic Effects from Future Road Projects
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 61 As a part of the regional transporta on planning process, the Memphis MPO is required to consider all likely future road projects over a minimum 20‐year horizon. The MPO’s Direc on 2040 Long Range Transporta on Plan (LRTP) includes a comprehensive anal‐ ysis of the region’s needs and proposed projects through the year 2040. This analysis includes es mates of the traffic levels and roadway conges on condi ons on all exis ng and proposed roadways within the MPO planning area, using the MPO’s regional travel demand model. The Direc on 2040 LRTP is available on the MPO website (www.memphismpo.org) or by appointment at the MPO offices (125 North Main Street, Suite 450, Memphis, TN 38103). The MPO staff would be happy to answer any addi onal ques ons you may have regarding the technical analyses conducted as a component of the LRTP, as well as any proposed future transporta on pro‐ jects included in the plan. Again, thank you for your me and interest.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Public Survey Results: Project Selection Criteria for 2014-17 TIP APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 63
TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX A APPENDIX B
Question 3: Are there any additional categories that you feel should be included when ranking transportation projects for the region? (Open Ended Responses)
1 Planning should be used to move vehicle traffic efficiently and safely. Oct 29, 2012 3:12 PM
APPENDIX C 2 All the above except congestion and safety are NOT among any level of my priority list. The one you must consider above those are Property Rights. Oct 29, 2012 2:13 PM
3 Cost to Tax Payers Oct 29, 2012 1:26 PM
4 Cost Benefit Ratios Oct 29, 2012 11:48 AM
APPENDIX D 5 The current Memphis mass transit system is highly inadequate and inefficient. Unless you live/work on the Poplar corridor, you need to plan at least an hour and a half trip to reach your destination. This is especially true since the combination of several routes. The system also has the negative connotation of being the poor man's transportation (aka-in Memphis the social security/food stamps class). It is not viewed as a viable transportation alternative for all of Memphis and surrounding area. Until its PR profile is sufficiently addressed, I don't believe that it will grow into a true metropolitan transit system. Oct 24, 2012 3:05 PM
6 Population growth Oct 23, 2012 10:44 PM APPENDIX E
7 Accessibility / ADA compliance Oct 22, 2012 2:11 PM
8 No Oct 22, 2012 1:58 PM
9 Access to transportation options Reduced fare options for economically challenged neighborhoods Oct 15, 2012 4:04 PM
APPENDIX F 10 No Oct 15, 2012 1:23 PM
11 Water Quality and Wildlife. Oct 14, 2012 11:08 AM
12 Economic Opportunity Oct 13, 2012 8:16 PM
13 Long term environmental impact on the area. Preserving green space, protecting ground water, ability to walk from place to place and community restructuring that creates less dependence on automobiles to get from place to place. Oct 12, 2012 1:34 PM APPENDIX G
14 Ability to stop/reverse sprawl and disinvestment -Ability to promote density Oct 12, 2012 1:17 PM
15 Effect on the depletion of nonrenewable energy sources Oct 12, 2012 12:30 PM
16 Handicap Accessibility & Transportation Oct 12, 2012 11:33 AM APPENDIX H 17 Education, signage that defines rights and responsibilities of traffic to automobile drivers, especially City/county road and traffic employees. Oct 12, 2012 10:39 AM
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 64
TABLE OF CONTENTS 18 Yes, in cities of comparable size there is shuttle transportation that is an alternative to personal transportation and public Oct 12, 2012 10:34 AM
19 None Oct 12, 2012 10:34 AM
20 Long-term maintenance cost and economic sustainability Leveraging of/reinvesting in existing assets, infrastructure and population Oct 12, 2012 10:30 AM
21 Life Cycle Cost of the infrastructure, maintenance cost, and return on investment. Oct 10, 2012 8:46 AM APPENDIX A
22 Toll for those who commute from outside Shelby County. This would help fix the roads they clog in Shelby County and help with air quality by encouraging more commuters to ride together to save money. Oct 9, 2012 9:39 AM
23 Impact on citizens... cost to use the transportation. Oct 7, 2012 3:16 PM
24 Access for all income groups Oct 6, 2012 6:52 PM APPENDIX B
25 Sprawl: If the road project contributes to sprawl, it should not be funded. Repairing existing roads should be funded before building new lanes, new roads or road extensions. The 10 categories should have been ranked together instead of 4 and then 6. I would have placed Cost Effectiveness as #1 and Air Quality as # 2, #3 Safety, #4 Multimodal, #5 Environment, #6 Network continuity, #7 Land Use, #8 Environmental Justice, #9 Security, and #10 Congestion. In the past Congestion has been the determining criteria to justify adding more lanes, road extensions and new roads. However, it should be used to justify creating more diverse modes of transportation. Oct 5, 2012 6:02
PM APPENDIX C
26 Geographical needs: i.e. north/south movement added to east/west majority routes Oct 5, 2012 4:43 PM
27 n/a Oct 5, 2012 2:28 PM
28 I don't know how to name the category, but long-term strategic growth is important in ranking in terms of how the city is laid out, traffic
patterns and creating more density within the city so we can be more efficient. Oct 5, 2012 10:56 AM APPENDIX D
29 The disruption to small businesses that pay your salaries. Oct 5, 2012 9:14 AM
30 No Oct 5, 2012 9:04 AM
31 If I were to add a category it would be "Economic Disruption". For example, if widening a road means that a gas station will lose half of its parking lot, then it should be considered. This technically could be part of a benefit cost analysis, but the decision making process may be APPENDIX E better served with a separate "economic disruption" category. Oct 5, 2012 8:37 AM
32 Impact on Tourism Oct 5, 2012 8:18 AM
33 Safe routes to schools, safety for pedestrians and bicycles. Oct 5, 2012 4:06 AM
34 Economic Benefit Cost Agricultural industry implications Oct 4, 2012 8:36 PM APPENDIX F 35 Something that may be part of connectivity - being able to get places without a car... especially senior citizens and people unable to bike. It is virtually impossible to be a non-driver in this area. As the population ages it becomes a huge quality of life and cost of living issue. Public usable transportation would also improve air quality, environmental concerns, fuel use, etc, Oct 4, 2012 7:24 PM
36 Concentrating growth in urban areas, restricting suburban sprawl, protecting rural and wild land Oct 4, 2012 7:03 PM
37 Pedestrian Oct 4, 2012 6:48 PM APPENDIX G
38 No Oct 4, 2012 6:38 PM
39 No Oct 4, 2012 6:36 PM
40 Large choice of routes Oct 4, 2012 6:21 PM
APPENDIX H 41 No Oct 4, 2012 6:00 PM
42 No Oct 4, 2012 5:39 PM
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 65
TABLE OF CONTENTS 43 Maintenance Oct 4, 2012 4:50 PM
44 Economic and developmental impact Oct 4, 2012 4:36 PM
45 Routes; More of them Oct 4, 2012 4:25 PM
46 Mixed-Use Development Oct 4, 2012 3:55 PM
47 Pedestrian/bike friendly Oct 4, 2012 9:40 AM APPENDIX A
48 No Oct 4, 2012 8:08 AM
49 I think it's important to consider whether we should be investing so heavily in infrastructure that promotes unending suburban growth when urban centers are crumbling. Oct 4, 2012 6:35 AM
50 Density. Maybe the "land use" category should include concerns for raising density, not just being in accordance with existing plans. Oct APPENDIX B 4, 2012 5:14 AM
51 Public Input- Points based on citizen support for a project Community Impacts – Points based on the impact on neighborhoods and communities Oct 3, 2012 10:23 PM
52 Public education regarding use and stigma attached to use. Oct 3, 2012 8:03 PM
APPENDIX C 53 Maintenance Cost Oct 3, 2012 7:54 PM
54 None. Oct 3, 2012 7:27 PM
55 Impact on school zones Oct 3, 2012 7:18 PM
56 Modes of transportation Road care and expense Educational media coverage Oct 3, 2012 6:02 PM APPENDIX D
57 Freight Movement Job Creation Oct 3, 2012 5:55 PM
58 Intercity multimodal connections Oct 3, 2012 5:18 PM
59 Efficiency / performance Oct 3, 2012 4:29 PM
APPENDIX E 60 I would hope that the outer regions are not excluded from any consideration. Oct 3, 2012 4:19 PM
61 The bus system needs significant improvement. My children ride the bus regularly. They report unruly behavior by passengers that is not addressed by the drivers; late buses; and frequent delays. Oct 3, 2012 3:06 PM
62 Pedestrian/non motorized vehicle options! Oct 3, 2012 3:02 PM
63 Not sure if in current categories, but focus should be on sustainable communities that do not require use of automobile to buy a tube of APPENDIX F toothpaste. Oct 3, 2012 3:01 PM
64 Making sure that workers on the projects have the legal ability to be working on these said projects. Hiring responsible local contractors Oct 3, 2012 2:38 PM
65 There should be a category to increase funding for mass transportation, a category to use buses on highways, commuter lanes, etc. There should be a category that enlists public support for public trans. Oct 3, 2012 2:35 PM APPENDIX G
66 Local contractors, regional contractors, national contractors Oct 3, 2012 2:34 PM
67 "Livability is becoming an increasingly priority named category in urban & regional planning circles nationwide. This combines aspects of density, open space, wildlife corridors, transit-oriented development, and the convergence of design factors like congestion, health and safety. Oct 3, 2012 2:29 PM
APPENDIX H 68 No, but you basically defined Environmental Justice by saying, "It's Environmental Justice". Oct 3, 2012 2:26 PM
69 Connecting residential areas with employment centers and social services Oct 3, 2012 2:22 PM
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 66
TABLE OF CONTENTS 70 Illegal parking! There are tons of parking garages downtown but people park illegally and dangerously close to intersections. I have lived in Memphis for four years and is seems that public transportation has been designed to separateneighborhoods. This city views public transportation as an anomaly rather than a necessity. The trolleys only run from convention center to shopping areas let alone offer any transfers of significance. I live downtown and cannot take public transportation to clubs in midtown... and a cab is $12. The message is either "drink and drive" or "only people with money can leave their home neighborhood." Oct 3, 2012 2:21 PM
71 Connectivity to regional transportation hubs Oct 3, 2012 1:49 PM
72 Preserving FREEDOMS of CHOICES for the CITIZENS Oct 3, 2012 1:48 PM APPENDIX A
73 Encouraging redevelopment of the urban core with easements for biking and walking which are safe for all. Oct 3, 2012 1:39 PM
74 How it will help local businesses in Memphis. Oct 3, 2012 1:23 PM
75 Suburban or intercity? Not sure. Oct 3, 2012 1:19 PM
APPENDIX B 76 Community character Oct 3, 2012 12:54 PM 77 Linkage to employment hubs Oct 3, 2012 12:46 PM
78 We desperately need public transportation Oct 3, 2012 12:45 PM
79 No Oct 3, 2012 12:38 PM
APPENDIX C 80 Future land use Oct 3, 2012 12:37 PM
81 No Oct 3, 2012 12:34 PM
82 Impression - The impression visitors get of the city and surrounding area when driving into, or through the city. We are judged by the blight. Oct 3, 2012 12:27 PM
APPENDIX D 83 Older adult driver safety, public transportation Oct 3, 2012 12:26 PM
84 Public health impacts Oct 3, 2012 12:26 PM
85 Health impacts of transportation decisions Oct 3, 2012 12:10 PM
86 Economic Development Oct 3, 2012 11:40 AM APPENDIX E
87 Transportation projects should prioritize reinvestment in the city of Memphis, improving quality of life (walkability/bikeability/public transit) and thereby increasing density of the city. Oct 3, 2012 10:33 AM
88 Economic development Oct 2, 2012 5:10 PM
89 Maintenance of existing infrastructure - roads and sidewalks in particular. Oct 2, 2012 11:40 AM APPENDIX F 90 N/A Oct 2, 2012 11:13 AM
91 The rights of adjacent and nearby property owners to be left alone to plan their own property uses. Oct 2, 2012 10:54 AM
92 Not a category but with the decline in vehicle traffic due to Baby Boomers and Gen Y's disinterest in living out of the core of the city and requiring large roadways to get to work, you have to rethink your strategies. Projects like Kirby Parkway through Shelby Farms should be scrapped while projects like I-269 should be reconsidered as toll roads versus free access. Otherwise, you are exhibiting the archaic values APPENDIX G of administration 20-30 years ago. Oct 2, 2012 8:33 AM
93 Future design capacity to decrease congestion and reduce air pollution because of fewer traffic backups Oct 1, 2012 9:57 PM
94 Straighten out some of the unnecessary curves. Oct 1, 2012 11:57 AM
95 Improving public transit improves the overall economy so that individuals who need public transit will also need transportation to jobs. APPENDIX H Public transportation creates jobs and improves citizens to have and maintain jobs. Oct 1, 2012 10:46 AM
96 Every governmental entity in Shelby County should contribute funds to public transit Oct 1, 2012 10:42 AM
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 67
TABLE OF CONTENTS 97 Not at this time. Oct 1, 2012 9:29 AM
98 Economic development Sep 30, 2012 12:12 PM
99 Multimodal is most important Sep 30, 2012 2:40 AM
100 Ratio of lifecycle cost of the infrastructure versus current land productivity. Sep 29, 2012 5:31 PM
101 Road quality. Holes in road etc. Sep 29, 2012 10:52 AM APPENDIX A
102 How will this affect our taxes? This money has to come from somewhere. If it raises our taxes then NO! You all spend too much of our money. Sep 29, 2012 8:25 AM
103 Reducing the need for sole reliance on automobiles. Less or no sprawl. Sep 29, 2012 6:44 AM
104 NO Sep 28, 2012 5:39 PM APPENDIX B
105 Accessibility to citizens Sep 28, 2012 5:19 PM
106 Public/private partnerships and coordination Sep 28, 2012 5:00 PM
107 Economic development and potential job growth Sep 28, 2012 4:52 PM
APPENDIX C 108 Economic development Sep 28, 2012 4:45 PM
109 Business and Employment Opportunities Sep 28, 2012 4:31 PM
110 Public Interest/Support Bonus Points for Private-Public Partnerships Sep 28, 2012 4:14 PM
111 Alternative Transit Options, Support of Pedestrian facilities Sep 28, 2012 4:05 PM APPENDIX D
112 Not at this time ... Sep 28, 2012 3:36 PM
113 Return on Investment. Sep 28, 2012 3:17 PM
114 Proximity to density, the central business district, and major employment center should get the highest priority and vast majority of funding not communities that are on the periphery which are putting more demand on existing transportation systems because of longer APPENDIX E commutes Sep 28, 2012 3:11 PM
115 Follows Complete Streets criteria Sep 28, 2012 3:04 PM
116 This may not be part of the TIP, but public transportation needs to be rethought. An express train linking downtown with eastern part of county and to airport. MATA is so complicated to use because it does not go anywhere directly. We need to move toward more user friendly public transportation Sep 28, 2012 3:01 PM APPENDIX F 117 Environmental justice should NOT be included. Sep 28, 2012 2:56 PM
118 Fix it First, Repair/Upkeep before expansion. Sep 28, 2012 2:51 PM
119 No Sep 28, 2012 2:38 PM
120 INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS - Do not encourage extension of utilities (water, gas, power, sewer lines). Sep 28, 2012 2:25 PM APPENDIX G
121 Economic Importance Neighborhood Sustainability/Livability Sep 28, 2012 2:17 PM
122 The effectiveness of future employment in the region. Sep 28, 2012 2:10 PM
123 There should be a cultural impact as well Sep 28, 2012 2:04 PM
APPENDIX H 124 Improving mobility of citizens for leisure and work. Sep 28, 2012 1:53 PM
125 No Sep 28, 2012 1:48 PM
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 68
TABLE OF CONTENTS 126 "Natural" commercial development areas. Availability of sewer, water and other infrastructure Sep 28, 2012 1:37 PM
127 Increasing urban density, reducing sprawl, preparing for reduction of drivers, cars, miles driven trend. Sep 28, 2012 1:35 PM
128 High Speed Rail between Memphis and New Orleans and connectivity to St Louis and Nashville. Mega Bus and the impact it is having on Memphis International Airport Sep 28, 2012 1:27 PM
129 Economic Development Sep 28, 2012 12:51 PM
APPENDIX A 130 No Sep 28, 2012 12:49 PM
131 Preparing intersections, overpasses, bridges, parking areas, stations, and feeder roads for eventual development of light rail systems. Continuing to pour money and funds into building roads because that is all the transportation department knows how to do is shortsighted and ludicrous Sep 28, 2012 12:49 PM
132 A balance of equity of use throughout the county. It seem that the most congested southern part of the county gets all of the APPENDIX B infrastructural dollars. Sep 28, 2012 12:47 PM
133 I believe public transportation should be in a different category, and not lumped in with bicycles. Sep 28, 2012 12:44 PM
134 NO Sep 28, 2012 12:43 PM
135 Economic development/job creation and preservation Sep 28, 2012 12:40 PM APPENDIX C
136 Cost not to do a project-strategic impact to jobs Sep 28, 2012 12:36 PM
APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F
APPENDIX G Question 4: Rate the importance of Economic Opportunity as a category when ranking transportation projects for the region? (Open Ended Responses)
1 "Economic Opportunity" has NOTHING to do with roads. Oct 29, 2012 2:13 PM
2 While economic opportunity is the carrot that often is used to convince the public that new transportation venues will stimulate economic activity, the contribution to urban sprawl and the loss of valuable lands to development is often the result. It is difficult to put dollar amounts APPENDIX H to the cost of both of these compared to the economic gains, but IMO, economic opportunity should not be a deciding factor in any transportation issue. Environmental factors should take highest priority. Oct 10, 2012 10:24 AM
3 Accessible and functional public transportation Oct 4, 2012 7:24 PM
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 69 4 Economic opportunity for whom? if it's developers then no. Oct 4, 2012 7:03 PM
5 Please explain. Does this mean developing in neighborhoods with high levels of poverty? Does this mean supporting freight transportation? etc. Oct 4, 2012 3:55 PM
6 Connectivity - For regional areas - For transit riders to be able to access ALL areas of a region and not just the metro areas. Oct 4, 2012 8:41 AM
7 With more reliable transport, the economy can grow. Oct 3, 2012 4:19 PM
8 Obsession with driving your own car rather than public transportation means you are not yet a city of significance Oct 3, 2012 2:21 PM
9 NOT important if we must lose FREEDOM to attain Oct 3, 2012 1:48 PM
10 It's important, but not at the cost of quality of life. Oct 3, 2012 12:27 PM
11 Depends on how you define Economic Opportunity. Reinvestment in City of Memphis and Shelby County, not outlying areas Oct 3, 2012 10:33 AM
12 Poorly worded question. How do you define economic opportunity? Oct 3, 2012 9:02 AM
13 Quiet Oct 2, 2012 5:05 PM
14 Economic opportunity is the result of being left alone to figure out your own abilities and the needs of potential customers. Oct 2, 2012 10:54 AM
15 The MPO has driven the development of excess road infrastructure for the last 40years that is underused and is planning another 40 years of infrastructure investment that we cannot afford to maintain over even one lifecycle. Building roads to drive economic development and reduce perceived congestion with existing underused infrastructure already in place is wasteful and imperils out long term viability as a community. Sep 29, 2012 5:31 PM
16 Not sure what you mean by "economic opportunity" Sep 28, 2012 4:23 PM
17 We need good wide roads for delivery trucks and emergency vehicles. Sep 28, 2012 2:56 PM
18 Opportunity for those who need it, not for those who own the land where the interchange will be. Sep 28, 2012 1:35 PM
19 If you mean that all parts of the county should getting a chance to realize the Economic Opportunity that infrastructure brings. Sep 28, 2012 12:47 PM
TABLE OF CONTENTS Question 4: Rate the importance of Public Support as a category when ranking transportation projects for the region? (Open Ended Responses)
1 Another irrelevant issue, only sought by social engineers Oct 29, 2012 2:13 PM
2 People love their cars. Oct 13, 2012 8:16 PM
3 Some people need to be educated to what works in other cities Oct 12, 2012 10:39 AM APPENDIX A 4 Public support should be a factor, but the public usually does not have enough of an overall view of transportation issues to make unbiased decisions. I know efforts are made to correct this, but because transportation is such a complex issue, all the factors cannot be presented adequately at public meetings. Oct 10, 2012 10:24 AM
5 Public is rarely knowledgeable enough to make informed decisions Oct 8, 2012 8:31 AM
6 Get public support by making carparks at spots convenient to large employers: i.e. Medical area, Fed Ex, South industrial area., Airport APPENDIX B Oct 5, 2012 4:43 PM
7 Sick of long drawn out projects with no workers Oct 4, 2012 7:24 PM
8 Our support is mandatory and needed to sustain and grow. I would gladly pay my dues because the benefit to Memphis would be astounding. Oct 3, 2012 4:19 PM
APPENDIX C 9 As long as it does not negatively cut up a neighborhood of people without voices, I think that we should not be building transport for one entity or civic group. The public is often those with the most voices or money from specific areas, not from many groups Oct 3, 2012 1:19 PM
10 The question is vague. Whose economic opportunity? Is this referring to the usually "give me handouts I don't deserve" crowd? Oct 2, 2012 5:05 PM
11 Transportation projects means building sound roads where they are needed. Public support must be directed to see what users want, not APPENDIX D what planners impose. Oct 2, 2012 10:54 AM
12 Environmental justice, the poor and minority community should not be overlooked Oct 1, 2012 10:42 AM
13 A public that is given accurate and complete information should be consulted. However, since even the members of our legislative bodies and the MPO lack fundamental understanding of the basic principles that relate density to prosperity, we must instead educate the members
of the MPO to make more rational decisions. The public always wants more roads. We however cannot afford even the ones we have APPENDIX E evidenced by the 72 year paving cycle that the city of Memphis has at present. Sep 29, 2012 5:31 PM
14 No NIMBYism because of the greater good Sep 28, 2012 3:11 PM
15 Public support needs to incorporate the ability to of the jurisdiction in charge of the project to provide resources necessary to insure timely execution Sep 28, 2012 2:17 PM
APPENDIX F 16 Depends on which public (see 4) Sep 28, 2012 1:35 PM
17 Generally the public dose not have an informed opinion. Sep 28, 2012 12:47 PM APPENDIX G APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 71
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX-G 2014-17 Local STP Projects & Rankings 2014-17 TIP Road Projects Tennessee Road Projects Federal Funds Requested
Total APPENDIX A Project Name Agency Phase Future Years 2014 2015 2016 2017 Points Construction** ROW $1,602,720 Holmes Rd West Memphis 94 CONST $10,397,280 Holmes Rd East Memphis CONST $5,034,000 88 Winchester and Perkins Interchange Memphis CONST $9,600,000 83 Walnut Grove Rd East Memphis ROW $4,284,000 $13,040,000 76 APPENDIX B PE-N $500,000 SR-57 Widening Collierville/ Piperton $33,755,000 76 PE-D $1,000,000
PE-N / PE-D $796,800 Walnut Grove Rd Middle Memphis $3,600,000 73 CONST $4,000,000
Douglas and Airline Intersection Improvements Arlington CONST $1,101,000 73 APPENDIX C
PE-D $2,496,720 Shelby Farms Pkwy Memphis ROW $593,000 $8,000,000 71 CONST $12,000,000 PE-N $40,000 Germantown Rd Realignment Germantown PE-D $64,000 $2,800,000 71 APPENDIX D ROW $1,920,000 Forest Hill Irene Memphis ROW $1,873,000 $5,112,495 69 PE-N $225,000 Houston Levee Widening Shelby County $10,800,000 69 PE-D $1,125,000 PE-N $225,000 Walnut Grove Rd Widening Shelby County $8,587,500 69 PE-D $750,000
PE-N $16,000 APPENDIX E Navy Road Streetscape and Median Millington 69 PE-D $144,000 PE-N $262,500 Macon Rd Widening Shelby County $13,012,500 68 PE-D $1,125,000 Poplar and Sweetbriar Interchange Memphis CONST $2,896,000 64 PE-N $40,000 $568,000 64 Germantown Rd at Wolf River Blvd Intersection Germantown PE-D $80,000 APPENDIX F ROW $408,000 New Canada Rd Lakeland UTLITIES $800,000 $9,980,000 63 PE-N $240,000 Singleton Pkwy: Navy Rd to Bethuel Rd Millington PE-D $560,000 $8,000,000 62 ROW $0 PE-N $16,000
Highway 70 at Jetway Arlington $1,156,000 59 APPENDIX G PE-D $108,000 PE-N $28,000 SR-205 (Airline Rd) North Widening Arlington $2,204,000 55 PE-D $208,000 PE-N $384,000 Wilkinsville Rd: US 51 to Veterans Pkwy Millington PE-D $896,000 $8,672,000 53 ROW $640,000
PE-D $112,000 APPENDIX H Airline Rd Improvements Hall Creek Bridge Arlington 52 CONST $1,152,000 Old Brownsville Rd Bartlett ROW $2,400,000 $13,120,000 47 Funds Requested per year $15,799,940 $32,878,080 $10,313,000 $13,152,000 $142,407,495 Total Funds Requested $72,143,020
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 72
TABLE OF CONTENTS Table G2: Tennessee Resurfacing Grouping
Federal Funds Total Project Name Agency Requested Points
Memphis Resurfacing (carry over) Memphis $3,292,000 No Ranking Huff n Puff (carry over) Lakeland $385,000 No Ranking
Riverdale Memphis $2,266,516 44 APPENDIX A Hickory Hill Memphis $1,805,441 42 Highland Memphis $919,601 42 North Perkins Memphis $1,706,473 42 Riverside Memphis $384,351 42 Airways Memphis $2,376,022 41
Knight Arnold Memphis $674,326 39 APPENDIX B Mendenhall Memphis $1,498,513 39 Getwell Memphis $1,727,766 38 Raleigh Millington Road: Amherst to Sikes Millington $568,000 38 Cooper Memphis $818,539 37 Kirby Whitten: City Limits to St. Elmo Bartlett $1,760,000 35 APPENDIX C Macon Road West Resurfacing Shelby County $300,000 35 Winchester Road Phase 2 Collierville $745,840 34 Bailey Station Collierville $293,440 32 Raleigh Lagrange Road Shelby County $187,500 32 Macon Road East Resurfacing Shelby County $225,000 31
Bray Station Collierville $294,800 30 APPENDIX D Wolf River Blvd Mill and Overlay Germantown $1,120,000 29 Total Funds Requested $23,349,128
Table G3: Tennessee Bicycle and Pedestrian Grouping
Federal Funds Total APPENDIX E Project Name Agency Requested Points
Fletcher Creek Greenway Const. (Carry Over) Bartlett $1,000,000 No Ranking
Fletcher Creek Greenway Phase I Design Bartlett $120,000 No Ranking (Carry Over) Memphis Sidewalk Program (Carry Over) Memphis $500,000 No Ranking APPENDIX F Memphis Bike Route Signage, Markings and Memphis $500,000 No Ranking Striping Program (Carry Over) Chelsea Avenue Greenline Memphis $1,182,857 49 Jefferson Avenue Cycle Track Memphis $3,485,715 45 Shelby Farms Greenline Bridge Memphis $300,000 43 Wolf River Greenway Phase VI and VII Memphis $384,556 43 APPENDIX G Wolf River Greenway Phase I Memphis $808,571 42 Wolf River Greenway Phase XIV Memphis $192,000 42 Overton Park Perimeter Trail Memphis $337,678 40 Arlington Bike/Ped Trail - Phase 2 Arlington $600,000 39 South Memphis Greenline Memphis $222,857 39 Overton Park Cooper Street Trail
Memphis $304,000 38 APPENDIX H Davies Plantation Road Lakeland $960,000 31 Benjestown Road Pedestrian Bridge Shelby County $250,000 30 Total Funds Requested $11,148,234
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 73
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table G4: Tennessee Signalization Grouping Federal Funds Total Project Name Agency Requested Points Memphis Arlington/Altruria (carry over) Bartlett $300,000 No Ranking Navy Road Church Street (carry over) Millington $424,000 No Ranking Park Mt Moriah Memphis $332,500 46 APPENDIX A Park Goodlet Memphis $299,250 45 Democrat Lamar Memphis $299,250 44 Jackson Orchi Memphis $299,250 42 McCrory Statford Memphis $332,500 42 Frayser Thomas Memphis $332,500 41 Central McClean Memphis $332,500 40 APPENDIX B Walker Third Memphis $332,500 38 Jackson Hollywood Memphis $332,500 36 Jackson University Memphis $332,500 36 Bayliss National Memphis $332,500 35 Central Greer Memphis $332,500 33
Jackson Bayliss Memphis $332,500 31 APPENDIX C Knight Arnold Hickory Hill Memphis $332,500 29 Watkins Thomas Memphis $332,500 29 Mallory Florida Memphis $332,500 27 Marsh Thomas Memphis $332,500 26 Jackson Warford Memphis $299,250 25 APPENDIX D Jackson Evergreen Memphis $332,500 24 Southern Hollywood Memphis $299,250 24 Jackson McLean Memphis $332,500 23 Jackson Springdale Memphis $332,500 23 Jackson Watkins Memphis $399,000 23 James Thomas Memphis $299,250 23 APPENDIX E Jackson Ayers Memphis $332,500 22 Jackson Manassas Memphis $332,500 22 Jackson Meagher Memphis $299,250 22 Lamar Barksdale Memphis $299,250 22 Lamar Kyle Memphis $332,500 22
N Pkwy Watkins Memphis $465,500 22 APPENDIX F McLemore College Memphis $299,250 22 Park Robinhood Memphis $299,250 22 Park Semmes Memphis $332,500 22 Park StFrancis Memphis $299,250 22 Total Funds Requested $11,862,750 APPENDIX G APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 74
TABLE OF CONTENTS Table G5: Tennessee Bridge Grouping
Federal Funds Total Project Name Agency Requested Points
Buckehead Creek (Carry Over) Bartlett $800,000 No Ranking Bartlett Road Bridge Const. (Carry Over) Bartlett $600,000 No Ranking APPENDIX A Raleigh Millington Bridge over Big Creek Millington $800,000 40 Brooks Road and Days Creek Memphis $661,200 40 Plough and Winchester Memphis $182,400 40 Sam Cooper and Highland - R Memphis $240,000 40 Sam Cooper and Highland - L Memphis $240,000 40
Sam Cooper and Holmes - R Memphis $240,000 40 APPENDIX B Sam Cooper and Holmes - L Memphis $216,000 40 Mendenhall and Sam Cooper Memphis $552,000 35 Sam Cooper and Vaughn - R Memphis $129,600 35 Sam Cooper and Vaughn - L Memphis $129,600 35 Sam Cooper and Waring - R Memphis $240,000 35
Sam Cooper and Waring - L Memphis $240,000 35 APPENDIX C Mitchell Road and ICRR Memphis $136,800 31 McVay Road Bridge Replacement Germantown $1,560,000 30 Perkins and CSX RR Memphis $432,000 30 Perkins and Sam Cooper Memphis $408,000 30 Highland and Wolf River Memphis $912,000 27 APPENDIX D Poplar Culvert Replacements Germantown $480,000 26 Total Funds Requested $9,199,600 APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 75
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table G6: Mississippi Road Projects Federal Funds Requested Total Project Name Agency Phase 2014 2015 2016 2017 Points PE-D $280,000 Getwell Rd: Star Landing to Southaven ROW $102,000 64 Church CONST $3,867,775 APPENDIX A Craft Rd Olive Branch CONST $3,210,550 52 PE-D $148,000 Nail Rd Extension Southaven ROW $132,000 36 CONST $1,477,440 Bullfrog Corner Intersection Horn Lake CONST $956,999 Improvements Funds Requested per year $4,595,549 $234,000 $5,345,215 $0 APPENDIX B Total Funds Requested $10,174,764
Table G7: Mississippi Resurfacing Grouping
Federal Funds Total APPENDIX C Project Name Agency Requested Points West Commerce Hernando $212,660 31 Nesbit Rd Hernando $51,196 26 Getwell Rd Southaven $960,000 23 Nail Rd Horn Lake $437,148 21
Total Funds Requested $1,661,004 APPENDIX D
Table G8: Mississippi Signalization Grouping Federal Funds Total Project Name Agency Requested Points APPENDIX E Stateline Tchulahoma Southaven $150,000 35 Hacks Cross Rd and Airport Rd Olive Branch $175,000 21 Hwy 51 and Pleasant Hill Rd Desoto County $300,000 20 Hwy 51 and Robinson St Desoto County $300,000 20 Dunbarton Dr and Goodman Rd Horn Lake $250,000 18
Hampton Dr and Goodman Rd Horn Lake $250,000 18 APPENDIX F Total Funds Requested $1,425,000 APPENDIX G APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 76
TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX-H Shelby County and Desoto County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H
Memphis MPO 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program 77 2014-2017 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION SHELBY COUNTY NON-ATTAINMENT AREA
PREPARED FOR: MEMPHIS URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
IN COOPERATION WITH: DESOTO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SHELBY COUNTY SHELBY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PREPARED BY:
JUNE 26, 2013
This document was prepared and published by the Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and is prepared in cooperation with financial assistance from all or several of the following public entities: the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, the Tennessee and Mississippi Department of Transportation, the Memphis Area Transit Authority, and the local governments in the MPO region.
It is the policy of the Memphis Urban Area MPO not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, national origin or disability in its hiring or employment practices, or in its admission to or operations of its program, services, or activities. All inquiries for Title VI and/or the American Disabilities Act, contact John Paul Shaffer at 901-576-7130 or [email protected]. SHELBY COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ...... 4 1.1 Latest Planning Assumptions ...... 7 1.2 Latest Emissions Estimation Model...... 8 1.3 Interagency Consultation and Public Participation ...... 8 1.4 Transportation Control Measure Implementation...... 8 1.5 Exempt Projects ...... 9 1.6 Conformity Test ...... 11 2 Methodology ...... 11 2.1 MOVES...... 13 2.2 Travel Demand Modeling ...... 13 3 MOVES Runspec ...... 16 3.1 Description ...... 16 3.2 Scale ...... 16 3.3 Time Spans...... 16 3.4 Geographic Bounds ...... 17 3.5 Vehicles/Equipment ...... 17 3.6 Road Type ...... 17 3.7 Pollutants and Processes ...... 17 3.8 Miscellaneous Strategies ...... 17 3.9 Output ...... 17 4 County Data Manager ...... 18 4.1 Meteorology Data Importer ...... 18 4.2 Source Type Population Importer ...... 18 4.3 Age Distribution Importer ...... 19 4.4 Vehicle Type VMT and VMT Fractions ...... 19 4.5 Average Speed Distribution Importer ...... 20 4.6 Road Type Distribution Importer ...... 20 4.7 Ramp Fraction Importer ...... 20 4.8 Fuel Formulation and Fuel Supply Importer ...... 20 4.9 Fueltype and Technologies Importer ...... 20 4.10 Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Importer ...... 20 5 Post-Processing of MOVES Output ...... 21 6 Summary Results and Conclusions ...... 21
ii SHELBY COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Figure 1 – Ozone Non-Attainment Area and Memphis MPO Planning Area...... 5 Table 1 – MOVES Runspec Parameters ...... 12 Table 2 – MOVES County Data Manager Parameters ...... 12 Table 3 – Annual VMT by Source Type by Year, Shelby County Non-Attainment Area ...... 14 Figure 2 - MPO and Travel Demand Model Boundaries...... 15 Table 4 – Source Type Population for All Analysis Years ...... 19 Table 5 – Summary of Total Mobile Source Emissions ...... 22 Table 6 – Total NOx Emissions (grams) by Source Type and Analysis Year ...... 23 Table 7 – Total VOC Emissions (grams) by Source Type and Analysis Year ...... 23 Table 8 – Total CO Emissions (grams) by Source Type and Analysis Year ...... 24
LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 - Interagency Consultation Process Exhibit 2 - 2014-2017 TIP and Memphis Urban Area 2040 LRTP Projects
iii SHELBY COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
1 Introduction As the number of vehicles on the nation’s roadways increased, air pollution from mobile sources was identified as an important national health concern. Recognizing this connection, the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAAs) and the Tennessee Transportation Conformity Rules require transportation plans, transportation improvement programs (TIP), and transportation projects to conform to the purpose of the Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP). Conformity to a SIP means that federal funds will not be spent on projects that cause or contribute to any new violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); increase the frequency or severity of NAAQS violations; or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or any required interim milestone. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and its successor legislations, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) and Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) reinforce the need for coordinated transportation and air quality planning through the metropolitan planning provisions.
Ozone (O3) In 1991, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated Shelby County, TN a marginal nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone (O3) standard. Due to improvements in the ambient air quality, EPA redesignated Shelby County to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard on February 16, 1995. EPA’s reclassification of the Memphis and Shelby County non-attainment area for the 1-hour ozone standard was published in the Federal Register (60 FR 3352) on January 17, 1995. Shelby County was then placed in a 10-year maintenance period for 1-hour ozone during which the area had to demonstrate continued compliance with the 1990 CAAAs. However, EPA’s issuance of the 8-hour ozone standard in 1997 to address the impacts of exposure to ozone for longer time periods superseded the previous 1-hour ozone standard. The 1-hour ozone standard was revoked on June 15, 2005.
On April 30, 2004 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated Memphis, TN-AR as a 1997 8-hour ozone moderate non-attainment area (69 FR 23858). Included in this designation were two counties: Shelby, TN and Crittenden, AR. The 8-hour ozone area designation was effective on June 15, 2004. On September 15, 2004 EPA reclassified the area from moderate to marginal. This reclassification indicated the area was expected to reach attainment sooner than originally anticipated. Following this reclassification, the Memphis, TN-AR area was able to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in January 2010 (75 FR 56, January 4, 2010). A 10-year maintenance plan was established for NOx and VOCs, with new motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs). The last year of this maintenance plan was 2021.
EPA designated Memphis, TN-MS-AR as a 2008 8-hour ozone marginal non-attainment area effective July 20, 2012. The final ruling was published in the Federal Register (77 FR 30088) on May 21, 2012. Included in this designation were Shelby County, TN; Crittenden County, AR; and the portion of DeSoto County, MS in the Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) boundary. Figure 1 shows the TN-MS-AR non-attainment area. The Memphis MPO is responsible for demonstrating conformance of the NAAQS for Shelby County, TN and the portion of DeSoto County, MS in the Memphis MPO boundary. Conformance with NAAQS for DeSoto County, MS is being addressed through a separate action by the Memphis MPO.
4 SHELBY COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
Figure 1 – Ozone Non-Attainment Area and Memphis MPO Planning Area
In July 2012, EPA issued the companion guidance1 to the Conformity Rule that addresses ozone and air quality standards. The guidance further clarified how conformity determinations and the regional emissions analyses that support them are completed in existing and new non-attainment and maintenance areas. The guidance noted that states in a multi-state area have the option of submitting SIPs with budgets for just their own portion of the area that, when taken together, meet the applicable Clean Air Act requirement. Where states have done so and EPA has found such budgets adequate or approved, the MPO or MPOs in each state with such budgets can determine conformity completely
1 Guidance for Transportation Conformity Implementation in Multi-Jurisdictional Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas, Transportation and Climate Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA-420-B-12-046), http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/regs/420b12046.pdf.
5 SHELBY COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION independently of the other states. Furthermore, all affected agencies need to be included in the decision-making process for the area as required by the conformity rule described in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 93, Section 105 (40 CFR 93.105). Shelby County, Tennessee and Crittenden County, Arkansas have budgets of their own. Since the portion of DeSoto County in non- attainment is classified as Marginal, it is not required to have a SIP budget. During the interagency consultation process, it was decided that DeSoto County would not be judged within the overall SIP budget established for Shelby County, but would instead be subject to an independent conformity demonstration using the baseline test. Therefore, this conformity determination along with its planning assumptions, analysis, and results, is only for the Shelby County portion of the 8-hour ozone non- attainment area.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) In 1978, the EPA designated Memphis, TN, a moderate (less than 12.7 parts per million) non- attainment area for carbon monoxide (CO). Due to improvements in ambient air quality, EPA redesignated Shelby County to attainment for the CO standard on August 31, 1994. EPA's reclassification of the Memphis non-attainment area to attainment status for the CO standard was published in 59 FR 44958 (August 31, 1994). Shelby County entered into two 10-year maintenance periods for CO during which the area would have to demonstrate continued compliance with the 1990 CAAAs.
Shelby County’s attainment status for CO was revisited in the second 10-year maintenance plan for CO and the motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB) contained in it. The approval of the 10 year maintenance plan for CO for Shelby County was documented in 71 FR 62384 (October 25, 2006) and had an effective date of December 26, 2006. In addition to a new budget value established for the MVEB in the 10 year plan, the last year of the plan is now 2017. It is required that a conformity demonstration be made for the last year of the maintenance plan, which in the case of Shelby County is 2017.
Purpose of Conformity Analysis The purpose of this conformity analysis is to demonstrate that the Shelby County non-attainment area supports the implementation of the updated financially constrained Direction 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan2 (2040 LRTP) and the Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) by contributing to improved air quality and will therefore not jeopardize Shelby County’s attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The conformity determination has been performed according to procedures prescribed by the following federal and state regulations: 69 FR 40004, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 (i.e. Transportation Conformity Rule Requirements); the Tennessee Transportation Conformity Rules; and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Planning Regulations (23 CFR 450) implementing MAP-21 Requirements. Results of this conformity determination are found in Table 5 on Page 22 of this report. For each transportation plan (2040 LRTP), program (2014-2017 TIP), and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)/Federal Transit Administration (FTA) project to be found to conform, the MPO and Department of Transportation (DOT) must demonstrate that the applicable criteria and procedures have been satisfied (40 CFR 93.109-a). The following criteria for non- attainment areas are found to be applicable and are described as:
2 Please refer to 2040 LRTP, Chapter 8 for the detailed financial constraint aspect of the LRTP (http://www.memphismpo.org/resources/plans/long-range-plan-lrtp).
6 SHELBY COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
1) The TIP and LRTP must pass an emissions budget test with a budget that has been found to be adequate by EPA for transportation conformity purposes, or an emission reduction test; 2) The conformity determinations must be based upon the most recent planning assumptions; 3) The conformity determinations must be based upon the latest emission estimation model available; 4) MPOs and state departments of transportation must provide reasonable opportunity for consultation with state air agencies, local air quality and transportation agencies, DOT, and the EPA; 5) Timely implementation of Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) in the applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP) must be provided for; and 6) The conformity determination must comply with MAP-21 and MPO Planning Regulations.
This report documents the process used by the Memphis MPO for the Conformity Determination for the Shelby County portion of the Memphis Urban Area MPO 2040 LRTP and the 2014-2017 TIP. A separate report has been prepared documenting the DeSoto County portion of the Memphis Region Non-Attainment Area. EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) version MOVES2010b model was used to derive emissions as required by the EPA3. The MOVES input files were created and modified as discussed in the interagency consultation process and laid out in the Pre-Analysis Consensus Memorandum (Exhibit 1). The modeled emissions are based on a number of inputs including temperature, relative humidity, and presence of inspection and maintenance programs, vehicle source type mix, vehicle age distribution, temporal distributions, average daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT), source type populations, hourly distribution, road type distribution, and average speed distribution.
The Memphis MPO Travel Demand Model was used to obtain VMT estimates. The Travel Demand Model was prepared with the conformity process in mind. For more information on the methodology and assumptions utilized in the development of the Travel Demand Model, please refer to the Model Documentation (LRTP Appendix G).
1.1 Latest Planning Assumptions The Memphis MPO Travel Demand Model was developed with consultation and input from state and local transportation agencies and the USDOT. The 2040 LRTP provides the appropriate level of detail required by 40 CFR 93.106 of the conformity regulations. The highway projects in the 2040 LRTP are financially constrained for the entire plan and for each horizon year in terms of capital, operations and maintenance costs (See LRTP Chapter 8 – Implementation Plan). The conformity analysis is based on assumptions derived from estimates of current and future population, employment, travel, and congestion. As part of the 2040 LRTP conformity determination, past assumptions have been discussed with various local, state and federal agencies for their continued validity and updated whenever necessary. Detailed planning assumptions are presented in Section 2 of this report.
3 Using MOVES to Prepare Emission Inventories in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity: Technical Guidance for MOVES2010, 2010a, and 2010b, April 2012, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/documents/420b12028.pdf.
7 SHELBY COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
1.2 Latest Emissions Estimation Model Mobile source emissions estimates for the ozone season (summer) and CO season (winter) were developed using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator, MOVES2010b (June 2012), and travel estimates from the latest Memphis MPO Travel Demand Model. The Memphis MPO, Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT), Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT), and Memphis and Shelby County Health Department provided the most current data available for emissions calculations. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and EPA's Air Planning Branch in Atlanta provided assistance and guidance as well.
All of the projects in the 2014-2017 TIP are a subset of the 2040 LRTP and as such include a program of projects, which is consistent with the scope of the 2040 LRTP in design and implementation schedule. Detailed project lists are presented in Exhibit 2.
1.3 Interagency Consultation and Public Participation Interagency consultation is the central coordinating mechanism for public agency involvement and input to the conformity determination. The conformity determination must be made according to 40 CFR §93.105-(a)-(2) and (e) and the requirements of 23 CFR 450 (40 CFR §93.112, Criteria and Procedures). Since this conformity determination involved both the Shelby County and DeSoto County portions of the non-attainment area, requirements from both Tennessee and Mississippi were considered.
The Memphis MPO coordinated its activities for this conformity determination with numerous stakeholders and review agencies, including Shelby County, Shelby County Health Department, DeSoto County, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) Division of Air Pollution Control, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), TDOT, MDOT, FHWA, EPA, and other necessary agencies. The Memphis MPO has held teleconference calls and email correspondence to discuss the issues pertinent to the Shelby County Conformity Demonstration (e.g. latest planning assumptions). Verbal and written comments from these calls have been addressed (see Exhibit 1 - Interagency Consultation). To more fully communicate the assumptions being made as a part of the conformity analysis, a preconsensus plan was developed for the ozone analyses. This document, titled “2040 Memphis Region Non-Attainment Area MOVES Air Quality Conformity Analysis Pre-Analysis Consensus Memorandum,” was reviewed by the interagency consultation group and modified based on comments received. This document is included in Exhibit 1.
The Memphis Urban Area MPO’s Public Participation Plan, adopted in 2007 and updated in 2011, specifies procedures to ensure public involvement in the planning process. All TPB and Engineering and Technical Committee (ETC) meetings are open to the public for comments on any item. The public was notified of the opportunities to comment on this conformity demonstration. All comments received from the public, committee members, and review agencies were addressed. Specific information related to the public participation process for development of the LRTP is provided in Chapter 2 and Appendix A of the LRTP document (http://www.memphismpo.org/resources/plans/long-range-plan-lrtp).
1.4 Transportation Control Measure Implementation The Implementation Plan, Chapter 8 of the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan specifically addresses the Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) and other congestion management strategies
8 SHELBY COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION considered as a part of the LRTP and Travel Demand Modeling process. The efficacy of these strategies has been evaluated and considered in the development of plan recommendations. The strategies are listed as follows, along with their status in the model: § Ridesharing o Carpooling, vanpooling, alternative work hours, guaranteed ride home, telecommuting, paratransit services, park and ride facilities § Park and ride facilities are incorporated in the travel demand model. Other impacts to link volume are estimated off model § Roadway Improvements o Intersection and roadway widening, channelization, traffic surveillance and control systems, traffic control centers, computerized signal systems § Computerized signal systems are incorporated in the travel demand model § Dedicated Laneage o HOV Lanes, HOV and bus bypass lanes, bus bypass ramps § Incorporated in travel demand model § Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities o Impacts to link volume are estimated off model § Transit Improvements o Transit service enhancement or expansion, transit traffic signal preemption, transit information services, exclusive transit ROW, and mode change facilities § Transit existing and light rail line planned expansion is included in travel demand model. The model can incorporate transit service enhancements. § Intelligent Transportation Systems o Intelligent transportation systems and advanced public transportation system technology, incident management, and motorist information systems. Impacts to link volume and capacity are estimated off model § Growth Management o Growth management and activity center strategies, access management techniques
For the purposes of this conformity demonstration, only those TCMs directly measurable through the travel demand model were considered. This methodology has been discussed with the interagency consultation group. This represents a conservative approach, since the full benefit of regional TCMs may not be reflected in the data obtained from the travel demand model.
1.5 Exempt Projects In evaluating the emissions impact of transportation activities in the conformity process, EPA regulations exempt certain projects included in a TIP or LRTP from analysis (see 40 CFR 93.126, 93.127, and 93.128). This decision is based on the assumption that these projects do not directly impact transportation related air emissions or that they may not be able to be precisely analyzed. The regulations identified two general categories of projects in the Transportation Conformity Reference Guide: 1) those exempt from regional emissions analysis; and 2) other highway and transit projects. In the regional exemption category, the following projects are specifically named and are considered by this report to be classified as exempt:
§ Intersection channelization projects; § Intersection signalization projects at individual intersections;
9 SHELBY COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
§ Interchange reconfiguration projects; § Changes in vertical or horizontal alignments; § Truck size and weight inspection stations; and § Bus terminals and transfer points.
The “other highway and transit project” list is longer and includes four primary categories: 1) safety, 2) mass transit, 3) air quality, and 4) other specific activities which do not involve or lead directly to construction.
§ Safety o Railroad/highway crossing. o Hazard elimination program. o Safer non-Federal aid system roads. o Shoulder improvements. o Increasing sight distance. o Safety improvement program. o Traffic control devices and operating assistance other than signalization projects. o Railroad/highway crossing warning devices. o Guardrails, median barriers, crash cushions. o Pavement resurfacing and/or rehabilitation. o Pavement marking demonstration. o Emergency relief (United States Code, Title 23, Chapter 1, Section 125 - 23 U.S.C. §125). o Fencing. o Skid treatments. o Safety roadside rest areas. o Adding medians. o Truck climbing lanes outside the urbanized area. o Lighting improvements. o Widening narrow pavements or reconstructing bridges (no additional travel lanes). o Emergency truck pullovers. § Mass Transit o Operating assistance to transit agencies. o Purchase of support vehicles. o Rehabilitation of transit vehicles. o Purchase of office, shop, and operating equipment for existing facilities. o Purchase of operating equipment for vehicles (e.g., radios, fare boxes, lifts, etc.). o Construction or renovation of power, signal, and communications systems. o Construction of small passenger shelters and information kiosks. o Reconstruction or renovation of transit buildings and structures (e.g., rail or bus buildings, storage and maintenance facilities, stations, terminals, and ancillary structures). o Rehabilitation or reconstruction of track structures, track, and track bed in existing rights-of- way. o Purchase of new buses and rail cars to replace existing vehicles or for minor expansions of the fleet. o Construction of new bus or rail storage/maintenance facilities categorically excluded in 23 CFR part 771. § Air Quality
10 SHELBY COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
o Continuation of ride-sharing and van-pooling promotion activities at current levels. o Bicycle and pedestrian facilities. § Other specific activities which do not involve or lead directly to construction, such as: o Planning and technical studies. o Grants for training and research programs. o Planning activities conducted pursuant to titles 23 and 49 U.S.C. o Federal aid systems revisions. o Engineering to assess social, economic, and environmental effects of the proposed action or alternatives to that action. o Noise attenuation. o Emergency or hardship advance land acquisitions (23 CFR §710.503). o Acquisition of scenic easements. o Plantings, landscaping, etc. o Sign removal. o Directional and informational signs. o Transportation enhancement activities (except rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities). o Repair of damage caused by natural disasters, civil unrest, or terrorist acts, except projects involving substantial functional, locational or capacity changes.
There are projects in the TIP and LRTP from each major category.
1.6 Conformity Test The conformity tests specified in the federal transportation conformity rule are: (1) the emissions budget test, and (2) the emissions reduction test. For the emissions budget test, predicted emissions for the TIP/LRTP must be less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) specified in the approved air quality implementation plan or the emissions budget found to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes. If there is no approved air quality plan for a pollutant for which the region is in non-attainment or no emission budget has been found to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes, the emissions reduction test applies. In the Memphis region, MVEBs have been specified for ozone and carbon monoxide, the two maintenance pollutants for the region. Ozone MVEBs were established in the Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 1, p. 56-60, January 4, 2010. These MVEBs will be utilized for the analysis of the ground-level ozone component pollutants volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Carbon monoxide MVEBs for 2017 were established in the Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 206, p. 62386, October 25, 2006. MVEB established in the federal regulations are provided in Exhibit 6. These MVEBs are also used in the current State Implementation Plan (SIP).
2 Methodology The emissions inventory development and emissions projection discussion below identifies procedures used by the Memphis MPO to obtain emissions for the Shelby County portion of the Memphis non- attainment area.
Table 1 summarizes the settings used in the MOVES run specification file. Table 2 lists the assumptions used in the MOVES County Data Manager. Further details on the use of MOVES are found in the following sections.
11 SHELBY COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
Table 1 – MOVES Runspec Parameters MOVES Runspec Parameter Settings MOVES2010b, Version 2012/04/10 Database version 2012/10/30 Scale County, Inventory Time Span Time aggregation = Hour 1 month representing summer conditions (July) for ozone, and winter conditions (January) for CO All hours of the day selected Weekdays only Geographic Bounds 1 custom domain – Shelby County Vehicles/Equipment All valid source types, gasoline and diesel Road Type All road types including off-network Pollutants and Processes NOx, VOCs, total gaseous hydrocarbons, non-methane hydrocarbons, CO General Output Units = grams, joules, miles Output Emissions Time = hour, location = link, on-road emission rates by road type and source use type Advanced Performance None
Table 2 – MOVES County Data Manager Parameters County Data Data Source Manager Input Meteorology Data Temperature and humidity data taken from State Implementation Plan. Source Type Population Adjusted default data was used for all years. Age Distribution Shelby County data (prepared by the University of Tennessee) applied for all vehicle source types. Vehicle Type VMT – Local data obtained from Memphis Travel Demand Model. HPMS Vehicle Type VMT Vehicle Type VMT – Shelby County-specific data obtained from the University of Tennessee. Monthly VMT Fraction Vehicle Type VMT – Shelby County-specific data obtained from the University of Tennessee. Daily VMT Fraction Vehicle Type VMT – Local data obtained from Memphis Travel Demand Model. Hourly VMT Fraction Average Speed Distribution Local data obtained from Memphis Travel Demand Model. Road Type Distribution Local data obtained from Memphis Travel Demand Model. Ramp Fraction Local data obtained from Memphis Travel Demand Model. Fuel Supply/Fuel Formulation Local data obtained from Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. Fueltype and Technologies Default modified to exclude CNG vehicles. I/M Programs Local data obtained from Shelby County Health Department.
12 SHELBY COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
2.1 MOVES The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to regularly update its mobile source emission models. EPA continuously collects data and measures vehicle emissions to make sure the Agency has the best possible understanding of mobile source emissions. This assessment, in turn, informs the development of EPA’s mobile source emission models. MOVES represents the Agency’s most up-to-date assessment of on-road mobile source emissions. MOVES also incorporates several changes to EPA’s approach to mobile source emission modeling based upon recommendations made to the Agency by the National Academy of Sciences. The detailed MOVES approach to modeling allows EPA to easily incorporate large amounts of in-use data from a wide variety of sources, such as data from vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs, remote sensing device (RSD) testing, certification testing, portable emission measurement systems (PEMS), etc. This approach also allows users to incorporate a variety of activity data to better estimate emission differences such as those resulting from changes to vehicle speed and acceleration patterns. MOVES has a graphical user interface which allows users to more easily set up and run the model. MOVES database-centered design provides users much greater flexibility regarding output choices. Unlike earlier models which provided emission factors in grams-per-mile in fixed output formats, MOVES output can be expressed as total mass (in tons, pounds, kilograms, or grams) or as emission factors (grams-per-mile and in some cases grams-per-vehicle). Output can be easily aggregated or disaggregated to examine emissions in a range of scales, from national emissions impacts down to the emissions impacts of individual transportation projects. The database-centered design also allows EPA to update emissions data incorporated in MOVES more easily and will allow users to incorporate a much wider array of activity data to improve estimation of local emissions. For example, the improvements in MOVES will allow estimates of project-level emissions of particulate matter less than
2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5).
2.2 Travel Demand Modeling The Memphis Urban Area travel demand model is the most recent and approved regional travel demand model for the study area. The travel demand model boundary includes all of DeSoto County and Shelby County, as well as portions of Tipton, Fayette, and Marshall Counties. Figure 2 shows the Memphis Urban Area and the Travel Demand Model boundaries. Although model approval is a joint process between the MPO and the appropriate state review agencies, the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) is the primary agency responsible for approval of the travel demand model for use in developing the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and other planning activities of the Memphis MPO. The travel demand model used for the air quality conformity analysis was reviewed and approved for use for long range plan and air quality conformity analysis purposes. The Memphis Urban Area Travel Demand Model is a four step model. Trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice, and trip assignment components are included in the model. The base year of the travel demand model is 2004. Socioeconomic data was forecasted to the year 2040 as a part of the most recent LRTP. Appendix G of the 2040 LRTP contains the assumptions and methodology used to develop the travel demand model.
Model Data Adjustments At the outset of this process, it was important to compare the information in the travel demand model to raw data obtained through traffic counts. The 2004 HPMS data was obtained from the Tennessee
13 SHELBY COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
Department of Transportation (TDOT) for Shelby County. The annual VMT shown in the HPMS data was compared to the total 2004 Shelby County VMT shown in the travel demand model. This comparison yielded a HPMS/TDM ratio that was used to scale the VMT output from the model to more closely match documented conditions. This scaled VMT was used in the development of the HPMS vehicle type VMT. The adjusted annual vehicle miles traveled by MOVES vehicle source type for the study area are shown in Table 3. VMTs in Table 3 were obtained directly from the travel demand model. Adjustments to the VMT fraction based on monthly and daily fractions are applied within the MOVES program.
Table 3 – Annual VMT by Source Type by Year, Shelby County Non-Attainment Area Source Type Source Source Type VMT Type 2010 2015 2017 2020 2030 2040 ID Motorcycle 11 26,963,800 28,436,994 29,110,050 30,218,160 34,191,893 38,489,274
Passenger Car 21 6,440,977,786 6,792,887,049 6,953,663,201 7,218,362,912 8,167,588,477 9,194,125,243
Passenger Truck 31 1,467,227,668 1,547,390,419 1,584,015,143 1,644,312,910 1,860,543,190 2,094,383,691 Light Commercial 32 490,175,707 516,957,647 529,192,551 549,336,625 621,574,554 699,697,018 Truck Intercity Bus 41 3,966,407 4,268,562 4,423,000 4,803,996 5,700,707 6,664,246
Transit Bus 42 2,076,087 2,100,047 2,139,802 2,276,279 2,619,547 3,061,470
School Bus 43 26,927,974 28,672,990 29,601,129 32,035,758 37,673,507 44,039,365
Refuse Truck 51 3,095,938 2,474,181 2,250,055 2,044,876 1,643,876 1,612,635 Single Unit Short- 52 211,892,709 222,062,430 228,346,724 246,184,491 288,846,369 337,867,665 haul Truck Single Unit Long- 53 27,233,508 32,538,208 34,662,166 38,613,374 46,620,216 54,533,638 haul Truck Motor Home 54 49,000,773 52,442,074 54,171,327 58,662,987 69,145,144 80,884,511 Combination 61 181,587,853 184,162,893 186,948,608 219,657,172 268,392,957 326,312,973 Short-haul Truck Combination 62 217,238,545 242,957,494 255,704,321 313,092,655 393,754,472 478,725,281 Long-haul Truck Total 9,148,364,758 9,657,350,987 9,894,228,077 10,359,602,195 11,798,294,908 13,360,397,010
14 SHELBY COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
Figure 2 – MPO and Travel Demand Model Boundaries
15 SHELBY COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
Pre-Processing Information was gathered from the travel demand model to generate the average speed distribution, road type distribution, hourly VMT distribution, HPMS vehicle type VMT, and ramp fraction. To streamline this process, a pre-processor was developed. The pre-processor performed many of the calculations and disaggregations needed to produce MOVES-ready spreadsheets for each input. MOVES spreadsheet templates for each input type were developed for the identified model years. Following this, a script was developed to pull the needed data from the model and perform any needed calculations. MOVES files generated through this exercise could then be applied directly in the County Data Manager. Additional information on the data sources used and needed data manipulation is contained in Sections 3 and 4.
Post-Processing The analysis was performed using the inventory method. As a result, no post-processing was needed for the MOVES data output.
3 MOVES Runspec The MOVES2010b software was released by the Environmental Protection Agency in July 2012. This software uses a graphical user interface with a set of input categories. A Runspec can be developed that stores the input values for these categories. The values and information included in the Runspecs developed for this analysis are explained in more detail in the following sections.
3.1 Description The information in this category is used to distinguish the individual Runspecs. For this analysis, the description is used to introduce the purpose for the analysis, the area being studied, and the year of analysis (i.e. 2004, 2010, 2015, 2017, 2020, 2030, and 2040).
3.2 Scale This input window is used to detail the information needed for the domain/scale of the analysis as well as the calculation type. The county level was selected as the domain for this effort, since it is the appropriate level for use in SIP and regional conformity analysis. The inventory method was chosen for the calculation type. This calculation type was chosen following a discussion with the involved review agencies to determine the most appropriate calculation method for this analysis.
3.3 Time Spans The Time Spans input window has a variety of different timescale inputs that are used for understanding the level of temporal aggregation being used in the analysis. The time aggregation level was specified as hours, based on guidance from EPA/FHWA for the preferred aggregation level for conformity runs. Based on the interagency consultation process, the years 2004, 2010, 2015, 2017, 2020, 2030, and 2040 were chosen for the analysis years. Each year was done within a different Runspec. Pollutant analysis for Shelby County is for both 8-hour ozone and CO conditions. As a result, July was chosen as the month to best represent summer ozone conditions and January was chosen as the month to best represent winter CO conditions. Weekdays were selected as the representative day type since they are considered to be the worst-case type when compared with
16 SHELBY COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION weekends. All hours of the day were included in the analysis to represent conditions over a full 24-hour period.
3.4 Geographic Bounds This analysis consisted of all of Shelby County. This input window also asks for the name of the domain input database. A total of seven input databases were created during this process, reflecting the appropriate Runspec and input data for the analysis years 2004, 2010, 2015, 2017, 2020, 2030, and 2040.
3.5 Vehicles/Equipment This input window allows the user to specify which fuel and vehicle types are present within the transportation network. There are thirteen different vehicle classes (referred to as source use types) and five different fuel types. This analysis considers the diesel and gas fuel types only. This was partly to reflect the lack of compressed natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas vehicles in the population, and also to allow for default fuel formulation and fuel supply information to be used in the study area. Within this, all possible vehicle and fuel types were considered. Diesel motorcycles, gas combination long-haul trucks, and gas intercity buses were removed since they are not represented in the vehicle population.
3.6 Road Type The MOVES software incorporates five different roadway types: off-network, rural restricted access, rural unrestricted access, urban restricted access, and urban unrestricted access. Expressways and freeways in the region are considered as restricted access facilities. For this analysis, all five roadway types were considered. Off-network emissions are intended to account for vehicle starts and evaporative emissions for parked vehicles. While these emissions are not captured through the information in the regional travel demand models, default values can be used to assess their impacts.
3.7 Pollutants and Processes This input window allows the user to specify different pollutants and processes that are desired for modeling. Since the purpose of this analysis is to assess emissions relating to the CO and 8-hour ozone standards, the interagency consultation specified the inclusion of Carbon Monoxide, Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), Non-Methane Hydrocarbons (NMHC), and Total Gaseous Hydrocarbons (THC). Following discussion with the Shelby County Health Department, all processes for the selected pollutants were considered in this analysis. Output databases were adjusted to include results by pollutant and process types, thereby allowing for items such as vapor and spillage loss to be broken out at a later date if desired.
3.8 Miscellaneous Strategies The MOVES software includes input windows where provisions can be specified for specific strategies such as on-road retrofit and rate of progress emissions. Since these strategies are not being applied in this location, no information was entered for this section.
3.9 Output Output for the MOVES program is stored in a user-created database. Output databases were created for each of the 6 different Runspec conditions. As specified in the interagency consultation process, grams, joules, and miles were used as the units of measure in the output database. Based on the
17 SHELBY COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION parameters already established in these Runspecs, the time measurement for this analysis was set as hourly, and the location was automatically set for the link level. To assist with post-processing aggregation, it was further requested that the source use type information be included with the output.
4 County Data Manager Once all of the base parameters have been established for a given MOVES Runspec, the County Data Manager can be used to enter locally-specific data. Input provided in Excel spreadsheet format can be referenced using this tool, which converts the data to MySQL format and incorporates it into the MOVES analysis. For the Shelby County portion of the non-attainment area, locally-specific data could consist of data used for the entire region, statewide, or county-level data. The following sections detail these input criteria, and the methodology and assumptions used to arrive at the information entered for each.
4.1 Meteorology Data Importer Meteorological data for the analysis area was obtained from the currently adopted State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Memphis non-attainment area. Values previously used in the Mobile6.2 analysis were adapted for MOVES using the EPA conversion tool.
4.2 Source Type Population Importer This importer provides the user with the opportunity to enter vehicle population data sorted by the 13 MOVES vehicle source types. While there is some data available from previous work conducted by the University of Tennessee, interagency discussion determined that inconsistencies in the vehicle type definitions were significant enough that the data set as a whole could not be used. As a result, default data was used as a starting point for all source types. The MOVES Technical Guidance offers guidance on how to leverage default population and VMT data alongside local VMT data to arrive at an estimate of the local population. This guidance suggests comparing the ratio of default source type population to default VMT to the local VMT to arrive at an estimate of local source type population. This methodology was applied for all analysis years. A growth rate was not applied, since growth is inherently built in through this methodology. Table 4 shows the source type population used for this analysis.
4.3 Age Distribution Importer The Age Distribution Importer allows the user to provide vehicle age distribution data sorted by the MOVES vehicle source types. Vehicle age distribution is divided into 30 years based on vehicle model years. For each vehicle type, the sum of all age distributions will equal one. This analysis references Shelby County, TN-specific data obtained from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville (UTK) paper “Tennessee Traffic Data for Estimating Air Pollution Emissions in 2002.” An EPA converter was used to change EPA’s previous on-road mobile source emission factor model (MOBILE6) formatted information to MOVES format.
18 SHELBY COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
Table 4 – Source Type Population for All Analysis Years Source Type Source Analysis Year Type 2010 2015 2017 2020 2030 2040 ID Motorcycle 11 14,131 18,276 19,775 21,732 26,046 27,571 Passenger Car 21 426,776 443,490 451,213 464,074 509,466 519,123 Passenger Truck 31 136,832 142,504 145,102 149,346 164,586 167,445 Light Commercial Truck 32 45,713 47,608 48,476 49,893 54,985 55,940 Intercity Bus 41 597 573 589 643 794 936 Transit Bus 42 312 282 285 304 365 430 School Bus 43 4,057 3,850 3,947 4,291 5,251 6,191 Refuse Truck 51 252 177 160 146 122 121 Single Unit Short-haul Truck 52 17,314 15,944 16,256 17,578 21,518 25,371 Single Unit Long-haul Truck 53 2,225 2,336 2,467 2,757 3,473 4,095 Motor Home 54 4,004 3,765 3,856 4,188 5,151 6,073 Combination Short-haul Truck 61 3,419 2,954 2,888 3,182 3,498 4,137 Combination Long-haul Truck 62 4,090 3,897 3,950 4,536 5,132 6,070 Total for Each Analysis Year 659,727 685,660 698,969 722,676 800,391 823,508
4.4 Vehicle Type VMT and VMT Fractions This data importer asks the user for the VMT in the study area by HPMS vehicle class type, hourly VMT distributions, daily VMT distributions, and monthly VMT distributions. The HPMS vehicle class VMT is asked for an annual basis. To determine this information, data can be pulled from available travel demand models or from regional HPMS data. HPMS Vehicle Class VMT The HPMS vehicle class VMT was determined using the pre-processor developed within the travel demand model. The travel demand model classifies vehicles into automobiles, single unit trucks, and combination unit trucks. The three vehicle classes in the model were divided into the six HPMS vehicle class types through the pre-processor. Since the travel demand model produces daily weekday volumes, the EPA conversion tool was used to convert these daily VMT numbers to annual values. Daily VMT Fraction The University of Tennessee developed county-specific daily VMT fractions, which were applied in this analysis. This information was provided in a format appropriate for use in MOVES. Monthly VMT Fraction The University of Tennessee developed county-specific monthly VMT fractions, which were applied in this analysis. This information was provided in a format appropriate for use in MOVES. Hourly VMT Fraction The hourly VMT fraction was determined using the pre-processor developed within the travel demand model. To produce the information needed for the MOVES input file, the three vehicle classes in the model were expanded to the 13 MOVES vehicle source types. In addition, the four time of day periods in the model were expanded to represent each hour of the day. The default mix of off-network hourly distribution percentages was used for all vehicle classes.
19 SHELBY COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
4.5 Average Speed Distribution Importer This importer gives the user the opportunity to enter locally specific average speed data, disaggregated by vehicle source type, road type, weekday/weekend, and hour of the day. The MOVES model uses 16 speed bins, dividing speed distributions into a fraction of driving within each speed bin for each of the criteria listed previously. The average speed distribution was determined using the pre-processor developed within the travel demand model. The vehicle classes in the model were expanded to the 13 MOVES vehicle source types, and the hourly distribution was expanded from the four time periods in the model to each hour of the day.
4.6 Road Type Distribution Importer The road type distribution importer can be used to incorporate locally-specific roadway distribution information. The road type distribution was determined using the pre-processor developed within the travel demand model. The vehicle classes in the model were expanded to the 13 MOVES vehicle source types.
4.7 Ramp Fraction Importer This importer allows the user to input the fraction of the vehicle hours traveled on urban restricted and rural restricted roadways that is traveling on ramp facilities. The ramp fractions were determined using the pre-processor developed within the travel demand model.
4.8 Fuel Formulation and Fuel Supply Importer The fuel formulation and fuel supply importers are used to input locally-specific fuel properties into the model. The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation developed fuel supply and fuel formulation data for Shelby County for all analysis years 2012 and newer. This locally-specific data was used for the required model runs.
4.9 Fueltype and Technologies Importer This importer value considers the alternative vehicle fuels and technologies (AVFT). If no information is entered for AVFT, MOVES assumes a default mix of alternative fuels. The MOVES default mix assumes a small percentage of compressed natural gas (CNG) transit buses. Since there are no CNG buses in the transit fleet for Shelby County, the default value for this file was modified to reflect only diesel and gasoline fuel types.
4.10 Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Importer There is currently an I/M program in use within the City of Memphis. During the interagency consultation process, it was determined that this analysis would only consider effects from the tailpipe test in order to present a conservative outlook on the effectiveness of I/M in the area. Correspondence was conducted with the Shelby County Health Department and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation to obtain locally-specific I/M files. The compliance factors in these files were adjusted to reflect not only participation within the City of Memphis, but also Shelby County as a whole. As stated in the EPA MOVES Technical guidance, this methodology can be used to avoid conducting two sets of runs that are then interpolated outside of MOVES.
20 SHELBY COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
5 Post-Processing of MOVES Output Once the appropriate data was input into the MOVES Runspecs and the County Data Manager, the six scenarios were run using the MOVES program. The following MOVES output databases were produced: § Shelby_2004_CO_IM (for reference only) § Shelby_2004_Ozone_IM (for reference only) § Shelby_2010_CO_IM § Shelby_2010_ Ozone _IM § Shelby_2015_CO_IM § Shelby_2015_ Ozone _IM § Shelby_2017_CO_IM § Shelby_2017_ Ozone _IM § Shelby _2020_CO_IM § Shelby _2020_ Ozone _IM § Shelby _2030_CO_IM § Shelby _2030_ Ozone _IM § Shelby _2040_CO_IM § Shelby _2040_ Ozone _IM Since the inventory method was used for this analysis, results for each pollutant were able to be obtained directly from the MOVES output database, summarized over each hour of the day and source type.
6 Summary Results and Conclusions The current Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP) established emission budgets for transportation conformity purposes. In accordance with EPA regulations, estimates of the emissions for each of the analysis years of the 2014-2017 TIP and amended 2040 LRTP were developed. The process of estimating the projections, along with the data inputs used is described in detail earlier in this report. The following steps describe the test required to demonstrate conformity of the amended 2040 LRTP and the 2014-2017 TIP under 2008 8-hour ozone standards and CO standards: · Ozone Season: o Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) § 2010 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2009 Budget (tons/day) § 2015 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2009 Budget (tons/day) § 2017 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2017 Budget (tons/day) § 2020 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2017 Budget (tons/day) § 2021 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2021 Budget (tons/day) § 2030 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2021 Budget (tons/day) § 2040 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2021 Budget (tons/day) o Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) § 2010 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2009 Budget (tons/day) § 2015 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2009 Budget (tons/day) § 2017 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2017 Budget (tons/day) § 2020 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2017 Budget (tons/day) § 2021 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2021 Budget (tons/day) § 2030 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2021 Budget (tons/day) § 2040 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2021 Budget (tons/day) · CO SEASON: o Carbon Monoxide (CO) § 2017 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2017 Budget (tons/day)
21 SHELBY COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
Results from this analysis were summarized in Table 5 and compared with the established Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs).
Table 5 – Summary of Total Mobile Source Emissions Emissions (tons/day) Analysis Volatile Organic Oxides of Nitrogen Year Compounds (VOC) (NOx) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Budget Modeled Budget Modeled Budget Modeled 2010 27.240 19.665 55.620 42.478 - 369.384 2015 27.240 12.432 55.620 24.474 - 313.693 2017 18.323 10.848 55.173 20.421 839.990 303.899 2020 18.323 9.384 55.173 17.078 - 296.596 2021 13.817 9.305 54.445 16.739 298.012 2030 13.817 8.591 54.445 13.687 - 310.752 2040 13.817 9.246 54.445 15.625 - 335.435 * - Motor Vehicle Emission Budget (MVEB) - Source: Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 1, Monday, January 4, 2010, p. 56-60 for VOC and NOX, and Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 206, December 26, 2006 for CO The analysis indicates that the projected emissions levels based on projects contained in the Shelby County portion of the Memphis Urban Area 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (2040 LRTP) and FY 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) meet the conformity tests specified in the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the 2008 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments; Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Changes (69 FR 40004) and the Guidance for Transportation Conformity Implementation in Multi-Jurisdictional Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas (EPA-420-B-12-046, July 2012). Further, this conformity determination meets the other requirements of 40 CFR Part 93. It is the determination of this analysis that the FY 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) conform under the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Additional details on the total emissions are provided in Table 6 through Table 8. These tables break out emissions for each analysis year by the 13 MOVES vehicle source types. Results from the movesoutput database file were summarized over each hour of the day to obtain these values.
22 SHELBY COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
Table 6 – Total NOx Emissions (grams/day) by Source Type and Analysis Year Source Analysis Year Source Type Type ID 2010 2015 2017 2020 2030 2040 Motorcycle 11 36,670 37,994 38,749 40,910 45,436 49,954 Passenger Car 21 11,627,608 6,250,263 4,933,986 3,670,773 2,636,643 2,828,123 Passenger Truck 31 5,833,715 3,517,746 2,902,022 2,275,448 1,672,754 1,809,465 Light Commercial Truck 32 2,542,216 1,598,837 1,355,886 1,096,358 856,891 932,227 Intercity Bus 41 520,563 297,025 231,132 158,868 74,649 80,422 Transit Bus 42 122,746 62,825 47,451 32,303 16,024 17,799 School Bus 43 330,153 232,102 201,495 166,369 77,974 58,515 Refuse Truck 51 155,400 57,898 41,178 26,959 12,814 11,822 Single Unit Short-haul Truck 52 3,343,524 1,978,320 1,728,540 1,500,658 1,283,692 1,431,996 Single Unit Long-haul Truck 53 399,592 279,825 253,976 226,125 188,681 205,700 Motor Home 54 209,611 163,824 151,389 139,015 114,353 117,029 Combination Short-haul Truck 61 5,039,806 2,352,992 1,842,602 1,521,842 1,035,206 1,182,789 Combination Long-haul Truck 62 8,373,661 5,373,225 4,796,817 4,636,964 4,636,964 5,449,247 Total NOx Emissions 38,535,266 22,202,877 18,525,221 15,492,592 15,492,592 14,175,088
Table 7 – Total VOC Emissions (grams/day) by Source Type and Analysis Year Source Analysis Year Source Type Type ID 2010 2015 2017 2020 2030 2040 Motorcycle 11 550,275 677,346 725,533 786,663 938,830 1,007,730 Passenger Car 21 9,214,659 5,630,139 4,875,349 4,200,833 3,959,917 4,161,441 Passenger Truck 31 4,310,898 2,568,471 2,132,522 1,689,562 1,285,161 1,352,193 Light Commercial Truck 32 1,491,593 907,589 759,842 604,925 453,975 480,384 Intercity Bus 41 29,672 20,069 16,396 10,972 6,069 6,700 Transit Bus 42 9,522 5,962 4,605 2,921 1,595 1,807 School Bus 43 66,046 36,175 30,440 23,966 13,543 11,566 Refuse Truck 51 11,999 5,333 4,107 2,962 1,842 1,797 Single Unit Short-haul Truck 52 852,778 554,820 499,762 435,062 386,841 445,893 Single Unit Long-haul Truck 53 106,567 81,131 75,980 68,278 61,366 70,346 Motor Home 54 131,120 96,584 88,223 76,455 60,747 68,805 Combination Short-haul Truck 61 289,551 149,270 122,391 105,342 85,342 100,785 Combination Long-haul Truck 62 775,399 545,152 505,862 504,967 538,107 677,992 Total VOC Emissions 17,840,078 11,278,039 9,841,013 8,512,907 7,793,334 8,387,439
23 SHELBY COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
Table 8 – Total CO Emissions (grams/day) by Source Type and Analysis Year Source Analysis Year Source Type Type ID 2010 2015 2017 2020 2030 2040 Motorcycle 11 2,342,117 2,219,066 2,234,976 2,308,232 2,618,850 2,913,365 Passenger Car 21 185,339,323 163,009,240 159,050,020 155,797,834 163,758,421 175,226,653 Passenger Truck 31 85,077,160 67,669,167 63,996,293 60,554,942 60,215,566 63,500,442 Light Commercial Truck 32 29,327,352 24,176,821 23,202,142 22,340,513 22,758,614 24,006,241 Intercity Bus 41 169,662 107,046 84,025 58,963 39,612 44,897 Transit Bus 42 68,114 44,228 36,935 30,636 28,396 33,331 School Bus 43 1,461,575 850,285 778,983 748,145 805,612 937,597 Refuse Truck 51 111,262 63,213 53,387 43,690 33,264 33,334 Single Unit Short-haul Truck 52 22,227,879 19,270,206 19,321,257 20,185,955 24,105,441 28,553,284 Single Unit Long-haul Truck 53 2,335,669 2,310,732 2,392,348 2,567,407 3,108,455 3,673,152 Motor Home 54 2,654,272 2,278,654 2,214,588 2,161,870 2,138,173 2,499,090 Combination Short-haul Truck 61 1,451,289 702,536 564,633 476,674 363,086 423,957 Combination Long-haul Truck 62 2,534,010 1,876,309 1,762,954 1,792,708 1,935,716 2,456,662 Total CO Emissions 335,099,684 284,577,503 275,692,541 269,067,568 281,909,205 304,302,004
24 2014-2017 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION DESOTO COUNTY NON-ATTAINMENT AREA
PREPARED FOR:
IN COOPERATION WITH: DESOTO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SHELBY COUNTY SHELBY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PREPARED BY:
JUNE 26, 2013
This document was prepared and published by the Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and is prepared in cooperation with financial assistance from all or several of the following public entities: the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, the Tennessee and Mississippi Department of Transportation, the Memphis Area Transit Authority, and the local governments in the MPO region.
It is the policy of the Memphis Urban Area (MPO) not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, national origin or disability in its hiring or employment practices, or in its admission to or operations of its program, services, or activities. All inquiries for Title VI and/or the American Disabilities Act, contact John Paul Shaffer at 901-576-7130 or [email protected]. DESOTO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction...... 3 1.1 Latest Planning Assumptions ...... 5 1.2 Latest Emissions Estimation Model...... 6 1.3 Interagency Consultation and Public Participation ...... 6 1.4 Exempt Projects ...... 6 1.5 Conformity Test ...... 8 2 Methodology ...... 8 2.1 MOVES...... 9 2.2 Travel Demand Modeling ...... 10 3 MOVES Runspec ...... 12 3.1 Description ...... 13 3.2 Scale ...... 13 3.3 Time Spans...... 13 3.4 Geographic Bounds ...... 13 3.5 Vehicles/Equipment ...... 13 3.6 Road Type ...... 13 3.7 Pollutants and Processes ...... 14 3.8 Miscellaneous Strategies ...... 14 3.9 Output ...... 14 4 County Data Manager ...... 14 4.1 Meteorology Data Importer ...... 14 4.2 Source Type Population Importer ...... 14 4.3 Age Distribution Importer ...... 15 4.4 Vehicle Type VMT and VMT Fractions ...... 15 4.5 Average Speed Distribution Importer ...... 16 4.6 Road Type Distribution Importer ...... 16 4.7 Ramp Fraction Importer ...... 16 4.8 Fuel Formulation and Fuel Supply Importer ...... 16 4.9 Fueltype and Technologies Importer ...... 16 4.10 Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Importer ...... 16 5 Post-Processing of MOVES Output ...... 17 6 Summary Results and Conclusions ...... 18
ii DESOTO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Figure 1 – Ozone Non-Attainment Area and Memphis MPO Planning Area...... 4 Table 1 – MOVES Runspec Parameters ...... 8 Table 2 – MOVES County Data Manager Parameters ...... 8 Figure 1 - MPO and Travel Demand Model Boundaries...... 10 Table 3 – Annual VMT by Source Type by Year, DeSoto County Non-Attainment Area ...... 12 Table 4 – Summary of Total Mobile Source Emissions ...... 16 Table 5 – Total NOx Emissions (grams) by Source Type and Analysis Year ...... 17 Table 6 – Total VOC Emissions (grams) by Source Type and Analysis Year ...... 17
LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 - Interagency Consultation Process Exhibit 2 - 2014-2017 TIP and Amended Memphis Urban Area 2040 LRTP Projects
ii DESOTO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
1 Introduction As the number of vehicles on the nation’s roadways increased, air pollution from mobile sources was identified as an important national health concern. Recognizing this connection, the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAAs) and the Mississippi Transportation Conformity Rules require transportation plans, transportation improvement programs (TIP), and transportation projects to conform to the purpose of the Mississippi State Implementation Plan (SIP). Conformity to a SIP means that federal funds will not be spent on projects that cause or contribute to any new violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); increase the frequency or severity of NAAQS violations; or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or any required interim milestone. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and its successor legislations, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) and Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) reinforce the need for coordinated transportation and air quality planning through the metropolitan planning provisions.
On May 21, 2012 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated Memphis, TN-MS-AR as a 2008 8-hour ozone marginal non-attainment area effective July 20, 2012. The final ruling was published in the Federal Register (77 FR 30088) on May 21, 2012. Included in this designation were Shelby County, TN; Crittenden County, AR; and the portion of DeSoto County, MS in the Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) boundary. The State of Mississippi appealed this finding, but a ruling posted in 78 FR 925 (January 7, 2013) stated that appeal was formally denied by the EPA. The non-attainment portion of DeSoto County was classified as a marginal area, meaning they must reach attainment status within three years. Figure 1 shows the TN- MS-AR non-attainment area.
In July 2004, EPA issued the companion guidance1 to the July 1 Conformity Rule that addresses ozone and air quality standards. The guidance further clarified how conformity determinations and the regional emissions analyses that support them are completed in existing and new non-attainment and maintenance areas. The guidance noted that states in a multi-state area have the option of submitting SIPs with budgets for just their own portion of the area that, when taken together, meet the applicable Clean Air Act requirement. Where states have done so and EPA has found such budgets adequate or approved, the metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) or MPOs in each state with such budgets can determine conformity completely independent of the other states. Furthermore, all affected agencies need to be included in the decision-making process for the area as required by the conformity rule described in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 93, Section 105 (40 CFR 93.105). Shelby County, Tennessee and Crittenden County, Arkansas have budgets of their own. Since the portion of DeSoto County in non-attainment is classified as Marginal, it is not required to have a SIP budget. During the interagency consultation process, it was decided that DeSoto County would not be judged within the overall SIP budget established for Shelby County, but would instead be subject to an independent conformity demonstration using the baseline test. Therefore, this conformity determination is only for the DeSoto County portion of the 8-hour ozone non-attainment area.
1 Guidance for Transportation Conformity Implementation in Multi-Jurisdictional Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas, Transportation and Climate Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA-420-B-12-046), http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/regs/420b12046.pdf.
3 DESOTO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION Figure 1 – Ozone Non-Attainment Area and Memphis MPO Planning Area
Purpose of Conformity Analysis The purpose of this conformity analysis is to demonstrate that the partial DeSoto County non- attainment area supports the implementation of the updated financially constrained Direction 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan2 (2040 LRTP) and the Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) by contributing to improved air quality and will therefore not jeopardize DeSoto County’s attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The conformity determination has been performed according to procedures prescribed by the following federal and state regulations: 69 FR 40004; 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 (i.e. Transportation Conformity Rule Requirements); the Mississippi Transportation Conformity Rules; and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Planning Regulations (23 CFR 450) implementing MAP-21 Requirements. Results of this conformity
2 Please refer to 2040 LRTP, Chapter 8 for the detailed financial constraint aspect of the LRTP (http://www.memphismpo.org/resources/plans/long-range-plan-lrtp).
4 DESOTO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION determination are found in Table 5 on Page 18 of this report. For each transportation plan (2040 LRTP), program (2014-2017 TIP), and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)/Federal Transit Administration (FTA) project to be found to conform, the MPO and Department of Transportation (DOT) must demonstrate that the applicable criteria and procedures have been satisfied (section §93.109-a). The following criteria for non-attainment areas are found to be applicable and are described as:
1) The TIP and LRTP must pass an emissions baseline test, comparing the conformity model years with a 2011 baseline value; 2) The conformity determinations must be based upon the most recent planning assumptions; 3) The conformity determinations must be based upon the latest emission estimation model available; 4) MPOs and state departments of transportation must provide reasonable opportunity for consultation with state air agencies, local air quality and transportation agencies, DOT, and the EPA; and 5) The conformity determination must comply with MAP-21 and MPO Planning Regulations.
This report documents the process used by the Memphis MPO for the Conformity Determination for the DeSoto County portion of the Memphis Urban Area MPO 2040 LRTP and the 2014-2017 TIP. A separate report has been prepared documenting the Shelby County portion of the Memphis Region Non-Attainment Area. EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) version 2010b model was used to derive emissions as required by the EPA3. The MOVES input files were created and modified as discussed in the interagency consultation process and laid out in the Pre-Analysis Consensus Memorandum (Exhibit 1). The modeled emissions are based on a number of inputs including temperature, relative humidity, and presence of inspection and maintenance programs, vehicle source type mix, vehicle age distribution, temporal distributions, average daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT), source type populations, hourly distribution, road type distribution, and average speed distribution.
The Memphis MPO Travel Demand Model was used to obtain VMT estimates. The Travel Demand Model was prepared with the conformity process in mind. For more information on the methodology and assumptions utilized in the development of the Travel Demand Model, please refer to the Model Documentation (LRTP Appendix G).
1.1 Latest Planning Assumptions The Memphis MPO Travel Demand Model was developed with consultation and input from state and local transportation agencies and the USDOT. The 2040 LRTP provides the appropriate level of detail required by 40 CFR 93.106 of the conformity regulations. The highway projects in the 2040 LRTP are financially constrained for the entire plan and for each horizon year in terms of capital, operations and maintenance costs (See LRTP Chapter 8 – Implementation Plan). The conformity analysis is based on assumptions derived from estimates of current and future population, employment, travel, and congestion. As part of the 2040 LRTP conformity determination, past assumptions have been discussed with various local, state and federal agencies for their continued validity and updated whenever necessary. Detailed planning assumptions are presented in Section 2 of this report.
3 Using MOVES to Prepare Emission Inventories in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity: Technical Guidance for MOVES2010, 2010a, and 2010b, April 2012. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/documents/420b12028.pdf.
5 DESOTO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
1.2 Latest Emissions Estimation Model Mobile source emissions estimates for the ozone season (summer) were developed using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator, MOVES2010b (June 2012), and travel estimates from the latest Memphis MPO Travel Demand Model. The Memphis MPO, Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT), and Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) provided the most current data available for emissions calculations. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and EPA's Air Planning Branch in Atlanta provided assistance and guidance as well.
All of the projects in the 2014-2017 TIP are a subset of the 2040 LRTP and as such include a program of projects, which is consistent with the scope of the 2040 LRTP in design and implementation schedule. Detailed project lists are presented in Exhibit 2.
1.3 Interagency Consultation and Public Participation Interagency consultation is the central coordinating mechanism for public agency involvement and input to the conformity determination. The conformity determination must be made according to 40 CFR §93.105-(a)-(2) and (e) and the requirements of 23 CFR 450 (40 CFR §93.112, Criteria and Procedures). Since this conformity determination involved both the Shelby County and DeSoto County portions of the non-attainment area, requirements from both Tennessee and Mississippi were considered.
The Memphis MPO coordinated its activities for this conformity determination with numerous stakeholders and review agencies, including DeSoto County, Shelby County, Shelby County Health Department, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) Division of Air Pollution Control, MDOT, TDOT, FHWA, EPA, and other necessary agencies. The Memphis MPO has held teleconference calls and email correspondence to discuss the issues pertinent to the DeSoto County Conformity Demonstration (e.g. latest planning assumptions). Verbal and written comments from these calls have been addressed (see Exhibit 1 - Interagency Consultation). To more fully communicate the assumptions being made as a part of the conformity analysis, a preconsensus plan was developed for the ozone analyses. This document, titled “2040 Memphis Region Non-Attainment Area MOVES Air Quality Conformity Analysis Pre-Analysis Consensus Memorandum,” was reviewed by the interagency consultation group and modified based on comments received. This document is included in Exhibit 1.
The Memphis Urban Area MPO’s Public Participation Plan, adopted in 2007 and updated in 2011, specifies procedures to ensure public involvement in the planning process. All TPB and Engineering and Technical Committee (ETC), meetings are open to the public for comments on any item. The public was notified of the opportunities to comment on this conformity demonstration. All comments received from the public, committee members, and review agencies were addressed. Specific information related to the public participation process for development of the LRTP is provided in Chapter 2 and Appendix A of the LRTP document (http://www.memphismpo.org/resources/plans/long-range-plan-lrtp).
1.4 Exempt Projects In evaluating the emissions impact of transportation activities in the conformity process, EPA regulations exempt certain projects included in a TIP or LRTP from analysis (see 40 CFR 93.126, 93.127, and 93.128). This decision is based on the assumption that these projects do not directly impact transportation related air emissions or that they may not be able to be precisely analyzed. The regulations identified two general categories of projects in the Transportation Conformity Reference
6 DESOTO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION Guide: 1) those exempt from regional emissions analysis; and 2) other highway and transit projects. In the regional exemption category, the following projects are specifically named and are considered by this report to be classified as exempt:
§ Intersection channelization projects; § Intersection signalization projects at individual intersections; § Interchange reconfiguration projects; § Changes in vertical or horizontal alignments; § Truck size and weight inspection stations; and § Bus terminals and transfer points.
The “other highway and transit project” list is longer and includes four primary categories: 1) safety, 2) mass transit, 3) air quality, and 4) other specific activities which do not involve or lead directly to construction.
§ Safety o Railroad/highway crossing. o Hazard elimination program. o Safer non-Federal aid system roads. o Shoulder improvements. o Increasing sight distance. o Safety improvement program. o Traffic control devices and operating assistance other than signalization projects. o Railroad/highway crossing warning devices. o Guardrails, median barriers, crash cushions. o Pavement resurfacing and/or rehabilitation. o Pavement marking demonstration. o Emergency relief (United States Code, Title 23, Chapter 1, Section 125 - 23 U.S.C. §125). o Fencing. o Skid treatments. o Safety roadside rest areas. o Adding medians. o Truck climbing lanes outside the urbanized area. o Lighting improvements. o Widening narrow pavements or reconstructing bridges (no additional travel lanes). o Emergency truck pullovers. § Mass Transit o Operating assistance to transit agencies. o Purchase of support vehicles. o Rehabilitation of transit vehicles. o Purchase of office, shop, and operating equipment for existing facilities. o Purchase of operating equipment for vehicles (e.g., radios, fare boxes, lifts, etc.). o Construction or renovation of power, signal, and communications systems. o Construction of small passenger shelters and information kiosks. o Reconstruction or renovation of transit buildings and structures (e.g., rail or bus buildings, storage and maintenance facilities, stations, terminals, and ancillary structures). o Rehabilitation or reconstruction of track structures, track, and track bed in existing rights-of- way.
7 DESOTO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION o Purchase of new buses and rail cars to replace existing vehicles or for minor expansions of the fleet. o Construction of new bus or rail storage/maintenance facilities categorically excluded in 23 CFR part 771. § Air Quality o Continuation of ride-sharing and van-pooling promotion activities at current levels. o Bicycle and pedestrian facilities. § Other specific activities which do not involve or lead directly to construction, such as: o Planning and technical studies. o Grants for training and research programs. o Planning activities conducted pursuant to titles 23 and 49 U.S.C. o Federal aid systems revisions. o Engineering to assess social, economic, and environmental effects of the proposed action or alternatives to that action. o Noise attenuation. o Emergency or hardship advance land acquisitions (23 CFR §710.503). o Acquisition of scenic easements. o Plantings, landscaping, etc. o Sign removal. o Directional and informational signs. o Transportation enhancement activities (except rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities). o Repair of damage caused by natural disasters, civil unrest, or terrorist acts, except projects involving substantial functional, locational or capacity changes.
There are projects in the TIP and LRTP from each major category.
1.5 Conformity Test The conformity tests specified in the federal transportation conformity rule are: (1) the emissions budget test, and (2) the emissions reduction test. For the emissions budget test, predicted emissions for the TIP/LRTP must be less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) specified in the approved air quality implementation plan or the emissions budget found to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes. If there is no approved air quality plan for a pollutant for which the region is in non-attainment or no emission budget has been found to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes, the emissions reduction test applies. In the DeSoto County portion of the Memphis region, no MVEBs have been specified. As a result, the emissions reduction test has been used, with the year 2011 as the established baseline condition.
2 Methodology The emissions inventory development and emissions projection discussion below identifies procedures used by the Memphis MPO to obtain emissions for the DeSoto County portion of the Memphis non- attainment area.
Table 1 summarizes the settings used in the MOVES run specification file. Table 2 lists the assumptions used in the MOVES County Data Manager. Further details on the use of MOVES are found in the following sections.
8 DESOTO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
Table 1 – MOVES Runspec Parameters MOVES Runspec Parameter Settings MOVES2010b, Version 2012/04/10 Database version 2012/10/30 Scale County, Inventory Time Span Time aggregation = Hour 1 month representing summer conditions (July) All hours of the day selected Weekdays only Geographic Bounds 1 custom domain – DeSoto County (partial) Vehicles/Equipment All valid source types, gasoline and diesel Road Type All road types including off-network Pollutants and Processes NOx, VOCs, total gaseous hydrocarbons, non-methane hydrocarbons General Output Units = grams, joules, miles Output Emissions Time = hour, location = link, on-road emission rates by road type and source use type Advanced Performance None
Table 2 – MOVES County Data Manager Parameters County Data Data Source Manager Input Meteorology Data Local data from Memphis airport (MEM). Source Type Population Adjusted default data was used for all years. Age Distribution Local and default. Local data from motor vehicle registration data (classes 11, 21, and 31). Shelby County data (prepared by the University of Tennessee) applied for remaining vehicle source types. Vehicle Type VMT – Local data obtained from Memphis Travel Demand Model. HPMS Vehicle Type VMT Vehicle Type VMT – Determined using EPA conversion tool for Annual Average Weekly VMT. Monthly VMT Fraction Vehicle Type VMT – Determined using EPA conversion tool for Annual Average Weekly VMT. Daily VMT Fraction Vehicle Type VMT – Local data obtained from Memphis Travel Demand Model. Hourly VMT Fraction Average Speed Distribution Local data obtained from Memphis Travel Demand Model. Road Type Distribution Local data obtained from Memphis Travel Demand Model. Ramp Fraction Local data obtained from Memphis Travel Demand Model. Fuel Supply/Fuel Formulation Default Fueltype and Technologies Default modified to exclude CNG vehicles. I/M Programs No data entered.
2.1 MOVES The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires US EPA to regularly update its mobile source emission models. US EPA continuously collects data and measures vehicle emissions to make sure the Agency has the best possible understanding of mobile source emissions. This assessment, in turn, informs the development of US EPA’s mobile source emission models. MOVES represents the Agency’s most up-to-date assessment of on-road mobile source emissions. MOVES also incorporates several changes to the US
9 DESOTO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION EPA’s approach to mobile source emission modeling based upon recommendations made to the Agency by the National Academy of Sciences. The detailed MOVES approach to modeling allows EPA to easily incorporate large amounts of in-use data from a wide variety of sources, such as data from vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs, remote sensing device (RSD) testing, certification testing, portable emission measurement systems (PEMS), etc. This approach also allows users to incorporate a variety of activity data to better estimate emission differences such as those resulting from changes to vehicle speed and acceleration patterns. MOVES has a graphical user interface which allows users to more easily set up and run the model. MOVES database-centered design provides users much greater flexibility regarding output choices. Unlike earlier models which provided emission factors in grams-per-mile in fixed output formats, MOVES output can be expressed as total mass (in tons, pounds, kilograms, or grams) or as emission factors (grams-per-mile and in some cases grams-per-vehicle). Output can be easily aggregated or disaggregated to examine emissions in a range of scales, from national emissions impacts down to the emissions impacts of individual transportation projects. The database-centered design also allows EPA to update emissions data incorporated in MOVES more easily and will allow users to incorporate a much wider array of activity data to improve estimation of local emissions. For example, the improvements in MOVES will allow estimates of project-level emissions of particle matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5).
2.2 Travel Demand Modeling The Memphis Urban Area travel demand model is the most recent and approved regional travel demand model for the study area. The travel demand model boundary includes all of DeSoto County and Shelby County, as well as portions of Tipton, Fayette, and Marshall Counties. Figure 1 shows the Memphis Urban Area and the Travel Demand Model boundaries. Although model approval is a joint process between the MPO and the appropriate state review agencies, the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) is the primary agency responsible for approval of the travel demand model for use in developing the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and other planning activities of the Memphis MPO. The travel demand model used for the air quality conformity analysis was reviewed and approved for use for long range plan and air quality conformity analysis purposes. The Memphis Urban Area Travel Demand Model is a four step model. Trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice, and trip assignment components are included in the model. The base year of the travel demand model is 2004. Socioeconomic data was forecasted to the year 2040 as a part of the most recent LRTP. Appendix G of the 2040 LRTP contains the assumptions and methodology used to develop the travel demand model.
Model Data Adjustments At the outset of this process, it was important to compare the information in the travel demand model to raw data obtained through traffic counts. The 2004 HPMS data was obtained from the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) for DeSoto County. The annual VMT shown in the HPMS data was compared to the total 2004 DeSoto County VMT shown in the travel demand model. This comparison yielded a HPMS/TDM ratio that was used to scale the VMT output from the model to more closely match documented conditions. This scaled VMT was used in the development of the HPMS vehicle type VMT. The adjusted annual vehicle miles traveled by MOVES vehicle source type for the study area are shown in Table 3. VMTs in Table 3 were obtained directly from the travel demand model. Adjustments to the VMT fraction based on monthly and daily fractions are applied within the MOVES program.
10 DESOTO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
Figure 1 – MPO and Travel Demand Model Boundaries
11 DESOTO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
Table 3 – Annual VMT by Source Type by Year, DeSoto County Non-Attainment Area Source Type Source Source Type VMT Type 2011 2015 2020 2030 2040 ID Motorcycle 11 4,366,366 5,248,851 6,295,660 8,203,964 10,343,507
Passenger Car 21 1,117,036,961 1,342,800,786 1,610,603,387 2,098,800,387 2,646,154,530
Passenger Truck 31 288,018,466 346,229,914 415,279,999 541,157,900 682,287,498 Light Commercial 32 96,221,772 115,668,942 138,738,042 180,790,959 227,941,153 Truck Intercity Bus 41 171,840 189,535 245,735 328,261 425,707
Transit Bus 42 88,674 93,248 116,437 150,841 195,565
School Bus 43 1,164,182 1,273,157 1,638,698 2,169,338 2,813,218
Refuse Truck 51 558,584 483,088 459,956 416,242 452,985 Single Unit Short-haul 52 40,102,032 43,358,124 55,374,605 73,138,115 94,906,201 Truck Single Unit Long-haul 53 5,326,845 6,353,124 8,685,377 11,804,600 15,318,362 Truck Motor Home 54 9,348,650 10,239,380 13,195,149 17,508,115 22,720,206 Combination Short- 61 27,981,581 30,036,151 43,002,117 52,466,822 65,633,726 haul Truck Combination Long- 62 34,234,946 39,625,344 61,293,925 76,973,187 96,289,812 haul Truck Total 1,624,620,899 1,941,599,644 2,354,929,085 3,063,908,731 3,865,482,469
Pre-Processing Information was gathered from the travel demand model to generate the average speed distribution, road type distribution, hourly VMT distribution, HPMS vehicle type VMT, and ramp fraction. To streamline this process, a pre-processor was developed. The pre-processor performed many of the calculations and disaggregations needed to produce MOVES-ready spreadsheets for each input. MOVES spreadsheet templates for each input type were developed for the identified model years. Following this, a script was developed to pull the needed data from the model and perform any needed calculations. MOVES files generated through this exercise could then be applied directly in the County Data Manager. Additional information on the data sources used and needed data manipulation is contained in Sections 3 and 4.
Post-Processing The analysis was performed using the inventory method. As a result, no post-processing was needed for the MOVES data output.
3 MOVES Runspec The MOVES2010b software was released by the Environmental Protection Agency in July 2012. This software uses a graphical user interface with a set of input categories. A Runspec can be developed that stores the input values for these categories. The values and information included in the Runspecs developed for this analysis are explained in more detail in the following sections.
12 DESOTO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
3.1 Description The information in this category is used to distinguish the individual Runspecs. For this analysis, the description is used to introduce the purpose for the analysis, the area being studied, and the year of analysis (i.e. 2004, 2011, 2015, 2020, 2030, and 2040).
3.2 Scale This input window is used to detail the information needed for the domain/scale of the analysis as well as the calculation type. The county level was selected as the domain for this effort, since it is the appropriate level for use in SIP and regional conformity analysis. The inventory method was chosen for the calculation type. This calculation type was chosen following a discussion with the involved review agencies to determine the most appropriate calculation method for this analysis.
3.3 Time Spans The Time Spans input window has a variety of different timescale inputs that are used for understanding the level of temporal aggregation being used in the analysis. The time aggregation level was specified as hours, based on guidance from EPA/FHWA for the preferred aggregation level for conformity runs. Based on the interagency consultation process, the years 2004, 2011, 2015, 2020, 2030, and 2040 were chosen for the analysis years. Each year was done within a different Runspec. Since the pollutant analysis being conducted is for the 8-hour ozone standard, July was chosen as the month to best represent summer conditions. Weekdays were selected as the representative day type since they are considered to be the worst-case type when compared with weekends. All hours of the day were included in the analysis to represent conditions over a full 24-hour period.
3.4 Geographic Bounds This analysis consisted of a portion of DeSoto County. This input window also asks for the name of the domain input database. A total of six input databases were created during this process, reflecting the appropriate Runspec and input data for the analysis years 2004, 2011, 2015, 2020, 2030, and 2040.
3.5 Vehicles/Equipment This input window allows the user to specify which fuel and vehicle types are present within the transportation network. There are thirteen different vehicle classes (referred to as source use types) and five different fuel types. This analysis considers the diesel and gas fuel types only. This was partly to reflect the lack of compressed natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas vehicles in the population, and also to allow for default fuel formulation and fuel supply information to be used in the study area. Within this, all possible vehicle and fuel types were considered. Diesel motorcycles, gas combination long-haul trucks, and gas intercity buses were removed since they are not represented in the vehicle population.
3.6 Road Type The MOVES software incorporates five different roadway types: off-network, rural restricted access, rural unrestricted access, urban restricted access, and urban unrestricted access. Expressways and freeways in the region are considered as restricted access facilities. For this analysis, all five roadway types were considered. Off-network emissions are intended to account for vehicle starts and evaporative emissions for parked vehicles. While these emissions are not captured through the information in the regional travel demand models, default values can be used to assess their impacts.
13 DESOTO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
3.7 Pollutants and Processes This input window allows the user to specify different pollutants and processes that are desired for modeling. Since the purpose of this analysis is to assess emissions relating to the 8-hour ozone standard, the interagency consultation specified the inclusion of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), Non-Methane Hydrocarbons (NMHC), and Total Gaseous Hydrocarbons (THC).
3.8 Miscellaneous Strategies The MOVES software includes input windows where provisions can be specified for specific strategies such as on-road retrofit and rate of progress emissions. Since these strategies are not being applied in this location, no information was entered for this section.
3.9 Output Output for the MOVES program is stored in a user-created database. Output databases were created for each of the 6 different Runspec conditions. As specified in the interagency consultation process, grams, joules, and miles were used as the units of measure in the output database. Based on the parameters already established in these Runspecs, the time measurement for this analysis was set as hourly, and the location was automatically set for the link level. To assist with post-processing aggregation, it was further requested that the source use type information be included with the output.
4 County Data Manager Once all of the base parameters have been established for a given MOVES Runspec, the County Data Manager can be used to enter locally-specific data. Input provided in Excel spreadsheet format can be referenced using this tool, which converts the data to MySQL format and incorporates it into the MOVES analysis. For the DeSoto County portion of the non-attainment area, locally-specific data could consist of data used for the entire region, statewide, or county-level data. The following sections detail these input criteria, and the methodology and assumptions used to arrive at the information entered for each.
4.1 Meteorology Data Importer Meteorological data for the analysis area was obtained from the Shelby County MOVES run conducted in late 2011. This data was collected at the Memphis International Airport and is assumed to be applicable for the DeSoto County non-attainment area as well as all analysis years.
4.2 Source Type Population Importer This importer provides the user with the opportunity to enter vehicle population data sorted by the 13 MOVES vehicle source types. The Pre-Analysis Consensus Memorandum indicated that DeSoto County data would be referenced where possible. When this data was analyzed, it was determined that inconsistencies in the vehicle type definitions were significant enough that the data set as a whole could not be used. Statewide data sources were also considered for use, particularly for trucks. However, these data are available only at the statewide level, not at the county level. As a result, default data was used as a starting point for all source types. The MOVES Technical Guidance offers guidance on how to leverage default population and VMT data alongside local VMT data to arrive at an estimate of the local population. This guidance suggests comparing the ratio of default source type population to default VMT to the local VMT to arrive at an estimate of local source type population. This methodology was applied for all analysis years. A growth rate was not applied, since growth is inherently built in through this methodology.
14 DESOTO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION Table 4 shows the source type population used for this analysis.
Table 4 – Source Type Population for All Analysis Years Source Type Source Analysis Year Type 2011 2015 2020 2030 2040 ID Motorcycle 11 2,458 3,500 4,698 6,484 7,688 Passenger Car 21 76,412 90,775 107,217 135,556 154,704 Passenger Truck 31 27,755 33,039 39,083 49,604 56,523 Light Commercial Truck 32 9,272 11,038 13,057 16,572 18,883 Intercity Bus 41 26 27 34 48 62 Transit Bus 42 13 13 16 22 29 School Bus 43 173 178 229 315 412 Refuse Truck 51 45 36 34 32 35 Single Unit Short-haul Truck 52 3,214 3,238 4,113 5,667 7,413 Single Unit Long-haul Truck 53 427 474 645 915 1,197 Motor Home 54 749 765 980 1,357 1,775 Combination Short-haul Truck 61 527 502 649 713 868 Combination Long-haul Truck 62 644 663 926 1,046 1,273 Total for Each Analysis Year 121,715 144,249 171,682 218,331 250,861
4.3 Age Distribution Importer The Age Distribution Importer allows the user to provide vehicle age distribution data sorted by the MOVES vehicle source types. Vehicle age distribution is divided into 30 years based on vehicle model years. For each vehicle type, the sum of all age distributions will equal one. DeSoto County registration data was able to be used for motorcycles, passenger cars, and passenger trucks. For the remainder of source types, data was obtained from a study conducted by the University of Tennessee – Knoxville. This data was specific to Shelby County, and as such can be reasonably transferred to DeSoto County.
4.4 Vehicle Type VMT and VMT Fractions This data importer asks the user for the VMT in the study area by HPMS vehicle class type, hourly VMT distributions, daily VMT distributions, and monthly VMT distributions. The HPMS vehicle class VMT is asked for an annual basis. To determine this information, data can be pulled from available travel demand models or from regional HPMS data. HPMS Vehicle Class VMT The HPMS vehicle class VMT was determined using the pre-processor developed within the travel demand model. The travel demand model classifies vehicles into automobiles, single unit trucks, and combination unit trucks. The three vehicle classes in the model were divided into the six HPMS vehicle class types through the pre-processor. Since the travel demand model produces daily weekday volumes, the EPA conversion tool was used to convert these daily VMT numbers to annual values. Daily VMT Fraction The EPA conversion tool for Annual Average Weekday Vehicles Miles Traveled was used to determine the daily VMT fraction for each analysis year. Monthly VMT Fraction
15 DESOTO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION The EPA conversion tool for Annual Average Weekday Vehicles Miles Traveled was used to determine the daily VMT fraction for each analysis year. Monthly VMT fractions are different on leap years (2004, 2020, and 2040) than on non-leap years (2011, 2015, and 2030). Hourly VMT Fraction The hourly VMT fraction was determined using the pre-processor developed within the travel demand model. To produce the information needed for the MOVES input file, the three vehicle classes in the model were expanded to the 13 MOVES vehicle source types. In addition, the four time of day periods in the model were expanded to represent each hour of the day. The default mix of off-network hourly distribution percentages was used for all vehicle classes.
4.5 Average Speed Distribution Importer This importer gives the user the opportunity to enter locally specific average speed data, disaggregated by vehicle source type, road type, weekday/weekend, and hour of the day. The MOVES model uses 16 speed bins, dividing speed distributions into a fraction of driving within each speed bin for each of the criteria listed previously. The average speed distribution was determined using the pre-processor developed within the travel demand model. The vehicle classes in the model were expanded to the 13 MOVES vehicle source types, and the hourly distribution was expanded from the four time periods in the model to each hour of the day.
4.6 Road Type Distribution Importer The road type distribution importer can be used to incorporate locally-specific roadway distribution information. The road type distribution was determined using the pre-processor developed within the travel demand model. The vehicle classes in the model were expanded to the 13 MOVES vehicle source types.
4.7 Ramp Fraction Importer This importer allows the user to input the fraction of the vehicle hours traveled on urban restricted and rural restricted roadways that is traveling on ramp facilities. The ramp fractions were determined using the pre-processor developed within the travel demand model.
4.8 Fuel Formulation and Fuel Supply Importer The fuel formulation and fuel supply importers are used to input locally-specific fuel properties into the model. The pre-analysis consensus memorandum specified that default values would be used for this category.
4.9 Fueltype and Technologies Importer This importer value considers the alternative vehicle fuels and technologies (AVFT). If no information is entered for AVFT, MOVES assumes a default mix of alternative fuels. The MOVES default mix assumes a small percentage of compressed natural gas (CNG) transit buses. Since there are no alternative fuel vehicles in the transit fleet for DeSoto County, the default value for this file was modified to reflect only diesel and gasoline fuel types.
4.10 Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Importer This importer would allow local inspection and maintenance data to be entered for the study area. The DeSoto County portion of the non-attainment area has no I/M program in place. When default data is exported for this, the file indicates there are no I/M programs in place for the area. Since this is an accurate representation of the I/M program in the area, no further data was entered.
16 DESOTO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
5 Post-Processing of MOVES Output Once the appropriate data was input into the MOVES Runspecs and the County Data Manager, the six scenarios were run using the MOVES program. The following MOVES output databases were produced: § DeSoto_2004 (for reference only) § DeSoto_2011 § DeSoto_2015 § DeSoto_2020 § DeSoto_2030 § DeSoto_2040 Since the inventory method was used for this analysis, results for each pollutant were able to be obtained directly from the MOVES output database, summarized over each hour of the day and source type.
17 DESOTO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
6 Summary Results and Conclusions Results from this analysis are summarized in Table 5. Additional detail on the total emissions has been provided in Tables 6 and 7. These tables break out emissions for each analysis year by the 13 MOVES vehicle source types. Results from the movesoutput database file were summarized over each hour of the day to obtain these values.
Table 5 – Summary of Total Mobile Source Emissions Emissions (tons/day) Pollutant 2011* 2015 2020 2030 2040 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 5.178 4.205 3.299 2.911 3.391
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 8.969 6.836 5.171 3.987 4.648 *Baseline analysis year
2011 was identified through the interagency consultation process as the baseline year for this analysis. Based on the results from the MOVES analysis, each subsequent model year exhibits a reduction in emissions in both VOCs and NOx.
The analysis indicates that the projected emissions levels based on projects contained in the Memphis Urban Area 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (2040 LRTP) and FY 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) meet the applicable conformity tests. It is the determination of this analysis that the updated FY 2014-2017 TIP and the 2040 LRTP conform under the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
18 DESOTO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION
Table 6 – Total NOx Emissions (grams/day) by Source Type and Analysis Year Source Type Source Analysis Year Type 2011 2015 2020 2030 2040 ID Motorcycle 11 9,141 9,451 10,551 12,570 14,985 Passenger Car 21 3,335,488 2,586,202 1,695,355 1,088,648 1,133,457 Passenger Truck 31 1,730,330 1,396,466 987,480 668,890 726,120 Light Commercial Truck 32 489,593 396,188 305,522 282,458 354,505 Intercity Bus 41 21,203 14,023 8,457 4,463 5,440 Transit Bus 42 4,966 3,068 1,786 1,000 1,234 School Bus 43 13,543 11,025 8,982 4,759 3,994 Refuse Truck 51 24,380 11,852 6,292 3,362 3,517 Single Unit Short-haul Truck 52 538,787 386,381 346,586 345,446 434,783 Single Unit Long-haul Truck 53 66,613 54,286 52,134 51,019 62,799 Motor Home 54 37,801 33,136 33,158 31,680 36,215 Combination Short-haul Truck 61 684,061 403,373 310,335 214,580 255,781 Combination Long-haul Truck 62 1,180,769 896,135 924,628 908,357 1,183,497
Total NOx Emissions 8,136,675 6,201,585 4,691,265 3,617,231 4,216,326
Table 7 – Total VOC Emissions (grams/day) by Source Type and Analysis Year Source Type Source Analysis Year Type 2011 2015 2020 2030 2040 ID Motorcycle 11 92,393 122,244 154,281 207,029 251,419 Passenger Car 21 2,707,756 2,178,511 1,692,089 1,497,135 1,725,883 Passenger Truck 31 1,316,274 1,055,933 745,819 549,301 600,161 Light Commercial Truck 32 270,637 213,869 160,140 138,888 169,428 Intercity Bus 41 1,144 864 537 346 438 Transit Bus 42 369 265 147 93 119 School Bus 43 2,350 1,577 1,210 779 757 Refuse Truck 51 1,747 990 634 453 513 Single Unit Short-haul Truck 52 132,316 101,152 91,285 92,915 125,507 Single Unit Long-haul Truck 53 17,128 14,767 14,369 14,887 19,951 Motor Home 54 19,640 17,012 16,140 14,946 19,605 Combination Short-haul Truck 61 36,391 23,808 20,558 17,176 21,235 Combination Long-haul Truck 62 99,331 83,782 95,189 106,485 141,483
Total NOx Emissions 4,697,476 3,814,775 2,992,399 2,640,433 3,076,501
19 B . M I D I LOX N LL I A R AVY I
VE. RD. N L G
.
E T
D
3 U O R . N 0 0 H -A P D R Naval Support Activity T R R L S S E . ¯ I 1 N B O D L G -5 S. K N 4 L R T R O O S LL AV 1 N RD. E E U K . 0 K
R N C BI 269 S I G C N RE W E § O ¨¦ S K C H D 51 N £ UR ¤ . C U .
T H R R S R .
D D . B
L D
D A L R
I . L
N
H E P D O A A G R E U U L RIDGE RD. D T J LEASAN U P BA W S E L TE . B K L SYK B M A ES R C AN S R RD. R I D. ET M EM R . J OR EF IAL PK D F WY ER .SR385 R Y S Millington . Y T . D 269
C R ¨¦§ U L L . PL INNIE N E CV R . AS . W A D R NT RIDGE A
4 R D D. O D S A 0 S LEM . RD K . N I 2 Y A . TWI O K . N . A R D M P
D S D
W R O
N
. R R L
A ROYA E J C N L M D EW K S DR. B A O Y S ON V D P O R R D. T E K
O
T G L N C
E I R
N H O L I R G
S T V G . A D R R G O N T N I A R I C A
S D L W L D . S TE I UN E CAN K R C -M D. R H E G I T L E L A
A . W Y .
R . Lakeland W D T H R G Y A S E K C P I N I . W . T S N S K L N U . P S HATC A B H CIR . U I N EAGLE N L S . N L . R A R D AN O ER CREE B . T K DR. B D O LUE R T . L E R AGO L S L O ON I B LEN SE T D D V HU RD G R. S . E N S N I R N W R I E BEAGL BR RO F E RUN OW R R LN. D NSVILLE B V C L RD. LD F O O E O R B O AYLOR C F U RD. V A C E I . G . N . D V D R . R A . I R . R N D D D R D Y . K W A E R R T P D O R K L Bartlett S A R I R T E D N A T. H 70 S N IL E E L . M D K O M £ D ¤ A O H R N Memphis T A R A E M 1 M S C HADO G O W 0 HIL . I L L S RD. CRAV 0 M R EN . R N L R D S P
M I I LIN E 9 DAW E 7 OOD Y 0 0.5 1 / 2 LN L . V L 0 G 7 U . O L Y Miles EG I YPT C T . W ENTR C RD H AL RD B E - . FISK US
TN State Route 14 (Austin Peay Highway) LEGEND: Roadway Functional Classification Memphis Urbanized Area Boundary to SR-385 (I-269) Urban Interstate Rural Interstate Current Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial Urban Freeway or Expressway Rural Other Principal Arterial Requested Class: Rural Principal Arterial Urban Other Principal Arterial Rural Minor Arterial AADT: 14,730 Urban Minor Arterial Rural Collector Length: 4.2 Miles (BLM: 25.591 ELM: 29.830) Urban Collector Local MEMPHIS MPO ESTIMATED COST PIN County Route Project Termini/Description Length PHASE TO BE FUNDED ( IN MILLIONS) RANKING Projects Under Consideration for the FY-15 Program 105597.00 Fayette I-40 Interchange at SR-196 (Hickory Withe Road) 0.0 Construction 9.4 107532.00 Shelby I-40 From SR-177(Germantown Road) to 1.0 mile East of Canada Road 4.5 Construction 39.0 110578.00 Shelby I-40 From 1.0 mile East of Canada Road to SR-205 (Collierville-Arlington Road) 4.0 Construction 27.0 Replacement of 3 Overhead Bridges; Norfolk Southern RR (LM 15.45), Poplar Av 118737.00 Shelby I-240 0.3 Construction 20.0 (SR-57 EB LM 15.57), and Poplar Av. (SR-57 WB LM 15.73) 101609.01 Shelby SR-1 Summer Ave, I-40 to 1.0 mile N of Sycamore View Road 1.7 Construction 26.9 101609.02 Shelby SR-1 Summer Ave, 1.0 mile N of Sycamore View Road to Elmore Road 1.8 Construction 26.9 100339.02 Shelby SR-4 South of Shelby Drive to Raines/Perkins Road Interchange 1.9 ROW 97.8 100340.00 Shelby SR-4 Raines Road/Perkins Road Interchange to Getwell Road (SR-176) 2.0 ROW 43.2 101608.02 Shelby SR-14 East of Old Covington Pike to SR-385 (Paul Barrett Pkwy) 3.7 Construction 35.4 100341.02 Shelby SR-14 SR-385 to East of Kerrville-Rosemark Road 4.7 Construction 20.0 100341.01 Shelby SR-14 East of Kerrville-Rosemark Road to the Tipton County Line 4.7 Construction 20.0 Projects Under Consideration for the FY-16/FY-17 Program 100328.01 Shelby I-69 Prop From 0.8 Mile East of US-51 to 0.5 Mile South of SR-388 5.6 ROW 31.2 100328.02 Shelby I-69 Prop From South of SR-388(North Watkins Street) to South of Fite Road 2.3 ROW 12.0 100328.05 Shelby I-69 Prop From South of Fite Road to 0.5 Miles North of Woodstock-Cuba Road 2.5 ROW 14.2 100328.03 Shelby I-69 Prop From 0.5 Mile North of Woodstock-Cuba Road to 0.2 Mile East of US-51 5.0 ROW 28.7 100329.01 Shelby, Tipton I-69 Prop From South of Shelby Road to North of Simmons Road 5.8 ROW 5.3 107913.00 Shelby I-240 Interchange at Airways Blvd. 0.5 ROW 1.0 100339.01 Shelby SR-4 Mississippi State Line to South of Shelby Drive 1.1 Construction 22.4 Projects Totally Funded 101601.00 Shelby I-40 Interchange Modification at Canada Road 0.0 101742.00 Shelby I-55 Interchange at Crump Blvd 0.0 113028.02 Shelby SR-3 Commercial Parkway to South of Winchester (Elvis Presley Blvd) 0.5 101608.01 Shelby SR-14 (Austin Peay Hwy), From SR-204 (Singleton Pkwy) to East of Old Covington Pike 2.6 108916.00 Shelby SR-175 Byhalia Road, Estanaula Road to SR-385 1.0