Iowa Northland Regional Transportation Authority · performance of the National Highway System (NHS), including some state and U.S. highways and interstates. • State Planning and

Iowa Northland Regional

Transportation Authority

Transportation Improvement Program

Fiscal Years 2020-2023

July 18, 2019

This page intentionally left blank

FY 2020-2023

TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Iowa Northland Regional Transportation Authority Policy Board

July 18, 2019

Contents

Transportation Committees ...................................................... i Policy Board Resolution ........................................................... ii Introduction ............................................................................. 1 Funding .................................................................................... 2 Financial Information and Fiscal Constraint ......................... 5 Redemonstration of Fiscal Constraint ................................... 6 Project Selection ..................................................................... 6 Public Participation and Title VI ............................................. 9 TIP Revisions ......................................................................... 10 Program of Projects .............................................................. 10 Maps of Projects ................................................................... 22 RTC Program of Projects ....................................................... 31 RTC Transit Justification: FY 2020 Projects ........................ 33 Funding by Year and Program .............................................. 34 FY 2019 Status Report ......................................................... 35 Operations and Maintenance ............................................... 36 Public Input Documentation ................................................. 37 Appendix 1 – Funding Equity Guidelines ............................. 46 Appendix 2 – Bridge Selection Methodology ...................... 51 Appendix 3 – Document Revision Summary ....................... 54

INRCOG Staff

Kevin Blanshan ......................................................... Executive Director Kyle Durant ....................................................... Transportation Planner Codie Leseman ..................................................... Transportation Planner Jacki Schares ................................. Safe Routes to School Coordinator Ben Kvigne .................................................................Director of Transit Linda Sires ................................................ Transit Operations Assistant Brian Schoon .................................................. Director of Development Cindy Knox ................................................................... Housing Planner Rose Phillips ............................................................... Housing Planner Erin Boyd ................................................................ Environmental Planner Sheri Alldredge............................... Director of Administrative Services Brenda Ponto ........................................................................ Accountant Dan Schlichtmann ....................................... Data Services Coordinator Hayley Weiglein ............................................... Administrative Assistant

The RTA prepared this report with funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, and in part through local matching funds of the RTA member governments. These contents are the responsibility of the RTA. The U.S. government and its agencies assume no liability for the contents of this report or for the use of its contents. Please call (319) 235-0311 to obtain permission for use.

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEES

Policy Board Representing Name Title Black Hawk County Linda Laylin Supervisor Bremer County Duane Hildebrandt Supervisor Buchanan County Gary Gissel Supervisor (Chair) Butler County Greg Barnett Supervisor Chickasaw County Steve Geerts Supervisor (Vice-Chair) Grundy County Mark Schildroth Supervisor City of Denver Rod Diercks Mayor City of Dike Mike Soppe Mayor City of Fairbank Mike Harter Mayor City of Grundy Center Alan Kiewiet Mayor City of Independence Bonita Davis Mayor City of Janesville Sandi Carroll Mayor City of La Porte City David Neil Mayor City of New Hampton Deb Larsen Mayor City of Parkersburg Perry Bernard Mayor City of Shell Rock Larry Young Mayor City of Waverly Dean Soash Mayor INRCOG (non-voting) Kevin Blanshan Executive Director Iowa DOT (non-voting) Andrea White Statewide Planning Coordinator FHWA Iowa Division (non-voting) Darla Hugaboom Transportation Planner FTA Region 7 (non-voting) Daniel Nguyen Community Planner

i

Technical Committee Representing Name Title Black Hawk County Ryan Brennan Assistant County Engineer Black Hawk County Cathy Nicholas County Engineer Bremer County Landon Moore County Engineer Buchanan County Brian Keierleber County Engineer Butler County John Riherd County Engineer Chickasaw County Dusten Rolando County Engineer Grundy County Gary Mauer County Engineer City of Denver Larry Farley City Administrator City of Dunkerton Keith Kuenstling Public Works Director City of Grundy Center Dan Bangasser Public Works Director City of Hazleton Lisa Baych City Clerk City of Independence Al Roder City Manager City of Janesville Christine Murley City Clerk City of La Porte City Jane Whittlesey City Clerk City of Nashua John Ott City Clerk City of Parkersburg Chris Luhring City Clerk City of Shell Rock Mike Tellinghuisen Public Works Director City of Waverly Mike Cherry City Engineer Iowa DOT, District 2 Krista Billhorn Transportation Planner INRCOG Kevin Blanshan Executive Director INRCOG Kyle Durant Transportation Planner INRCOG Codie Leseman Transportation Planner Regional Transit Commission Ben Kvigne Director of Transit

i

Transportation Alternatives Program Committee Representing Name Title Black Hawk County Ryan Brennan Assistant County Engineer Black Hawk County Cathy Nicholas County Engineer Bremer County Landon Moore County Engineer Buchanan County Brian Keierleber County Engineer Butler County John Riherd County Engineer Chickasaw County Dusten Rolando County Engineer Grundy County Gary Mauer County Engineer Black Hawk County Conservation Mike Hendrickson Executive Director Black Hawk County Conservation Cherrie Northrup Planning Administrator Bremer County Conservation Andrew Hockenson Executive Director Buchanan County Conservation Dan Cohen Executive Director Butler County Conservation Mike Miner Director Chickasaw County Conservation Brian Moore Director Grundy County Conservation Kevin Williams Executive Director City of Allison Glenda Miller City Clerk City of Fairbank Marlene Strempke City Clerk City of Grundy Center Kristy Sawyer City Clerk City of La Porte City Jane Whittlesey City Clerk City of New Hampton Karen Clemens City Clerk City of Parkersburg Chris Luhring City Clerk City of Reinbeck Julie Wilkerson City Clerk City of Sumner Lisa Oberbroeckling City Clerk City of Waverly Tab Ray Leisure Services Director Butler/Grundy County Development Jeff Kolb Executive Director New Hampton Economic Development Megan Baltes Assistant Director Parkersburg Economic Development Katie LaBree Director Silos & Smokestacks Candy Streed Director of Partnership Cedar Valley Growth Fund Linda Laylin Executive Director INRCOG Kevin Blanshan Executive Director INRCOG Kyle Durant Transportation Planner INRCOG Codie Leseman Transportation Planner INRCOG Jacki Schares Safe Routes to School Coordinator

i

INTRODUCTION

This document is the FY 2020-2023 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the Iowa Northland Regional Transportation Authority (RTA). The TIP contains all transportation projects in the RTA area anticipated to receive federal-aid in the next four federal fiscal years. The TIP is a programming document required by federal law which serves as a transition point for projects consistent with the area’s 2040 Long-Range Transportation Plan to be moved forward into programming and construction.

The planning and programming process required of the RTA is outlined in the 2015 federal transportation bill, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. Prior to FAST Act’s approval, the RTA has been operating under the previous federal transportation legislation, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21). Like MAP-21, the FAST Act continues, and further strengthens, the requirement that an extensive, ongoing, and cooperative planning effort for the programming of federal funds be undertaken. The RTA’s overall transportation planning goal is to provide for the safe, adequate, and efficient movement of persons and goods in the area. The RTA will utilize FAST Act’s planning factors to help reach this goal, which are as follows:

• Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency• Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users• Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight• Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between

transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns• Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight• Promote efficient system management and operation• Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system• Improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or mitigate stormwater impacts on surface

transportation• Enhance travel and tourism

The TIP is a step in the process of meeting these goals, as it enables projects to receive federal-aid. This includes not only street and highway projects, but transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and enhancement projects. Projects must be included in the TIP to receive federal aid; however, inclusion of a project in the TIP does not guarantee federal-aid eligibility. This is determined on a case-by-case basis when project authorization is requested from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

The TIP is updated annually. Each year, the RTA Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) Committee and Technical Committee hold work sessions to review and prioritize Iowa’s TAP projects, and to program Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program and STBG-Swap projects for the region. A draft TIP is compiled, distributed to the RTA Policy Board and Technical Committee for review, and taken out for public input. The draft document is posted on INRCOG’s website, and at least two public input sessions are held to solicit public comments. The draft TIP is also submitted to the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT), FHWA, and FTA for review. Comments from these agencies and the public are incorporated into the draft document, and then a public hearing is held and a final version of the document is considered for approval by the RTA Policy Board. The final TIP is posted on INRCOG’s website and forwarded to the Iowa DOT, FHWA, and FTA. The Iowa

1

DOT then produces the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) by compiling TIPs from all Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and Regional Planning Affiliations (RPAs) in Iowa.

FUNDING

Projects identified in local TIPs utilize, or are based upon, a number of different sources of federal funding. The primary sources of FHWA funding to Iowa, which are in part used to fund local efforts, include the following:

• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) – Provides flexible funding for transportation projects and programs tasked with helping to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. These projects can include those that reduce congestion and improve air quality.

• Demonstration funding (DEMO) – Demonstration funding is a combination of different programs and sources. The FHWA administers discretionary programs through various offices representing special funding categories, such as an appropriation bill providing money to a discretionary program, through special congressionally directed appropriations, or through legislative acts such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009.

• Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) – This is a core federal-aid program that funds projects with the goal of achieving a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads. A portion of this funding is targeted for use on local high-risk rural roads and railway-highway crossings.

• Metropolitan Planning Program (PL) – FHWA provides funding for this program to the State of Iowa based on urbanized area population. The funds are dedicated to support transportation planning efforts in urbanized areas of more than 50,000 persons.

• National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) – NHPP funds are available to be used on projects that improve the condition and performance of the National Highway System (NHS), including some state and U.S. highways and interstates.

• State Planning and Research (SPR) – These funds are available for statewide planning and research activities. A portion of SPR funds are provided to RPAs in Iowa to support transportation planning efforts.

• Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program – This program is designed to address specific issues identified by Congress and provides flexible funding for projects to preserve or improve the condition and performance of transportation facilities, including any federal-aid highway or public road bridge. STBG funding may be utilized on roadway projects on federal-aid routes, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital improvements, TAP-eligible activities, and planning activities. Iowa targets STBG funding to each of its 27 MPOs and RPAs on an annual basis for programming based on regional priorities. Iowa has implemented a swap program that allows MPOs and RPAs, at their discretion, to swap targeted federal STBG funding for state Primary Road Fund dollars. Iowa also targets a portion of its STBG funding directly to counties for use on county bridge projects. Iowa’s swap program allows counties, at their discretion, to swap federal STBG funding for state Primary Road Fund dollars. These funds can be used on either on- or off-system bridges, however off-system bridge investments must be continued to maintain the ability to transfer the federal STBG set-aside for off-system bridges.

2

• Transportation Alternatives Set-aside Program (TAP) – This program is a set-aside from STBG. TAP provides funding to expand travel choices and improve the transportation experience. TAP projects improve the cultural, historic, aesthetic, and environmental aspects of transportation infrastructure. Projects can include creation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and the restoration of historic transportation facilities, among others.

• Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) and Tribal Transportation Programs (TTP) – FLAP provides funding for projects that improve access within, and to, federal lands. FLAP funding is distributed through a grant process where a group of FHWA, Iowa DOT, and local government representatives solicit, rank, and select projects to receive funding. The TTP provides safe and adequate transportation and public road access to and within Indian reservations and Indian lands. Funds are distributed using a statutory formula based on tribal population, road mileage, and average tribal shares of the former Tribal Transportation Allocation Methodology.

• National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) – NHFP funds are distributed to states via a formula process and are targeted towards transportation projects that benefit freight movements. Ten percent of NHFP funds are targeted towards non-DOT sponsored projects.

In addition to these federal funding sources, the Iowa DOT administers several grant programs. Projects awarded grant funding must be documented in the region’s TIP. These grant awards are distributed through an application process. Applications are due October 1 for projects requesting funding in the next fiscal year. State administered grant programs include the following:

• City Bridge Program – A portion of STBG funding dedicated to local bridge projects is set aside for the funding of bridge projects within cities. Eligible projects need to be classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Projects are rated and prioritized by the Iowa DOT Office of Local Systems with awards based upon criteria identified in the application process. Projects awarded grant funding are subject to a federal-aid obligation limitation of $1 million. Iowa has implemented a swap program that allows cities, at their discretion, to swap federal STBG funding for state Primary Road Fund dollars.

• Highway Safety Improvement Program - Secondary (HSIP-Secondary) – This program is funded using a portion of Iowa’s Highway Safety Improvement Program apportionment and funds safety projects on rural roadways. Funding targeted towards these local projects is eligible to be swapped for Primary Road Fund dollars.

• Iowa Clean Air Attainment Program (ICAAP) – ICAAP funds projects that are intended to maximize emission reductions through traffic flow improvements, reduced vehicle miles of travel, and reduced single occupancy vehicle trips. This program utilizes $4 million of Iowa’s CMAQ apportionment. Funding targeted towards these local projects is eligible to be swapped for Primary Road Fund dollars.

• Recreational Trails Program – This program provides federal funding for both motorized and non-motorized trail projects and is funded through a takedown from Iowa’s TAP funding. The decision to participate in this program is made annually by the Iowa Transportation Commission.

• Iowa’s Transportation Alternatives Program – This program targets STBG funding to MPOs and RPAs to award to locally sponsored projects that expand travel choices and improve the motorized and non-motorized transportation experience.

3

There are also several federal transit programs that provide funding. The largest amount of funding is distributed, by formula, to states and large metropolitan areas. Other program funds are discretionary, and some are earmarked for specific projects. Federal transit programs include the following:

• Metropolitan Transportation Planning Program (Section 5303 and 5305) – FTA provides funding for this program to the state based on its urbanized area populations. The funds are dedicated to support transportation planning projects in urbanized areas with more than 50,000 persons.

• Statewide Transportation Planning Program (Section 5304 and 5305) – These funds come to the state based on population and are used to support transportation planning projects in non-urbanized areas. They are combined with Section 5311 funds and allocated among Iowa’s RPAs.

• Urbanized Area Formula Grants Program (Section 5307) – FTA provides transit operating, planning, and capital assistance funds directly to local recipients in urbanized areas with populations between 50,000 and 200,000. Assistance amounts are based on population and density figures and transit performance factors for larger areas. Local recipients must apply directly to the FTA.

• Bus and Bus Facilities Program (Section 5339) – This formula program provides federal assistance for major capital needs, such as fleet replacement and construction of transit facilities. All transit systems in the state are eligible for this program.

• Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program (Section 5310) – Funding is provided through this program to increase mobility for the elderly and persons with disabilities. Part of the funding is administered along with the non-urbanized funding with the remaining funds allocated among urbanized transit systems in areas with a population of less than 200,000. Urbanized areas with more than 200,000 in population receive a direct allocation.

• Non-urbanized Area Formula Assistance Program (Section 5311) – This program provides capital and operating assistance for rural and small urban transit systems. 15 percent of these funds are allocated to intercity bus projects. A portion of the funding is also allocated to support rural transit planning. The remaining funds are combined with the rural portion (30 percent) of Section 5310 funds and allocated among regional and small urban transit systems based on their relative performance in the prior year.

• Rural Transit Assistance Program (Section 5311(b)(3)) – This funding is used for statewide training events and to support transit funding fellowships for regional and small urban transit staff or planners.

State funds available for transit include the following:

• State Transit Assistance (STA) – All public transit systems are eligible for funding. These funds can be used by the public transit system for operating, capital, or planning expenses related to the provision of open-to-the-public passenger transportation. The majority of the funds received in a fiscal year are distributed to individual transit systems on the basis of a formula using performance statistics from the most recent available year.

• STA Special Projects – Each year up to $300,000 of the total STA funds are set aside to fund “special projects”. These can include grants to individual systems to support transit services that re developed in conjunction with human service agencies. Grants can also be awarded to statewide projects that improve public transit in Iowa through such means as technical training for transit system or planning agency personnel, statewide marketing campaigns, etc. This funding is also used to mirror the Rural Transit Assistance Program to support individual transit training fellowships for large urban transit staff or planners.

4

• STA Coordination Special Projects – Funds provide assistance with startup of new services that have been identified as needs by health, employment, or human services agencies participating in the passenger transportation planning process.

• Public Transit Infrastructure Grant Fund – This is a state program that can fund transit facility projects that involve new construction, reconstruction, or remodeling. To qualify, projects must include a vertical component.

The RTA has three pools of federal-aid to program towards projects: STBG/STBG-Swap, Iowa’s TAP, and STBG-TAP-Flex. STBG-TAP-Flex funds are distributed to MPOs and RPAs and can be utilized for Iowa’s TAP-eligible projects and/or STBG/STBG-Swap-eligible projects. Annual funding target averages are $2,446,000 for STBG/STBG-Swap, $135,000 for Iowa’s TAP, and $103,000 for STBG-TAP-Flex. At the March 20, 2013 meeting, the Policy Board voted to allocate enough Flex funding to Iowa’s TAP to keep its annual funding target equal to what the Enhancement target had been in prior federal transportation legislation, or $184,000.

The Funding by Year and Program tables in this document show the total costs and anticipated federal-aid for all programs. Projects anticipated receiving funding from any of the mentioned federal-aid programs in FY 2020-2023 is listed in the Program of Projects. This document also includes a FY 2019 Project Status Report as of July 18, 2019.

FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND FISCAL CONSTRAINT

The Iowa DOT Office of Program Management provides the RTA with estimated STBG/STBG-Swap, Iowa’s TAP, and STBG-TAP-Flex funding targets for each of the four years in the TIP. The total amount of federal-aid that is allocated to projects cannot exceed the amount expected to be available. Also, project costs must be estimated in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. The RTA expects project sponsors to ensure project costs are in YOE dollars. Each year, projects that were previously in the TIP but delayed are reevaluated to ensure the estimated cost is still accurate and adjusted if necessary. For projects in future fiscal years, local sponsors are expected to use a four percent per year inflation rate. The Iowa DOT is responsible for its project costs and uses a four and a half percent per year inflation rate. Fiscal constraint for STBG/STBG-Swap and Iowa’s TAP is demonstrated in the Funding by Year and Program section of this document. Fiscal constraint for all other programs is evaluated at a statewide level by the Iowa DOT.

Each year prior to development of the Iowa DOT’s Five-year Program and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, both state and federal revenue forecasts are completed to determine the amount of funding available for programming. These forecasts are a critical component in the development of the Five-year Program and as such are reviewed by the Iowa Transportation Commission. The primary sources of state funding to the Iowa DOT are the Primary Road Fund and TIME-21. These state funds are used for the operation, maintenance, and construction of the Primary Road System. The amount of funding available for operations and maintenance are determined by legislative appropriations. Additional funding is set aside for statewide activities including engineering costs. The remaining funding is available for right-of-way and construction activities associated with the highway program.

Along with the state funds, the highway program utilizes a portion of the federal funds that are allocated to the state. A federal funding forecast is prepared each year based on the latest apportionment information available. This forecast includes the various federal programs and identifies which funds are allocated to the Iowa DOT for programming and which funds are directed to locals through the MO and RPA planning process, Highway Bridge Program, and various grant programs. Implementation of a federal-aid swap will increase the amount of federal funds that are utilized by the Iowa DOT.

5

The Iowa DOT’s Five-year Program can be found at www.iowadot.gov/program_management/five-year-program.

REDEMONSTRATION OF FISCAL CONSTRAINT

The Iowa DOT is required to ensure that federal-aid funds programmed in the STIP are fiscally constrained not only at the time of approval but also throughout the fiscal year. As part of the draft STIP process, the Iowa DOT adjusts its federal-aid participation to utilize all remaining federal funds after local project sponsors have programmed their federal-aid projects. Based on this approach, at the time of approval by FHWA and FTA, no additional federal-aid funds are available to be added to the STIP and maintain fiscal constraint of the document.

In order to maintain fiscal constraint of the STIP document, any revision to a federal-aid project in the STIP that adds a new federal-aid project or increases a project’s STIP limit will require that a corresponding change be made to another programming entry. The federal-aid funds moved to make way for the additional programmed federal-aid need to be of the same federal-aid program type. For example, if additional STBG funds are going to be added to a project, the corresponding reduction in federal-aid on another project must be STBG funds. This requirement pertains to both administrative modifications and amendments to the STIP and therefore also applies when moving projects up from the out years of the STIP.

The requirement to ensure fiscal constraint does not apply to accomplishment year projects that have been already programmed at their full federal-aid participation rate (typically 80 percent) and whose programming entry is being adjusted based on an updated cost estimate. That would include all projects that have been programmed with an 80/20 or 90/10 split. For those projects, it is anticipated that any increases in cost estimates will be balanced out by projects whose authorized federal-aid is less than what was programmed.

PROJECT SELECTION

Each jurisdiction with candidate project(s) must submit them prior to the Technical Committee meeting. At the meeting, existing and candidate STBG/STBG-Swap projects are reviewed, and the Technical Committee selects projects to include in the draft TIP based on the quality of projects and fiscal constraint. Roadway projects must be consistent with those identified in the most recent Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Jurisdictional need is considered, as well as the availability of alternative funding for such projects. General agreement is reached after the group has balanced the overall costs to the estimated transportation benefits of proposed projects.

The RTA does not currently rank or score STBG/STBG-Swap projects. However, the RTA did adopt Funding Equity Guidelines in 2006 which outline selection criteria and funding ranges for each jurisdiction (reference Appendix 1). The allocation factors described in the document are used to ensure long-term funding equity but do not entitle jurisdictions to specific funding levels.

The RTA Policy Board adopted funding requirements for the consideration of STBG/STBG-Swap funding at the May 17, 2018 meeting. Applicants were notified of the project selection process when projects were solicited in December, 2018. City bridges to receive funding are selected by the Iowa DOT. City bridge projects are selected based on a priority points ranking system at the statewide level. County bridge projects are selected by each individual county based on its methodology. The methods used by counties in the region for selecting bridge projects are described in Appendix 2.

6

http://www.iowadot.gov/program_management/five-year-program

Candidate projects for STBG/STBG-Swap funding must meet the following requirements:

• For construction projects, a minimum total project cost of $100,000 ($80,000 federal) with a minimum 20 percent match and federal-aid participation level of 40 percent.

• Eligible activities include: - Major new construction, reconstruction, or resurfacing of roadways or bridges - Regional planning and planning studies - Transit capital purchases - Projects eligible under the RTA’s Iowa’s Transportation Alternatives Program - ADA-compliant ramp reconstruction in conjunction with an adjacent road reconstruction or resurfacing project - Minor utility adjustments and incidental utility work necessary to complete a roadway project

• Ineligible activities include: - Design engineering and construction related services - Sidewalk maintenance

• Roadway projects must be on federally classified routes that are Minor Collectors or above, or a Farm-to-Market route. • Applications must include a completed STBG Project Submittal Form. Incomplete applications will not be considered for funding. • Project sponsors will participate in the Iowa DOT’s federal-aid swap for all eligible road and bridge projects.

Submitted STBG/STBG-Swap applications are reviewed at a Technical Committee meeting. As part of the application process, project sponsors are asked to provide information about their project, and each sponsor is given the chance to present their project at the meeting. The Technical Committee then prioritizes projects for funding by considering project benefits, jurisdictional need, and the time and funding constraints of the program. The Technical Committee can utilize the Funding Equity Guidelines, as needed, to help develop the draft program.

The FAST Act requires that projects funded through TAP be selected using a competitive project selection process. The goal is to increase transparency, openness, objectivity, and to improve overall project quality. The RTA uses a project ranking process, and the RTA Policy Board adopted funding requirements at the December 21, 2017 meeting. Applicants were notified of the project ranking and selection process when projects were solicited in December, 2018. Each jurisdiction with candidate project(s) is required to submit them prior to the TAP Committee meeting.

Candidate projects for Iowa’s TAP funding must meet the following requirements:

• Commitment of local sponsor by resolution to maintain the project for a minimum of 20 years. • If awarded, projects must be let within two years of October 1 of the original program year. • For construction projects, a minimum total project cost of $100,000 ($80,000 federal) with 20 percent match and minimum federal-

aid participation level of 40 percent.

7

• Eligible project sponsors include: - Cities - Counties - County Conservation Boards - School Districts (co-applicant only)

• Eligible activities include: - Pedestrian and bicycle facilities and amenities, including safe routes to school infrastructure - Recreational trails program activities under 23 U.S.C. 206 of Title 23 - Planning studies related to either of the above activities - Safe routes to school non-infrastructure programs (i.e. pedestrian safety education, bicycle rodeos, safe routes to school

coordinator) • Ineligible activities include:

- Design engineering and construction related services - Sidewalk maintenance

• Funding within the four-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) may be advanced to earlier years of the TIP. • Applications must include a completed Iowa’s TAP Project Criteria Form and Iowa’s TAP Application Form along with all required

attachments. Incomplete applications will not be considered for funding. • Projects submitted for consideration will be reviewed by RTA staff for program eligibility prior to the project ranking process.

Iowa’s TAP projects are ranked and recommended for funding based on the following criteria:

• Project Readiness - Ability to meet federal requirements - Ability to meet programming timelines - Status of matching funds - Amount of matching funds - Public acceptance of project - Right-of-way constraints

• Relationship to Transportation System - Ability to minimize conflict points - Connectivity to existing facilities - Enhancement to existing transportation system - Relationship to complete streets - Inclusion in state, regional, and local plans

• Associated benefits - Environmental and social impacts - Regional economic development impact - Regional tourism impact - Sustainability elements of project

• Other - Cost in relation to public benefit - Involvement of or benefit to multiple jurisdictions - Predicted usage relative to population

8

Project sponsors are required to identify which criteria their project relates to and provide a brief sentence describing the relationship within the Iowa’s TAP Project Criteria Form.

Each project sponsor is given a chance to present their project at the TAP Committee meeting. Projects are ranked using a comparison process. All projects are directly compared to each other, with a priority being chosen from each pair. Each time a project is chosen as the priority, it receives a point. Once all projects are compared, points are totaled, which enables the creation of a ranked priority list for funding.

Projects are ranked by entities present at the TAP Committee meeting. Entities shall vote on rankings as follows:

• Each county shall have up to two votes from different departments (engineering, conservation, economic development, etc.) • Each city shall have one vote • Silos & Smokestacks shall have one vote

INRCOG and the Iowa DOT do not vote but can provide staff recommendations if requested.

Projects are recommended for funding based upon the rankings and funding constraints. The TAP Committee has the discretion to determine the share of federal funds for each recommended project. The draft Iowa’s TAP is then recommended to the RTA Technical Committee for inclusion in the draft TIP.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND TITLE VI

The RTA strives to engage the public in the transportation planning and programming process. The process to be used during TIP development is outlined in the RTA’s Public Participation Plan (PPP), adopted on September 21, 2017. An excerpt from the PPP is included later in this document. An article was published in the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier on June 17, 2019, highlighting the TIP process and upcoming public meetings. Public open houses were held on June 25 and 27, 2019. Documentation and public comments received are included in the Public Input Documentation section of this document.

In accordance with INRCOG’s Title VI Plan, the RTA also takes specific steps to reach minority and low-income populations and people with disabilities. This includes advertising public input meetings by sending flyers to churches and other religious centers, multi-cultural centers and agencies, and all area media, as well as posting flyers on area buses. Flyers include a short message in Spanish, which is the area’s most predominant language other than English. INRCOG has contracted with Language Link to provide telephone translation services if necessary. Information on gender, disability status race, and ethnicity is also collected at public input meetings.

The Maps of Projects included in this document show current TIP projects along with the percent of the population that is non-white, speaks English less than “very well”, or is below the poverty level. The RTA uses these maps to help ensure that no population is disproportionately affected by proposed projects.

9

TIP REVISIONS

The TIP is a dynamic document and may need to be revised in between annual updates. There are two types of revisions—administrative modifications and amendments:

• Minor revisions may be made to the TIP as necessary throughout the year. These are considered administrative modifications, and may be made by RTA staff without public review and comment or re-demonstration of fiscal constraint. RTA staff will discuss administrative modifications with the Policy Board and Technical Committee, but formal action will not be required.

• Major revisions may also be made to the TIP as necessary throughout the year. These are considered amendments and require public review and comment and Policy Board approval. A public hearing will be held at a regularly scheduled RTA Policy Board meeting to consider and approve TIP amendments. A notice of the public hearing will be published no more than twenty (20) calendar days and no less than four (4) calendar days before the date of the hearing.

The following table outlines the differences between administrative modifications and amendments:

Administrative Modification Amendment

Project Cost

Federal aid changed by less than 30 percent and total federal aid increases less than $2,000,000

Federal aid changed by more than 30 percent or total federal aid increases by more than $2,000,000

Schedule Changes

Changes in schedule for projects in the first four years of the TIP

Adding or deleting a project from the first four years of the TIP

Funding Sources

Changing amounts of existing funding sources Adding other federal funding sources to a project

Scope Changes

Moving funding between existing states of project scope (i.e. design to construction)

Changing project termini, number of lanes, or significant changes in project type

The Iowa DOT does not make a distinction between amendments and administrative modifications for projects using swapped Primary Road Funds. To take advantage of this increased flexibility, the RTA uses a specific revision process for swapped projects. All changes to swapped projects are considered administrative modifications and may be made by RTA staff without public review and comment or re-demonstration of fiscal constraint. RTA staff will discuss administrative modifications to swapped projects with the Policy Board and Technical Committee, but formal action will not be required.

PROGRAM OF PROJECTS

The following pages contain the projects for the FY 2020-2023 TIP.

10

RPA-07 2020 - 2023 Transportation Improvement Program

TPMS Project # Length Pgm'd Amounts in 1000's Sponsor Location FHWA# Appr. Status Funding Program S:T:R FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Total STIP#Surface Transportation Block Grant Program - Bridge ProgramBuchanan - 10 21110 [NBIS: 81130] BROS-C010()--8J-10 0 MI Project Total 180 0 0 0 180 TA

Buchanan CRD Scott Blvd: 302nd St. N 0.2 MI 81130 Federal Aid 160 0 0 0 160Final TIP Approved Bridge Replacement 13:T87N:R08W Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --

Swap 0 0 0 0 0

Swap BridgeBlack Hawk - 07 34764 [NBIS: 73910] BROS-SWAP-C007(xxx)--SE-07 DOT Letting:

02/18/2020 0 MI Project Total 380 0 0 0 380

Black Hawk CRD On King Road, Over Rock Creek, from E Main RoadNorth 0.5 Miles, WLINE S33 T87N R11W

73910 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0

Final TIP Approved Bridge Replacement 33:87:11 Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --Swap 304 0 0 0 304

36531 [NBIS: 76260] BROS-SWAP-C007(XXXX)--SE-07 0 Project Total 0 700 0 0 700Black Hawk CRD On E GRESHAM RD, Over CRANE CREEK, from

V49 Raymond Road East 0.25 Miles, S10 T90 R12 76260 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0


29322 [NBIS: 74420] BROS-SWAP-C007(XXX)--SE-07 0.1 MI Project Total 0 350 0 0 350Black Hawk CRD On Kimball Ave: from US 20 south 9 miles, then West

0.5 Miles to Kimball Ave, WLINE S27 T87 R13 74420 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0


38925 [NBIS: 76330] BRS-SWAP-C007(XXX)--FF-07 0 Project Total 0 0 500 0 500Black Hawk CRD On Cedar Wapsi Rd (C57), Over Tributary to Crane

Creek, on NLINE S17 TT90N RR12W 76330 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0

Final TIP Approved Bridge Replacement 17:T90N:R12W Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --Swap 0 0 400 0 400

37463 [NBIS: 74350] BRS-SWAP-C007(XXX)--FF-07 0 Project Total 0 0 0 525 525Black Hawk CRD On Eagle Road (D46), Over MILLER CREEK, on

NLINE S24 T87 R13 74350 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0


Bremer - 09 35011 [NBIS: 080630] BROS-SWAP-C009(80)--SE-09 DOT Letting:

10/15/2019 0 Project Total 500 0 0 0 500

Bremer CRD On 130TH ST, Over HORTON CREEK, S23 T93 R14 080630 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0Final TIP Approved Bridge Replacement 23:93:14 Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --

Swap 500 0 0 0 50011

TPMS Project # Length Pgm'd Amounts in 1000's Sponsor Location FHWA# Appr. Status Funding Program S:T:R FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Total STIP#Bremer - 09 (continued) 33908 [NBIS: 011190] BROS-SWAP-7490(601)--SE-09 DOT Letting:

12/17/2019 0 Project Total 773 0 0 0 773

Sumner In the city of Sumner, On 3rd St, Over Drainage, from NDivision St west 0.1 miles to bridge

011190 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0

Final TIP Approved Bridge Replacement -- Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --Swap 618 0 0 0 618

8508 [NBIS: 79020] BROS-SWAP-C009(53)--SE-09 DOT Letting:06/15/2021

0 MI Project Total 0 500 0 0 500

Bremer CRD On KILLDEER AVE, Over QUARTER SECTIONRUN, S35 T91 R13

79020 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0


9951 [NBIS: 79500] BROS-SWAP-C009(L-7-109)--SE-09 0 MI Project Total 0 0 500 0 500Bremer CRD On MIDWAY AVE, Over CRANE CREEK, S7 T92

R12 79500 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0


36218 [NBIS: 78760] BROS-SWAP-C009(L-11-1-21)--SE-09 0 Project Total 0 0 0 500 500Bremer CRD On 270th Street, Over Crane Creek 78760 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0Final TIP Approved Bridge Replacement -- Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --

Swap 0 0 0 500 50038994 [NBIS: 78750] BRS-SWAP-C009()--FF-09 0 Project Total 0 0 0 500 500Bremer CRD On C50, Over CRANE CREEK, S21 TT91N RR12W 78750 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0Final TIP Approved Bridge Replacement 21:T91N:R12W Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --

Swap 0 0 0 500 500Buchanan - 10 30927 [NBIS: 81320] BROS-SWAP-C010(111)--SE-10 DOT Letting:

02/18/2020 0 Project Total 220 0 0 0 220

Buchanan CRD On On 280 St. , Over creek, from Lucas Ave. west 0.5Miles to Bridge, on NLINE S2 T87 R09

81320 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0


34610 [NBIS: 83090] BRS-SWAP-C010()--FF-10 0 Project Total 0 2,280 0 0 2,280Buchanan CRD On V62, Over WAPSIPINICON RIVER, from D-16

north 1.5 Miles to Bridge83090 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0

Final TIP Approved Bridge Replacement -- Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --Swap 0 2,280 0 0 2,280

37121 [NBIS: 84080] BROS-SWAP-C010()--SE-10 0 Project Total 0 0 0 990 990Buchanan CRD On 150TH ST, Over OTTER CR, from Indiana Ave.

west 0.1 Miles to Bridge, S32 T90 R09 84080 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0


12

TPMS Project # Length Pgm'd Amounts in 1000's Sponsor Location FHWA# Appr. Status Funding Program S:T:R FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Total STIP#Butler - 12 32690 [NBIS: 88930] BROS-SWAP-C012(E11N10)--FE-12 0 Project Total 400 0 0 0 400Butler CRD On C25 (170th Streeet), Over SMALL STREAM, from

Evergreen Ave East 0.4 Miles to Bridge Location88930 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0


30990 [NBIS: 86590] BRS-SWAP-C012(P5T20)--FF-12 0 Project Total 0 0 1,250 0 1,250Butler CRD On T55, Over OVERFLOW W FORK CEDAR RIV,

from 280th Street South 1800 Feet to Bridge86590 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0

Final TIP Approved Bridge Replacement -- Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --Swap 0 0 1,250 0 1,250

37170 [NBIS: 87820] BHS-SWAP-C012(K08W10)--FC-12 0 Project Total 0 0 0 500 500Butler CRD On T25, Over WEST FORK CEDAR RIVER, from

245th Street North 0.7 Miles to Bridge Location, S8 T91R17

87820 Federal Aid0 0 0 0 0

Final TIP Approved Bridge Rehabilitation 8:91:17 Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --Swap 0 0 0 500 500

Chickasaw - 19 32697 [NBIS: 111290] BROS-SWAP-C019(91)--SE-19 DOT Letting:

01/22/2020 0 Project Total 600 0 0 0 600

Chickasaw CRD On 190TH ST, Over PLUM CREEK, on NLINE S2 T95R12

111290 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0


35086 [NBIS: 135] BRS-SWAP-0127(601)--FF-19 DOT Letting: 01/22/2020 0 Project Total 700 0 0 0 700Chickasaw CRD On WEBER ST (V18, 110th St), Over ELK CREEK, on

NLINE S30 T97 R13 135 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0


38757 [NBIS: 110100] BRS-SWAP-2750(603)--FF-19 Canceled 0 Project Total 0 600 0 0 600Chickasaw CRD On V48, Roanoke Avenue, Over PLUM CREEK, at

S1/4 S7 TT94N RR11W 110100 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0

Final TIP Approved Bridge Replacement 7:T94N:R11W Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --Swap 0 480 0 0 480

36522 [NBIS: 112600] BROS-SWAP-C019()--FE-19 0 Project Total 0 0 600 0 600Chickasaw CRD On KENWOOD AVE, Over EAST WAPSIPINICON

RIVER, on WLINE S24 T96 R13 112600 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0


13

TPMS Project # Length Pgm'd Amounts in 1000's Sponsor Location FHWA# Appr. Status Funding Program S:T:R FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Total STIP#Chickasaw - 19 (continued) 37708 [NBIS: 111390] BROS-SWAP-C019()--SE-19 0 Project Total 0 0 0 700 700Chickasaw CRD On ODESSA AVE, Over EAST WAPSIPINICON

RIVER, at S1/4 S9 T95 R12 111390 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0


Grundy - 38 28184 [NBIS: 163761] BROS-SWAP-C038(M10)--SE-38 0 Project Total 325 0 0 0 325Grundy CRD On 300TH ST, Over WOLF CREEK, from IA 14 west

1.5 Miles to an existing structure, at N1/4 S15 T86 R18 163761 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0


32326 [NBIS: 165851] BROS-SWAP-C038(B21)--SE-38 0 MI Project Total 396 0 0 0 396Grundy CRD On R Ave, Over tributary of Black Hawk Creek, NW

S36 T89 R16 165851 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0


19177 [NBIS: 165901] BROS-SWAP-C038(C5)--SE-38 0 MI Project Total 0 300 0 0 300Grundy CRD I Ave: From 120th St north 1/8mi to an un-named stream 165901 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0Final TIP Approved Bridge Replacement 9:89:17 Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --

Swap 0 240 0 0 24032354 [NBIS: 164370] BROS-SWAP-C038(K8)--FE-38 0 Project Total 0 400 0 0 400Grundy CRD On T37, Over Minnehaha Creek, W1/4 S13 T87 R17 164370 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0Final TIP Approved Bridge Replacement 13:87:17 Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --

Swap 0 340 0 0 34034854 [NBIS: 164320] BROS-SWAP-C038(K02)--SE-38 0 Project Total 0 0 507 0 507Grundy CRD On 225TH ST, Over BRANCH BLACKHAWK

CREEK, from L Ave west 0.4 Miles to K-2, at Ctr S3T87 R17

164320 Federal Aid0 0 0 0 0


37695 [NBIS: 164990] BROS-SWAP-C038(F04)--SE-38 0 Project Total 0 0 820 0 820Grundy CRD On 160th St from I Ave west 0.1 mi. to the South Fork

of Beaver Creek, near the NE Sec.6-88-17164990 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0


14

TPMS Project # Length Pgm'd Amounts in 1000's Sponsor Location FHWA# Appr. Status Funding Program S:T:R FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Total STIP#Grundy - 38 (continued) 37697 [NBIS: 166260] BROS-SWAP-C038(D10)--SE-38 0 Project Total 0 0 262 0 262Grundy CRD On 120TH St from A Ave east 0.3mi. to the Middle fork

of Beaver Creek, near the N1/4 Sec.18-89-18166260 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0


37703 [NBIS: 165250] BROS-SWAP-C038(E01)--SE-38 0 Project Total 0 0 0 720 720Grundy CRD On 160TH St from H Ave east 0.3mi to the South Fork

of Beaver Creek, near the N1/4 S1 T88 R18 165250 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0


36650 [NBIS: 164701] BROS-SWAP-C038(H11)--SE-38 0 Project Total 0 0 0 507 507Grundy CRD On T AVE, Over BRANCH BLACK HAWK CREEK,

S18 T88 R15 164701 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0


Swap STBGBlack Hawk - 07 36175 STBG-SWAP-C007(XXX)--FG-07 4.017 MI Project Total 0 1,800 0 0 1,800Black Hawk CRD On Dunkerton Road (C66), from Hwy 63 East 4 Miles

to Elk Run Road (V43)-- Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0

Final TIP Approved Pave,Pavement Rehab 32:90:12 Regional 0 800 0 0 800 --Swap 0 800 0 0 800

34783 STBG-SWAP-C007(XXX)--FG-07 4.1 MI Project Total 0 0 1,400 0 1,400Black Hawk CRD On D46 Eagle Road, from V37 Dysart Road East to

Hwy 218-- Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0

Final TIP Approved Pavement Rehab -- Regional 0 0 800 0 800 --Swap 0 0 800 0 800

Bremer - 09 35033 STBG-SWAP-8190()--SG-09 2 MI Project Total 800 0 0 0 800Waverly In the city of Waverly, On 20th St NW/5th Ave

NW/35th St NW, from IA-3 north and west 2.0 Miles toT-77/NCL

-- Federal Aid0 0 0 0 0

Final TIP Approved Pavement Widening,Pavement Rehab -- Regional 360 0 0 0 360 --Swap 360 0 0 0 360

36216 STBG-SWAP-8190()--SG-09 0.3 MI Project Total 0 900 0 0 900Waverly In the city of Waverly, On 1st St NW, from W Bremer

Ave (IA-3) north 0.3 Miles to 5th Ave NW-- Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0


15

TPMS Project # Length Pgm'd Amounts in 1000's Sponsor Location FHWA# Appr. Status Funding Program S:T:R FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Total STIP#Bremer - 09 (continued) 37826 STBG-SWAP-6345()--SG-09 0.22 MI Project Total 0 0 1,061 0 1,061Readlyn In the city of Readlyn, On Main St, from 4th St south

0.22 Miles to 1st St-- Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0


35024 STBG-SWAP-C009(L-10-121)--FG-09 3.514 MI Project Total 0 0 0 900 900Bremer CRD On C50, from East Corporate Limits of Janesville East

3.5 Miles to V25-- Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0


39131 [NBIS: 15490] STBG-SWAP-3792()--SG-09 0.2 MI Project Total 0 0 0 3,114 3,114Janesville In the city of Janesville, On 7th St, Over Cedar River,

from Main St West 0.1 Miles to Bridge15490 Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0

Final TIP Approved Bridge Replacement,Outside Services Engineering -- Regional 0 0 0 500 500 --Swap 0 0 0 500 500

Buchanan - 10 34405 STBG-SWAP-C010()--FG-10 4.7 MI Project Total 2,100 0 0 0 2,100Buchanan CRD On D22, from west corporate line of Winthrop east 4.7

Miles to IA 187, S1 T88 R08 -- Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0

Final TIP Approved Pavement Rehab/Widen 1:88:08 Regional 1,440 0 0 0 1,440 --Swap 1,907 0 0 0 1,907

39130 STBG-SWAP-3665()--SG-10 1.3 MI Project Total 0 567 0 0 567Independence In the city of Independence, On Bland Blvd, 2nd St SW,

4th Ave NW, 3rd St NW, 3rd St SE, 12th St NE, 8thAve NE

-- Federal Aid0 0 0 0 0


Butler - 12 32463 STBG-SWAP-3102()--SG-12 0.63 MI Project Total 1,186 0 0 0 1,186Greene In the city of Greene, On North 1st St, from NCL

southeast 0.63 miles to East Traer St.-- Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0


34435 STBG-SWAP-C012(C55)--FG-12 7.6 MI Project Total 0 1,750 0 0 1,750Butler CRD On C55, from HWY 14 east 7.6 Miles to T55, S9 T90

R16 -- Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0

Final TIP Approved Pavement Rehab 9:90:16 Regional 0 800 0 0 800 --Swap 0 800 0 0 800

16

TPMS Project # Length Pgm'd Amounts in 1000's Sponsor Location FHWA# Appr. Status Funding Program S:T:R FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Total STIP#Butler - 12 (continued) 34434 STBG-SWAP-C012(T47 North)--FG-12 8.045 MI Project Total 0 0 1,975 0 1,975Butler CRD On T47, from C55 north 8.0 Miles to Hwy 3 -- Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0Final TIP Approved Pavement Rehab 27:91:16 Regional 0 0 1,000 0 1,000 --

Swap 0 0 1,000 0 1,000Chickasaw - 19 32698 STBG-SWAP-C019()--FG-19 3.015 Project Total 0 1,200 0 0 1,200Chickasaw CRD On B44 (210th Street), from V56 East 3 Miles to

Fayette County line.-- Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0

Final TIP Approved Pave -- Regional 0 500 0 0 500 --Swap 0 500 0 0 500

39132 STBG-SWAP-5375()--SG-19 0.35 MI Project Total 0 0 0 1,301 1,301Nashua In the city of Nashua, On Greeley St, from Panama St

South 0.35 Miles to 0.1 mi S of Livingston St-- Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0

Final TIP Approved Grade and Pave,Outside Services Engineering -- Regional 0 0 0 500 500 --Swap 0 0 0 500 500

Grundy - 38 35038 STBG-SWAP-C038(T19)--FG-38 3.418 Project Total 970 0 0 0 970Grundy CRD On T19, from 1/4mi. north of US20 north 3.5 Miles to

D17, S2 T88 R18 -- Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0

Final TIP Approved Pavement Rehab 2:88:18 Regional 700 0 0 0 700 --Swap 700 0 0 0 700

National Highway Performance ProgramBremer - 09 39177 BRF--3()--38-9 0 MI Project Total 0 0 0 6,000 6,000 TA

DOT-D02-RPA07 IA 3: CEDAR RIVER 3.7 MI E OF US 218 INWAVERLY

-- Federal Aid 0 0 0 4,800 4,800


Buchanan - 10 39182 NHSX--20()--3H-10 0 MI Project Total 6,500 0 0 0 6,500 TA

DOT-D06-RPA07 US 20: BLACK HAWK CO TO IOWA AVE ININDEPENDENCE

-- Federal Aid 5,200 0 0 0 5,200


Butler - 12 37848 BRF--3()--38-12 0 MI Project Total 4,237 0 0 0 4,237 TA

DOT-D02-RPA07 IA 3: WEST FORK CEDAR RIVER 0.8 MI E OF CORD T16

-- Federal Aid 3,390 0 0 0 3,390


17

TPMS Project # Length Pgm'd Amounts in 1000's

Sponsor Location FHWA#Appr. Status Funding Program S:T:R FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Total STIP#Surface Transportation Block Grant ProgramRegion Wide - 00 1403 RGPL--PA07(RTP)--ST-00 0 MI Project Total 50 50 50 50 200 TA

RPA-07 INRTA - RPA 7: RPA 7 PLANNING &PROGRAMMING

-- Federal Aid 40 40 40 40 160

Final TIP Approved Trans Planning -- Regional 40 40 40 40 160 --Swap 0 0 0 0 0

Buchanan - 10 20948 STP-U-PA07()--70-10 32.771 MI Project Total 0 0 1,000 0 1,000 TA

RPA-07 IA 150: From I-380 to Oelwein -- Federal Aid 0 0 100 0 100Final TIP Approved Planning Study 0:0:0 Regional 0 0 100 0 100 --

Swap 0 0 0 0 0

STBG - Iowa’s Transportation Alternatives ProgramBlack Hawk - 07 35003 TAP-R-C007(154)--8T-07 DOT Letting: 11/19/2019 0 MI Project Total 694 0 0 0 694 TA

Black Hawk CCB On Cedar Valley Nature Trail, replace Bridge L3 overWolf Creek

-- Federal Aid 386 0 0 0 386

Final TIP Approved Ped/Bike Structures -- Regional 386 0 0 0 386 --Swap 0 0 0 0 0

DOT NOTE: Project eligible for FHWA TAP funding Bremer - 09 39128 TAP-U-8190()--8I-09 0.5 MI Project Total 0 235 0 0 235 TA

Waverly In the city of Waverly, On 10th Ave SW, from HeritageWay east 0.5 Miles to 16th St SW

-- Federal Aid 0 184 0 0 184

Final TIP Approved Ped/Bike Grade & Pave -- Regional 0 184 0 0 184 --Swap 0 0 0 0 0

Recreational Trails ProgramBlack Hawk - 07 38568 NRT-C007(155)--9G-07 DOT Letting: 10/15/2019 0 Project Total 162 0 0 0 162 TA

Black Hawk CCB On Cedar Valley Nature Trail, from 0.7 miles west ofKing Rd, west 0.25 miles to project termini

-- Federal Aid 129 0 0 0 129

Final TIP Approved Ped/Bike Paving -- Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --Swap 0 0 0 0 0

Competitive Highway Bridge ProgramBremer - 09 16345 [NBIS: 78880] BROS-CHBP-C009(L110-113)--NC-09 Local Letting:

10/08/2020 0 MI Project Total 0 200 0 0 200 TA

Bremer CRD On GRAND AVE, Over STREAM, S18 T91 R13 78880 Federal Aid 0 150 0 0 150Final TIP Approved Culvert Replacement 18:91:13 Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --

Swap 0 50 0 0 5037638 [NBIS: 80640] BRS-CHBP-C009(L-1--23)--GB-09 Local Letting:

10/08/2020 0 Project Total 0 500 0 0 500 TA

Bremer CRD On V14, Over HORTON CREEK, on WLINE S23 T93R14

80640 Federal Aid 0 375 0 0 375


18

TPMS Project # Length Pgm'd Amounts in 1000's Sponsor Location FHWA# Appr. Status Funding Program S:T:R FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Total STIP#Chickasaw - 19 37534 [NBIS: 110390] BRS-CHBP-C019(105)--GB-19 DOT Letting:

01/20/2021 0 Project Total 0 500 0 0 500 TA

Chickasaw CRD On V48 (Quinlan Ave), Over EAST FORKWAPSIPINICON, S1/4 S13 T94 R12

110390 Federal Aid 0 375 0 0 375


Grundy - 38 32353 [NBIS: 164770] BRS-CHBP-C038(H17)--GB-38 DOT Letting:

01/22/2020 0 Project Total 352 0 0 0 352 TA

Grundy CRD On D35, Over tributary of Black Hawk Creek, Ctr S34T88 R15

164770 Federal Aid 350 0 0 0 350


Primary Road FundsBremer - 09 39181 NHSN--218()--2R-9 0 MI Project Total 686 0 0 0 686 TA

DOT-D02-RPA07 US 218: 150TH ST TO IA 188 INTERCHANGE -- Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0Final TIP Approved Grading,Right of Way -- Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --

Swap 0 0 0 0 0

39178 STPN--93()--2J-9 0 MI Project Total 804 0 0 0 804 TA

DOT-D02-RPA07 IA 93: HOWARD ST IN SUMNER TO FAYETTECO (STATE SHARE)

-- Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0


39179 NHSN--116()--2R-9 0 MI Project Total 590 0 0 0 590 TA

DOT-D02-RPA07 IA 116: 10TH AVE SW TO 3RD AVE SW INWAVERLY (STATE SHARE)


Final TIP Approved Grade and Pave -- Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --Swap 0 0 0 0 0

39180 NHSN--218()--2R-9 0 MI Project Total 0 0 0 3,100 3,100 TA

DOT-D02-RPA07 US 218: CEDAR RIVER IN JANESVILLE TO IA 116IN WAVERLY


Final TIP Approved Right of Way -- Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --Swap 0 0 0 0 0

Buchanan - 10 38181 NHSN--20()--2R-10 0 MI Project Total 135 0 0 0 135 TA

DOT-D06-RPA07 US 20: BLACK HAWK CO TO DELAWARE CO -- Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0Final TIP Approved Culvert Replacement -- Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --

Swap 0 0 0 0 0

19


Sponsor Location FHWA#Appr. Status Funding Program S:T:R FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Total STIP#Buchanan - 10 (continued) 38182 NHSN--150()--2R-10 0 MI Project Total 1,074 0 0 0 1,074 TA

DOT-D06-RPA07 IA 150: BENTON CO TO FAYETTE CO -- Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0Final TIP Approved Culvert Replacement -- Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --

Swap 0 0 0 0 0


DOT-D06-RPA07 IA 281: FAIRBANK TO IA 150 -- Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0Final TIP Approved Culvert Replacement -- Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --

Swap 0 0 0 0 0

39183 NHSN--150()--2R-10 0 MI Project Total 0 3,800 0 0 3,800 TA

DOT-D06-RPA07 IA 150: 8TH ST SE TO CN RR IN INDEPENDENCE(STATE SHARE)


Final TIP Approved Grade and Pave -- Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --Swap 0 0 0 0 0

Butler - 12 37889 BRFN--57()--39-12 0 MI Project Total 0 0 950 0 950 TA

DOT-D02-RPA07 IA 57: GRAN CREEK 0.5 MI E OF CO RD T19 -- Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0Final TIP Approved Bridge Replacement -- Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --

Swap 0 0 0 0 0

37890 BRFN--188()--39-12 0 MI Project Total 0 0 220 0 220 TA

DOT-D02-RPA07 IA 188: STREAM 1.9 MI N OF CO RD C33 -- Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0Final TIP Approved Bridge Deck Overlay -- Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --

Swap 0 0 0 0 0


DOT-D02-RPA07 IA 57: DITCH 2.1 MI E OF E JCT IA 14 -- Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0Final TIP Approved Bridge Replacement -- Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --

Swap 0 0 0 0 0

Chickasaw - 19 37905 BRFN--18()--39-19 0 MI Project Total 372 0 0 0 372 TA

DOT-D02-RPA07 US 18: BRANCH LITTLE WAPSIPINICON RIVER1.9 MI W OF US 63


Final TIP Approved Bridge Deck Overlay -- Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --Swap 0 0 0 0 0


DOT-D02-RPA07 US 63: SPRING CREEK 2.7 MI S OF CO RD B17 -- Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0Final TIP Approved Bridge Deck Overlay -- Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --

Swap 0 0 0 0 0

20


Sponsor Location FHWA#Appr. Status Funding Program S:T:R FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Total STIP#Grundy - 38 37942 BRFN--175()--39-38 0 MI Project Total 333 0 0 0 333 TA

DOT-D01-RPA07 IA 175: MINNEHAHA CREEK 0.3 MI E OF CO RDT45




DOT-D01-RPA07 IA 175: MOSQUITO CREEK 1.2 MI W OF CO RDT65



39243 NHSN--14()--2R-38 0 MI Project Total 155 0 0 0 155 TA

DOT-D01-RPA07 IA 14: 0.1 MI S OF N JCT CO RD D35 -- Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0Final TIP Approved Culvert Replacement,Right of Way -- Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --

Swap 0 0 0 0 0


DOT-D01-RPA07 IA 175: E OF CO RD T53 (VAR LOC) -- Federal Aid 0 0 0 0 0Final TIP Approved Culvert Replacement,Right of Way -- Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --

Swap 0 0 0 0 0

Highway Safety Improvement ProgramGrundy - 38 38890 HSIP-S-C038(T55D19 T29D55)--6C-38 0 Project Total 39 0 0 0 39 TA

Grundy CRD Intersections of T55/D19 & T29/D55 -- Federal Aid 35 0 0 0 35Final TIP Approved Traffic Signs 3:T86N:R17W Regional 0 0 0 0 0 --

Swap 0 0 0 0 0

21

WATERLOO

CEDARFALLS

HUDSON

EVANSDALE

LA PORTE CITY

RAYMOND

DUNKERTON

ELK RUN HEIGHTS

JANESVILLE

GILBERTVILLE

JESUP

C-57

D-46

V-49

V-51

V-37

C-66

D-35

D-48

D-19

D-38

D-35

D-38

V-43

D-16

C-57

D-20

D-22

V-62

C-55

V-25

V-14

D-52

V-27

D-18

D-17

C-67

D46Pavement Rehab

E Gresham RoadBridge Replacement

Kimball AveBridge Replacement

7th StBridge

Replacement

King RoadBridge

Replacement

Cedar Valley Nature TrailBridge Replacement

Cedar Valley Nature TrailPed / Bike Paving

D46Bridge

Replacement

C57Bridge Replacement

C66Pave, Pavement Rehab

Iowa Northland RegionalTransportation Authority

FY 2020 - 2023 TIP ProjectsBlack Hawk County

0 2 41Miles

Aerial Photograph: 2017

This map does not represent a survey, no liability is assumed forthe accuracy of the data delineated herein, either expressed or implied by INRCOG.

© (June 2019) Please call 319-235-0311 to obtain permission for use.

Project Year

MPO StudyArea Boundary

FY 2023FY 2022FY 2021FY 2020

22

WAVERLY

SUMNERTRIPOLI

DENVER

FREDERIKA

READLYN

PLAINFIELD

JANESVILLE

V-56

V-21

C-33

V-14

V-43

V-49V-48

C-50

V-25

V-62

V-21

C-50 Killdeer Ave.Bridge Replacement

3rd St.Bridge

Replacement

US 218Right of Way

IA 3Bridge Replacement

130th St.Bridge Replacement

C-50Bridge Replacement

7th StBridge Replacement

Grand AveCulvert Replacement

20th St/5th Ave/35th StPavement Rehab/Widen

V-14Bridge Replacement

Midway Ave.Bridge Replacement

IA 116Grade and Pave

270th StBridge Replacement

US 218Grading andRight of Way

Main StreetPavement Rehab

10th Ave SWPed / Bike

Grade and Pave

IA 93Pavement

Rehab

C-50Pavement Rehab

1st Street NWPavement Rehab

IowaNorthlandRegional

TransportationAuthority

FY 2020 - 2023TIP Projects

BremerCounty

0 1 2 3 4Miles


Project Year

FY 2020-2023FY 2023FY 2022FY 2021FY 2020



23

JESUP

INDEPENDENCE

HAZLETON

QUASQUETON

AURORA

ROWLEY

WINTHROP

FAIRBANK

BRANDON

STANLEY

LAMONT

W-45

D-47

V-71

V-62

W-35

W-35

V-65

D-16

W-33

W-13

C-64

D-48V-71

C-64

D-47

W-45

D-47

W-45

C-57

W-33

D-16

C-57C-57

D-22

D-47

C-57

Scott BlvdBridge Replacements

V62Bridge Replacement


280th StreetBridge Replacement

IA 150Planning StudyR.O.W.

IA 150Grade

and Pave

IA 281Culvert Replacement

US 20Culvert Replacement

D22Pavement Rehab and Widening

IA 150Planning Study

R.O.W.

2nd St SW,4th Ave NW,3rd St NW,3rd St SE,12th St NEPavement Rehab

US 20Pavement Rehab

Culvert Replacement

Bland BlvdPavement Rehab



Buchanan County

0 2 41Miles




Project Year

FY 2021FY 2020

FY 2022FY 2023FY 2020-2022

24

ALLISONDUMONT

GREENE

SHELLROCK

AREDALE

BRISTOWCLARKSVILLE

PARKERSBURGAPLINGTONNEWHARTFORD

C-51

C-13

T-24

C-55

C-45

T-16

T-64

T-55

C-33

T-25

T-55

T-55

C-33

T-55

C-13

T-16

T-16

T-24

C-55

T-19

C-23 T-47T-47

T-63

C-67

T-43

C-65

T-63

T-23

T-25 T-33

C-51

C-51

IA 57Bridge

Replacement


IA 3Bridge Replacement

T55Bridge Replacement

IA 188Bridge Deck Overlay

T25Bridge Rehabilitation

IA 57BridgeReplacement

North 1st St. -- Pavement Rehab

C55Pavement Rehab

T47Pavement Rehab



Butler County

0 2 41Miles




Project Year

FY 2023FY 2022FY 2021FY 2020

25

NEW HAMPTON

NASHUA

IONIA

BASSETTLAWLER

FREDERICKSBURG

ALTA VISTA

NORTH WASHINGTON

PROTIVIN

V-56

T-76

V-18

V-56

V-18

V-48

B-22

V-14

B-57

T-76

B-54

B-22

V-56

B-28

V-48V-46

T-76

B-44

V-14

V-17

B-33

T-76 B-57

V-21

US 63BridgeDeck OverlayWeber Street

BridgeReplacement

US 18Bridge

Deck Overlay

190th StreetBridge

Replacement


Kenwood AvenueBridge

Replacement

Odessa AveBridge

Replacement

Greeley StreetGrade Pave OutsideServices Engineering


B44Pave



Chickasaw County

0 2 41Miles




Project Year

FY 2023FY 2022FY 2021FY 2020

26

DIKE

REINBECK

CONRAD

GRUNDY CENTER

WELLSBURG

STOUT

HOLLAND

BEAMAN

MORRISON

T-4

5

T-3

7

D-17

D-35

T-5

5

T-6

5

T-5

3

D-17

T-6

5

T-2

9

D-35

D-25

T-1

9

D-65

T-4

7

T-1

3

T-6

9

D-55

D-17

D-35

S-7

5

T-5

5

D-67

T-4

7D-53

T-2

5

T-1

9

T-5

5

D-19

I Ave.Bridge

Replacement

IA 175BridgeDeck

Overlay

T29 and D55Traffic Signs

T19Pavement

Rehab

R Ave.BridgeReplacement

D35Bridge

Replacement

IA 175Culvert Replacement

Right of Way

H Ave.Bridge

Replacement

IA 175BridgeDeck

Overlay

T37Bridge

Replacement


120th St.Bridge

Replacement

160th St.Bridge

Replacement

160th St.BridgeReplacement

T Ave.Bridge Replacement

IA 14Culvert ReplacementRight of Way

T55 and D19Traffic Signs

300th StreetBridge

Replacement

D67Pavement Rehab



Grundy County

0 2 41

Miles


Project Year

FY 2023

FY 2022

FY 2021

FY 2020



27

WaterlooCedarFalls

Waverly

Hudson

Allison

Evansdale

Jesup

Sumner

Independence

Dike

Dumont

La PorteCity

Tripoli

Reinbeck

Raymond

Denver

Conrad

Greene

ShellRock

GrundyCenter

Aredale

Bristow Clarksville

Wellsburg

ParkersburgHazleton

Quasqueton

Dunkerton

Aurora

Elk Run Heights

Aplington

Stout

Rowley

Winthrop

Fairbank

Frederika

Brandon

NewHartford

Readlyn

Plainfield

Janesville

HollandGilbertville

Stanley

Beaman

Morrison

Lamont

New Hampton

Fredericksburg

Lawler

Alta Vista

NorthWashington

Bassett

Ionia

Nashua

Protivin

CHICKASAW

BUTLER

GRUNDY

BREMER

BUCHANAN

BLACK HAWK

Iowa N o r t h la nd RegionalIowa N o r t h la nd RegionalTr an s p or t a t ion AuthorityTr an s p or t a t ion Authority

FY 2019- 2 02 2 T IP P rojects andFY 2019- 2 02 2 T IP P rojects andPerc ent Non - Wh i te PopulationPerc ent Non - Wh i te Population

by Cens us B l ock Groupby Cens us B l ock Group

Data Source: 2010 Census

LEGEND

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Miles

2010 Census Block GroupsPercent Non-White Population

2.00% or Less

2.01%-5.00%

5.01%-10.00%

10.01%-25.00%

25.01%-50.00%

50.01% - 91.00%

TIP Project

City Boundary



28

WaterlooCedarFalls

Waverly

Hudson

Allison

Evansdale

Jesup

Sumner

IndependenceDike

Dumont

La PorteCity

Tripoli

Reinbeck

Raymond

Denver

Conrad

Greene

ShellRock

GrundyCenter

Aredale

Bristow Clarksville

Wellsburg

ParkersburgHazleton

Quasqueton

Dunkerton

Aurora

Elk Run Heights

Aplington

Stout

Rowley

Winthrop

Fairbank

Frederika

Brandon

NewHartford

Readlyn

Plainfield

Janesville

Holland Gilbertville

Stanley

Beaman

Morrison

Lamont

New Hampton

Fredericksburg

Lawler

Alta Vista

NorthWashington

Bassett

Ionia

Nashua

Protivin

CHICKASAW

BUTLER

GRUNDY

BREMER

BUCHANANBLACK HAWK


FY 20 20 - 20 23 T I P P rojects andFY 20 20 - 20 23 T I P P rojects andPerc ent o f Po p u l at i on t hat Speaks EnglishPerc ent o f Po p u l at i on t hat Speaks English

le ss t ha n "Ver y We l l " by Census Tractle ss t ha n "Ver y We l l " by Census Tract

Data Source: 2012-2017American Community Survey Estimates

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Miles

LEGEND

LEGENDCensus Tract Speak English less than "Very Well"

1.00% or Less

1.01% - 2.50%

2.51% - 5.00%

5.01% - 10.00%

10.00% - 16.00%

TIP Project

City Boundary



29

WaterlooCedarFalls

Waverly

Hudson

Allison

Evansdale

Jesup

Sumner

IndependenceDike

Dumont

La PorteCity

Tripoli

Reinbeck

Raymond

Denver

Conrad

Greene

ShellRock

GrundyCenter

Aredale

Bristow Clarksville

Wellsburg

ParkersburgHazleton

Quasqueton

Dunkerton

Aurora

Elk Run Heights

Aplington

Stout

Rowley

Winthrop

Fairbank

Frederika

Brandon

NewHartford

Readlyn

Plainfield

Janesville

Holland Gilbertville

Stanley

Beaman

Morrison

Lamont

New Hampton

Fredericksburg

Lawler

Alta Vista

NorthWashington

Bassett

Ionia

Nashua

Protivin

CHICKASAW

BUTLER

GRUNDY

BREMER

BUCHANANBLACK HAWK


FY 20 20 - 20 23 T I P P rojects andFY 20 20 - 20 23 T I P P rojects andPerc ent o f Po p u l at i on Whose Income in thePerc ent o f Po p u l at i on Whose Income in the

Pa s t 1 2 M ont hs wa s Be low t he Poverty LevelPa s t 1 2 M ont hs wa s Be low t he Poverty Level

Data Source: 2012-2017 American Community Survey Estimates

LEGEND

Census Tract Percent of Population Below Poverty Level

5.00% or Less

5.01% - 10.00%

10.01% - 15.00%

15.01% - 20.00%

20.01% - 30.00%

30.01% - 66.00%

TIP Project

City Boundary

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Miles



30

RPA-07 (21 Projects)Fund Sponsor Transit #

Expense ClassProject Type

Desc / Add Ons / Addnl Info FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23

STA, 5311 Region 7 / INRTC 1377 General Operations/Maintenance/Administration Total 1,207,181 1,242,068 1,278,191 1,315,601Operations FA 358,156 376,063 394,867 414,610Misc SA 332,025 338,665 345,438 352,347

5339 Region 7 / INRTC 1842 Light Duty Bus (176" wb) Total 95,600 Capital VSS FA 81,260 Replacement Unit #: 0902 SA




5311 Region 7 / INRTC 3500 RPA Transportation Planning Total 39,000 39,000 39,000 39,000Planning FA 31,200 31,200 31,200 31,200Misc SA

5339 Region 7 / INRTC 5286 New Project Total 95,600 Capital VSS FA 81,260 Replacement Unit #: 0901 SA









31

RPA-07 (21 Projects)Fund Sponsor Transit #

Expense ClassProject Type

Desc / Add Ons / Addnl Info FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23

5339 Region 7 / INRTC 5290 New Project Total 99,450Capital VSS FA 84,532Replacement Unit #: 0910 SA

5339 Region 7 / INRTC 3860 Light Duty Bus (176" wb) Total 99,450Capital VSS FA 84,532Replacement Unit #: 1401 SA

5339 Region 7 / INRTC 3861 Light Duty Bus (176" wb) Total 99,450Capital VSS FA 84,532Replacement Unit #: 1402 SA

5307 Region 7 / INRTC 5282 New Project Total 94,500Capital Low Floor FA 80,325Replacement Unit #: 1601 SA

5307 Region 7 / INRTC 5283 New Project Total 94,500Capital Low Floor FA 80,325Replacement Unit #: 1801 SA

5307 Region 7 / INRTC 5284 New Project Total 94,500Capital FA 80,325Replacement Unit #: 1802 SA

32

Transit Justification FY 2020 Regional Transit Commission Program of Projects General Operations, Maintenance, and Planning Maintaining current day-to-day operations RPA Transportation Planning Pursuant to the RTA Transportation Planning Work Program Replace Five (5) LD Buses, including Surveillance Cameras Replacement vehicles per FTA useful life thresholds; buses will use diesel fuel and be ADA accessible

33

Program Total Cost Federal Aid RTA FA SWAP Total Cost Federal Aid RTA FA SWAP Total Cost Federal Aid RTA FA SWAP Total Cost Federal Aid RTA FA SWAPIowa DOTPrimary Road Fund 5,267,000$ -$ -$ -$ 3,998,000$ -$ -$ -$ 1,170,000$ -$ -$ -$ 3,700,000$ -$ -$ -$

FHWA ProgramsNHPP 10,737,000$ 8,590,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,000,000$ 4,800,000$ -$ -$ CHBP 352,000$ 350,000$ -$ -$ 1,200,000$ 900,000$ -$ 175,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ HSIP 39,000$ 35,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ SWAP-HSIP 467,000$ -$ -$ 467,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ STBG-HBP 201,000$ 177,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ SWAP-HBP 4,294,000$ -$ -$ 3,779,000$ 5,130,000$ -$ -$ 4,680,000$ 4,439,000$ -$ -$ 4,016,000$ 4,942,000$ -$ -$ 4,592,000$ STBG 50,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ -$ 50,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ -$ 1,050,000$ 140,000$ 140,000$ -$ 50,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ -$ SWAP-STBG 4,589,000$ -$ -$ 3,100,000$ 6,217,000$ -$ -$ 2,845,000$ 4,436,000$ -$ -$ 2,331,000$ 7,240,000$ -$ -$ 2,419,000$ FRT 162,000$ 129,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Iowa's TAP 694,000$ 386,000$ 386,000$ -$ 235,000$ 184,000$ 184,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Subtotal 26,852,000$ 9,707,000$ 426,000$ 7,346,000$ 16,830,000$ 1,124,000$ 224,000$ 7,700,000$ 11,095,000$ 140,000$ 140,000$ 6,347,000$ 21,932,000$ 4,840,000$ 40,000$ 7,011,000$

FTA ProgramsFTA Section 5311 1,207,181$ 358,156$ -$ -$ 1,242,068$ 376,063$ -$ -$ 1,278,191$ 394,867$ -$ -$ 1,315,601$ 414,610$ -$ -$ FTA Section 5311 - Planning 39,000$ 31,200$ -$ -$ 39,000$ 31,200$ -$ -$ 39,000$ 31,200$ -$ -$ 39,000$ 31,200$ -$ -$ FTA Section 5339 478,000$ 406,300$ -$ -$ 585,000$ 497,250$ -$ -$ 497,250$ 422,660$ -$ -$ -$ -$ FTA Section 5307 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 283,500$ 240,975$ -$ -$

Subtotal 1,724,181$ 795,656$ -$ -$ 1,866,068$ 904,513$ -$ -$ 1,814,441$ 848,727$ -$ -$ 1,638,101$ 686,785$ -$ -$

Total Cost and Funding 28,576,181$ 10,502,656$ 426,000$ 7,346,000$ 18,696,068$ 2,028,513$ 224,000$ 7,700,000$ 12,909,441$ 988,727$ 140,000$ 6,347,000$ 23,570,101$ 5,526,785$ 40,000$ 7,011,000$

RTA STBG-SWAP Fiscal ConstraintYear FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023Unobligated balance (carryover) $986,986 $447,539 $18,539 $3,539STBG-SWAP Target $2,551,385 $2,407,000 $2,407,000 $2,407,000STBG-TAP-Flex Target $101,009 $101,000 $101,000 $101,000 Subtotal $3,639,380 $2,955,539 $2,526,539 $2,511,539Transfer to Iowa's TAP $51,841 $52,000 $52,000 $52,000Allocation $3,140,000 $2,885,000 $2,471,000 $2,459,000Balance $447,539 $18,539 $3,539 $539

RTA Iowa's TAP BalanceYear FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023Unobligated balance (carryover) -$165,142 -$367,142 -$367,142 -$183,142Iowa's TAP Target $132,159 $132,000 $132,000 $132,000STBG-TAP-Flex Target $51,841 $52,000 $52,000 $52,000 Subtotal $18,858 -$183,142 -$183,142 $858Allocation $386,000 $184,000 $0 $0Balance -$367,142 -$367,142 -$183,142 $858

Funding by Year and ProgramFY 2020-2023

FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

34

FY 2019 Project Status ReportAs of July 18, 2019

Program County/City Route/Project Termini Total Cost Federal Aid StatusSurface Transportation Block Grant Program

Black Hawk C57 (W Cedar Wapsi Rd) U.S. 218/IA 27 east 5.3 miles to U.S. 63; pavement rehab $1,650,000 $600,000 Project awardedDenver State St U.S. 63 north 0.6 miles to Hoover St; pavement rehab $929,000 $450,000 Project awardedIndependence 1st St E Wapsi River to 3rd Ave NE; 5th Ave NE to 0.3 miles east of 9th Ave SE $1,109,000 $600,000 Project awarded

Primary Road FundIowa DOT IA 3 Over Ditch, 0.2 miles west of U.S. 218; bridge deck overlay $401,000 $0 Project awardedIowa DOT IA 150 1st St in Independence; grade and pave $500,000 $0 Project awardedIowa DOT IA 14 Over IANR RR, 1.0 miles north of C13; bridge deck overlay $420,000 $0 Project awarded

Highway Safety Improvement ProgramBuchanan D22 Frost Ave east 3.01 miles to Golf Course Blvd; paved shoulders $800,000 $665,000 Project awardedIowa DOT IA 150 North of Enterprise Dr to 8th St SE in Independence; pavement rehab $340,000 $287,000 Project awardedIowa DOT IA 346 Amhearst Blvd to Chestnut St in Nashua; pavement markings $45,000 $41,000 Project awarded

National Highway Performance ProgramIowa DOT IA 3 IA 188 to 20th St in Waverly (State Share); pavement rehab $5,335,000 $4,268,000 Project awardedIowa DOT IA 175 Over Stream, 0.4 miles west of T53; replacement $967,000 $774,000 Project awarded

Iowa's Transportation Alternatives ProgramIndependence 1st St West Trail 20th Ave SW east 0.75 miles to the Liberty Trail $269,000 $145,000 Project awardedNew Hampton TRIBE Trail Mission Ave southwest 0.75 miles to Linn Ave $472,000 $224,000 6/18/19 letting

TransitRTC General Operations N/A $1,850,899 $358,156 OngoingRTC Planning N/A $39,000 $31,200 OngoingRTC Replace Three LD Buses N/A $285,500 $242,675 1 bus awarded; two moved to FY 2020

Surface Transportation Block Grant Program - Highway Bridge ProgramBlack Hawk C57 (W Cedar Wapsi Rd) Over Cedar River, from U.S 218 & C57 west 2.5 miles; replacement $7,300,000 $2,500,000 Project awardedBremer Ivory Ave Over Quarter Section Run, S28 T91 R12; replacement $500,000 $500,000 Project awardedBremer 310th St Over Two Mile Creek, S2 T93 R14; replacement $300,000 $300,000 Project awardedBuchanan D16 Isaac Ave 0.1W; replacement $480,000 $480,000 Project awardedBuchanan W35 Over Unnamed Creek, from 310th St north 0.2 miles; replacement $540,000 $540,000 Project awardedBuchanan W35 Over Sand Creek, from 310th St north 0.2 miles; replacement $780,000 $780,000 Project awardedBuchanan 280th St Over Crane Creek, from Lucas Ave west 0.5 miles; replacement $225,000 $225,000 10/15/19 lettingButler Pearl Ave Over Alry Creek, from 180th St south 0.3 miles; replacement $450,000 $450,000 5/21/19 lettingChickasaw 310th St Over Dry Run; replacement $300,000 $300,000 Project awardedGrundy 300th St Over Wolf Creek, from IA 14 west 1.5 miles; replacement $163,000 $126,000 Moved to FY 2020Alta Vista W Weber St Over Elk Creek, from White St west 0.15 miles; replacement $700,000 $560,000 Moved to FY 2020Sumner 3rd St Over Drainage, from N Division St west 0.1 miles; replacement $773,000 $618,000 Moved to FY 2020

35

Iowa Northland Regional Transportation Authority

Operations 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023Cities $409,906 $426,302 $443,354 $461,089 $479,532 $498,713

Black Hawk County $1,062,287 $1,104,778 $1,148,970 $1,194,928 $1,242,726 $1,292,435Bremer County $466,822 $485,495 $504,915 $525,111 $546,116 $567,960

Buchanan County $624,090 $649,054 $675,016 $702,016 $730,097 $759,301Butler County $630,014 $655,215 $681,423 $708,680 $737,027 $766,508

Chickasaw County $456,831 $475,104 $494,108 $513,873 $534,428 $555,805Grundy County $544,611 $566,395 $589,051 $612,613 $637,118 $662,603

Total Operations $4,194,561 $4,362,343 $4,536,837 $4,718,311 $4,907,043 $5,103,325

Maintenance 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023Cities $897,401 $933,297 $970,629 $1,009,454 $1,049,832 $1,091,826

Black Hawk County $1,451,399 $1,509,455 $1,569,833 $1,632,626 $1,697,932 $1,765,849Bremer County $811,485 $843,944 $877,702 $912,810 $949,323 $987,296

Buchanan County $1,136,346 $1,181,800 $1,229,072 $1,278,235 $1,329,364 $1,382,539Butler County $1,125,962 $1,171,000 $1,217,840 $1,266,554 $1,317,216 $1,369,905 Data Source:

Chickasaw County $1,032,526 $1,073,827 $1,116,780 $1,161,451 $1,207,909 $1,256,226 Iowa DOT Office of

Grundy County $1,078,478 $1,121,617 $1,166,482 $1,213,141 $1,261,667 $1,312,133 Program Management

Total Maintenance $7,533,597 $7,834,941 $8,148,339 $8,474,272 $8,813,243 $9,165,773 2018 Data

Total Operations & Maintenance $11,728,158 $12,197,284 $12,685,176 $13,192,583 $13,720,286 $14,269,097 2018 Data is actual,

2019-2023 are forecasted.

Operation and maintenance costs

are forecasted with a 4% annual

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 increase, and revenues with a 2%

Farm to Market $6,280,848 $6,406,465 $6,534,594 $6,665,286 $6,798,592 $6,934,564 annual increase, which is consistent

Secondary Road Fund $38,361,838 $39,129,075 $39,911,656 $40,709,889 $41,524,087 $42,354,569 with the Black Hawk County

City Street Fund $19,284,000 $19,669,680 $20,063,074 $20,464,335 $20,873,622 $21,291,094 Metropolitan Area, which is

Total Revenues $63,926,686 $65,205,220 $66,509,324 $67,839,511 $69,196,301 $70,580,227 located within the Iowa Northland Region.

Forecasted Operations and Maintenance Costs on Federal Aid System

Forecasted Non-Federal Aid Revenues

36

Public Input Documentation

• Public Participation Plan Excerpt • Article from Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier, 06/17/2019 • Public Input Meeting Flyer • Images of information available on INRCOG’s website • Attendance record from public input meetings on June 25 and June 27, 2019 • Public Hearing Notice – Proof of Publication

37

2017 Public Participation Plan Excerpt (TIP Development)

The TIP identifies all transportation projects in the region that are anticipated to receive federal transportation funding within the next four fiscal years. The TIP is a short-range component that is complementary to the Long-range Transportation Plan. The TIP is updated annually with adoption by the RTA Policy Board in July of each year and incorporated into the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) by the Iowa DOT.

The following actions will be undertaken annually to ensure full public participation:

1. Draft TIP a. The draft TIP will be developed by the RTA Technical Committee with input from the Transportation Alternatives Set-aside

Program (TAP) Committee. RTA meetings are open to the public. b. The draft document will be available for public review on the INRCOG website, at the INRCOG Center, and upon request.

2. Notices and Public Meetings a. Following development of the draft TIP, at least two open houses will be held, with at least one located in an area identified as

being a low-income or minority neighborhood. Information may be presented by INRCOG staff, the Iowa DOT, and member cities and counties.

b. The TIP content and public open houses will be advertised through local media sources. Notices may be posted at governmental offices, public libraries, post offices, on transit buses, at the INRCOG Center, and on the INRCOG website. Notices may also be sent to organizations serving traditionally underserved populations such as minority, low-income, and the elderly. TIP draft copies will be available at the INRCOG Center, on the INRCOG website, and upon request.

c. Any person with sight, reading, or language barriers should contact the RTA at least 48 hours prior to an open house and arrangements will be made for accommodation.

3. Public Comment Period a. Written and oral comments will be solicited during open houses. At least a 15-day comment period will follow the last open

house, during which comments will be accepted via letter, email, phone, or in person. b. A public hearing will be held at a regularly scheduled RTA meeting following the open houses to summarize public comments

and responses. A notice of the public hearing will be published no more than twenty days and no less than four days before the date of the hearing.

38

4. Final TIP a. Following the public hearing, the RTA will adopt the final TIP, including a summary of comments and responses. b. The final TIP will be submitted to the Iowa DOT, the FHWA, and the FTA. c. The final TIP will be available on the INRCOG website, at the INRCOG Center, and upon request. d. The public participation process associated with the TIP will be evaluated and updated as needed.

5. Revisions a. The TIP is a dynamic document and may need to be revised in between annual updates. There are two types of revisions –

administrative modifications and amendments. i. Minor revisions may be made to the TIP as necessary throughout the year. These are considered administrative

modifications and may be made by INRCOG staff without public review and comment. INRCOG staff may discuss administrative modifications with the Policy Board and Technical Committee, but formal action will not be required.

ii. Major revisions may also be made to the TIP as necessary throughout the year. These are considered amendments and require public review and comment and Policy Board approval. A public hearing will be held at a regularly scheduled RTA meeting to consider and approve TIP amendments. A notice of the public hearing will be published no more than twenty days and no less than four days before the date of the hearing.

b. Any revision to the TIP that adds a new federal aid project or increases a project’s federal aid limit will require that a corresponding change be made to another programming entry to ensure the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) remains fiscally constrained. This requirement pertains to both administrative modifications and amendments.

39

Article from Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier, 6/17/19

40

Public input meeting flyer that was

distributed throughout the MPO

and Region

41

INRCOG’s homepage during draft TIP availability

42

Email distributed to INRCOG newsletter mailing list

43

Black Hawk County Metropolitan Area Transportation Policy Board &

Iowa Northland Regional Transportation Authority

Draft FY 2020-2023 Transportation Improvement Program Open Houses Attendance Record June 25, 2019 4:00 – 5:30 p.m. Cedar Falls City Hall, Cedar Falls

Attendees Bob Eich Public Jean Eich Public Fred Miehe Public Craig Blanchard Public Linda Holm Public David Sturch City of Cedar Falls Kyle Durant INRCOG Codie Leseman INRCOG

June 27, 2019 12:00 – 1:30 p.m. INRCOG Center, Waterloo

Attendees Rosella Thompson Public Darci Krouse Public Pat Morrissey Public Curt Young Public Robbin Sorge Public Kyle Durant INRCOG Codie Leseman INRCOG

44

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

Notice is hereby given that the Iowa Northland Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) will hold a public hearing at the INRCOG Center, 229 E. Park Ave., Waterloo, Iowa, on Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 1:00 p.m.

The purpose of this hearing is to solicit public comment on the draft Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for fiscal years 2020-2023. This document affects federal transportation programming for persons in Black Hawk, Bremer, Buchanan, Butler, Chickasaw, and Grundy Counties, excluding the Waterloo-Cedar Falls metropolitan area. All transportation projects receiving federal funding must be listed in the TIP, including highway, bridge, non-motorized, transit, and planning projects. Copies of the draft TIP are available at the INRCOG office, or can be viewed at www.inrcog.org.

It is your privilege to attend this hearing to express your views concerning the draft Transportation Improvement Program, or you may submit your written comments to the Iowa Northland Regional Council of Governments, 229 E. Park Ave., Waterloo, Iowa 50703, through the time and date of the hearing as specified above. Following the hearing, the RTA will consider all oral and written comments before adopting the final TIP and submitting it to the Iowa Department of Transportation.

For additional information, you may contact Kyle Durant at (319) 235-0311 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. weekdays or at [email protected].

Published in: The Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier – July 3, 2019 The Bremer County Independent – July 2, 2019 The Independence Bulletin Journal – July 3, 2019 The Butler County Tribune – July 4, 2019 The New Hampton Tribune/Nashua Reporter – July 2, 2019 The Grundy Register – July 11, 2019

45

Appendix 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: FUNDING EQUITY GUIDELINES APPROVED JULY 19, 2006

In response to a growing need to enhance and clarify the current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) development process, the Iowa Northland Regional Transportation Authority (INRTA) has begun the process of establishing new funding guidelines. Be aware that this is not a change in the criteria that are used to identify priority projects. These guidelines will simply serve as a secondary assurance of long-term funding equity between the participating jurisdictions, while the following criteria will be the primary tool used to identify priority projects consistent with the goals and objectives of the long range transportation plan. To be considered eligible for STP funding in the selection year, projects must meet all of the following criteria:

• Must be major new construction or reconstruction • Can include major resurfacing projects • Must be federally functionally classified • Must have design engineering completed and submitted to the Iowa DOT

Several criteria will then be used to establish priorities for funding consideration. These will be established by the technical committee for policy board adoption and will include:

• System classification on the most recent plan network • Service to traffic (volumes for program year and forecast year) • Capacity improvement levels and reduction of system deficiencies • Safety improvements based on SAVER and CMAT data with a focus on implementing the Statewide Comprehensive Safety Plan • Multi-jurisdiction projects • Projects serving multi-jurisdiction traffic • Projects that sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the region

Based on past discussions involving both the Technical Committee and Policy Board, it was determined that the group would like to see some sort of allocation factors developed for each jurisdiction. Again, these factors would be used to ensure long-term funding equity, and would not entitle a jurisdiction to a specific level of funding on a year-to-year basis. To begin the process of developing these allocation factors, staff first looked at historical funding allocations by jurisdiction. The funding period that was examined included fiscal years 1995 through 2010. The jurisdictions that were examined included each of the six counties, Independence, Waverly, the remaining cities (non-small urbans), Iowa DOT, and INRTA.

46

Appendix 1

The initial breakdown of historical funding allocation was as follows:

Six counties: 70 percent of allocation All cities: 17 percent of allocation Iowa DOT/INRTA: 13 percent of allocation

It was determined that this initial breakdown of funding allocation would be a logical framework for developing allocation ranges for each jurisdiction. The specific allocation ranges were then derived as follows: Counties The 70.0 percent allocation to the six counties was then distributed based on accepted Secondary Road Fund Distribution Advisory Committee (SRFDAC) factors, which were adjusted for application to the 6-county INRTA region. This approach was generally accepted by county representatives. The historical allocations and staff-recommended allocation ranges for each county are as follows (rounded to nearest half percent):

County: Historical allocation: Allocation Range: Black Hawk 15.0 14.0 - 15.0 Bremer 8.5 8.5 - 9.5 Buchanan 12.5 12.0 - 13.0 Butler 13.5 12.0 - 13.0 Chickasaw 9.5 9.0 - 10.0 Grundy 11.0 11.5 - 12.5

SUBTOTAL ~70.0 Cities The 17.0 percent allocation to the cities was then distributed based on the three groupings mentioned above: Independence, Waverly, and the remaining cities (non-small urbans). It was determined that the allocation ranges for the small urbans should be addressed separately from the remaining cities. As a starting point, a portion of the 17 percent allocation was reserved for the non-small urbans. This allocation factor was based strictly on the non-small urbans’ historical allocation of 4.0 percent.

47

Appendix 1

The small urbans, Independence and Waverly, were then addressed. After establishing a recommended allocation factor of 4.0 for the non-small urbans, 13.0 percent remained to be distributed between Independence and Waverly. In doing so, three issues were examined for each city: total federal aid-eligible mileage, current population, and historical population growth.

City: FA mileage: Population: Population growth (1950-2004): Independence 14.6 6,014 23.6% Waverly 23.0 8,968 77.4%

When examining the total FA-eligible mileage and population between the two small urbans, both are distributed at approximately a 40:60 or two-to-three ratio between Independence and Waverly. This ratio, coupled with each city’s relative population growth, justified initial allocation factors based closely on a 40:60 ratio. The historical allocations and staff-recommended allocation ranges for Independence, Waverly, and the remaining cities are as follows (rounded to nearest half percent):

City: Historical allocation: Allocation Range: Independence 7.0 5.0 - 6.0 Waverly 6.0 7.0 - 8.0 Non-small urbans 4.0 3.5 - 4.5

SUBTOTAL ~17.0 Iowa DOT/INRTA The 13.0 percent allocation to the Iowa DOT and INRTA was then distributed based simply on historical allocations. Staff determined that future allocations would not diverge drastically from the historical allocations made since fiscal year 1995. The historical allocations and staff recommended allocation ranges for the Iowa DOT and INRTA are as follows (rounded to nearest half percent):

Agency: Historical allocation: Allocation Range: Iowa DOT 11.0 10.5 - 11.5 INRTA 2.0 1.5 - 2.5

SUBTOTAL ~13.0

48

Appendix 1

Summary of Staff Recommendation The staff-recommended allocation ranges are summarized below. Again, these guidelines will simply serve as a secondary assurance of long-term funding equity between the participating jurisdictions, while the previously mentioned criteria will be the primary tool used to identify priority projects.

Jurisdiction: Historical allocation: Allocation Range: Black Hawk 15.0 14.0 - 15.0 Bremer 8.5 8.5 - 9.5 Buchanan 12.5 12.0 - 13.0 Butler 13.5 12.0 - 13.0 Chickasaw 9.5 9.0 - 10.0 Grundy 11.0 11.5 - 12.5 Independence 7.0 5.0 - 6.0 Waverly 6.0 7.0 - 8.0 Non-small urbans 4.0 3.5 - 4.5 Iowa DOT 11.0 10.5 - 11.5 INRTA 2.0 1.5 - 2.5

TOTAL 100.0 Other Issues Transit It should be noted that the recommended allocation ranges outlined in this document will not preclude the Regional Transit Commission (RTC) from applying for STP funding through the INRTA’s TIP development process. As the RTC has not done so in the past, an allocation range was not apportioned for transit. However, if in any given fiscal year the RTC successfully competes for STP funding, these guidelines can be applied to the remaining STP target not allocated to the RTC. Retroactivity It is also the recommendation of staff that the allocation ranges not be applied retroactively where they differ from historical allocations. It is the staff’s opinion that applying these ranges retroactively may unnecessarily penalize those jurisdictions that were more aggressive in seeking funding and reward those jurisdictions that were less aggressive. The allocations that were made in past years were based on Technical Committee recommendation and Policy Board action, and should not be the basis for adjusting future allocations under a new system of funding guidelines. Staff recommends that any new guidelines not be used earlier than fiscal year 2010, as the TIP is currently fully programmed through fiscal year 2009. *

49

Appendix 1

Federal Aid Percentage Also, based on past discussions with representatives of both the Technical Committee and Policy Board, it is apparent that there is a desire to fund projects as close to the 80-percent level as possible. This would allow the INRTA to maximize federal aid on a project-by-project basis. Staff is also researching other non-federal funding sources traditionally available to the participating jurisdictions. Adoption It is the recommendation of staff that the allocation ranges be examined by the Technical Committee, and that they present the Policy Board with their recommendation. Action by the Policy Board will then be necessary to establish the allocation ranges as accepted funding guidelines. The ranges would then be open to future adjustment, which would be made effective through action by the Policy Board. *The Technical Committee recommended application of these guidelines beginning with the first fiscal year of the current program, or fiscal year 2007. A cumulative allocation will be figured from this fiscal year through the latest fiscal year for each new TIP cycle. On July 19, 2006 the Technical Committee unanimously recommended these Funding Equity Guidelines for approval by the Policy Board. On July 19, 2006 the Policy Board unanimously approved these Funding Equity Guidelines as recommended by the Technical Committee.

50

Appendix 2

Methodology for Selecting Highway Bridge Program (HBP) Candidate Projects in the Iowa Northland Region, by County

Black Hawk County

1. Review the list of our Structurally Deficient bridges 2. Rank those bridges by Sufficiency Rating (low to high) 3. Review the list with consideration for traffic volume and alternate available routes 4. Consider whether an embargo has been or can be established to delay replacement; and consider the impact an embargo has on the

public (proximity to alternate route/s) 5. Determine whether it is feasible for local forces to repair, reinforce or replace any structures (county forces will only replace structures

less than 40 feet long). If so, remove those candidates from consideration for the year. 6. If: A bridge’s condition is poor enough to warrant closure, and the bridge is large and therefore costly to replace, and the bridge is on a very low volume road and there is an alternate route Then: Hold a public meeting to propose REMOVAL of the structure**

7. Consider bridge conditions (poor decks, poor sub-structure elements, etc.) that may be remedied by, and qualify for, FA rehabilitation (BHS or BHOS funds)

8. Review the list with consideration for businesses or services impacted (emergency routes, quarries, grain elevators, landfill, county parks, county care facility, etc.)

9. Rank the remaining candidates to determine the best candidates for available HBP funds to: - Repair / reinforce by outside contractor or - Replace by outside contractor 10. Program the number of bridges that funds allow

**Outcomes of 3 proposals to remove bridges in the last 20 years have been: In 1992 a large bridge (over $500,000 replacement cost) was eliminated where an alternate crossing existed 1 mile downstream In 2004 a bridge ($350,000 replacement cost) was removed and 1/2 mile of new road was built for $100,000 which created an alternate route

In 2006 another bridge ($500,000 replacement cost) was removed and a portion of the road vacated to the adjacent land owners

51

Appendix 2

Bremer County

County bridges that meet the funding requirements of the HBP program:

• The bridge candidate must be classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete according to federal guidelines. • Bridge replacement candidates must have a structure inventory and appraisal (SI&A) sufficiency rating of less than 50 and average

daily traffic of at least 25 vehicles. • Bridge rehabilitation candidates must have an SI&A sufficiency rating of 80 or less and average daily traffic of at least 25 vehicles.

These bridges are reviewed against the latest bi-annual bridge inspection and rating report and are ranked considering road classification, estimate remaining life, posting, and traffic volume.

Buchanan County

1. The County’s first priority in budgeting bridge funds is for paved routes. This is an effort to maintain the traffic on the paved routes – there are currently no posted bridges on paved roads.

2. The second priority is the sufficiency rating on the structures along with the traffic counts. 3. The third rating category is based on the length of the structure.

In general, if we can replace the structure with corrugated metal pipe on the rock roads, we will. If a structure is long, has very low traffic, and does not have a low sufficiency rating it will not be replaced at the present time.

Butler County

Utilize inspection reports to develop a list of eligible bridges, then prioritize based on local criteria such as type and amount of traffic, special design considerations, available funds, and staging with other projects.

52

Appendix 2

Chickasaw County

The process begins by reviewing the County Bridge Priority Point Spreadsheet provided to all the counties by the Iowa DOT. Various factors are analyzed such as existing length, width, detour lengths, cost, road classification system, ADT, sufficiency ratings, existing weight restrictions, and total points. Each structure is reviewed to make sure that each qualifies for funding according to the requirements for replacement. Surrounding bridges are reviewed for each potential candidate to make sure there is continuity for the traveling public to allow continued flow of traffic as needed to get to different parts of Chickasaw County. Typically the worst bridges with the lowest Sufficiency Rating and the highest Total Points become the best candidates for replacement. With normal maintenance/repairs of structures each year along with 12 month/24 month inspections, these potential structures may vary from year to year. Every year this process of review is performed to allow the best candidate bridges to be selected for replacement.

Grundy County

The selection process for HBP projects is done by considering: 1. Condition of bridge 2. Location of bridge (pavement vs gravel) – pavement would have higher priority 3. Traffic count on road 4. Other factors such as other scheduled projects in vicinity that may enhance or deter from HBP project being constructed

53

Appendix 3

Document Revision Summary Date of Revision

Revision Type Summary of Changes

54

Documents

Iowa Northland Regional Transportation Authority · performance of the National Highway System (NHS), including some state and U.S. highways and interstates. • State Planning and