Page 1

2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan

Frontier Metropolitan Planning Organization Serving the Fort Smith Region of Arkansas and Oklahoma

FRONTIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 1109 S. 16th Street • P.O. Box 2067 Fort Smith, AR 72902 Phone (479) 785-2651 • Fax (479) 785-1964 www.frontiermpo.org

Publication of this document was financed in part by funds provided by the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration. The provision of Federal financial assistance should not be construed as denoting U.S. Government approval of plans, policies, programs or projects contained herein. The Frontier Metropolitan Planning Organization complies with all civil rights provisions of federal statues and related authorities that prohibit discrimination in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Therefore, the Frontier MPO does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color, or national origin, religion or disability, in the admission, access to and treatment in Frontier programs and activities, as well as the Frontier hiring or employment practices. Complaints of alleged discrimination and inquiries regarding the Frontier MPO’s nondiscrimination policies may be directed to Cindy Hughes, Title VI & Title II Coordinator, 1109 S. 16th Street, AR 72902, (479) 785-2651 or the following email address: chughes@wapdd.org. This notice is available in large print, on audiotape and in Braille upon request.


TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iii Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................. iv Frontier MPO 2035 Transportation Plan Acronyms ........................................................................v I.

Introduction ........................................................................................................................1 Format of Long Range Plan Relationship and Requirements with State and Federal Agencies

II.

Mission, Vision and Guiding Principles ...........................................................................5

III.

Demographics and Economy ............................................................................................7 Geographic Physical Population Forecast Economic and Demographic Information

IV.

Transportation Modes .....................................................................................................35 Air Rail Water Roadway Pipeline Public Transportation Bicycle Pedestrian and Recreational Trails

V.

The Planning Process .......................................................................................................75 Public Participation Plan Public Involvement Requirements Public Notification Environmental Justice Frontier MPO Work Products Public Input Sessions, Survey and Results

VI.

Implementation and Financial Plan .............................................................................123 Transportation Improvements Program (TIP) Process 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Financial Implementation Plan Local Master Street Plan Implementation Procedures Maintenance Activities of the Frontier MPO Area’s Local Street Plans 2035 MTP Monitoring Procedures Importance of Local Planning Programs Regional Transportation Priorities by Member Jurisdiction

VII.

List of Transportation Projects ............................................................................................... 131

iii | P a g e


TABLE OF FIGURES FIGURE

PAGE DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Regional Context Map .................................................................................................................. 7 Frontier MPO General Location Map........................................................................................... 8 Frontier Metropolitan Planning Area Boundary ........................................................................... 9 Frontier MPO Physical Map ....................................................................................................... 11 MSA Population Projections – Data / Chart ............................................................................... 20 Population Trend by Member Jurisdiction – Data / Chart .......................................................... 21 Frontier MPO Counties in Urbanized Area – Population Data / Chart ...................................... 22 Population Percentage Change 2000 to 2010 ............................................................................. 23 Frontier MPO Boundary Houses Built 1939 to 2000 ............................................................ 24-27 Generalized Land Use Map Based on 911 Data ......................................................................... 28 Generalized Land Use Based on 911 Data – 2035 Projections .................................................. 29 Total Nonfarm AR-OK Employment Trend 2001 to 2011......................................................... 33 Percentage of Employment by Sector......................................................................................... 34 U.S. Employment Annual Rate of Change ................................................................................. 34

TRANSPORTATION MODES 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34-35 36-40 41 42 43 44 45 46

Regional Intermodal Transportation System Context Map ........................................................ 36 U.S. Freight Rail Level of Service.............................................................................................. 38 Frontier MPO River Ports and Terminals by River Mile ........................................................... 40 The Port of Van Buren ............................................................................................................... 41 The Port of Fort Smith ................................................................................................................ 42 USACE Study of One of Four Potential Port Development Sites .............................................. 43 Fuel Efficiency by Transportation Modes .................................................................................. 44 America’s Marine Highway Corridor Arkansas River M-40 USDOT Designation................... 45 Nation’s Busiest Long-Haul Freight Roadways ......................................................................... 46 Frontier MPO National Highway System Classification Map ................................................... 48 Frontier MPO Functional Classification ..................................................................................... 50 Fort Smith Transit Passenger Trips 1998 to 2010 ...................................................................... 53 Fort Smith Transit Number of Passengers .................................................................................. 53 Fort Smith Transit Revenue Miles.............................................................................................. 54 Fort Smith Transit Revenue Hours ............................................................................................. 54 Fort Smith Transit Department - Fixed Route Bus System Map ................................................ 55 Fort Smith Trolley System Map ................................................................................................. 58 Fort Smith Trails & Greenways - Route Plan ............................................................................. 61 Fort Smith Trails & Greenways - Bike Plan ............................................................................... 62 Bridges / Highway – Traffic Estimates ...................................................................................... 63 Highway Traffic Estimates – Maps ....................................................................................... 64-68 Intermodal Access – Industrial Locations .................................................................................. 69 The Crossing .............................................................................................................................. 70 Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas, Inc .................................................................................. 70 Western Arkansas Heritage Trail Locations Trail of Tears / Butterfield Stagecoach ................ 71 Butterfield Overland Stagecoach Route ..................................................................................... 72 2008 AHTD Percent Truck Map ................................................................................................ 73

iv | P a g e


TABLE OF FIGURES CONT’D. FIGURE

PAGE THE PLANNING PROCESS

47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

Public Input Session Photos ....................................................................................................... 76 Frontier MPO Work Products..................................................................................................... 80 Public Input Session Meeting Notification ................................................................................. 81 Public Participation Cards / Sign-In Sheets ................................................................................ 82 Public Input Session – Town of Pocola ...................................................................................... 82 Public Input Session – Sebastian County ................................................................................... 83 Public Input Session – City of Van Buren .................................................................................. 83 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Public Opinion Survey & Results ..................... 84-122

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS 55 56-61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81

Priority Projects of Regional Significance................................................................................ 132 Identified Transportation Projects – Constrained List (maps under construction) ............ 135-138 Constrained Project Listing 5 Year Increments – Bridge Funds .............................................. 139 Constrained Project Listing 5 Year Increments – Enhancement Funds ................................... 140 Constrained Project Listing 5 Year Increments – Interstate Maintenance Funds ..................... 141 Constrained Project Listing 5 Year Increments – National Highway System Funds ............... 142 Constrained Project Listing 5 Year Increments – Safety Funds ............................................... 143 Constrained Project Listing 5 Year Increments – Surface Transportation Program Funds ...... 144 Constrained Project Listing 5 Year Increments – Surface Transportation Program Urban...... 145 Constrained Project Listing 5 Year Increments – State Funding.............................................. 146 Constrained Project Listing 5 Year Increments – Transit Funding .......................................... 147 Constrained Project Listing 5 Year Increments – Projects with Designated Funding .............. 148 Constrained Project Listing 5 Year Increments – Statewide Generic Projects ......................... 148 OK Constrained Project Listing 2011....................................................................................... 149 OK Constrained Project Listing 2012....................................................................................... 150 OK Constrained Project Listing 2013....................................................................................... 151 OK Constrained Project Listing 2014....................................................................................... 152 Project Listing - Constrained and Illustrative .................................................................... 153-156 Constrained Project Listing – Proposed Transit Projects (5 Year Periods) ....................... 157-158 Annual Fund Estimates (Bridge/Enhancement/Interstate Maintenance) .................................. 159 Annual Fund Estimates (Natl. Hwy System/Safety Funds/Surface Transportation) ................ 160 Annual Fund Estimates (Surface Transportation Program Urban/Transit Funds).................... 161

v|P age


FRONTIER MPO 2035 TRANSPORTATION PLAN ACRONYMS AHTD

Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department

AMPO

Association of Metropolitan Planning Organization

CTPP

Census Transportation Planning Package

EODD

Eastern Oklahoma Development District of Oklahoma

FHWA

Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation

FTA

Federal Transit Administration, US Department of Transportation

ISTEA

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, 1991

ITS

Intelligent Transportation Systems

KEDDO

Kiamichi Economic Development District of Oklahoma

LRP

Long Range Plan

MPO

Metropolitan Planning Organization

NDPP

New Direction Planning Process

NEPA

National Environmental Protection Act of 1969

ODOT

Oklahoma Department of Transportation

PL

Planning Law regarding federal transportation planning funds

SAFETEA-LU

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

STIP

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

TEA-21

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998

TIP

Transportation Improvement Program

UPWP

Unified Planning Work Program

WAPDD

Western Arkansas Planning and Development District

vi | P a g e


INTRODUCTION


I.

INTRODUCTION

The 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan is the regional transportation plan for the Fort Smith Region which encompasses municipalities and unincorporated portions of counties in Arkansas and Oklahoma. It is a plan that identifies the needs and financial resources available to meet the area’s transportation needs over a 25 year period. The Plan was developed through a cooperative effort that was coordinated by the Frontier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the member jurisdictions, Fort Smith Transit and Transit Providers, and the two States’ Departments of Transportation. Long range transportation planning requires the planning process to be a cooperative, continuing and comprehensive process that monitors regional growth and any subsequent socio-economic changes resulting from growth. The monitoring efforts of the Frontier MPO transportation planning process are conducted in cooperation with the member local governments in order to maintain an accurate and current representation of street and highway improvement needs. A four-year Transportation Improvements Program (TIP) is developed that identifies projects anticipated to be implemented over a four year period. The TIP not only lists the anticipated projects, it provides information relative to cost, sources of funds and any matching requirements of each project. A.

Format of Long Range Plan

The 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan format is comprised of seven individual sections which address the principal components of the Plan and the overall transportation planning process. The seven (7) sections are as follows: 1. Introduction 2. Mission, Vision, Goals and Guiding Principles 3. Demographics and Economy 4. Transportation Modes 5. The Planning Process 6. Implementation and Financial Plan 7. List of Transportation Projects

INTRODUCTION

1|Page


These seven sections provide the supportive technical data for the Plan's development and respond to the Federal requirements for a metropolitan transportation plan as established by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), and amended by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998 (TEA-21) and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users of 2005 (SAFETEA-LU). B.

Relationship with State and Federal Agencies and Requirements

The 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan has been developed in cooperation and in conjunction with the Frontier MPO member governments, the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Oklahoma Department of Transportation, and the Federal Transit and Federal Highway Administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The preparation of the Plan has been funded, in part, through the use of Federal Transit Administration Funds and Federal Highway Administration planning funds which are administered through both States' Highway and Transportation Departments.

The Plan is the culmination of a

continuing, cooperative, and

comprehensive planning effort among the Federal, State and local governments directed by the Frontier MPO Process as administered by the Frontier MPO that provides for consideration and implementation of projects, strategies, and services that address the following factors: 

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 ability of the transportation system to support homeland security and to safeguard the personal security of all 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; and

Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.

The following federal requirements were also incorporated into the 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan development. The transportation plan must:

INTRODUCTION

2|Page


a. Address a twenty year planning horizon; b. Include long range and short range strategies that lead to an integrated intermodal

transportation plan; c. Identify the transportation demands of persons and goods over the period of the plan; d. Identify congestion management strategies that demonstrate a systematic approach in resolving current and future demand; e. Identify needed pedestrian walkway and bicycle facilities; f. Reflect the consideration given to the results of the management systems; g. Assess the capital investments and other measures necessary to preserve the existing transportation system and make the most efficient use of existing facilities to relieve vehicular congestion and enhance the mobility of people and goods; h. Include sufficient design concept and scope descriptions regarding each proposed transportation improvement described in sufficient detail to develop cost estimates; i. Reflect a multi-modal evaluation of the transportation, socioeconomic, environmental, and financial impact of the overall plan including all major transportation investments; j. For major transportation investments for which analysis are not complete, indicate that the design, scope, mode, and alignment have not been fully determined and will require further analysis; k. Reflect consideration of the area’s comprehensive long-range land use plans and metropolitan development objectives; l. Indicate, as appropriate, the transportation enhancement activities within the Area; and, m. Include a financial plan that demonstrates the consistency of proposed transportation investments with already available and projected sources of revenue. n. The financial plan shall compare the estimated revenue from existing and proposed funding sources that can reasonably be expected to be available for transportation uses, and the estimated costs of constructing, maintaining and operating the total transportation system over the period of the Plan. There must be adequate opportunity for public officials and citizen involvement in the development of the transportation plan before it is approved by the Frontier Metropolitan Planning Organization Board. Chapter 5 of the 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan presents the Public Involvement Procedures used by the Frontier MPO in this process.

INTRODUCTION

3|Page


INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

INTRODUCTION

4|Page


MISSION, VISION, GOALS AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES


II.

MISSION, VISION, GOALS AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES

The mission and vision for the Frontier Metropolitan Transportation Plan have been revised to meet the needs of an intermodal and multi-modal transportation system that is the outcome of the transportation planning processes. A.

Mission

Together with other public and private partners, develop and maintain the appropriate management systems necessary for a safe, efficient, and convenient multi-modal transportation system that will effectively move people and goods on a coordinated transportation network that will advance and secure the economic prosperity and social equity for all residents, visitors, and businesses within the Frontier Metropolitan Planning region of Arkansas and Oklahoma. B.

Vision

A comprehensive and coordinated multi-modal transportation environment based on the principles of inclusion, communications and innovation that will have the flexibility to respond to new technologies and methodologies to enhance the Frontier region’s position in the regional, national, and international markets as well as provide accessible and affordable transportation services and opportunities to all of the region’s current and future residents. C.

Goals and Guiding Principles

Goal 1:

Goal 2:

Encourage and support transportation planning at the local and regional level to create an integrated multimodal transportation system that promotes livability and economic development opportunities. 

Develop Complete Street Policies at the regional and local level

Design transportation projects utilizing Context Sensitive Solutions

Adopt Master Street and Comprehensive Plans at the local level

Update the Functional Classification Map on a regular basis

Develop Local and Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans

Promote Local and Regional Transit Planning

Identify and Plan for future Corridor Preservation

Maintain, operate, and fund the existing transportation system efficiently and effectively. 

Develop and continue to maintain the transportation network through the use of Pavement Management Systems and other best practices to extend the life of the system

MISSION, VISION, GOALS, AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES

5|Page


Goal 3:

Goal 4:

Goal 5:

Goal 6:

Utilize new technology for signalization timing, traffic flow, and traffic management

Identify and promote Travel Demand Management

Deploy Intelligent Transportation System technology throughout the Region

Improve the safety and security of the transportation system. 

Deploy proven safety measures such as Cable Median Barriers and Rumble Strips

Develop and adopt Access Management ordinances at the local level

Support and develop educational programs to reduce the incidence of distractive driving and DUI’s

Review and revise local subdivision and site development standards that increase the safety for all users

Develop a complete, connected, integrated regional transportation system that provides transportation choices for people and freight 

Enhance and improve the freight movement and capacity on the Arkansas River

Improve the freight handling capacity at the existing ports

Improve the landside infrastructure at the Port of Van Buren and the Port of Fort Smith

Preserve and improve the existing and future railroad corridors

Improve and enhance the intermodal connections between all modes of transportation

Enhance and improve transportation options for all transit dependent persons in the region

Create a transportation system that protects the environment and promotes sustainability 

Support the development of alternative fuels and the infrastructure to deploy new fuel alternatives

Promote the use of alternative modes of transportation

Reduce congestion and vehicle delay through travel demand management, incident management, and the promotion of van pools and car pools

Plan and invest in transportation investments that support and promote economic development opportunities and job creation for the Region, State, and United States 

Complete I-49 within the region and in the United States

Move additional freight by rail and on the Arkansas River McClellan-Kerr Navigation System

Preserve and enhance the existing infrastructure to serve the industrial and manufacturing base within the region

Expand transit service to those persons needing access to employment opportunities, shopping, recreational activities, etc.

MISSION, VISION, GOALS, AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES

6|Page


DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY


III.

DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

A.

Geographic

Located on the border of Arkansas and Oklahoma, the Frontier MPO Area is nearly equidistant from the following major metropolitan areas; Memphis, Kansas City, and Dallas and within five hours driving time or approximately 320 miles. Little Rock, Arkansas is 150 miles east of the area and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma is 180 miles west of the Area. The Fort Smith Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) includes Crawford, Sebastian, and Franklin Counties in Arkansas and Le Flore and Sequoyah County in Oklahoma. The incorporated communities, cities, and towns within the MSA are Alma, Barling, Bonanza, Branch, Cedarville, Central City, Charleston, Fort Smith, Greenwood, Lavaca, Radcliff, Rudy, and Van Buren in Arkansas and Arkoma, Bokoshe, Cameron, Fanshawe, Gans, Howe, Moffett, Muldrow, Panama, Pocola, Poteau, Roland, Sallisaw, Spiro, Vian, and Wister in Oklahoma. The Fayetteville/Springdale/Rogers MSA (Washington, Benton, Madison, and McDonald County MO) is one of the fastest growing regions in the nation, is located Approximately 40 miles north of the Frontier MPO Planning Area Boundary. With the completion of I-540 between these, the two areas have increased their social, economic, and cultural interaction by bringing over 20% of the State’s population into a more convenient travel sphere of daily socio-economic activity. The urbanized area between the two MSA’s is separated by the Ozark National Forest which covers approximately 1.2 million acres in the northern Arkansas.

Rogers

Fayetteville

Ozark National Forest

Alma Fort Smith Figure 1: Regional Context Map

DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

7|Page


The four contiguous counties in western and northwest Arkansas that comprises these two metropolitan areas (Benton, Washington, Crawford, and Sebastian Counties) are four of the most rapidly growing counties in the State and, when viewed in a regional context, are seen as one of the principal growth areas in the Nation.

Figure 2: Metropolitan Planning Area General Location Map

DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

8|Page


Figure 3: Frontier Metropolitan Planning Area Boundary

DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

9|Page


B.

Physical

The Frontier MPO Metropolitan Planning Area encompasses approximately 371 square miles in western Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma. The Metropolitan Planning Area includes 6 square miles of eastern Sequoyah County (OK), 27 square miles in northeastern Le Flore County (OK) 163 square miles of southwestern Crawford County (AR) and 175 square miles in northwestern Sebastian County (AR). The Arkansas River flows through the center of the Metropolitan Planning Area and is part of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System (MKARNS) The navigation system is approximately 445 miles long, includes 18 locks and dams, and is operated by the U.S. Corps of Engineers 24 hours per day.

The urbanized area located within the Frontier Metropolitan Planning Area consists of flat to rolling terrain and becomes a more mountainous to the south and north. The central cities of Fort Smith and Van Buren reflect this type of terrain in that they both exhibit a rather flat topography adjacent to the Arkansas River and a rolling to hilly topography away from the River valley.

DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

10 | P a g e


PORT OF VAN BUREN

PORT OF FORT SMITH ARKANSAS RIVER

I-49 (FUTURE)

Figure 4: Metropolitan Planning Area – Physical Map

DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

11 | P a g e


ARKANSAS COMMUNITIES Alma The City of Alma is located seven (7) miles east of Van Buren at the intersection of the I-40 and U.S. 71 corridors. The I-40/U.S. 64 corridor represents the direct connection between Alma and the Fort Smith/ Van Buren area. Since the completion of I-540 in 1999 between Alma and the Fayetteville/Springdale area, the City has seen the continuance of new residential developments along the I-540 corridor. This growth has been advanced with the completion of the new I-540 interchange at Collum Lane and Maple Shade Road. The City has also recently realized the beginning of “spill-over� development from the unprecedented growth of Northwest Arkansas. Increasingly, new individuals to that part of the State who are working in Northwest Arkansas are living in Alma, Van Buren, Mountainburg, and other Crawford County communities. A number of these individuals are moving to the area from other parts of the country where commutes of 35 to 40 minutes are common place. The commute times to Northwest Arkansas from Alma, Van Buren, Mountainburg, and other Crawford County communities fall well within these accustomed travel times. Barling The City of Barling is located immediately east of the City of Fort Smith. There are four existing connecting corridors between Barling and the other Frontier MPO communities, three of which are State Highways. Barling is connected with Fort Smith through three corridors. Two of these corridors, State Highways 22 and 255 offer fast and direct linkage between the two cities. The development that is occurring along the State Highway 255 corridor is considerably different than that of the State Highway 22 corridor due to the large tracts of land that are available for warehousing, distribution, and other light industrial uses. The State Highway 22 corridor does not offer large tracts thus the types of development along this corridor tend to have more of a service and highway commercial orientation. The third existing corridor between Barling and Fort Smith is the Moody Road corridor which extends west out of Barling to its intersection with Massard Road in Fort Smith. This corridor is entirely south facility, connects State Highways 22 and 255.

The only major north-south corridor between Barling and any other community within the Frontier MPO Area is AR State Highway 59. Although there is, at present, little development along this corridor in Barling, there are abundant opportunities for development because of the existing mixture DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

12 | P a g e


of uses found within the corridor. Residential usage dominates the southern section of the corridor within the City, whereas the northern section of the corridor within the City is predominantly open and includes a Corps of Engineers Park along the Arkansas River. State Highway 59 crosses the Arkansas River at this point and continues into the City of Van Buren where the development dramatically changes to agricultural and industrial uses. Approximately 7,000 acres of property was released from Fort Chaffee through the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) procedures of the US Department of Defense. This property has been ceded to the Fort Chaffee Trust for the purposes of developing a reuse plan that provides for a mixed use development including residential, commercial, industrial, public use conveyances, and other public uses. Among the most important public use properties is the necessary right-of-way for the construction of I-49 through Fort Chaffee from south of I-40 near Alma to an area north of the Jenny Lind Community, south of Fort Smith. Bonanza The City of Bonanza is located five miles south of Fort Smith and lies in the southwest part of the Frontier Area in Arkansas. The City of Bonanza relies almost entirely on the Fort Smith/Van Buren area for employment, medical, and retail services due to its very small area and population. State Highway 45 traverses the City from north to south and provides the only direct access between Bonanza and Fort Smith. The City initiated a planning program and formed a planning commission in the late 1990s in anticipation of the continued growth and development trends south of Fort Smith. The Frontier MPO Staff has assisted the City in the development of plans and ordinances and will continue to assist in developing strategies that will be consistent with the regional plans and projects. Central City Central City is located immediately east of Barling and has access to the Fort Smith area by State Highway 22. The City is currently experiencing a considerable amount of residential growth along the State Highway 22 corridor as well as the State Highway 255 corridor which connects Central City with the City of Lavaca.

Fort Smith The City of Fort Smith is situated in the center of the Frontier MPO Area. With the exception of I-40 and SH 59, each of the Federal and State Highways comes to or through the City. Fort Smith is DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

13 | P a g e


separated from Van Buren and points north by the Arkansas River; Greenwood and points south by topographical features such as Rye Hill; the eastern section of the Area by Fort Chaffee; and, the Oklahoma communities by another bend in the Arkansas River. Considering these limited points of access as gateways, the following highway corridors offer the only means of accessing Fort Smith; 1. Highways 22 and 255, to the east 2. Highway 71 and State Highways 253, 45, and I-540 to the south 3. I-540 and Highway 64/71 to the north 4. Highway 64 to the west The City of Fort Smith actively implements their Master Street Plan through the enforcement of their subdivision regulations and through their transportation related capital improvements program which is supported by a city-wide 1 cent sales tax. Although the City of Fort Smith has been successful in maintaining and improving their streets and highways, the Frontier MPO 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan addresses additional regional highway improvements that will provide further access and mobility improvements into and out of the City. These proposed improvements will not be the sole responsibility of the City of Fort Smith; rather the City will be working with the appropriate federal and state agencies and local governments to secure funding and implementation of these proposed improvements. Greenwood The City of Greenwood is located 10 miles south of Fort Smith immediately east of U.S. 71. Although State Highway 10 Spur provides the principal connection between the City and the U.S. 71 corridor, recent residential developments along North Main Street, north of the City, are placing more importance on the recently developed North Main Street connection to the U.S. 71 corridor. The City has also seen a significant amount of development pressure along the US 71 corridor. These have been, for the most part, residential and retail activities and proposals. The residential developments on the east side of the City have caused the City to study the need for an effective bypass for traffic between US 71 on the east side of the City. With the assistance of the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department and Frontier MPO Staff, the City has proposed two separate bypasses. The first involves the use of SH 10 on the southwest side of the City and an extension of SH 10 south of the City to an intersection with SH 96 on the east side of the City. This would involve approximately 1.5 miles of construction on new location within the Vache Grasse DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

14 | P a g e


Bottoms area south of the City’s waste water treatment facility. The second bypass that has been addressed is located on the north side of the City. This bypass would provide the same type of relief as the SH 10/SH96 proposal as it relates to the existing and future congestion through the City’s downtown. The northern bypass would link the east side of the City with the planned Gate 9 Road interchange on I-49 within the Fort Chaffee Released Property. This proposal was brought before the Department of Defense (DOD) to determine if it could be pursued. The DOD and the Arkansas National Guard both agreed that a proposed northern by-pass was not a viable alternative due to recent improvements that had been made by the DOD along the western segment of the proposed route. The City of Greenwood is now actively studying other options and alternatives including major widening and other operation improvement on the SH 10 and SH 10 spur corridors. Kibler The City of Kibler is located five miles east of Van Buren and two miles south of Alma. Kibler is connected to these two communities by State Highway 162. As seen in most of the smaller Frontier MPO communities, the development within Kibler is concentrated along the State or U.S. Highway that provides the principal means of access to the Fort Smith/Van Buren area. Improved access through the upgrading of SH 162 has fostered an increase in residential activity in and around the City. Although the City is experiencing increases in residential development, the long term residential growth within the City will be dictated by the substantial amount of prime agricultural farm land within the Arkansas River Valley which surrounds the City. As the City continues to grow and develop, there will be an increasing number of commuters using State Highway 162 to access the Fort Smith/Van Buren area for employment, medical, and retail purposes. Since the long range plans and goals of the City do not include major industrial and retail development, the current commuting trend between the City and the Fort Smith/Van Buren area is expected to continue. One qualifying factor pertaining to the future of industrial and commercial activity is the continuation of I-49 through Kibler. The approved plan for I-49 includes an interchange on SH 162 east of Kibler. Typically, interchanges on interstate highways are catalysts for development. Factors such as water, sewer, local building regulations, and traffic volumes are critical to the scale, timing, and type of development that occur. The Frontier MPO Staff will continue to assist the City of Kibler in their planning and project development to be able to respond to the changing development climate that will arise as a result of the construction of I-49 and its eventual completion through the City. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

15 | P a g e


Lavaca The City of Lavaca is located along State Highway 255, two miles north of State Highway 22 and eight miles east of Barling. The development that is occurring in and around Lavaca is primarily found along the State Highway 255 corridor and the State Highway 96 corridor which offers another access to State Highway 22. A significant amount of residential growth has occurred in the City. In response to this growth, the City formed a planning commission and has begun to develop plans and implementing ordinances. The Frontier MPO Staff assisted the City in the formation of the planning commission and in the development and preparation of the plans and ordinances. As in Greenwood, Kibler and the neighboring communities in Oklahoma, the residential development is directly related to the overall growth within the Fort Smith/Van Buren area. Also, as in these other communities, the growth will be seen along the connecting corridor to the Fort Smith/Van Buren Area which is State Highway 255 in Lavaca. Rudy The City of Rudy is located at the intersection of State Highways 348 and 282, 12 miles north of Van Buren and two miles northwest of Alma.

The State Highway 348/282 corridor is currently

experiencing scattered residential development and small scale subdivision activity. Rudy has access to I-540 through an interchange at SH 282 on the east side of the City. Again, as in most of the other smaller FMPO communities, the future growth is expected to be seen along the State or U.S. highways which connect these communities to the Fort Smith/Van Buren/ area. Since I-540 is a controlled access facility, the growth in and around Rudy is anticipated along State Highways 348 and 282 as they connect the City to State Highway 59 and I-540.

DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

16 | P a g e


Van Buren The City of Van Buren is located immediately north of Fort Smith on the north side of the Arkansas River. Van Buren is served by three east-west highway corridors and three north-south corridors. These corridors are as follows; 1. I-40, east-west route 2. Highway 64, east-west route 3. Highway 162, east-west route 4. I-540/U.S. 71, north-south route 5. Highway 59, north-south route 6. Highway 282, east-west route As in the other Frontier MPO communities, these corridors offer connections between the communities within the Frontier MPO Area. The City of Van Buren has maintained the integrity of their street plan through the monitoring of the growth trends and development issues and pressures. This monitoring program has ensured that adequate and appropriate access to the above corridors has been maintained and fostered. Van Buren is also provided with three means of accessing Fort Smith. They are: 1. I-540 Bridge 2. Highway 64/71 Bridge 3. Highway 59 Bridge (Lock and Dam # 13) The importance and impacts of the Frontier MPO Area’s corridors and their connections among the Frontier MPO Area's communities becomes most apparent in the case of Van Buren. Practically all of the vehicular traffic emanating from points north and northeast of the Frontier MPO Area with destinations in Fort Smith or points south of Fort Smith must cross the Arkansas River on one of the three bridges cited above. Since this amounts to a significant amount of traffic, the importance of these bridges and of maintaining the local street plans through the careful review of circulation issues becomes a critical issue. Over the past 10 years, the growth in northern Van Buren has continued to accelerate, resulting in new residential developments and a rapid increase in commercial developments. The most important factor in this growth has been the widening and reconstruction of Highway 59 from Rena Road to Northridge Road. The widening is scheduled to continue for the next 10 years over a series of phased projects.

DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

17 | P a g e


State Highway 59 is the only continuous north - south facility in Van Buren and major growth areas have developed within its corridor. Cooperative Inter-Jurisdictional Planning Agreements Recognizing the importance of maintaining adequate connections between jurisdictions, the Cities of Van Buren and Alma agreed in 1993 to coordinate their respective planning jurisdictional areas in order to remove any overlapping, redundancy, and jurisdictional conflicts.

As a result of this

coordination, all of the FMPO Area in Arkansas north of the River is now under local jurisdictions’ authority for master street planning and subdivision control. The significance of this can be clearly understood with respect to design and construction standards and the provision of future connecting facilities between and among communities. The Cities of Greenwood and Fort Smith also entered into a cooperative and coordinated arrangement during 1993 for planning jurisdictional responsibility. Accordingly, nearly the entire southern portion of the Frontier MPO Area in Arkansas is under a coordinated planning authority resulting from the Greenwood and Fort Smith agreement. These inter-jurisdictional agreements and processes have continued and have been expanded to include the Cities of Barling, Lavaca, Bonanza, Dyer, and Cedarville.

OKLAHOMA COMMUNITIES All of the Oklahoma communities lie west of Fort Smith and Van Buren and are connected to the FMPO Area by four US highways and one state highway. The town of Moffett is connected to Fort Smith by U.S. 64. The Arkansas River presents both a physical and a fiscal barrier for potential connections from the Fort Smith /Van Buren area to the communities in Sequoyah County due to the tremendous costs and complexities of bridge construction. As a result, the I-40 and US 64 connections will retain their importance as the only foreseeable connections north of the River between the Frontier MPO area and Oklahoma. The communities of Le Flore County, Oklahoma within the Frontier MPO Area are offered two primary connections into the Fort Smith/Van Buren area. Oklahoma State Highway 9 connects Arkoma, Oklahoma directly to Fort Smith while US Highway 271, which becomes I-540 as it enters Arkansas, offers Fort Smith/Van Buren connections for Pocola, Oklahoma. US 271, via Oklahoma DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

18 | P a g e


Highways 112 and 9, offers a direct connection between the Fort Smith/Van Buren area and the growing sub-regional center of Poteau, Oklahoma outside of the Frontier MPO.

C.

Population Forecast

The Frontier MPO’s central city is the second largest in the state of Arkansas based on 2010 Census Data. The five largest Cities in Arkansas as reported in the 2010 census are the following: Percent of Population Growth 2000 to 2010 Arkansas Largest Five Cities Little Rock

193,524

5.7 percent

Fort Smith

86,209

7.4 percent

Fayetteville

73,580

26.8 percent

Springdale

69,797

52.4 percent

Jonesboro

67,263

21.2 percent

Percent of Population Growth 2000 to 2010 Arkansas Largest Five Counties Pulaski

382,748

5.9 percent

Benton

221,339

44.3 percent

Washington

203,065

28.8 percent

Sebastian

125,744

9.3 percent

Faulkner

113,237

31.6 percent

Percent of Percent of Population Growth 2000 to 2010 State of Arkansas State of Arkansas

2,915,918

DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

9.1 Percent

19 | P a g e


Population growth in the Fort Smith, AR-OK MSA is projected to increase by 16.5% over the next 25 years. Crawford County is forecasted to see the largest increase with approximately 20,000 increase in population.

Fort Smith, AR-OK Metropolitan Statistical Area 2005

2010*

2015

2020

2025

2030

2010 to 2035 Percent

2035** Numeric

Crawford County, AR

57,364

61,948

65,539

69,627

73,714

77,802

81,890

19,942

24.4%

Franklin County, AR

18,148

18,125

18,986

19,404

19,823

20,242

20,661

2,536

12.3%

Sebastian County, AR

118,484

125,744

125,464

128,954

132,445

135,935

139,425

13,681

9.8%

Le Flore County, OK

49,700

50,384

53,500

55,500

57,300

59,100

60,900

10,516

17.3%

Sequoyah County, OK

41,200

42,391

45,900

48,200

50,400

52,600

54,800

12,409

22.6%

MSA 284,896 298,592 309,389 321,685 333,682 Population Projections for the State, Metropolitan Areas, and Counties: 2000 - 2030 Oklahoma Department of Commerce *U.S. Census 2010 UALR Institute for Economic Advancement **Frontier MPO

345,679

357,676

59,084

16.5%

Figure 5: MSA Population Projections – Data / Chart

DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

20 | P a g e


Frontier MPO has provided below a 60 year population trend from 1950 to 2010 for each jurisdiction.

Population 1950 to 2010 Jurisdiction Crawford County Sebastian County Alma Barling Bonanza Central City Fort Smith Greenwood Kibler Lavaca Rudy Van Buren LeFlore County Arkoma Pocola Sequoyah County Moffett 4 County Totals

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

22,727 64,202 1,228 (U) 361 47,942 1,634 373 97 6,413 35,296 1,691 19,773 380 141,998

21,318 66,685 1,370 770 247 52,991 1,558 392 113 6,787 29,106 1,862 18,001 357 135,110

25,677 79,237 1,613 1,739 342 62,802 2,032 611 532 103 8,373 32,137 2,098 1,840 23,370 312 160,421

36,892 95,172 2,755 3,761 553 339 71,384 3,317 798 1,092 79 12,020 40,698 2,175 3,268 30,749 269 203,511

42,493 99,590 2,959 4,078 520 419 72,798 3,984 931 1,253 45 14,979 43,270 2,393 3,664 33,828 219 219,181

53,247 115,071 4,160 4,176 514 531 80,268 7,112 969 1,825 72 18,986 48,109 2,180 3,994 38,972 179 255,399

61,948 125,744 5,419 4,649 575 502 86,209 8,952 961 2,289 61 22,791 50,384 1,989 4,056 42,391 128 280,467

Source: Arkansas Muncipal Leauge, US Census, WAPDD 100,000

90,000

80,000

Alma

70,000

Barling Bonanza

Population

60,000

Central City Fort Smith

Greenwood

50,000

Kibler Lavaca

Rudy

40,000

Van Buren Arkoma 30,000

Pocola Moffett

20,000

10,000

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Years

Figure 6: Population Trend from 1950 to 2010 by Member Jurisdiction – Data / Graph

DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

21 | P a g e


MPO Counties Located in Urbanized Area; Crawford, Sebastian, Le Flore and Sequoyah

Population 1950 to 2010 Jurisdiction Crawford County Sebastian County LeFlore County Sequoyah County 4 County Totals

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

22,727 64,202 35,296 19,773 141,998

21,318 66,685 29,106 18,001 135,110

25,677 79,237 32,137 23,370 160,421

36,892 95,172 40,698 30,749 203,511

42,493 99,590 43,270 33,828 219,181

53,247 115,071 48,109 38,972 255,399

61,948 125,744 50,384 42,391 280,467

Population

Source: AR Municipal League, US Census, WAPDD

Years

Figure 7: Frontier MPO Counties in Urbanized Area – Population Data / Chart

DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

22 | P a g e


8

2

¬ «

220

« ¬

28

¬ « ¬ «

28

34

Population - 2000, 2010, Percent Change ¬ «

24

¬ «

162

28

2

« ¬

¬ «

71

220

¦ « ¨ § ¬

¬ «

64 ¬ «

215

Crawford County Pop. 2000 53,247 Pop. 2010 61,948 Percent 16.34

348

¬ «

¬ «

¬ «

¬ « « ¬

540

252

¬ «

253

255

¬ «

¬ « 255

« ¬ 255

45

¬ «

271

¬ «

217

« ¬

¬ «

96 ¬ «

60 ¬ «

Central City Pop. 2000 531 Lavaca Pop. 2010 502 Pop. 2000 1,825 Percent -5.46 Pop. 2010 2,289 Percent 25.42 96

¬ «

255

Barling Pop. 2000 4,176 Pop. 2010 4,649 Percent 11.33

« ¬

¬ « ¬ «

59

Moffett 22 Pop. 2000 179 Fort Smith Pop. 2010 128 Pop. 2000 80,268 Percent -28.49 Pop. 2010 86,209 Percent 2557.4 Arkoma Pop. 2000 2,180 Pop. 2010 1,989 271 Percent -8.76

Kibler Pop. 2000 969 Pop. 2010 961 Percent -0.83

« ¬

¦ ¨ §

¬«

¬ «

255

¬ «

96 ¬ «

« ¬

§ ¦ ¨

162

Alma Pop. 2000 4,160 Pop. 2010 5,419 Percent 30.26

59

64

253

¬ «

162 64 Van Buren ¬ « 64 Pop. 20000 18,986 54 Pop. 2010 22,791 1 /7 20.04 64 Percent

« ¬

¬ «

¦ ¨ §

40

64

¬ «

64

162

60 ¬ «

¬ «

« ¬

162

Sequoyah County Pop. 2000 38,972 Pop. 2010 42,391 Percent 8.77

40 ¦ ¨ §

540

60

« ¬

« ¬

59

282

« ¬

45

« ¬

45 253

¬ «

10 ¬ «

« ¬

10 ¬ «

10

252

¬ «

71

¬ «

45

¬ «

10 ¬ «

Greenwood Pop. 2000 7,112 Pop. 2010 8,952 Percent 25.87

¬ «

LeFlore County Pop. 2000 48,109 Pop. 2010 50,384 Percent 4.73

45

« ¬ 10

Bonanza Pop. 2000 514 Pop. 2010 575 Percent 11.87

¬ «

Pocola Pop. 2000 3,994 Pop. 2010 4,056 Percent 1.53

252

Sebastian County Pop. 2000 115,071 Pop. 2010 125,744 Percent 9.28

1 in = 4 miles 1

2

4 Miles

/

378

¬ «

0

« ¬

71

¬ «

« ¬

96

378

23 ¬ «

Figure 8: Population Percentage Change 2000 to 2010

DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

23 | P a g e


Household Geographic Distribution in the Frontier MPO Boundary Area The distribution of household growth in the Frontier MPO has been impacted by the development of the interstate system (I-40 and I-540), the growth in the number of passenger vehicles per household, and the location of employment and retail centers. The most recent census data illustrates an ever expanding metropolitan urbanized area with some of the highest percentage growth rates in population in the smaller communities and unincorporated areas around Fort Smith. The following seven series of household distribution maps by decade show the geographic distribution of households within the Frontier MPO. The following illustrations indicate the progression of houses built within the Frontier Metropolitan Planning Area boundary from 1939 to 2000 based on U.S. Census block groups:

Figure 9: Frontier MPO Boundary Houses Built 1939 to 2000

DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

24 | P a g e


DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

25 | P a g e


DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

26 | P a g e


DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

27 | P a g e


Frontier MPO has produced a generalized land use map based on the 911 data available in Crawford and Sebastian Counties. Frontier MPO is forecasting increasing residential, commercial and industrial growth associated with the development of I-49 and Chaffee Crossing.

Figure 10: Generalized Land Use Based on 911 Data - 2011

DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

28 | P a g e


Figure 11: Generalized Land Use Based on 911 Data – 2035 Projections

DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

29 | P a g e


D.

Economic and Employment Information

The Fort Smith-Western Arkansas area continues to lead the State and Nation for manufacturing businesses and jobs. The Fort Smith region produced over $7 billion of goods in 2007, an increase of $2 billion or about forty percent over that produced in 1997, according to the federal government’s nationwide censuses of business. This amounts to $25,000 of goods produced per resident in the Fort Smith metro area, which is almost twice the nation-wide amount per capita and considerably more than any other metro area in the state and region. There are approximately 300 manufacturing establishments and just over 21,000 employees located in the Fort Smith MSA producing a wide variety of goods which are shipped all over the country and world. Fort Smith historically is a manufacturing city and manufacturing is the economic engine that largely drives its economy. “Manufacturing in America,” a recently published report by the U.S. Department of Commerce, cites the manufacturing sector’s rapidly rising productivity as its greatest strength and the reason it is a major contributor to the growth of the U.S. That same productivity growth, the report points out, has also, however, been largely responsible for the gradual decline in employment in manufacturing. From 1977 to 2002, productivity in the overall economy increased 53 percent, while manufacturing sector productivity rose 109 percent. This means labor productivity in manufacturing doubled in the last 25 years. An increase in productivity essentially means more goods are produced per man-hour, allowing greater output with fewer workers. Largely through technological innovations and improved management techniques. More significant than the achievements themselves, these productivity increases have brought about tremendous gains in the country’s standard of living.

Manufacturing employment nationally has been falling for the past two and a half decades. Manufacturing employment for the U.S. was significantly lower in 2010 than in 1980, both in terms of numbers and proportion of total work force, falling from 22 percent of all non-farm jobs to less than 9% percent today. Though the state and the Fort Smith area did not begin to experience declines in the numbers of manufacturing jobs until the early nineties, manufacturing employment as a percentage has

DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

30 | P a g e


been declining since 1980, from 28 percent to 18 percent for the state and from over 30 percent to under 18 percent today for the Fort Smith MSA.

Another important trend for manufacturers in the United States is they no longer have a lock on advanced, state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities capable of producing high-quality, low-cost goods. American manufacturers face competition not only from foreign manufacturers of low-cost commodity products, but also from those that manufacturer sophisticated products with sophisticated production tools and the know-how to use them.

U.S manufacturers will continue to face constant pressure to lower prices. With the reduction of barriers in international trade, makers and distributors of manufactured goods are now more able than ever to make, assemble, buy and sell products and their components wherever in the world it is most economical to do so. This fact, combined with the increased productivity resulting from advances in manufacturing techniques and the emergence of new and powerful competitors like China, has effectively opened manufacturers throughout the world, including those in the U.S., to new sources of low-cost labor and manufacturing capacity. In a global economy in which both goods and capital are mobile, but labor is not, manufacturers’ tapping of lower-cost labor by importing it in the form of lower-cost parts, components, and – increasingly – finished goods is a strategy of trying to stay competitive in a global economy.

A further transition in the Fort Smith MSA is the kinds of goods produced by manufacturers. In the early eighties, poultry processors, such as Tyson, Simmons and OK Foods, began to establish and expand grow-out and processing operations in Arkansas and Oklahoma. Labor-intensive because of the nature of the work, the plants employ thousands of workers, most in lower-skill, low to moderatewage jobs. As it was for manufacturers of hard goods like appliances and air conditioners, poultry plants’ productivity per man-hour has steadily increased and product output has approached market demand, at least domestically. Over the last ten years this has resulted in a leveling off in job additions at chicken processing plants. The implications to the Fort Smith area is in terms of manufacturing employment is that it no longer can continue to count on the poultry industry to the pick up the slack for the area’s decline in durable goods industry jobs that began two decades ago and still continues. Between 1990 to 2010, the Fort Smith area added 27,500 net new jobs (1990 - 87,900 Non-farm jobs 2010 - 115,400 Non-farm jobs ). DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

31 | P a g e


While manufacturing employment was falling nationwide, jobs in what the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics classifies as the “service providing” sector – which includes retail & wholesale trade, utilities, financial services, information, business & professional services, education, health care, hospitality, trucking & transportation, government – expanded at a brisk pace, increasing for the U.S. from 72 percent of all non-farm jobs in 1980 to 83 percent by 2003. Following the national trend, the state’s service sector employment increased over this same period from 66 percent to 77 percent and the Fort Smith metro area’s from 61 percent to 69 percent. Perhaps most astounding, of the Fort Smith area’s total number of new jobs created since 1990, ninety percent – 17,300 out of 19,300 – were in the service providing sector. Furthermore, 8 out of 10 can be credited to six specific industry groups: health care services, education, retail trade, trucking, employment services and construction. All except construction, which is considered “goods producing,” are service providing industries. Health care services alone in the Fort Smith area accounted for 20 percent – one out of five – of all new jobs over the last thirteen years. Since 1990, health care establishments have added an average of 300 new jobs annually. Increased demand for health care services and its associated occupations is projected to continue in this country for many years to come. Though the new service sector jobs are welcome additions to Fort Smith’s economy, particularly in light of the leveling-off of manufacturing hires, the jobs are generally steps below factory jobs in terms of wage level. Typical service sector jobs in Fort Smith are lower wage jobs than factory jobs. Consequently, the area’s move from goods producing to service providing employment could, over time, dampen down overall wage levels.

Compared to other areas of the country, Fort Smith is light on service providing businesses paying high wages and employing workers with advanced education and specialized skills. The area’s mix of service providing jobs is more weighted with occupations requiring only a high school education and on-the-job training. The counterpart to this is Fort Smith lacks in the expansion of jobs in vibrant and higher paying industry sectors, like finance, information and technology services, which have proven to be a source of strength in many areas of the country.

DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

32 | P a g e


As mentioned, a sizeable portion of the area’s service sector employment is dependent upon the presence of manufacturing. As manufacturing jobs go away – which they are – so do the associated payroll dollars spent at area stores, at the local hospitals and doctors’ offices, for haircuts and drycleaning, for housing, causing declines in sales tax receipts which support local government services and the need for school teachers as people leave the area to seek jobs elsewhere.

By all accounts, continued declines can be expected for manufacturing employment in the U.S. Though manufacturing output in the U.S. took a downturn in 2000 after almost two decades of fairly steady increases, its future direction overall is generally expected to be positive. But this outlook varies greatly from sector to sector. For example, major household appliance manufacturers are under mounting competitive pressures to move production out of the country to cheaper labor markets.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Figure 12: Total Nonfarm AR-OK Employment Trend 2001 to 2011

DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

33 | P a g e


Employment in the Frontier MPO continues to experience changes in the percent of employment by sector. The largest change was in the manufacturing section which had over 30% employment in

Figure 13: Percentage Employment by Sector

manufacturing in 1990 and fell under 20% by 2008.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics,The Fort Smith Regional Economic Outlook Report, College of Business and the Center for Business Research and Economic Development (CBRED). Kermit W. Kuehn, PhD Vol. 1 Num. 1, 1st Quarter, 2010

Figure 14: U.S. Employment Rate of Change

The following chart forecast trends in U.S. employment through 2018. Manufacturing is forecasted to continue to decline in the U.S.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Fort Smith Regional Economic Outlook Report, College of Business and the Center for Business Research and Economic Development (CBRED). Kermit W. Kuehn, PhD Vol. 1 Num. 1, 1st Quarter, 2010

DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY

34 | P a g e


TRANSPORTATION MODES


IV.

TRANSPORTATION MODES

The Frontier MPO Area has developed a transportation system that is both effective and efficient. The present system is multi-modal and continues to develop into an intermodal system, as seen in the construction of intermodal river-port terminal facilities along the Arkansas River immediately east of the I-540 Bridge between Van Buren and Fort Smith. Additional interest in intermodal transportation has been expressed by the City of Fort Smith, City of Van Buren, Crawford County, and Sebastian County with the formation of the Western Arkansas Intermodal Authority also known as Regional Intermodal Transportation Authority (RITA). Interstate 40, Interstate 49, Rail, and the Arkansas River provide for an ―intersection‖ of regional and national freight movement in the United States. In a recent study by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, titled ―Unlocking Freight, Transportation Reboot: Restarting America‘s Most Essential Operating System The Case for Capacity: To Unlock Gridlock, Generate Jobs, Deliver Freight, and Connect Communities, July 2010‖ provided a forecast of the capacity of the nation‘s transportation system. The report looked at the 2005 to 2035 planning horizon and utilized updated travel demand forecast for different modes of transportation. Overall, travel demand and freight tons on interstates, rail, and ports in the United States is forecasted to increase significantly over this period. Demand across all modes of transportation will increase as the United States population increases from approximately 308 million in 2010 to approximately 420 million by 2050 along with changes in freight movements due to the widening of the Panama Canal which is to be completed by 2014. The projected increases by 2050 in freight tons by mode is shown below: 2010 Total Freight Demand

15 Billion Tons

2050 Total Freight Demand

30 Billion Tons

2050 Truck forecasted increases

41 percent

2050 Rail forecasted increase

38 percent

Source: Transportation Reboot: Restarting America‘s Most Essential Operating System The Case for Capacity: To Unlock Gridlock, Generate Jobs, Deliver Freight, and Connect Communities, July 2010

TRANSPORTATION MODES

35 | P a g e


The Frontier MPO is located in a strategic geographic position to capture potential economic development opportunities related to the movement of people and goods across the United States. The Frontier MPO supports the efforts of the Western Arkansas Intermodal Authority (RITA) to improve the capacity of the regional intermodal transportation system.

Figure 15: Regional Intermodal Transportation System – Context Map

A review of the many modes of travel and transportation is provided below (Air, Rail, Water, Roadway, Pipeline, Public Transportation, Bicycle, and Pedestrian/Recreational Trails): 1. Air Regional passenger air service is provided by the Fort Smith Regional Airport located in the City of Fort Smith. In 2005, the Regional Airport retained a consultant to develop their Airport Master Plan Update. The principal transportation system needs identified in the Update refer to signage for the Airport, improved access at the Leigh Avenue/I-540 interchange, and the deployment of appropriate Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) projects. The Airport Master Plan Update has estimated a total airport improvement cost of $ 74,170,000 over a Three (3) Phased Development Program. The overwhelming majority of these costs are for airport operational and functional projects. The associated costs for improvements to the region‘s surface transportation system are going to be found in regularly scheduled TRANSPORTATION MODES

36 | P a g e


maintenance activities, implementation of improved signage pertaining to airport access, and related projects resulting from the development of off-airport properties under the airport‘s ownership. 2. Rail Three (3) Class 1 Railroads also serve the Frontier MPO Area. The first of these, the Union Pacific, is located north of the Arkansas River and provides east-west service essentially along the I-40 corridor. Switching capabilities are located in Van Buren, Arkansas and in Sallisaw, Oklahoma, located approximately nine (9) miles west of the western boundary of the Frontier MPO Area. The second Class 1 rail line is the Kansas City Southern which provides services to the west/southwestern portion of the Area in Le Flore County, Oklahoma. The Kansas City Southern offers rail services in a north-south corridor between US 59 in Oklahoma and the Arkansas/Oklahoma State Line.

Switching capabilities along this line are offered at two

locations, both of which are located outside of the area. One of these facilities is located in Poteau, Oklahoma, approximately 25 miles southwest of Fort Smith, while the other facility is located in Sallisaw, Oklahoma. The third Class 1 rail line, the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe, utilizes a line which parallels US 71/I-540 between the Arkansas-Missouri Line and Fort Smith.

In addition to the three Class 1 rail lines, the Frontier MPO Area is served by two Class 3 lines known as short line railroads. The Arkansas-Missouri Line (A&M) provides rail services on the same tracks as the BNSF. The tracks lay along the US 71 corridor between Springfield, Missouri and Fort Smith, Arkansas. The A&M has contractual arrangements with all three Class 1 lines in the area, which is a rarity among communities that are primarily serviced by a Class 3 short line railroad. The second short line is the Fort Smith Railroad. This service offers transportation services within Fort Smith. With the provision of the two Class 3 short lines and the three Class 1 main lines, the Frontier MPO Area has access to every major east-west and north-south gateway for freight and raw material transportation. For Arkansas, by 2035 the capacity of the rail system between little Rock and Fort Smith is forecasted to be at a level of service ―F‖ as depicted on the following maps.

TRANSPORTATION MODES

37 | P a g e


Freight Rail Level of Service Relative to Capacity Today and 2035

Fort Smith

Fort Smith

Figure 16: U.S. Freight Rail Level of Service Reprinted with permission from: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Unlocking Freight July 2 0 1 0 http://ExpandingCapacity.transportation.org Transportation Reboot: Restarting America‘s Most Essential Operating System The Case for Capacity: To Unlock Gridlock, Generate Jobs, Deliver Freight, and Connect Communities, July 2010, Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ―national Rail Freight Infrastructure Capacity and Investment Study.‖ Report prepared for the Association of American Railroads, September 2007.

TRANSPORTATION MODES

38 | P a g e


3. Water The Frontier MPO Area is bisected in a west to east direction by the Arkansas River. The Arkansas River is part of a larger navigation system which involves the Arkansas and White Rivers in Arkansas and the Arkansas and Verdigris Rivers in Oklahoma. This System, the Kerr-McClellan Arkansas River Navigation System, was completed in the 1970's and opened a length of the Arkansas River to barge traffic between the Mississippi River in Desha County, Arkansas and the Port of Tulsa in Catoosa, Oklahoma. The Kerr-McClellan Arkansas River Navigation System operates 365 days per year -24 hours per day since the river does not freeze during the winter.

Although the river channel width varies, the channel depth is maintained at a minimum depth of 9 feet in order to accommodate barge traffic. The Area is served by two commercial ports as well as several private terminals, docks and loading facilities. The two commercial ports are located in Fort Smith and Van Buren, Arkansas. The Port of Fort Smith is actually located on the Poteau River immediately south of the confluence of the Poteau and Arkansas Rivers while the port in Van Buren is located on the Arkansas River, east of and adjacent to the I-540 Bridge over the Arkansas River. Both ports are in operation and serve local, regional, and national barge and shipment needs. The Port of Van Buren is actually a series of privately held terminals individually owned and operated.

In 1999 a study was undertaken to determine the feasibility of establishing an intermodal port facility at the site or at another site depending on the size, availability, and need as defined by the study. The study determined that there is, in fact, a need for an intermodal facility in the region and that a Van Buren site would be the preferred location. The study also indicated that the most pressing need was not for an intermodal port, although the findings showed that there was sufficient volume for one, but that there was a critical need for an intermodal facility for truck-rail transloading. The study further identified a location for the truck-rail transloading facility which is in the Van Buren Industrial Park adjacent to the Port of Van Buren. Since the completion of the 1999 study and subsequent planning studies, recommended rail improvements have been made in the port area on the riverside portion of the port property. TRANSPORTATION MODES

39 | P a g e


There are currently three port related projects that are being addressed by the City of Van Buren in concert with the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. The three (3) port related projects are: 1. Improvements to Access Road into the port; 2. Signalization at the I-540/SH 59 interchange which is the interstate access for the port; 3. An extension of an access road along the ‗toe‘ of the levee on the riverside side of the port. River Ports and Terminals by River Mile McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System RIVER MILE NAME

CITY

298.0 L 299.3 L 300.4 L 308.7 R * 308.7 R*

Van Buren Van Buren Van Buren Fort Smith Fort Smith

Five Rivers Distribution Consolidated Terminals and Logistics Arkhola Sand and Gravel Co. Dock Five Rivers -Port of Fort Smith Yaffee Iron

* Fa c ilitie s loc a te d on P ote a u Rive r

S ourc e : US Army Corps of Engine e rs Little Roc k Dis tric t, 2011

Figure 17: Frontier MPO River Ports and Terminals by River Mile

The Frontier MPO along with Western Arkansas Intermodal Authority (RITA) continues to support efforts to make the Arkansas River channel a 12 foot depth and increase the freight capacity of the ports and terminals. The additional three foot increase in depth on the Arkansas River would result in a 43% capacity increase of freight loaded onto barges.

TRANSPORTATION MODES

40 | P a g e


Van Buren Industrial Park

I-540 SH 59 Port of Van Buren

Figure 18: The Port of Van Buren

TRANSPORTATION MODES

41 | P a g e


US 64

Downtown Fort Smith

Port of Fort Smith

Figure 19: The Port of Fort Smith on the Poteau River

TRANSPORTATION MODES

42 | P a g e


TRANSPORTATION MODES

43 | P a g e

Figure 20: One of Four Potential Port Development Site currently being Studied by the USACE, Little Rock District, 2011


As stated, the Fort Smith region is fortunate to have all modes of transportation available to move freight. As the Region competes for economic development opportunities, waterborne transportation is considered a fuel efficient, safe, and cost effective mode of transportation to move freight from and through the region. Freight is typically measured in ton miles when comparing the different modes of transportation. A ton mile is defined as the ―equivalent to a ton of freight moved one mile.‖ The following illustrations compare the cost for moving freight by the different modes and illustrate the cost and fuel efficiency savings of moving freight by

Figure 21: Fuel Efficiency by Transportation Mode

water.

Freight Cost and Fuel Efficiency by Mode

Volume of Freight Transported by Mode

Source: Arkansas Waterways Commission

TRANSPORTATION MODES

44 | P a g e


TRANSPORTATION MODES

45 | P a g e

Figure 22: Arkansas River - Marine Highway Connector on the ―America‘s Marine Highway Program‖ Source: US DOT / Maritime Administration


The following table looked at the busiest 1,000 miles of long-haul freight on U.S. Highways. In Arkansas, Interstate 40 ―alone—crossing through Arkansas and Tennessee—accounts for nearly onethird of the nation‘s busiest miles‖ for long-haul freight movement. As Interstate 49 is completed, Arkansas and the Fort Smith region will continue to see long haul freight as a significant user of the interstate system.

Reprinted with permission from: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Unlocking Freight July 2 0 1 0 http://ExpandingCapacity.transportation.orgTransportation Reboot: Restarting America‘s Most Essential Operating System The Case for Capacity: To Unlock Gridlock, Generate Jobs, Deliver Freight, and Connect Communities, July 2010 Figure 23: Nation‘s Busiest Long-Haul Freight Roadways

TRANSPORTATION MODES

46 | P a g e


Arkansas River Impacts The importance and impacts of the River crossings of the highway corridors and their connections among the Area‘s communities becomes very apparent in the case of the Fort Smith/Van Buren area. Practically all of the vehicular traffic emanating from points north and northeast of the Frontier MPO Area with destinations in Fort Smith or points south of Fort Smith must cross the Arkansas River on one of the four bridges. Since this amounts to a significant amount of traffic, the importance of these bridges and the maintenance of local street plans through careful review of circulation issues becomes a critical Frontier MPO Area issue.

The implementation of the Frontier MPO 2035 Transportation Plan will have two important impacts on the Arkansas River. The first impact will be in the form of an additional river crossing with the construction of the planned I-49 and its bridge across the Arkansas River near Barling. The second Arkansas River impact resulting from the implementation of the Frontier MPO 2035 Transportation Plan is the on-going implementation of the Van Buren Regional Intermodal Facility in the Van Buren Industrial Park and along the Arkansas River immediately downstream from the I-540 Bridge. The impact of this facility not only impacts the river through increased river traffic, but also through significant impacts on streets and highways in and around the Industrial Park.

4. Roadway The Frontier MPO Area is served by numerous State and Federal highways. The east-west corridors are serviced by the following State and Federal highways: Arkansas:

State Highways: Federal Highways:

348, 282, 162, 22, 10, 10 spur, and 255 I-40, I-540, and US 64

Oklahoma:

Federal Highways:

I-40, and US 64

The north-south corridors are serviced by the following State and Federal highways. Arkansas:

State Highways: Federal Highways:

59, 255, 45, and 253 I-540 (I-49), US 71 and 271

Oklahoma:

State Highways: Federal Highways:

9, 9A, and 112 US 271, and US 59

TRANSPORTATION MODES

47 | P a g e


The following map shows the classification of the National Highway System in the Frontier MPO and the intermodal connectors to transit, airport and port of Van Buren.

Figure 24: Frontier MPO National Highway System Classification Map

TRANSPORTATION MODES

48 | P a g e


Frontier MPO Functional Classification Map This functional classification map shows the classification of the roadway network in the Frontier MPO. Federal aid projects are required to be classified as a collector or above on this map. The relocation of US 71 between Rogers, Arkansas and Alma, Arkansas later designated as I-540 Arkansas, was completed in 1999. The Rogers, AR to Alma phase is just one of many to be constructed before the new interstate, I-49, is completed through western Arkansas between Missouri and Louisiana. Construction projects have begun on the section of I-49 that traverses the Fort Chaffee Trust‘s property. These activities will include clearing, grubbing, structures, and other related projects. Ultimately, I-49 will replace the entire length of US 71 with a safer and more efficient facility thus facilitating an expanded regional and national economic environment for all of western Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma. This facility has long been the highest regional priority. Other facilities that have been considered critical planned extensions within the Frontier MPO Area include the extension of I-540 into Oklahoma from Fort Smith. Each of these facilities could have significant impacts on the Area's transportation network as well as its economic growth and development. Thus each of these proposed facilities are integral parts of the 2035 Transportation Plan.

TRANSPORTATION MODES

49 | P a g e


Source: Based on 2005 AHTD Functional Classification Map Figure 25: Frontier MPO Highway Functional Classification

TRANSPORTATION MODES

50 | P a g e


5. Pipeline Another transportation mode that is prominent throughout the Frontier MPO Area is the pipeline. The Frontier MPO Area sits upon one of the largest continental natural gas field in the nation. This field, the Arkoma Basin and the Fayetteville Shale Play Formation provides natural gas for local, regional, and national customers and is regularly being expanded as the need for natural gas increases. It was recently announced that a new interregional pipeline is to be constructed through the Frontier MPO Area. This new pipeline will begin south of the Red River in Texas near the Oklahoma State line and continue through the vicinity of Fort Smith to Newport, Arkansas and then to the Ohio River valley. The number and location of all pipelines will be an important factor in the design and location considerations during implementation of the proposed improvements contained in the Frontier MPO 2035 Transportation Plan. As the proposed improvements are readied for implementation, the location of the lines and efforts to avoid or accommodate them will be done on a case by case basis. 6. Public Transportation 6.

Public Transportation

The Transit system operates four (4) core routes Monday through Friday from 5:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and on Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. A downtown trolley route also operates Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. In addition to the fixed route and downtown service, paratransit and demand response operations are offered between the hours 5:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Night time paratransit and demand response services are available between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Fare structures are $1.00 for fixed routes, no charge for the downtown service, and $2.00 for the paratransit/demand response services. Reduced fares for fixed route services are provided for the elderly and disabled while children seven (7) years of age and younger ride free with a paying passenger. The only public transit system currently operating in the Frontier MPO area is the Fort Smith Transit System, which serves city residents.

Its expressed purpose is to provide for the

operations of the city‘s transit system meeting its growing public transportation needs. The major goals of the Fort Smith Transit System have been outlined in its plan/application for TRANSPORTATION MODES

51 | P a g e


continued funding through the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department and Federal Transit Administration. These goals are: A. Expand the bus advertising program to increase transit revenues for improved services. B. Work with the Homeless Coalition to reduce transportation barriers for the homeless seeking to renter the job market. C. Identify route modifications that would permit public transportation access to future parks.

TRANSPORTATION MODES

52 | P a g e


Total Annual Passenger Trips Fort Smith Transit

Number of Trips

250000

200000

150000 Total Annual Passenger Trips Fort Smith Transit

100000

50000

0

Figure 26: Fort Smith Transit Passenger Trips 1998 to 2010

Fort Smith Transit Passenger Data 25,000

20,000

Passengers Passengers

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Figure 27: Fort Smith Transit Number of Passengers

TRANSPORTATION MODES

53 | P a g e


Miles

Figure 28: Fort Smith Transit Revenue Miles

Fort Smith Transit Revenue Hours 3,500.00

3,000.00

2,500.00

Passengers

Hours

2,000.00

1,500.00

1,000.00

500.00

0.00

2009

2010

2011

Figure 29: Fort Smith Transit Revenue Hours

TRANSPORTATION MODES

54 | P a g e


Figure 30: Fort Smith Transit Department - Fixed Route Bus System Map

TRANSPORTATION MODES

55 | P a g e


A new initiative was started in 2004 by the Fort Smith Transit Department and the Frontier MPO. This initiative involves developing a coordinated transit operation among all the region‘s transit providers, both public and private. The result of this initiative was the formation of the River Valley Transit Providers which is a group comprised of approximately 30 individuals representing the region‘s transit operators. Included in this group are the local taxi company and the region‘s charter bus services. This effort predated the federal transit initiative, United We Ride, by nearly two years and has become the foundation for the Frontier MPO‘s Coordinated Human Services Transit Plan. The River Valley Transportation Providers was established through the formation of collaborative efforts between multiple entities and agencies. The group recognized the need to dissolve boundaries and barriers and establish a communication link between area providers. Many of these agencies have been actively involved in meetings to identify transportation challenges, commonalities in service characteristics, issues and specialized training conducive to the River Valley since July 2004. Here is a list of the planning partners that are working together in the planning efforts of future coordination:                     

Abilities Unlimited Area Agency on Aging BOST, Inc. Brookfield Assisted Living Center Butterfield Place City of Fort Smith Transit Crisis Intervention Center Franklin County Learning Center Franklin County Senior Center Gateway House Gormon Towers Harbor House, Inc. Hope‘s Creek Legacy Heights Letsgo Charters Mercy Crest Non-Ambulatory Transportation Service Razorback Cab Company Sebastian Retirement Citizen‘s Association Stepping Stone Schools Western Arkansas Counseling and Guidance Center

TRANSPORTATION MODES

56 | P a g e


These mostly human service agencies provide a vital link to the overall passenger transportation service in the Frontier MPO region. They provide transit service to specific clients for a variety of trip purposes including - medical, shopping, education, employment and recreational.

Funding for

transportation services is largely provided to these agencies through the AHTD administered Sections 5310, 5316 and 5317 programs and through the Arkansas Department of Human Services aging, disability, and Medicaid programs. These agencies provided an estimated 150,000 passenger trips in 2010 throughout Crawford and Sebastian Counties. Frontier MPO region residents living in the rural portions of Le Flore and Sequoyah Counties are also provides public transit service. KiBois Area Transit System was established in 1983 to help meet the transportation needs for southeast Oklahoma‘s communities by helping to provide access to muchneeded employment and medical services. The AHTD is assisting the Area Agency on Aging of Western Arkansas to establish rural transit service. Public transit service will be available to residents living in rural areas within eleven counties including Crawford and Sebastian Counties. This service is expected to begin in late 2011. The only public transit system currently operating in the Frontier MPO Area is the Fort Smith Transit System, which serves city residents. Its expressed purpose is to provide for the operations of the city‘s transit system meeting its growing public transportation needs. The Fort Smith Transit System major goal outlined in its plan/application for continued funding submitted to the Federal Transit Administration is to work with the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department‘s Public Transportation Offices to purchase and place 25 bus stop shelters along major transit routes throughout Fort Smith. This will include planning, easement acquisition, shelter purchase and placement. The City of Fort Smith is currently expanding the fixed route trolley service in the downtown. A voluntary non-profit group operates the downtown trolley system during the summer months.

TRANSPORTATION MODES

57 | P a g e


Figure 31: Fort Smith Trolley System Map

TRANSPORTATION MODES

58 | P a g e


7. Bicycle In 1998, the Frontier MPO Staff with the assistance of the Fort Smith Parks Commission prepared a Bikeway Plan for the City of Fort Smith. This plan was adopted and became a part of the City‘s Master Street Plan to commensurate with street plan implementation activities that are enforced through the City‘s Subdivision Regulations. The City of Fort Smith‘s Bikeway Plan has adopted these specifications as a part of their Plan. Sebastian County initiated a bikeway project that was coordinated with the City of Fort Smith‘s Bikeway Plan as it relates to a bike path element along Massard Road. As the Massard Road bike path intersects with Zero Street and enters the County, it continues into Ben Geren Park which is a County operated Park. 8. Pedestrian and Recreational Trails A regional pedestrian plan for the Frontier MPO area is challenging due to geography and the Arkansas River. Major cities in the Area are separated from one another by long stretches of undeveloped land corridors, accessed by State or Federal Highways. In turn, these corridors do not have sufficient population or activity to generate the need for pedestrian improvements. However, as State and Federal Highways are improved, the Frontier MPO will suggest that pedestrian improvements be considered in the highways‘ final study and design.

When

requested, the Frontier MPO Staff assists each Area city in their planning needs and activities. As cities continue to grow, and needs such as pedestrian improvements arise, the Frontier MPO Staff will coordinate all local pedestrian plans to ensure connectivity, correct location, ADA accessibility, and design.

The Fort Smith Trails and Greenways Plan was developed during late 2003 and into 2004. The Plan shows 22 individual corridors that have been identified as potential trails. A total of nearly 88 miles of trails are proposed in the plan with a three phased implementation schedule of Near Term (0-5 years), Mid Term (5-10 years) and Long Term (10–15 years). Over its three phases, total estimated costs for the Plan range from $21,897,500 to an estimated $26,277,000.

TRANSPORTATION MODES

59 | P a g e


The Fort Smith Plan will be the backbone for the development of other trails plans within the Frontier MPO Area. Currently, the City of Greenwood is developing a Greenways Plan that will become an element of their Master Street Plan.

The Fort Smith Trails and Greenways Master Plan offers recommendations for improving community access to outdoor resources by identifying and preserving greenway corridors and building a network of off-road multi-purpose paved trails. LandPlan worked very closely with the Fort Smith Trails and Greenways Advisory Committee in preparing this master plan. LandPlan also conducted public workshops, public meetings, and worked very closely with Fort Smith to ensure the proposed trail/greenway system enhances the quality of life for city residents. The trails master plan identifies 22 corridors throughout the City of Fort Smith and calls for the implementation of a 87.59 mile network of off-road multi-purpose trails throughout the city. The system is extensive and comprehensive, and at the same time provides a realistic program for satisfying the needs of local residents regarding access to outdoor resources and linkage to popular destinations. (www.lpcci.com/fort_smith_trails_master_plan.htm).

TRANSPORTATION MODES

60 | P a g e


Figure 32: Fort Smith Trails & Greenways – Route Plan

TRANSPORTATION MODES

61 | P a g e


Figure 33: Fort Smith Trails & Greenways – Existing Fort Smith Bikeway Plan

TRANSPORTATION MODES

62 | P a g e


Travel Demand 1990 to 2009 Frontier MPO over the last 30 years has monitored travel demand and traffic volume trends within the region. As mentioned earlier, the Arkansas River bisects the region and provides opportunities and challenges for all modes of transportation. The following traffic trends have been provided for the Interstate System, State Highway System, and the four highway bridges that cross the Arkansas River within the Metropolitan Planning Area Boundary. One additional bridge will be constructed over the

Figure 35: Highway - Traffic Estimates

Figure 34: Bridges - Traffic Estimates

Arkansas River when I-49 is completed from SH 22 to I-40.

TRANSPORTATION MODES

63 | P a g e


Figure 36: Annual Traffic Estimates

TRANSPORTATION MODES

64 | P a g e


TRANSPORTATION MODES

Figure 37: Annual Traffic Estimates

65 | P a g e


TRANSPORTATION MODES

Figure 38: Annual Traffic Estimates

66 | P a g e


TRANSPORTATION MODES

Figure 39: Annual Traffic Estimates

67 | P a g e


Figure 40: Annual Traffic Estimates

TRANSPORTATION MODES

68 | P a g e


Port of Van Buren

Port of Fort Smith

Figure 41: Intermodal Access - Industrial Locations provided by the Fort Smith Regional Chamber of Commerce

TRANSPORTATION MODES

69 | P a g e


Chaffee Crossing Chaffee Crossing is the center point of the nation‘s transportation crossroads of I-40, the future I-49 and the McClellan–Kerr Navigation System on the Arkansas River. This smart growth planned development creates a unique place in the region where natural resources, transportation, affordable living and national history converge to create an exciting mixed-use environment for work, play, exploration and learning. The Crossing is poised to become regions premier livable community where Smart Growth planning is key. The reuse and redevelopment of the area that was once Fort Chaffee has developed and programmed the infrastructure needed to direct new development and respond to economic development opportunities over the next 25 years.

Figure 42: The Crossing

Figure 43: Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas, Inc. Wind Turbine Nacelle Manufacturing Plant

TRANSPORTATION MODES

70 | P a g e


Heritage Trails The Fort Smith region contains portions of the Butterfield Overland Mail trail route. This route was established in 1858 and provided mail service across the United States. In Arkansas, the Butterfield coach route connected Fort Smith the Fayetteville and Little Rock. The Route has been recognized by the State of Arkansas as a Heritage Trail Route.

Trail of Tears routes are also located in the region. The Federal Indian Removal Act of 1830 authorized the ―forcible removal of the five tribes to new lands in the Indian Territory (modern-day Oklahoma).‖ The map provided below shows the approximate location of the routes that passed through the Fort Smith Region. Congress in 1987 designated the routes used to forcible remove the

Figure 44: Western Arkansas Heritage Trail Locations Trail of Tears and Butterfield Stagecoach

tribes based on the ―Cherokee experience‖ as a national historic trail.

Source: Comprehensive Management and Use Plan, Trail of Tears

TRANSPORTATION MODES

71 | P a g e


National Historic Trail and The Department of Arkansas Heritage.

Butterfield Overland Stagecoach Route Frontier MPO Area

Figure 45: Butterfield Overland Stagecoach Route TRANSPORTATION MODES

72 | P a g e


I-540

I-40

Figure 46: 2008 Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department Percent Truck Map TRANSPORTATION MODES

73 | P a g e


INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

TRANSPORTATION MODES

74 | P a g e


THE PLANNING PROCESS


IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCIAL PLAN


VI.

IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCIAL PLAN

A.

Relation to the Transportation Improvements Program (TIP) Process

The Transportation Improvements Program (TIP) process is the mechanism that the Frontier MPO uses each year in the implementation of the Plan. The TIP is developed as a four (4) year document containing proposed transportation projects that have been selected from the Frontier MPO 2035 Transportation Plan. The TIP must be fiscally constrained in the same manner as the Plan and it must contain assurances or a reasonable expectation that the projects listed in the document can be accomplished during the stated time frame in the document. The TIP is a document has prescribed amendment procedures and the preparation of the four year TIP must be a coordinated and cooperative effort among all of the participants of the Frontier MPO Transportation Planning Process to ensure a complete and comprehensive document.

As

mentioned, all projects that anticipate Federal funding from any source must be included in the TIP, yet any project that may have a significant effect on the transportation system whether it is federally funded or not must also be on the TIP.

This requirement is to maintain close

coordination and monitoring of all projects that may have an impact not only on the existing transportation network but also on the potential or possibility of future requests for Federal assistance.

B.

2035 MTP Financial Plan

The Financial Plan for implementing the Plan is contained in the listing of transportation projects and year of expenditure. Its elements include the funds available to local governments for street and/or highway improvements in conjunction with Federal assistance, State assisted projects, and 100% locally funded projects. Local governments are best served when implementing street projects through the use of Federal funds because of the leveraging affect of the Federal funding programs. However, since local access to these programs cannot be guaranteed, the need to identify the local improvements remains. If and when Federal Funds become available for a project that is currently shown as an illustrative project, the local government together with the Frontier MPO Staff will initiate the process of securing these funds while retaining the integrity of the fiscal constraint element of the TIP and Frontier MPO 2035 MTP.

IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCIAL PLAN

123 | P a g e


E.

2035 MTP Monitoring Procedures

There are two primary sources that monitor the Frontier MPO activities relative to the 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan; the Annual Unified Planning Work Program and the Western Arkansas Planning and Development District: Annual Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) The UPWP is prepared each year by the Frontier MPO Staff in coordination with the local member governments, the two States’ Transportation Departments, and the US Department of Transportation. For almost three decades, the UPWP has provided the framework for all regional transportation planning activities in the Frontier MPO Area. It has enabled the Frontier MPO Staff to assist local governments in local plan development and review which has become the essence of the Frontier Metropolitan Transportation Plan from its inception to its present form. Frontier MPO Staff works with each local planning commission in conducting studies, providing analysis of transportation related matters, and periodically updating the street plans as the need arises. Local Master Street plans are regularly reviewed and amended as needed in response to the various development issues facing the local jurisdictions. Each of these efforts is coordinated through the Frontier MPO Staff which, when, necessary involves the appropriate State Transportation Department. Western Arkansas Planning and Development District The second form of Plan monitoring that is regularly undertaken is a product of the unique relationship that the Frontier MPO has with Western Arkansas Planning and Development District. Although the Frontier MPO is a free-standing MPO, the two organizations serve within the same general area, share staff, facilities, and other planning resources. The fiscal responsibilities of the two organizations are distinct and have continually remained separate since the Frontier MPO can only serve the planning area boundary of the six (6) county area that the District encompasses as well as those urbanized portions of Le Flore and Sequoyah Counties in Oklahoma.

This

relationship has provided a degree of synergy that has benefited both organizations in their missions to provide local and regional planning assistance to their respective member governments. As a result of this unique arrangement, the Frontier MPO Staff has access to IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCIAL PLAN

124 | P a g e


essentially all development related matters in an eight county area (including the two Oklahoma Counties) which affords the Staff opportunities for comprehensive impact analysis, early information relative to planned developments which may impact the region’s infrastructure, and a data base for comparable studies linked to previous regional and district plan implementation activities. All of these benefits combine to afford the Frontier MPO Staff with a unique apparatus to effectively monitor local plan implementation efforts and, collectively, the Frontier 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Another monitoring device that assists the Frontier MPO Staff is through the Frontier MPO’s role as a regional Sub-State Data Center in cooperation with the State Data Center at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock. The designation as a Sub-State Data Center means that all of the Census Bureau data releases are housed in the Frontier MPO offices. Sub-State Data Centers receive numerous requests each week from private developers and marketing consultants for data pertaining to local demographics, traffic, and other census related data which are used in preparing plans and proposals for new developments within the Frontier Area. When there is a possibility of new development occurring as a result of the data requests from private developers and consultants, the Frontier MPO Staff works closely with the impacted local jurisdiction in identifying any transportation needs or improvements relative to the possible developments. This close coordination and liaison between the communities and developers enables the Frontier MPO Staff to stay abreast of the impending developments and incorporate them into the planning process. Although, as mentioned, the Frontier MPO is a free standing MPO, it and the Western Arkansas Planning and Development District are essentially the same organization in that they comprise the same staff, location, and technical resources. This unique relationship enables the Frontier MPO Staff to draw upon a variety of local monitoring techniques ranging from economic development assistance to regional solid waste planning activities. When the various assortments of monitoring techniques and activities are combined, the Frontier MPO Staff is presented with a comprehensive plan of both the Frontier MPO Area and the many communities surrounding the Frontier MPO Area which will ultimately impact or be impacted by the transportation needs, issues, plans and programs affecting the metropolitan area.

IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCIAL PLAN

125 | P a g e


C.

Importance of Local Planning Programs

Each of the Frontier MPO jurisdictions has developed a set of regional priorities for transportation improvements. These priorities range from local improvement projects that will benefit their respective street and highway networks to truly regional projects that will benefit all jurisdictions. The regional priorities that are presented on the following pages reflect projects that, in some cases, have the financial resources to construct and in other cases are those projects that the jurisdiction has no authority over but recognizes that importance of the project to the region. 1.

Local Master Street Plan Implementation Procedures Local street plan administration is a significant implementation device since the successful day to day administration can implement large parts of the Plan with limited expenses required from local governments. Many cities within the Frontier Area have adopted a master street plan and has implemented enforcement procedures through their respective planning commissions. As a result of these enforcement measures, numerous miles of local and collector streets have been built or improved in new and expanded subdivisions according to regionally accepted and shared standards.

2.

Maintenance Activities of the Frontier MPO Area’s Local Street Plans Maintenance of local streets and highways that are under the jurisdiction of local governments is a large annual budget item for each jurisdiction. It represents the majority of the allocations of the annual funds for street repair and construction. Each Frontier MPO Area city has a 1 cent dedicated sales tax for street and drainage work. These funds have provided the cities with resources necessary to perform the required maintenance activities for their individual street networks. Although these funds allow the cities to extend the life of the streets, there are not enough funds to undertake new construction or major improvement. However, the Cities of Fort Smith and, to a smaller degree, Van Buren are the exceptions. Each of these cities has programmed large scale street projects in recent years through the assistance of federal funds which were leveraged by the availability of local non-federal matching funds. Notwithstanding, each city still devotes a large percentage of their

IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCIAL PLAN

126 | P a g e


budget to regular maintenance activities. The underlying tenet of all of the Frontier MPO cities and counties is that effective maintenance programs extend the life of a facility while poor programs or insufficient maintenance practices result in recapitalizing their public investments before the expected replacement of them. Not only is this a sound administrative policy, but it is also the means by which the local governments can demonstrate accountability to the local tax payers. Although maintenance costs vary depending on the type of facility and cost of materials, a 12% to 17% range of local budgets is an average for the Frontier MPO Area’s jurisdictions.

IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCIAL PLAN

127 | P a g e


FRONTIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES BY MEMBER JURISDICTION Alma -

Completion of I-49 between I-40 and SH 71, south of Fort Smith

-

Complete SH 162 by-pass

-

Widen and reconstruct Mountain Grove Rd between US 64 and Edwards Rd.

-

Construction of frontage roads along I-540

Barling -

Completion of I-49 between I-40 and SH 71, south of Fort Smith

-

Widen and reconstruct ‘H’ Street between SH 22 and east of the future I-49 corridor

-

Widening and construction of SH 255 between Massard Rd. and SH 22 and relocate to Frontier Blvd.

-

Improve Strozier Lane

-

East/West access under/over the future I-49 corridor

Bonanza -

Completion of I-49 between I-40 and SH 71, south of Fort Smith

-

Widen to 4 lanes SH 45 between its intersection with SH 253 and the southern city limits

-

Widen and reconstruct Sherwood Ave. between SH 45 and the western city limits

-

Widen and reconstruct Bonanza Rd. between US 71 and SH 45

Fort Smith -

Completion of I-49 between I-40 and SH 71, south of Fort Smith

-

Construct a regional intermodal port facility on the Arkansas River

-

Develop Corridor Plans for city’s major commercial arterial and collector systems

-

Widen Jenny Lind from Zero to Dallas

Greenwood -

Completion of I-49 between I-40 and SH 71, south of Fort Smith

-

Widen and reconstruct Denver Street between SH 10 spur and Main Street

-

Widen and reconstruct Denver Street between US 71 and SH 10 spur

-

Identify capacity and safety improvements for SH 10 and SH 10 Spur

-

Construction of frontage roads along the I-49 corridor between the I-49/US 71 interchange and the I-49/SH 10 planned interchange west of the city

IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCIAL PLAN

128 | P a g e


Van Buren -

Completion of I-49 between I-40 and SH 71, south of Fort Smith

-

Continued implementation of the Van Buren Intermodal Facility

-

Completion of the remaining phases of the SH 59 corridor improvements

-

Completion of the planned improvements within the 28th Street corridor project

-

Completion of the planned improvements within the Industrial Park Road Street corridor project

-

Completion of the planned improvements within the 40th Street corridor project

-

Construction of an additional interchange on I-40 to provide access to the growth areas in the northern portion of the city

Crawford County -

Completion of I-49 between I-40 and SH 71, south of Fort Smith

-

Widen and reconstruct Old Uniontown R. between SH 59 and the northern Bi- State Boundary

-

Develop an east/west arterial system north of I-40.

-

Identify locations for an I-40 frontage road system and initiate construction

Sebastian County -

Completion of I-49 between I-40 and the southern Frontier MPO Boundary, south of Greenwood

-

Widen and reconstruct SH 45 from SH 253 to the southern FMPO Boundary

-

Widen and reconstruct SH 45 between US 71 and SH 253

-

Widen and reconstruct Bonanza Rd and Tennessee Ridge Rd. between US 71 and SH 45

Le Flore County -

Design and improve the US 271/US 59 corridor to Interstate standard from the Arkansas State Line to I-40 in Sallisaw

-

Widen and reconstruct SH 112 between its intersection with US 271 in Pocola and the southern Frontier MPO Boundary

Sequoyah County -

Design and improve the US 271/US 59 corridor to Interstate standard from the Arkansas State Line to I-40 in Sallisaw

-

Repair, replace or rehabilitate the county’s functionally or structurally obsolete bridges

IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCIAL PLAN

129 | P a g e


There are additional regional goals that are shared by the Frontier MPO member governments. These goals reflect more of a transportation systems management approach in identifying specific goals, priorities and projects:  Ground Transportation Center in Fort Smith  Pedestrian, Transit, Bikeway, trails, riverboat/ marina  Retail space for lease, i.e. restaurants, office  Expand rural public transit service in western Arkansas  Extension of Clayton Expressway to an interchange with I-540  Expansion of the Fort Smith Transit into a regional transit system within the urban areas of Sebastian and Crawford Counties.  A regional trails system for the Fort Smith Area  Expansion of the Fort Smith Bikeway system (Fort Smith Bikeway Plan)  Development of an electronic travelers services system for the Fort Smith Urban Area  Improved and coordinated Signal Timing on the region’s traffic signals  Safety improvements on the region’s highway and street network.  Increased bus services between communities in Le Flore and Sequoyah Counties and the Fort Smith/Van Buren area.  Widening of State Highway 45 to a four-lane facility between Zero Street and US 71 in Fort Smith.  Develop and implement a region-wide access management system.  Strengthen driveway ordinances,  Promote shared access on Arterial roadways,  Consider and implement where possible frontage roads

IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCIAL PLAN

130 | P a g e


LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS


VII.

FRONTIER MPO 2030 TRANSPORTATION PLAN 5 YEAR MODULAR

PROJECT LIST 2011 - 2035 Fiscally Constrained Project Listing Categories The project listing presented in this section contains only those projects that are fiscally constrained. By definition this means that the following projects are those where there is a reasonable expectation of the availability of funds for each project by its horizon year. Therefore, if a project is scheduled for the 3rd Five Year Increment, 2021 - 2025, there must be a reasonable assumption that the funds, whether they are from Local, State, or Federal sources, will be available for the project. To assist in maintaining the fiscally constrained requirement, some projects have been phased over one or more Increment. The horizon year for the Frontier MPO is 2035 and there are a number of projects in the constrained listing that may raise some concern about fiscally constrained issues. It is the policy of the Frontier MPO that these projects have a reasonable expectation for funding over this time frame and that the concerted efforts of the Frontier MPO Staff and those of the local governmental and business leadership will result in securing the necessary funding for the following projects:          

Bridge Funds Enhancement Funds Interstate Maintenance Funds National Highway System Funds Safety Funds Surface Transportation Program Funds Surface Transportation Program Urban Funds State Funding Transit Funding Projects with Designated Funding

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

131 | P a g e


Figure 55 Priority Projects of Regional Significance

FRONTIER MPO PRIORITY PROJECTS OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

132 | P a g e


Identified Transportation Projects

Figure 56: Identified Transportation Projects

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

133 | P a g e


Figure 57: Identified Transportation Projects

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

134 | P a g e


Figure 58: Identified Transportation Projects

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

135 | P a g e


Figure 59: Identified Transportation Projects

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

136 | P a g e


Figure 60: Identified Transportation Projects

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

137 | P a g e


Figure 61: Identified Transportation Projects

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

138 | P a g e


Constrained Project Listing 5 Year Increments

BRIDGE FUNDS 2011 to 2015 I-540 Bridge Rehab and Replacement (13 Structures) Highway 64C Bridge "Canner" US 64 Multiple Bridge Rehab and Replacement (4 Structures) US 64 Bridge Painting Garrison Ave. 2016 to 2020 I-540 Bridge Rehab and Replacement (13 Structures) Highway 64C Bridge "Canner" US 64 Multiple Bridge Rehab and Replacement (4 Structures) 2021 to 2025 I-540 Bridge Rehab and Replacement (13 Structures) Highway 64C Bridge "Canner" US 64 Multiple Bridge Rehab and Replacement (4 Structures) 2026 to 2030 I-540 Bridge Rehab and Replacement (13 Structures) Highway 64C Bridge "Canner" US 64 Multiple Bridge Rehab and Replacement (4 Structures) 2031 to 2035 I-540 Bridge Rehab and Replacement (13 Structures) Highway 64C Bridge "Canner" US 64 Multiple Bridge Rehab and Replacement (4 Structures)

Available Funding

$9,765,383

Total Cost Available Funding

$9,765,383 $11,824,071

Total Cost Available Funding

$11,824,071 $14,316,760

Total Cost Available Funding

$14,316,760 $17,334,946

Total Cost Available Funding

$17,334,946 $20,989,410

Total Cost Note: Projects will be phased based on available funding Total These funds are programmed for the reconstruction of I-540 and U.S. 64 structures.

$20,989,410 $74,230,570

Available Funding

$74,230,570

Total

$74,230,570

Constrained Bridge Project Listing Job # NS NS R40107 R40107 R40107 R40107 R40107 R40107 R40107 R40107 R40107 R40107 R40107 TO CITY SD NS

RTE 540 540 540 540 540 540 540 540 540 540 540 540 540 64 64 64 64 64

INTERSECTED FEATURE FLAT ROCK CREEK FLAT ROCK CREEK SH 162-SEC 1 UN PAC RAILROAD & CREEK SH 162-SEC 1 UN PAC RR & CREEK ARKANSAS RIVER RELIEF SH 22-SEC 1 GRAND AVE. CLAYTON BRANCH SH22-SEC 1 GRAND AVE. CLAYTON BRANCH ARK RVR & ARKMO/BN RRS LITTLE FROG BAYOU TOWN BRANCH FLAT ROCK CREEK LITTLE FROG BAYOU

Figure 62: Constrained Project Listing 5 Year Increments – Bridge Funds

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

139 | P a g e


Figure 63: Constrained Project Listing 5 Year Increments – Enhancement Funds

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

140 | P a g e


Figure 64: Constrained Project Listing 5 Year Increments – Interstate Maintenance Funds

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

141 | P a g e


Figure 65: Constrained Project Listing 5 Year Increments – National Highway System Funds

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

142 | P a g e


Figure 66: Constrained Project Listing 5 Year Increments – Safety Funds

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

143 | P a g e


Figure 67: Constrained Project Listing 5 Year Increments – Surface Transportation Program Funds

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

144 | P a g e


Constrained Project Listing 5 Year Increments

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM URBAN FUNDS 2011 to 2015 SH 162 - Alma Jenny Lind - Fort Smith Rena Road - Van Buren 28th Street - Van Buren 2016 to 2020 Denver Street - Greenwood Jenny Lind - Fort Smith 40th Street - Van Buren Industrial Park Road - Van Buren 2021 to 2025 28th Street - Van Buren Chad Colley Blvd. - Fort Smith Massard Road - Fort Smith Rena Road - Van Buren 2026 to 2030 Planters Road Spradling Avenue Denver Street Mountain Grove Road 2031 to 2035 Roberts Road 66th Street Extension Clayton Expressway Extension Riggs Drive

Available Funds

Total Cost Available Funds

Total Cost Available Funds

Total Cost Available Funds

Total Cost Available Funds

Total Cost Note: STP-U funds limited to $1,000,000/project Available Funding Total

Available Funding $4,136,754 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,554,454 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,554,454 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,554,454 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,554,454 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $4,000,000 $22,354,570 $22,354,570 $20,000,000

Figure 68: Constrained Project Listing 5 Year Increments – Surface Transportation Program Urban Funds

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

145 | P a g e


Constrained Project Listing 5 Year Increments

STATE FUNDING 2011 to 2015 Various State Maintenance Projects 2016 to 2020 Various State Maintenance Projects 2021 to 2025 Various State Maintenance Projects 2026 to 2030 Various State Maintenance Projects 2031 to 2035 Various State Maintenance Projects

Available Funding Available Funds $7,665,000 Total Cost Available Funds

$7,665,000 $7,665,000

Total Cost Available Funds

$7,665,000 $7,665,000

Total Cost Available Funds

$7,665,000 $7,665,000

Total Cost Available Funds

$7,665,000 $7,665,000

Total Cost

$7,665,000 $38,325,000

Available Funding Total

$38,325,000 $38,325,000

Note: Various State projects

Figure 69: Constrained Project Listing 5 Year Increments – State Funding

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

146 | P a g e


Constrained Project Listing 5 Year Increments

TRANSIT FUNDING 2011 to 2015 Fort Smith Capital and Operations 2016 to 2020 Fort Smith Capital and Operations 2021 to 2025 Fort Smith Capital and Operations 2026 to 2030 Fort Smith Capital and Operations Total Cost 2031 to 2035 Fort Smith Capital and Operations Total Cost Note: Fort Smith Transit Match included in totals

Available Funds Total Cost Available Funds Total Cost Available Funds Total Cost Available Funds Total Cost Available Funds Total Cost

Available Funding $15,673,630 $15,673,630 $15,673,630 $18,615,355 $18,615,355 $18,615,355 $22,109,203 $22,109,203 $22,109,203 $26,258,797 $26,258,797 $26,258,797 $31,187,214 $31,187,214 $31,187,214 $113,844,199

Available Funding Total

$113,844,199 $113,844,199

Figure 70: Constrained Project Listing 5 Year Increments – Transit Funding

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

147 | P a g e


Figure 71: Constrained Project Listing 5 Year Increments – Projects with Designated Funding

Figure 72: Constrained Project Listing 5 Year Increments – Statewide Generic Projects 2011 to 2015

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

148 | P a g e


Constrained Project Listing

FY 2011 OKLAHOMA JOB N O

LET Y EA R

11770(25)

2011

C OU N T Y

T ER M IN I

T Y PE W OR K

F ED ER A L FUNDS 1,0 0 0 )

LOC A L ST A T E F U N D S F U N D S ( X 1,0 0 0 ) 1,0 0 0 )

SEQUOYA H & LEFLORE

P L0202 (088) FL – P LA N, SFY 2012 (JULY 1, 2011– JUNE 30, 2012)

M P O P LA NNING

$ 21

N/A

$ 5.25

$ 26.25

N/A

2 0 11

PL

(X

(X

T OT A L C OST ( X 1,0 0 0 )

C A R R Y IN G OU T PR OJEC T

DATE

T Y PE OF F ED ER A L FUNDS

J2-0781(011)

2011

STA TEWIDE

3B (B RIDGE) P REV M A INT INCLUDING P A INT, JOINTS, B EA RINGS & DECK REP A IR

B RIDGE

$ 5,000

N/A

N/A

$ 5,000.00

N/A

2 0 11

N/A

J2-1016(011)

2011

STA TEWIDE

P RELIM INA RY ENGINEERING

ENG

$ 15,000

N/A

N/A

$ 15,000.00

N/A

2 0 11

N/A

J2-3612(011)

2011

STA TEWIDE

COUNTY B RIDGE P ROGRA M

B RIDGE

$ 20,000

N/A

N/A

$ 20,000.00

N/A

2 0 11

N/A

J2-3613(011)

2011

STA TEWIDE

COUNTY ROA D P ROGRA M

COUNTY

$ 6,000

N/A

N/A

$ 6,000.00

N/A

2 0 11

N/A

J2-3614(011)

2011

STA TEWIDE

SM A LL CITY ROA D & B RIDGE P ROGRA M

ROA D & B RIDGE

$ 3,000

N/A

N/A

$ 3,000.00

N/A

2 0 11

N/A

J2-5625(011)

2011

STA TEWIDE

ENHA NCEM ENT

$ 1,663

N/A

N/A

$ 1,663.00

N/A

2 0 11

N/A

J1-0749(017)

2011

STA TEWIDE

RA IL

$ 8,000

N/A

N/A

$ 8,000.00

N/A

2 0 11

N/A

J1-7050(017)

2011

STA TEWIDE

B RIDGE

$ 1,000

N/A

N/A

$ 1,000.00

N/A

2 0 11

N/A

J1-7051(017)

2011

STA TEWIDE

SA FETY

$ 12,000

N/A

N/A

$ 12,000.00

N/A

2 0 11

N/A

J1-7663(017)

2011

STA TEWIDE

ENHA NCEM ENT

$ 12,000

N/A

N/A

$ 12,000.00

N/A

2 0 11

N/A

J1-8262(014)

2011

STA TEWIDE

TRA ILS

$ 1,400

N/A

N/A

$ 1,400.00

N/A

2 0 11

N/A

J1-9720(012)

2011

STA TEWIDE

$ 1,000

N/A

N/A

$ 1,000.00

N/A

2 0 11

N/A

J2-0780(011)

2011

STA TEWIDE

$ 35,000

N/A

N/A

$ 35,000.00

N/A

2 0 11

N/A

J1-5609(18)

2011

STA TEWIDE

$ 130,015

N/A

N/A

$ 130,015.00

N/A

2 0 11

N/A

J1-5611(18)

2011

STA TEWIDE

$ 2,000

N/A

N/A

$ 2,000.00

N/A

2 0 11

N/A

J1-5612(18)

2011

STA TEWIDE

$ 600

N/A

N/A

$ 600.00

N/A

2 0 11

N/A

J1-8356(18)

2011

STA TEWIDE

$ 165

N/A

N/A

$ 165.00

N/A

2 0 11

N/A

J1-8357(018)

2011

STA TEWIDE

$ 200

N/A

N/A

$ 200.00

N/A

2 0 11

N/A

J2-0882(011)

2011

STA TEWIDE

N/A

N/A

$ 1,000.00

N/A

2 0 11

N/A

J2-1342(008)

2011

STA TEWIDE

21342(08) CA P ITOL GRA NT P ROGRA M FFY 2010 A P P ORTIONM ENT

$

N/A

N/A

$

N/A

2 0 11

N/A

J2-3382(008)

2011

STA TEWIDE

23328(08) NEW FREEDON P ROGRA M FFY 2010 A P P ORTIONM ENT

$ 600

N/A

N/A

$ 600.00

N/A

2 0 11

N/A

2011

STA TEWIDE

FTA SECTION JOB S P ROGRA M FFY 2010 A P P ORTIONM ENT

$ 18,000

N/A

N/A

$ 18,000.00

N/A

2 0 11

N/A

$5.25

$273,669.25

N/A

2 0 11

SA FE ROUTES TO SCHOOL – DESIGN, DEV, CONSTR OF ENGINEERING P ROJECTS A ND EDUCA TIONA L P ROGRA M S STA TEWIDE RA IL CROSSING – P ROTECTIVE DEVICES, CRSING SURF, A DV WA RNING SIGNS, STRIP ING, CLOSURES SM A LL SCA LE B RIDGE IM P ROVEM ENT – P A INTING, M INOR REP A IRS, SEA L COA T/WA TERP RFING, SILA NE TR, ETC. SM A LL SCA LE TRA FFIC SA FETY – SIGNING, INT. M OD, LIGHTING, INTRCON SYST, GRDRA IL, DELINEA TION, ETC. ENHA NCEM ENT, B IKE/P ED P A THS, SCENIC/HIST HWA Y P ROG, LA NDSCA P E, HISTORIC P RESERV, ETC. RECREA TIONA L TRA ILS

R/W CLEA RA NCE – REM OVE/DISP OSE OB STRUCTIONS ON P UB LIC ROW R/W P RIOR TO UTILITY RELOC OR P ROJ STA RTUP 3R/3P SIM P LE P A VEM ENT P RESERV/RESTORE A SP HA LT OVERLA Y, P A VEM ENT STRIP E, SIGN & GRA IL 15609(18) FTA SECTION 5311/5340 NONURB A NIZED A REA FORM ULA GRA NT P ROGRA M FFY 2010 A P P ORTIONM ENT 15611(18) FTA SECTION 5310 TRA NS P ROGRA M FOR ELDERLY & P ERSONS W/DISA B ILITIES FFY 2010 A P P ORTIONM ENT 15612(18( M ETRO P LA NNING P ROGRA M FFY2010 A P P ORTIONM ENT 18356(18) STA TEWIDE P LA NNING P ROGRA M FFY 2010 A P P ORTIONM ENT 18357(18) RURA L TRA NSIT A SST P ROGRA M FFY 2010 A P P ORETIONM ENT 20882(11) JOB A CCESS & REVERSE COM M UTE P ROGRA M FFY 2010 A P P ORTIONM ENT

$ 1,000

OKLAHOMA HIGHWAY TOTAL COSTS 2011 $273,664

-

$

-

-

Figure 73: Oklahoma Constrained Project Listing

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

149 | P a g e


Constrained Project Listing FY 2012 OKLAHOMA JOB N O

LET Y EA R

11770(25)

2012

C OU N T Y

T ER M IN I

T Y PE W OR K

F ED ER A L FUNDS 1,0 0 0 )

DATE

T Y PE OF F ED ER A L FUNDS

SEQUOYA H & LEFLORE

P L0202 (088) FL – P LA N, SFY 2012 (JULY 1, 2011– JUNE 30, 2012)

M P O P LA NNING

$ 21

N/A

$ 5.25

$ 26.25

N/A

2 0 12

PL

RESURFA CE

$ 10,602

N/A

N/A

$ 10,602.12

N/A

2 0 12

N/A

SA FETY

$ 8,000

N/A

N/A

$ 8,000.00

N/A

2 0 12

N/A

B RIDGE

$ 1,000

N/A

N/A

$ 1,000.00

N/A

2 0 12

N/A

SA FETY

$ 12,000

N/A

N/A

$ 12,000.00

N/A

2 0 12

N/A

ENHA NCEM ENT

$ 12,000

N/A

N/A

$ 12,000.00

N/A

2 0 12

N/A

ENHA NCEM ENT

$ 1,400

N/A

N/A

$ 1,400.00

N/A

2 0 12

N/A

ROW

$ 1,000

N/A

N/A

$ 1,000.00

N/A

2 0 12

N/A

P A VEM ENT

$ 25,000

N/A

N/A

$ 25,000.00

N/A

2 0 12

N/A

20910(04)

2012

SEQUOYA H

J1-0749(018)

2012

STA TEWIDE

J1-7050(018)

2012

STA TEWIDE

J1-7051(018)

2012

STA TEWIDE

J1-7663(018)

2012

STA TEWIDE

J1-8262(015)

2012

STA TEWIDE

I-40 FR M ILE P OST 325.11TO 330.66) (WESTB OUND ONLY) (WHITETOP ) 5.55 M ILES STA TEWIDE RA IL CROSSING – P ROTECTIVE DEVICES, CROSSING SURF, A DV WA RNING SIGNS, STRIP ING, CLOSURES SM A LL SCA LE B RIDGE IM P ROVEM ENT – P A INTING, M INOR REP A IRS, SEA L COA T/WA TERP ROOFING, SILA NE TR, ETC. SM A LL SCA LE TRA FFIC SA FETY – SIGNING, INT M OD, LIGHTING, INTRCON SYST,GRDRA IL, DELINEA TION, ETC. ENHA NCEM ENT, B IKE/P ED P THS, SCENIC/HIST HWA Y P ROG, LA NDSCA P E, HISTORIC P RESERV, ETC. RECREA TIONA L TRA ILS R/W CLEA RA NCE – REM OVE/DISP OSE OB STRUCTIONS ON P RIOR R/W P RIOR TO UTILITY RELOC OR P ROJ STA RTUP 3R/3P SIM P LE P A VEM ENT P RESERV/RESTORE A SHP HA LT OVLA Y,STRIP E,SIGN & GRA IL 3B (B RIDGE) P REV M A INT INCLUDING P A INT, JOINTS, B EA RINGS, & DECK REP A IR

LOC A L ST A T E F U N D S F U N D S ( X 1,0 0 0 ) 1,0 0 0 )

(X

(X

T OT A L C OST ( X 1,0 0 0 )

C A R R Y IN G OU T PR OJEC T

J1-9720(013)

2012

STA TEWIDE

J2-780(012)

2012

STA TEWIDE

J2-0781(012)

2012

STA TEWIDE

B RIDGE

$ 5,000

N/A

N/A

$ 5,000.00

N/A

2 0 12

N/A

J2-1016(012)

2012

STA TEWIDE

P RELIM INA RY ENGINEERING

ENG

$ 15,000

N/A

N/A

$ 15,000.00

N/A

2 0 12

N/A

J2-3612(012)

2012

STA TEWIDE

COUNTY B RIDGE P ROGRA M

B RIDGE

$ 20,000

N/A

N/A

$ 20,000.00

N/A

2 0 12

N/A

J2-3613(012)

2012

STA TEWIDE

COUNTY ROA D P ROGRA M

COUNTY

$ 6,000

N/A

N/A

$ 6,000.00

N/A

2 0 12

N/A

J2-3614(012)

2012

STA TEWIDE

SM A LL CITY ROA D & B RIDGE P ROGRA M

B RIDGE

$ 3,000

N/A

N/A

$ 3,000.00

N/A

2 0 12

N/A

ENHA NCEM ENT

$ 1,663

N/A

N/A

$ 1,663.00

N/A

2 0 12

N/A

$ 14,000

N/A

N/A

$ 14,000.00

N/A

2 0 12

N/A

$ 2,500

N/A

N/A

$ 2,500.00

N/A

2 0 12

N/A

$ 650

N/A

N/A

$ 650.00

N/A

2 0 12

N/A

$ 200

N/A

N/A

$ 200.00

N/A

2 0 12

N/A

$ 250

N/A

N/A

$ 250.00

N/A

2 0 12

N/A

N/A

N/A

$ 1,200.00

N/A

2 0 12

N/A

N/A

N/A

$ 0.00

N/A

2 0 12

N/A

N/A

N/A

$ 700.00

N/A

2 0 12

N/A

$5.25

$ 14 1,19 1.3 7

N/A

2 0 12

J2-5625(012)

2012

STA TEWIDE

J1-5609(19)

2012

STA TEWIDE

J1-5611(19)

2012

STA TEWIDE

J1-5612(019)

2012

STA TEWIDE

J1-8356(019)

2012

STA TEWIDE

J1-8357(019)

2012

STA TEWIDE

J2-0882(12)

2012

STA TEWIDE

J2-1342(009)

2012

STA TEWIDE

J2-3382(009)

2012

STA TEWIDE

SA FE ROUTES TO SCHOOL – DESIGN, DEV, CONSTR OF ENGINEERING P ROJECTS A ND EDUCA TIONA L P ROGRA M S 15609(19) FTA SECTION 5311/5340 NONURB A NIZED A REA FORM ULA GRA NT P ROG FFY 2011A P P ORTIONM ENT 15611(19) FTA SECTION 5310 TRA NS P ROG FOR ELDERLY & P ERSONS W/DISA B ILITIES 15612(19) M ETROP OLITA N P LA NNING P ROG FFY 2011 A P P ORTIONM ENT 18356(19) FTA SECTION 5304 STA TEWIDE P LA NNING P ROG FFY 2011 A P P ORTIONM ENT 18357(19) FTA SECTION 5311(B )/RURA L TRA NSIT A SST P ROG FFY 2011 A P P ORTIONM ENT 20882(12) FTA SECTION 5316 GRA NT/JOB A CCESS & REVERSE COM M UTE P ROG FFY 2011A P P ORTIONM ENT 21342(09) FTA SECTION 5309 CA P ITOL GRA NT P ROG, FFY 2010 A P P ORTIONM ENT 2332(09) FTA SECTION 5317 NEW FREEDOM P ROG, FFY 2010 A P P ORTIONM ENT

$ 1,200 $ $ 700

OKLAHOMA HIGHWAY TOTAL COSTS 2012 $141,186

-

$

-

Figure 74: Oklahoma Constrained Project Listing

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

150 | P a g e


Constrained Project Listing FY 2013 OKLAHOMA JOB N O

LET Y EA R

C OU N T Y

J1-0749(019)

2013

STA TEWIDE

J1-7050(019)

2013

STA TEWIDE

J1-7051(19)

2013

STA TEWIDE

J1-7663(019)

2013

STA TEWIDE

J1-8262(016)

2013

STA TEWIDE

T ER M IN I

17049(19) STA TEWIDE RA IL CROSSING/P ROTECTIVE DEVICES, CRSING SURF, A DV WA RNING SIGNS, STRIP ING, CLOSURES 17050(19) SM A LL SCA LE B RUDGE IM P ROVEM ENT - P A INTING, M INOR REP A IRS, SEA L COA T/WA TER[RFOM G. SOM A M E TR. ETC 17051(19) SM A LL SCA LE TRA FFIC SA FETY - SIGNING, INT M OD, LIGHTING, INTRCON SYST,, GRDRA IL, DELINEA TION, ETC 17663(19) ENHA NCEM ENT, B IKE/P ED P THS, SCENIC/HIST HWY P ROG, LA NDSCA P E, HISTORIC P RESERV, ETC 18262(16) RECREA TIONA L TRA ILS 19720(14) R/W CLEA RA NCE - REM OVE/DISP OSE OB STRUCTION ON P UB LIC R/W P RIOR TO UTILITY RELOC OR P ROJ STA RTUP 20780(13) 3R/3P SIM P LE P A VEM ENT P RESERV/RESTORE A SP HA LT OVLA Y, STRIP E, SIGN & GRA IL 20781(13) 3B P REV M A INT INCLUDING P A INT, JOINTS, B RA RINGS & DECK REP A IR

T Y PE W OR K

F ED ER A L FUNDS 1,0 0 0 )

LOC A L ST A T E F U N D S F U N D S ( X 1,0 0 0 ) 1,0 0 0 )

SA FETY

$ 8,000

N/A

N/A

$ 8,000.00

N/A

2 0 13

B RIDGE

$ 1,000

N/A

N/A

$ 1,000.00

N/A

2 0 13

SA FETY

$ 12,000

N/A

N/A

$ 12,000.00

N/A

2 0 13

ENHA NCEM ENT

$ 12,000

N/A

N/A

$ 12,000.00

N/A

2 0 13

ENHA NCEM ENT

$ 1,400

N/A

N/A

$ 1,400.00

N/A

2 0 13

SA FETY

$ 1,000

N/A

N/A

$ 1,000.00

N/A

2 0 13

ROA D

$ 25,000

N/A

N/A

$ 25,000.00

N/A

2 0 13

(X

(X

T OT A L C OST ( X 1,0 0 0 )

C A R R Y IN G OU T PR OJEC T

DATE

J1-9720(014)

2013

STA TEWIDE

J2-0780(013)

2013

STA TEWIDE

J2-0781(013)

2013

STA TEWIDE

B RIDGE

$ 5,000

N/A

N/A

$ 5,000.00

N/A

2 0 13

J2-1016(013)

2013

STA TEWIDE

21016(13) P RELIM INA RY ENGINEERING

ENGINEERING

$ 15,000

N/A

N/A

$ 15,000.00

N/A

2 0 13

J2-3612 (013)

2013

STA TEWIDE

23612(13) COUNTY B RIDGE P ROGRA M

B RIDGE

$ 20,000

N/A

N/A

$ 20,000.00

N/A

2 0 13

J2-3613(13)

2013

STA TEWIDE

23613(13) COUNTY ROA D P ROGRA M

ROA D

$ 6,000

N/A

N/A

$ 6,000.00

N/A

2 0 13

J2-3614(013)

2013

STA TEWIDE

23614(13) SM A LL CITY ROA D & B RIDGE P ROGRA M

B RIDGE

$ 3,000

N/A

N/A

$ 3,000.00

N/A

2 0 13

J2-5625(013)

2013

STA TEWIDE

SA FETY

$ 1,663

N/A

N/A

$ 1,663.00

N/A

2 0 13

J1-5609(20)

2013

STA TEWIDE

M P O P LA NNING

$ 15,500

N/A

N/A

$ 15,500.00

N/A

2 0 13

J1-5611(020)

2013

STA TEWIDE

SA FETY

$ 3,000

N/A

N/A

$ 3,000.00

N/A

2 0 13

J1-5612(020)

2013

STA TEWIDE

TRA NSIT

$ 700

N/A

N/A

$ 700.00

N/A

2 0 13

J1-8356(020)

2013

STA TEWIDE

TRA NSIT

$ 250

N/A

N/A

$ 250.00

N/A

2 0 13

J1-8357(020)

2013

STA TEWIDE

TRA NSIT

$ 300

N/A

N/A

$ 300.00

N/A

2 0 13

J2-0882(013)

2013

STA TEWIDE

TRA NSIT

$ 1,400

N/A

N/A

$ 1,400.00

N/A

2 0 13

J2-1342(010)

2013

STA TEWIDE

TRA NSIT

$

N/A

N/A

$ 0.00

N/A

2 0 13

J2-3382(010)

2013

STA TEWIDE

TRA NSIT

$ 800

N/A

N/A

$ 800.00

N/A

2 0 13

$5.25

$133,039.25

N/A

2 0 13

25625(13) SA FE ROUTES TO SCHOOL - DESIGN DEV, CONSTR OF ENGINEERING P ROJECTS A ND EDUCCA TIONA L P ROGRA M S 15609(20) FTA SECTION 5311/5340 NON-URB A NIZED A REA FORM ULA GRA NT P ROG FFY 2010 A P P ORTIONM ENT 15611(20) FTA SECTION 5310 TRA NS P ROG FOR ELDERLY & P ERSONS W/DISA B ILITIES, FFY 2012 A P P ORTIONM ENT 15612(20) FTA SECTION 5305, M ETROP OLITA N P LA NNING P ROG, FFY 2012 A P P ORTIONM ENT 18356(20) FTA SECTION 5304, STA TEWIDE P LA NNING P ROG, FFY 2012 A P P ORTIONM ENT 18357(20) FTA SECTION 5311(B )/RURA L TRA NSIT A SST P ROG, FFY 2012 A P P ORTIONM ENT 20882(13) FTA SECTION 5316 GRA NT JOB A CCESS & REVERSE COM M UTE P ROG, FFY 2012 A P P ORTIONM ENT 21342(10) FTA SECTION 5309 CA P ITA L GRA NT P ROG, FFY 2010 A P P ORTIONM ENT 23328(10) FTA SECTION 5317 NEW FREEDOM P ROG, FFY 2012 A P P ORITONM ENT

OKLAHOMA HIGHWAY $133,034 TOTAL COSTS 2013

-

$

-

T Y PE OF F ED ER A L FUNDS

Figure 75: Oklahoma Constrained Project Listing

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

151 | P a g e


Constrained Project Listing FY 2014 OKLAHOMA JOB N O

LET Y EA R

C OU N T Y

J1-5611(021)

2014

STA TEWIDE

J1-15612(021)

2014

STA TEWIDE

J1-18356(21)

2014

STA TEWIDE

J1-18357(21)

2014

STA TEWIDE

J2-0882(014)

2014

STA TEWIDE

J2-1342(011)

2014

STA TEWIDE

J2-3382(011)

2014

STA TEWIDE

J2-3612(014)

2014

STA TEWIDE

J2-3614(014)

2014

J2-3614(014) J2-5625(14) J2-0781(014)

T ER M IN I

15611(21) FTA SECTION 5310 TRA NS P ROGRA M FOR ELDERLY & P ERSONS WITH DISA B ILITIES, FFY 2013 A P P ORTIONM ENT 15612(21) FTA SECTION 5303 M ETROP OLITA N P LA NNING P ROGRA M FFY 2013 A P P ORTIONM ENT 18356(21) FTA SECTION 5304 STA TEWIDE P LA NNING P ROGRA M FFY 2013 A P P ORTIONM ENT 18357(21) FTA SECTION 5311(B ) RURA L TRA NSIT A SSISTA NCE P ROGRA M FFY 2013 A P P ORTIONM ENT 20882(14) FTA SECTION 5316 GRA NT: JOB A CCESS & REVERSSE COM M UTE P ROGRA M FFY 2013 A P P ORTIONM ENT 21342(11) FTA SECTION 5309 CA P ITA L GRA NT P ROGRA M FFY 2010 A P P ORTIONM ENT 23328(11) FTA XECTION 5317 NEW FREEDOM P ROGRA M FFY 2013 A P P ORTIONM ENT

T Y PE W OR K

F ED ER A L FUNDS 1,0 0 0 )

T OT A L C OST ( X 1,0 0 0 )

C A R R Y IN G OU T PR OJEC T

DATE

SA FETY

$ 3,500

N/A

M P O P LA NNING

$ 800

N/A

N/A

$ 3,500.00

N/A

2 0 14

N/A

$ 800.00

N/A

2 0 14

M P O P LA NNING

$ 300

N/A

N/A

$ 300.00

N/A

2 0 14

TRA NSIT ROA D

$ 350

N/A

N/A

$ 350.00

N/A

2 0 14

$ 1,600

N/A

N/A

$ 1,600.00

N/A

2 0 14

(X

LOC A L ST A T E F U N D S F U N D S ( X 1,0 0 0 ) 1,0 0 0 )

(X

$0

N/A

N/A

$ 0.00

N/A

2 0 14

M P O P LA NNING

$ 900

N/A

N/A

$ 900.00

N/A

2 0 14

23612(14) COUNTY B RIDGE P ROGRA M

B RIDGE

$ 20,000

N/A

N/A

$ 20,000.00

N/A

2 0 14

STA TEWIDE

23614(14) COUNTY ROA D P ROGRA M

ROA D

$ 6,000

N/A

N/A

$ 6,000.00

N/A

2 0 14

2014

STA TEWIDE

23614(14) SM A LL CITY ROA D & B RIDGE P ROGRA M

ROA D/B RIDGE

$ 3,000

N/A

N/A

$ 3,000.00

N/A

2 0 14

2014

STA TEWIDE

SA FETY

$ 1,663

N/A

N/A

$ 1,663.00

N/A

2 0 14

2014

STA TEWIDE

B RIDGE

$ 5,000

N/A

N/A

$ 5,000.00

N/A

2 0 14

SA FETY

$ 8,000

N/A

N/A

$ 8,000.00

N/A

2 0 14

B RIDGE

$ 1,000

N/A

N/A

$ 1,000.00

N/A

2 0 14

SA FETY

$ 12,000

N/A

N/A

$ 12,000.00

N/A

2 0 14

ENHA NCEM ENT

$ 12,000

N/A

N/A

$ 12,000.00

N/A

2 0 14

25625(14) SA FE ROUTES TO SCHOOL-DESIGN, DEV, CONSTR OF ENG P ROJECTS A ND EDUCA TIONA L P ROGRA M S 20781(14) 3B (B RIDGE) P REV M A INT INCLUDING P A INT, JOINTS, B EA RINGS & DECK REP A IR 10749(20) STA TEWIDE RA IL CROSSING-P ROTECTIVE DFEVICES, CRSING SURF A DV WA RNING SIGNS GRDRA IL, STRIP ING, CLOSURES

J1-0749(020)

2014

STA TEWIDE

J1-7050(020)

2014

STA TEWIDE

J1-7051(020)

2014

STA TEWIDE

J1-7663(020)

2014

STA TEWIDE

J1-8262(017)

2014

STA TEWIDE

18262(17) RECREA TIONA L TRA ILS

ENHA NCEM ENT

$ 1,400

N/A

N/A

$ 1,400.00

N/A

2 0 14

J1-9720(015)

2014

STA TEWIDE

19720(15) R.W CLEA RA NCE-REM OVE/DISP OSE OB STRUCTIONS ON P UB LIC R/W P RIOR TO UTILITY RELOC OR P ROJECT STA RTUP

SA FETY

$ 1,000

N/A

N/A

$ 1,000.00

N/A

2 0 14

J2-0780(014)

2014

STA TEWIDE

20780(14) 3R/3P SIM P LE P A VEM ENT P RESERV/RESTORE A SP HA LT OVERLA Y, STRIP E, SIGN & GRA IL

SA FETY

$ 25,000

N/A

N/A

$ 25,000.00

N/A

2 0 14

$119,513.00

N/A

2 0 10

107050(20) SM A LL SCA LE B RIDGE IM P ROVEM ENT-P A INTIN, M INOR REP RS, SEA L COA T/WA TERP ROOFING, SILA NE TR, ETC 17051(20) SM A LL SCA LE TRA FFIC SA FETY-SIGNING, INTM OD, LIGHTING, INTERCON SYST, GRDRA IL, DELINEA TION, ETC 17663(20) ENHA NCEM ENT, B IKE/P ED P A THS, SCENIC/HIST HWY P ROGRA M , LA NDSCA P E, HISTORIC P RESERV, ETC

OKLAHOMA TOTAL COSTS 2014 $119,513

$

-

$

-

T Y PE OF F ED ER A L FUNDS

Figure 76: Oklahoma Constrained Project Listing

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

152 | P a g e


Year of Expenditure

Project Listing - Constrained and Illustrative I-49 (Highway 71 Relocation)

Type of Project From Direction I-49 (Hwy 71 Relocation)* Construction MPO Boundary (North) I-49 (Hwy 71 Relocation) Interchange SH 10 Interchange N/A N/A I-49 (Hwy 71 Relocation)** Construction US 71 (North) I-49 (Hwy 71 Relocation) Interchange Hwy 71 Interchange N/A N/A I-49 (Hwy 71 Relocation) AR River Bridge Construction N/A Bridge I-49 (Hwy 71 Relocation)**** Construction SH 22 (North) I-49 (Hwy 71 Relocation) Interchange SH 59 (Gun Club Rd) Construction N/A N/A I-49 (Hwy 71 Relocation) Interchange SH 162 (Clear Creek Rd) Construction N/A N/A I-49 (Hwy 71 Relocation) Interchange I-40 Construction US 64 N/A Various Interstate Maintenance Projects*** Maintenance N/A N/A * Costs are based on 2010 AHTD costs estimates for construction **Paving, Interchange at SH 71 and Construction to Howard Hill Road ($615,000 per lane mile surfacing & $8,800,000 per mile construction) ***The amount shown is the total amount for all Interstates in the MPO per year ****Additional NHS funding will become available in 2020 - Engineering, ROW, and Construction Additional funding will come from designated funding for the I-49 project

I-40

Type of Project

I-40 and N. 16th Street Access Road/Off ramp at SH 59 I-40/SH 59 Interchange Various Interstate Maintenance Projects

Interchange Reconfiguration Reconfiguration

I-540 / SH-271 (OK)

Type of Project

I-540

Reconstruction

SH-59 SH 59 North Widening SH 59 South Widening

Type of Project Widening Widening

SH-255

Type of Project

SH 255 Widening SH 255 and (S. 58th) Old Greenwood Road Intersection SH 255 and Chad Colley Blvd SH 255 Widening

Widening Reconfiguration Signalization Widening

SH-45

Type of Project

SH 45 Widening SH 45 and Geren Road SH 45 and Planters Road SH 45 and Woodson

SH-10 and SH 10 S SH 10 and H 10 S Widening SH 10S Widening SH 10S Widening

Widening Traffic Signal Signalization Widening

Type of Project Widening Widening Widening

SH-112 (OK)

Type of Project

SH 112 Widening SH 112 and George SH 112 and SH 112 SH 112 and SH 271 Interchange

Widening Intersection Intersection Safety - Lighting

To SH 71 N/A SH 22 N/A N/A I-40 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Length (feet) Miles 32424 6.14 N/A N/A 31238 6.04 N/A N/A N/A N/A 72901 13.81 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

2010 Estimated Const. Cost

Const. Cost per Mile

Engineering 15%

$54,040,000 $5,850,000 $21,411,213 $8,488,787 $150,000,000 $121,501,667 $5,850,000 $5,850,000 $5,850,000 $4,792,000

8,800,000 N/A $3,544,903 N/A N/A $8,800,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A

8,106,000 $877,500 $3,211,682 $1,273,318 $22,500,000 $18,225,250 $877,500 $877,500 $877,500 N/A

ROW / Utility Percent 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% N/A

ROW / Utility Cost 7,565,600 $819,000 $2,997,570 $1,188,430 $21,000,000 $17,010,233 $819,000 $819,000 $819,000 N/A

2010 TOTAL $69,711,600 $7,546,500 $27,620,465 $8,488,787 $193,500,000 $156,737,150 $7,546,500 $7,546,500 $7,546,500 $4,792,000

$491,036,002

From I-40 N/A N/A

Direction N/A N/A N/A

To N. 16th Street N/A N/A

Length (feet) Miles N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

From SH 22

Direction (North)

To I-40

Length (feet) Miles 42099 7.97

From Uniontown Road Pointer Trail

Direction (North) (South)

To S of SH 282 Mt. Vista Blvd.

Length (feet) Miles 13298 1.70 4874 0.92

From Massard N/A N/A Phoenix Ave.

Direction (East) N/A N/A (North)

To SH 22 N/A N/A Zero Street

Length (feet) Miles 11985 2.27 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3960 0.75

From SH 255 Geren Road N/A N/A

Direction (South) N/A N/A N/A

To SH 71 N/A N/A N/A

Length (feet) Miles 15864 3.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

From Mt. Harmony Rd Denver Date

Direction (West) (West) (West)

To Denver Date SH 71

Length (feet) Miles 8827 1.67 6181 1.17 5710 1.08

From SH 271 N/A N/A N/A

Direction (South) N/A N/A N/A

To George Avenue N/A N/A N/A

Length (feet) Miles 22134 4.19 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

2010 Estimated Const. Cost per Const. Cost Mile 9,450,000 500,000 9,450,000 $4,792,000

Engineering 15%

N/A N/A N/A N/A

1,417,500 75,000 1,417,500 N/A

2010 Estimated Const. Cost per Const. Cost Mile

Engineering 15%

45,447,784 5,700,000 2010 Estimated Const. Cost per Const. Cost Mile 8,032,500 4,361,676

6,817,168 Engineering 15%

4,725,000 4,725,000

1,204,875 654,251

2010 Estimated Const. Cost per Const. Cost Mile

Engineering 15%

10,725,213 110,000 110,000 2,362,500

4,725,000 N/A N/A 3,150,000

1,608,782 16,500 16,500 354,375

2010 Estimated Const. Cost per Const. Cost Mile

Engineering 15%

14,196,477 110,000 110,000 1,250,000

4,725,000 N/A N/A N/A

2,129,472 16,500 16,500 187,500

2010 Estimated Const. Cost per Const. Cost Mile

Engineering 15%

11,702,462 5,531,293 5,109,801

7,000,000 4,725,000 4,725,000

1,755,369 829,694 766,470

2010 Estimated Const. Cost per Const. Cost Mile

Engineering 15%

19,597,813 250,000 250,000 100,000

4,675,000 N/A N/A N/A

2,939,672 37,500 37,500 15,000

ROW / Utility Percent 12% 8% 12% N/A ROW / Utility Percent 6% ROW / Utility Percent 20% 20% ROW / Utility Percent 20% 12% 12% 12% ROW / Utility Percent 20% 12% 12% 20% ROW / Utility Percent 20% 20% 20% ROW / Utility Percent 20% 20% 20% 20%

ROW / Utility Cost

Cost Year of Expenditure

4% Inflation per Year

Illustrative Illustrative 2016 2012 Illustrative 2020to 2030 Illustrative Illustrative Illustrative 2011-2035

N/A N/A $33,604,519 $8,828,338 N/A $96,144,170 N/A N/A N/A $4,792,000

Total

$143,369,027

TOTAL

Cost Year of Expenditure

4% Inflation per year

$12,001,500 $615,000 $12,001,500 $4,792,000 $29,410,000

2032 Illustrative 2016 2011-2035 Total

$27,348,635 N/A $14,601,660 N/A $41,950,295

ROW / Utility Cost

TOTAL

Cost Year of Expenditure

4% Inflation per year

2,726,867

$54,991,819

1,134,000 40,000 1,134,000 N/A

ROW / Utility Cost 1,606,500 872,335

ROW / Utility Cost 2,145,043 13,200 13,200 283,500 ROW / Utility Cost 2,839,295 13,200 13,200 250,000

ROW / Utility Cost 2,340,492 1,106,259 1,021,960

ROW / Utility Cost 3,919,563 50,000 50,000 20,000

2016

$66,905,956

Cost Year of Expenditure

4% Inflation per year

2021 2015 Total

$16,051,584 $6,888,435 22,940,019

Cost Year of Expenditure

4% Inflation per year

2026 2018 2018 2018 Total

$20,608,185 $198,837 $198,837 $4,270,469 $25,276,328

TOTAL

Cost Year of Expenditure

4% Inflation per year

19,165,244 139,700 139,700 1,687,500 21,132,144

2020 2015 2015 Illustrative Total

$27,278,119 $176,765 $176,765 N/A $27,631,649

TOTAL

Cost Year of Expenditure

4% Inflation per year

2021 2026 2026 Total

$23,385,379 $11,053,347 $10,211,068 $44,649,793

TOTAL

Cost Year of Expenditure

4% Inflation per year

26,457,047 337,500 337,500 100,000 27,232,047

Illustrative Illustrative Illustrative Illustrative Total

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

TOTAL 10,843,875 5,888,263 16,732,138

TOTAL 14,479,038 139,700 139,700 3,000,375 14,758,438

15,798,324 7,467,245 6,898,232 30,163,800

Figure 77: Project Listing – Constrained and Illustrative

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

153 | P a g e


Year of Expenditure

Project Listing - Constrained and Illustrative SH-162 SH 162 By-Pass SH 162 Improvements

SH-71 SH 71 and SH 10 Spur SH 71 and SH 282

SH-96 SH 96

US-64 SH 64 and Mountain Grove Road Highway 64C Bridge "Canner" US 64 Multiple Bridge Rehab and Replacement (4 Structures) US 64 Bridge Painting Garrison Ave.

Type of Project Extension Widening

Type of Project Signalization Signalization

Type of Project Widening

Type of Project Signalization Bridge Bridges Maintenance

Direction (North) (South)

From N/A N/A

Direction N/A N/A

To N/A N/A

Length (feet) Miles N/A N/A N/A N/A

From SH 22

Direction NE

To SH 255

Length (feet) Miles 10454 1.98

From Intersection N/A Town Branch AR River

Arkansas PROJECTS BY: Member Jurisdiction (City) Alma Main Street Extension to I-49 Interchange Mountain Grove Road

Type of Project Extension Reconstruction/W

Barling

Type of Project

"H" Street

Extension

Bonanza Woodson

Central City

Type of Project Intersection

Type of Project

Length (feet) Miles To Highway 64 3345 0.63 I-49 Interchange 15029 2.85

From Main Street Main Street South

Direction Signal N/A (East) N/A

To N/A N/A MPO Boundary N/A

Length (feet) Miles N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

2010 Estimated Const. Cost per Const. Cost Mile 6,940,000 5,000,000

Engineering 15%

1,756,604

750,000

2010 Estimated Const. Cost per Const. Cost Mile

Engineering 15%

110,000 110,000

N/A N/A

16,500 16,500

2010 Estimated Const. Cost per Const. Cost Mile

Engineering 15%

3,663,000

1,850,000

2010 Estimated Const. Cost per Const. Cost Mile 110,000 3,000,000 20,000,000 500,000

N/A N/A N/A N/A

549,450

Engineering 15% 16,500 450,000 3,000,000 75,000

ROW / Utility Percent 14% ROW / Utility Percent 12% 12% ROW / Utility Percent 12% ROW / Utility Percent 12% 12% 12% 12%

ROW / Utility Cost 1,660,000 700,000

ROW / Utility Cost 13,200 13,200

ROW / Utility Cost 439,560

ROW / Utility Cost 13,200 360,000 2,400,000 60,000

Cost Year of Expenditure

4% Inflation per year

2014 2035 Total

$9,673,830 $16,533,312 $26,207,142

TOTAL

Cost Year of Expenditure

4% Inflation per year

139,700 139,700 279,400

2020 2020 Total

TOTAL

Cost Year of Expenditure

TOTAL 8,600,000 6,450,000 15,050,000

4,652,010 4,652,010

TOTAL 139,700 3,810,000 25,400,000 635,000 29,984,700

Project Listing - Constrained and Illustrative From Main Street US 64

Direction (West) (North)

To I-49 Edwards Road

Length (feet) Miles 2977 0.56 12144 2.30

From SH-59

Direction (East)

To I-49

Length (feet) Miles 10,000.00 1.89

From SH-45

Direction N/A

To Woodson

Length (feet) Miles N/A N/A

From

Direction

To

Length (feet) Miles

Engineering 15%

3,175,000 3,450,000

268,522 1,190,250

2010 Estimated Const. Cost per Const. Cost Mile

Engineering 15%

6,013,258

3,175,000

901,989

2010 Estimated Const. Cost per Const. Cost Mile

Engineering 15%

1,250,000

4% Inflation per year $6,621,261 $6,621,261

Cost Year of Expenditure

4% Inflation per year

2014 2014 2014 On Going Total

$157,144 $5,422,818 $36,152,120 $41,732,082 $83,464,163

Year of Expenditure

2010 Estimated Const. Cost per Const. Cost Mile 1,790,147 7,935,000

2020 Total

$198,837 $198,837 $397,673

N/A

2010 Estimated Const. Cost per Const. Cost Mile

2010 Estimated Const. Cost per Const. Cost Mile

187,500

ROW / Utility Percent 14% 14% ROW / Utility Percent 14% ROW / Utility Percent 14%

ROW / Utility Cost 250,621 1,110,900

ROW / Utility Cost 841,856

ROW / Utility Cost 175,000

Engineering 15%

ROW / Utility Percent

ROW / Utility Cost

Engineering 15%

ROW / Utility Percent

ROW / Utility Cost

TOTAL

Cost Year of Expenditure

4% Inflation per year

2,309,289 10,236,150 12,545,439

Illustrative 2030 Total

N/A $21,566,024

TOTAL

Cost Year of Expenditure

4% Inflation per year

7,757,102 7,757,102

Illustrative Total

N/A

TOTAL

Cost Year of Expenditure

4% Inflation per year

1,612,500 1,612,500

Illustrative Total

N/A

TOTAL

Cost Year of Expenditure

4% Inflation per year

TOTAL

Cost Year of Expenditure

4% Inflation per year

2015 2018 2013 2026 2024 2025 2033 2030 2030 2031 2035 2010 2035 2011 Total

$5,434,169 $4,673,326 $9,712,768 $10,947,363 $1,653,111 $22,327,013 $18,603,149 $294,327 $27,679,770 $11,436,346 $11,766,793 $2,438,000 $55,397,617 $270,000 $182,633,751

Total

Fort Smith Jenny Lind Jenny Lind Jenny Lind/Ingersoll Planters Road Spradling Avenue Chad Colley Blvd. Chad Colley Blvd. Chad Colley Blvd. and Massard Road Massard Road Roberts Blvd. 66th Street Extension Garrison Avenue Clayton Expressway Extension Towson Avenue

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

Type of Project

From Widening Dallas Street Widening Phoenix Ave. Extension/Wideni Zero Street Extension Planters Road Extension . Widening SH 22 Widening Massard Road Signalization N/A Widening Chad Colley Blvd. Widening Chad Colley Blvd. Extension 66th Enhancement 9th Street Extension Midland Blvd Enhancement Garrison

Direction (South) (South) (South) (East) (East) (South) (South) N/A (North) (East) (North) (East) (East) (East)

To Phoenix Ave. Zero Street Cavanaugh Massard Road Spradling Ave. Massard Road Rye Hill Road N/A SH 255 Terry Road Kelley Hwy. 13th Street Kelley Hwy. "A" Street

Length (feet) Miles 5266 1.00 4026 0.76 18480 3.50 7488 1.42 2141 0.41 11,859 2.25 7,220 1.37 N/A N/A 11547 2.19 5917 1.12 8117 1.54 1651 0.31 10052 1.90 792 0.15

3,440,852 2,630,625 8,980 4,502,727 740,024 9,994,801 6,085,038 110,000 9,731,847 3,866,222 4,880,961 2,438,000 16,753,333 270,000

3,450,000 3,450,000 31,430 3,175,000 1,825,000 4,450,000 4,450,000 N/A 4,450,000 3,450,000 3,175,000 7,796,875 8,800,000 N/A

516,128 394,594 1,347 675,409 111,004 1,499,220 912,756 16,500 1,459,777 579,933 732,144 365,700 2,513,000 N/A

20% 20% 20% 20% 14% 14% 14% 12% 20% 20% 14% 0% 14% N/A

688,170 526,125 1,796 900,545 103,603 1,399,272 851,905 13,200 1,946,369 773,244 683,335 N/A 2,345,467 N/A

4,645,151 3,551,344 8,980,000 6,078,682 954,631 12,893,293 7,849,699 139,700 13,137,993 5,219,399 4,590,479 2,438,000 21,611,800 270,000 92,090,170

154 | P a g e


Greenwood Denver Street

Kibler Clear Creek Road

Lavaca

Type of Project Widening

Type of Project Widening

Type of Project

From SH 71

Direction (East)

To SH 10 Spur

Length (feet) Miles 7930 1.50

From SH 162

Direction (East)

To I-49

Length (feet) Miles 3935 0.75

From

Direction

To

Length (feet) Miles

2010 Estimated Const. Cost per Const. Cost Mile 5,181,534

Engineering 15%

3,450,000

777,230

2010 Estimated Const. Cost per Const. Cost Mile

Engineering 15%

1,117,898

1,500,000

2010 Estimated Const. Cost per Const. Cost Mile

167,685

ROW / Utility Percent 14% ROW / Utility Percent 20%

Engineering 15%

ROW / Utility Percent

Eng. 15%

ROW / Utility Percent

214,939 134,864 810,000 747,052 553,372 297,857 285,605 202,786 517,990 N/A 517,108

14% 14% 14% 14% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% N/A 14%

ROW / Utility Cost 725,415

ROW / Utility Cost 223,580

ROW / Utility Cost

Cost Year of Expenditure

4% Inflation per year

2026 Total

$12,037,829 $12,037,829

TOTAL

Cost Year of Expenditure

4% Inflation per year

1,509,162 1,509,162

Illustrative Total

TOTAL

Cost Year of Expenditure

TOTAL 6,684,179 6,684,179

4% Inflation per year

Total

Van Buren Uniontown Road Pevehouse Road Rena Road Rena Road Phase II N. 28th Street S. 28th Street S. 28th Street Riggs Drive Industrial Park Road Port Roads (2) (Levee - Riverside) N. 40th Street

Type of Project Length (feet) Miles From Direction To Extension/Wideni Uniontown Street (East) Oliver Springs Road 2193 0.42 Extension/Wideni Mitzi (North) Sandstone Road 1376 0.26 Widening Highway 59 (West) Broken Hill Street 8976 1.70 Widening Broken Hill Street (West) Lee Creek Road 5280 1.00 Widening US 64 (North) I-40 5646 1.07 Widening US 64 (South) I-540 3039 0.58 Widening Industrial Park Way (South) SH 59 2914 0.55 Extension 28th Street (East) SH 162 2069 0.39 Widening 28th Street (East) S. 40th Street 5285 1.00 Widening West of SH-59 (West)Riverfront Road and Port 1046 0.20 Widening SH 162 (South) Industrial Park Road 5276 1.00

Arkansas PROJECTS BY: Member Jurisdiction (City) Arkoma

Type of Project

2010 Estimated Const. Cost per Const. Cost Mile 1,432,926 899,091 5,400,000 4,980,349 3,689,148 1,985,710 1,904,034 1,351,903 3,453,267 51,000 3,447,386

3,450,000 3,450,000 3,450,000 3,450,000 3,450,000 3,450,000 3,450,000 3,450,000 3,450,000 N/A 3,450,000

ROW / Utility Cost

TOTAL

200,610 125,873 756,000 697,249 737,830 397,142 380,807 270,381 690,653 N/A 482,634

1,848,475 1,159,827 5,400,000 6,424,650 4,980,349 2,680,709 2,570,446 1,825,070 4,661,911 51,000 4,447,128

Direction

To

4% Inflation per year

2020 2033 2021 2027 2015 2021 2030 2010 2018 2020 2016

$2,630,956 $2,748,696 $7,993,319 $12,514,579 $5,826,304 $3,968,104 $5,415,542 $1,825,070 $6,134,756 $72,589 $5,410,612

Year of Expenditure

Project Listing - Constrained and Illustrative From

Cost Year of Expenditure

Length (feet) Miles

2010 Estimated Const. Cost per Const. Cost Mile

Engineering 15%

ROW / Utility Percent

Length (feet) Miles

2010 Estimated Const. Cost per Const. Cost Mile

Engineering 15%

ROW / Utility Percent

ROW / Utility Cost

Length (feet) Miles

2010 Estimated Const. Cost per Const. Cost Mile

Engineering 15%

ROW / Utility Percent

ROW / Utility Cost

ROW / Utility Cost

TOTAL

Cost Year of Expenditure

4% Inflation per year

Total

Pocola

Type of Project

From

Direction

To

TOTAL

Cost Year of Expenditure

TOTAL

Cost Year of Expenditure

4% Inflation per year

Total

Moffett

Type of Project

From

Direction

To

4% Inflation per year

Total

Year of Expenditure

PROJECTS BY: Member Jurisdiction (Transit) Transit Van Buren Transit Fort Smith Transit Trolley Extension Transit to Chaffee Crossing

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

Type of Project Fixed Route Fixed Route Trolley Fixed Route

From N/A N/A Wheeler Ave. N/A

Direction N/A N/A (East) N/A

To N/A N/A "B" Street N/A

Length (feet) Miles N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A

2010 Estimated Const. Cost per Const. Cost Mile 80,000 See Below 237,500 80,000

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Engineering 15% N/A N/A N/A N/A

ROW / Utility Percent N/A N/A N/A N/A

ROW / Utility Cost N/A N/A N/A N/A

TOTAL

Cost Year of Expenditure

80,000 Illustrative See Below See Below 237,500 Designated Funding 80,000 Illustrative 397,500

155 | P a g e

4% Inflation per year


Year of Expenditure

PROJECTS BY: County (Not on the State Highway System) Sebastian

Type of Project

From

Direction

Crawford

Type of Project

From

Direction

Sequoyah

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

Type of Project

Type of Project

From

From

Direction

Direction

Construction Cost per Mile

2010 Estimated Const. Cost

Construction Cost per Mile 2,280,682

501,750

Length (feet) Miles

3,345,000 2010 Estimated Const. Cost

Construction Cost per Mile

Length (feet) Miles

2010 Estimated Const. Cost

Construction Cost per Mile

Length (feet) Miles

To

Gun Club Road -With I-49 Const.

LeFlore

2010 Estimated Const. Cost

To

To

Length (feet) Miles 7744 1.47

Engineering 15%

ROW / Utility Percent

ROW / Utility Cost

TOTAL

Cost Year of Expenditure

4% Inflation per year

Engineering 15%

ROW / Utility Percent

ROW / Utility Cost

TOTAL

Cost Year of Expenditure

4% Inflation per year

20% ROW / Utility Percent

669,000

4,515,750

Illustrative

Engineering 15%

ROW / Utility Cost

TOTAL

Cost Year of Expenditure

4% Inflation per year

Engineering 15%

ROW / Utility Percent

ROW / Utility Cost

TOTAL

Cost Year of Expenditure

4% Inflation per year

156 | P a g e


Metropolitan Transportation Plan 2035 -Constrained Project List

PROPOSED TRANSIT PROJECTS (5 year periods) JOB NO. / ITEM NO.

COUNTY

RTE

TERMINI

TYPE WORK

FEDERAL FUNDS (X 1000)

MATCHING FUNDS (X 1000)

AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR TOTAL PROVIDING CARRYING OUT COSTS MATCHING THE PROJECT (X 1000) FUNDS

TIP AREA LET YEAR

FTA APPROPRIATION YEAR

FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCE

2011 to 2015 (Note: Funding has not been adjusted for inflation) FTS001 Sebastian

Operating Assistance

Transit

$4,560

$4,560

$9,120

Local

Local

Frontier

2011 - 2015

FFY 2011 -2015

FTA 5307

FTS002 Sebastian

Capital - Preventive Maintenance Capital - Paratransit Service Capital - Rolling Stock/Support Equipment

Transit

$1,450

$363

$1,813

Local

Local

Frontier

2011 - 2015

FFY 2011 -2015

FTA 5307

Transit

$755

$189

$944

Local

Local

Frontier

2011 - 2015

FFY 2011 -2015

FTA 5307

Transit

$825

$206

$1,031

Local

Local

Frontier

2011 - 2015

FFY 2011 -2015

FTA 5307

FTS001 Sebastian

Operating Assistance

Transit

$4,560

$4,560

$9,120

Local

Local

Frontier

2011 - 2015

FFY 2011 -2015

FTA 5307

FTS002 Sebastian

Capital - Preventive Maintenance Capital - Paratransit Service Capital - Rolling Stock/Support Equipment

Transit

$1,450

$363

$1,813

Local

Local

Frontier

2011 - 2015

FFY 2011 -2015

FTA 5307

Transit

$755

$189

$944

Local

Local

Frontier

2011 - 2015

FFY 2011 -2015

FTA 5307

Transit

$825

$206

$1,031

Local

Local

Frontier

2011 - 2015

FFY 2011 -2015

FTA 5307

FTS001 Sebastian

Operating Assistance

Transit

$4,560

$4,560

$9,120

Local

Local

Frontier

2011 - 2015

FFY 2011 -2015

FTA 5307

FTS002 Sebastian

Capital - Preventive Maintenance Capital - Paratransit Service Capital - Rolling Stock/Support Equipment

Transit

$1,450

$363

$1,813

Local

Local

Frontier

2011 - 2015

FFY 2011 -2015

FTA 5307

Transit

$755

$189

$944

Local

Local

Frontier

2011 - 2015

FFY 2011 -2015

FTA 5307

Transit

$825

$206

$1,031

Local

Local

Frontier

2011 - 2015

FFY 2011 -2015

FTA 5307

FTS001 Sebastian

Operating Assistance

Transit

$4,560

$4,560

$9,120

Local

Local

Frontier

2011 - 2015

FFY 2011 -2015

FTA 5307

FTS002 Sebastian

Capital - Preventive Maintenance Capital - Paratransit Service Capital - Rolling Stock/Support Equipment

Transit

$1,450

$363

$1,813

Local

Local

Frontier

2011 - 2015

FFY 2011 -2015

FTA 5307

Transit

$755

$189

$944

Local

Local

Frontier

2011 - 2015

FFY 2011 -2015

FTA 5307

Transit

$825

$206

$1,031

Local

Local

Frontier

2011 - 2015

FFY 2011 -2015

FTA 5307

FTS001 Sebastian

Operating Assistance

Transit

$4,560

$4,560

$9,120

Local

Local

Frontier

2011 - 2015

FFY 2011 -2015

FTA 5307

FTS002 Sebastian

Capital - Preventive Maintenance Capital - Paratransit Service Capital - Rolling Stock/Support Equipment

Transit

$1,450

$363

$1,813

Local

Local

Frontier

2011 - 2015

FFY 2011 -2015

FTA 5307

Transit

$755

$189

$944

Local

Local

Frontier

2011 - 2015

FFY 2011 -2015

FTA 5307

Transit

$825

$206

$1,031

Local

Local

Frontier

2011 - 2015

FFY 2011 -2015

FTA 5307

FTS003 Sebastian FTS004 Sebastian

2016 to 2020

FTS003 Sebastian FTS004 Sebastian

2021 to 2025

FTS003 Sebastian FTS004 Sebastian

2026 to 2030

FTS003 Sebastian FTS004 Sebastian

2031 to 2035

FTS003 Sebastian FTS004 Sebastian

Figure 78: Constrained Project Listing – Proposed Transit Projects (5 Year Periods)

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

157 | P a g e


Metropolitan Transportation Plan 2035 -Constrained Project List

PROPOSED TRANSIT PROJECTS (5 year periods) AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR JOB NO. / ITEM NO.

COUNTY

RTE

TERMINI

TYPE WORK

2011 to 2015 110FTA Statewide 111FTA Statewide 116FTA Statewide 117FTA Statewide

Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities Transit Non-Urbanized Transit Job Access Reverse Commute Transit New Freedom Transit

2016 to 2020 110FTA Statewide 111FTA Statewide 116FTA Statewide 117FTA Statewide

Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities Transit Non-Urbanized Transit Job Access Reverse Commute Transit New Freedom Transit

2021 to 2025 110FTA Statewide 111FTA Statewide 116FTA Statewide 117FTA Statewide

Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities Transit Non-Urbanized Transit Job Access Reverse Commute Transit New Freedom Transit

2026 to 2030 110FTA Statewide 111FTA Statewide 116FTA Statewide 117FTA Statewide

Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities Transit Non-Urbanized Transit Job Access Reverse Commute Transit New Freedom Transit

2031 to 2035 110FTA Statewide Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities Transit 111FTA Statewide Non-Urbanized Transit 116FTA Statewide Job Access Reverse Commute Transit 117FTA Statewide New Freedom Transit Note: Projects Selected through AHTD

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

FEDERAL MATCHING FUNDS FUNDS (X 1000) (X 1000)

TOTAL COSTS (X 1000)

$7,570

$1,893

$9,463

$54,665

$36,443

$91,108

$9,070

$6,047

$15,117

$4,585

$1,146

$5,731

$7,570

$1,893

$9,463

$54,665

$36,443

$91,108

$9,070

$6,047

$15,117

$4,585

$1,146

$5,731

$7,570

$1,893

$9,463

$54,665

$36,443

$91,108

$9,070

$6,047

$15,117

$4,585

$1,146

$5,731

$7,570

$1,893

$9,463

$54,665

$36,443

$91,108

$9,070

$6,047

$15,117

$4,585

$1,146

$5,731

$7,570

$1,893

$9,463

$54,665

$36,443

$91,108

$9,070

$6,047

$15,117

$4,585

$1,146

$5,731

PROVIDING MATCHING FUNDS

CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT

TIP AREA

LET YEAR

FTA APPROPRIATION YEAR

FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCE

Var Agencies Var Agencies Var Agencies Var Agencies

Var Agencies Var Agencies Var Agencies Var Agencies

All MPOs All MPOs All MPOs All MPOs

2011 FFY 2010 2011 FFY 2010 2011 FFY 2010 2011 FFY 2010

FTA 5310 FTA 5311 FTA 5316 FTA 5317

Var Agencies Var Agencies Var Agencies Var Agencies

Var Agencies Var Agencies Var Agencies Var Agencies

All MPOs All MPOs All MPOs All MPOs

2011 FFY 2010 2011 FFY 2010 2011 FFY 2010 2011 FFY 2010

FTA 5310 FTA 5311 FTA 5316 FTA 5317

Var Agencies Var Agencies Var Agencies Var Agencies

Var Agencies Var Agencies Var Agencies Var Agencies

All MPOs All MPOs All MPOs All MPOs

2011 FFY 2010 2011 FFY 2010 2011 FFY 2010 2011 FFY 2010

FTA 5310 FTA 5311 FTA 5316 FTA 5317

Var Agencies Var Agencies Var Agencies Var Agencies

Var Agencies Var Agencies Var Agencies Var Agencies

All MPOs All MPOs All MPOs All MPOs

2011 FFY 2010 2011 FFY 2010 2011 FFY 2010 2011 FFY 2010

FTA 5310 FTA 5311 FTA 5316 FTA 5317

Var Agencies Var Agencies Var Agencies Var Agencies

Var Agencies Var Agencies Var Agencies Var Agencies

All MPOs All MPOs All MPOs All MPOs

2011 FFY 2010 2011 FFY 2010 2011 FFY 2010 2011 FFY 2010

FTA 5310 FTA 5311 FTA 5316 FTA 5317

158 | P a g e


Frontier MPO Annual Fund Estimates for Metropolitan Long-Range Plans 1 (Millions of dollars of estimated obligation limitation + match) ENHANCEMENT FUNDS

BRIDGE FUNDS Federal Bridge 2

State -Local Match

Frontier 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

1,391,000 1,445,249 1,501,614 1,560,177 1,621,024 1,684,243

0 347,750 361,312 375,403 390,044 405,256 421,061

1,738,750 1,806,561 1,877,017 1,950,221 2,026,279 2,105,304

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

1,749,929 1,818,176 1,889,085 1,962,759 2,039,307

437,482 454,544 472,271 490,690 509,827

2,187,411 2,272,720 2,361,356 2,453,449 2,549,134

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

2,118,840 2,201,475 2,287,332 2,376,538 2,469,223

529,710 550,369 571,833 594,135 617,306

2,648,550 2,751,843 2,859,165 2,970,673 3,086,529

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

2,565,523 2,665,578 2,769,536 2,877,548 2,989,772

641,381 666,395 692,384 719,387 747,443

3,206,904 3,331,973 3,461,920 3,596,935 3,737,215

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

3,106,373 3,227,522 3,353,395 3,484,177 3,620,060

776,593 806,880 838,349 871,044 905,015

3,882,966 4,034,402 4,191,744 4,355,222 4,525,076

Year

Total Bridge

CMAQ Non-Attainment3

Year

2010 -

Frontier 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

4

Enhancement

State -Local Match

Total Enhancement

485,675 485,675 485,675 485,675 485,675 485,675

0 121,419 121,419 121,419 121,419 121,419 121,419

607,094 607,094 607,094 607,094 607,094 607,094

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

485,675 485,675 485,675 485,675 485,675

121,419 121,419 121,419 121,419 121,419

607,094 607,094 607,094 607,094 607,094

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

485,675 485,675 485,675 485,675 485,675

121,419 121,419 121,419 121,419 121,419

607,094 607,094 607,094 607,094 607,094

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

485,675 485,675 485,675 485,675 485,675

121,419 121,419 121,419 121,419 121,419

607,094 607,094 607,094 607,094 607,094

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

485,675 485,675 485,675 485,675 485,675

121,419 121,419 121,419 121,419 121,419

607,094 607,094 607,094 607,094 607,094

9,765,383

74,230,570

0

Total

4,312,571 4,480,761 4,655,510

479,175 497,862 517,279

4,791,745 4,978,623 5,172,789

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

4,837,075 5,025,721 5,221,724 5,425,372 5,636,961

537,453 558,413 580,192 602,819 626,329

5,374,528 5,584,135 5,801,916 6,028,191 6,263,290

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

5,856,803 6,085,218 6,322,542 6,569,121 6,825,316

650,756 676,135 702,505 729,902 758,368

6,507,559 6,761,353 7,025,046 7,299,023 7,583,685

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

7,091,504 7,368,072 7,655,427 7,953,989 8,264,194

787,945 818,675 850,603 883,777 918,244

7,879,449 8,186,747 8,506,030 8,837,765 9,182,438

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

8,586,498 8,921,371 9,269,305 9,630,808 10,006,409

954,055 991,263 1,029,923 1,070,090 1,111,823

9,540,553 9,912,635 10,299,228 10,700,898 11,118,233

0 0 0

14,943,158

29,052,060

35,176,666

3,035,471

20,989,410 $0.000

Federal

3,035,471

17,334,946

74,230,570

Interstate Maintenance State/Local

3,035,471

14,316,760

14,846,114

Year Frontier 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 3,035,471

11,824,071

59,384,456

INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE FUNDS

42,592,429

3,035,471 12,141,882

3,035,471

15,177,353

15,177,353

51,571,546 156,002,273

17,333,586

173,335,859

173,335,859

Note: Does not include 2010 Funds in Total Construction cost estimates should be inflated at an average annual rate of 10% for 2008-2010 and 4% thereafter. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9

10 11

12

Unless otherwise noted, estimates are based on average SAFETEA-LU funding throughout the life of the Act and an assumed 93% Obligation Limitation. THE ESTIMATES ARE NEITHER LIMITS NOR GUARANTEES. Distributed by the area's proportion of the statewide length of functionally obsolete and structurally deficient bridges off the Interstate system. Determined by the Crittenden County percent of the nation’s total non-attainment county population applied to the national CMAQ apportionment. Forty-five percent of statewide funds distributed proportionately among the study areas by population. Includes State and ATEP projects. Assumes $58,000,000/year through 2012 goes to bond repayment. Based on study area percent of statewide Interstate lane-miles. Distributed by an average of the study area's proportion of statewide NHS lane-miles and VMT. Distributed by average of area's proportion of statewide Federal-aid eligible lane-miles and vehicle-miles traveled (VMT). This category includes some sub-categories of funds such as rail-highway crossings that were previously included with the STP category. Eligible projects are described in 23 USC 148. Distributed by average of area's proportion of statewide Federal-aid eligible non-freeway roadway VMT and lane miles. 2010 STP funds for small urban areas <200,000 distributed at $5.39/capita based on population of urbanized areas <200,000 and cities of over 10,000. Funds for 2013 when Census urbanized area populations should be released are based on $5.86 per capita using State Data Center growth forecasts. Assumes Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers urbanized area exceeds 200,000 in 2010 Census. $2 million is available for roadway projects with a $1 million maximum and $2 million is available for signal/intersection improvements with a $0.350 million maximum. 2013 estimate based on per capita funds throughout SAFETEA-LU grown to 2013 at 3.9% a year. Assumes Fayetteville-Springs-Rogers urbanized area exceeds 200,000 in 2010 Census. Average State $ spent on routine maintenance determined by lane-miles on State Highways + $2,000,000/Highway District for overlays distributed by averaging the area's % of District VMT and lane-miles. Current distribution of 5307 funds. Conway will be eligible after release of the 2010 Census in 2012; CARTS amount in 2013 includes $638,000 for Conway. A suggested average annual revenue growth rate is 3.5%. Each MPO should discuss local funding levels with the transit manager. When growing revenue remember that in 2013 numbers should reflect new urbanized population numbers including the addition of Conway to CARTS and significant growth for NARTS.

Figure 79: Annual Fund Estimates / Bridge Funds – Enhancement Funds – Interstate Maintenance Funds

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

159 | P a g e


Frontier MPO Annual Fund Estimates for Metropolitan Long-Range Plans 1 (Millions of dollars of estimated obligation limitation + match) SAFETY FUNDS

NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM FUNDS Year

NHS6

Match

Year

Frontier 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2,455,219 2,550,973 2,650,461 2,753,829 2,861,228 2,972,816

0 613,805 637,743 662,615 688,457 715,307 743,204

Total 3,069,024 3,188,716 3,313,076 3,442,286 3,576,535 3,716,020

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

3,088,756 3,209,217 3,334,377 3,464,417 3,599,530

772,189 802,304 833,594 866,104 899,882

3,860,945 4,011,522 4,167,971 4,330,522 4,499,412

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

3,739,911 3,885,768 4,037,313 4,194,768 4,358,364

934,978 971,442 1,009,328 1,048,692 1,089,591

4,674,889 4,857,210 5,046,641 5,243,460 5,447,955

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

4,528,340 4,704,946 4,888,438 5,079,088 5,277,172

1,132,085 1,176,236 1,222,110 1,269,772 1,319,293

5,660,425 5,881,182 6,110,548 6,348,859 6,596,465

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

5,482,982 5,696,818 5,918,994 6,149,835 6,389,678

1,370,745 1,424,204 1,479,748 1,537,459 1,597,420

6,853,727 7,121,022 7,398,742 7,687,293 7,987,098

Safety7

Match

Total

Frontier 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2,010 939,517 976,158 1,014,228 1,053,783 1,094,881 1,137,581

234,879 244,040 253,557 263,446 273,720 284,395

1,174,396 1,220,198 1,267,785 1,317,229 1,368,601 1,421,976

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

1,181,947 1,228,043 1,275,936 1,325,698 1,377,400

295,487 307,011 318,984 331,424 344,350

1,477,433 1,535,053 1,594,920 1,657,122 1,721,750

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

1,431,119 1,486,932 1,544,923 1,605,175 1,667,776

357,780 371,733 386,231 401,294 416,944

1,788,898 1,858,665 1,931,153 2,006,468 2,084,721

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

1,732,820 1,800,400 1,870,615 1,943,569 2,019,368

433,205 450,100 467,654 485,892 504,842

2,166,025 2,250,500 2,338,269 2,429,462 2,524,211

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

2,098,124 2,179,951 2,264,969 2,353,303 2,445,081

524,531 544,988 566,242 588,326 611,270

2,622,655 2,724,938 2,831,211 2,941,628 3,056,352

17,236,633

Match 971,324 1,009,206 1,048,565 1,089,459 1,131,948 1,176,094

Total 4,856,621 5,046,029 5,242,824 5,447,294 5,659,739 5,880,469

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

4,887,845 5,078,471 5,276,532 5,482,317 5,696,127

1,221,961 1,269,618 1,319,133 1,370,579 1,424,032

6,109,807 6,348,089 6,595,665 6,852,896 7,120,159

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

5,918,276 6,149,089 6,388,903 6,638,070 6,896,955

1,479,569 1,537,272 1,597,226 1,659,518 1,724,239

7,397,845 7,686,361 7,986,129 8,297,588 8,621,194

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

7,165,936 7,445,408 7,735,779 8,037,474 8,350,936

1,791,484 1,861,352 1,933,945 2,009,369 2,087,734

8,957,420 9,306,760 9,669,723 10,046,843 10,438,669

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

8,676,622 9,015,010 9,366,596 9,731,893 10,111,437

2,169,156 2,253,753 2,341,649 2,432,973 2,527,859

10,845,778 11,268,763 11,708,245 12,164,866 12,639,296

27,276,355

33,026,615

39,989,116

11,708,466

37,047,883 131,022,522

3,885,297 4,036,823 4,194,259 4,357,835 4,527,791 4,704,375

9,669,906

30,597,480

131,022,522

Frontier 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

7,986,280

25,270,156

26,204,504

STP/CMAQ Equity Bonus8

Year

6,595,789

20,870,371

104,818,018

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM FUNDS

48,419,416

14,176,784 40,109,780

10,027,445

50,137,224

50,137,224

58,626,947 165,870,759

41,467,690

207,338,449

207,338,449

Note: Does not include 2010 Funds in Total

Figure 80: Annual Fund Estimates / National Highway System Funds – Safety Funds – Surface Transportation Program Funds

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

160 | P a g e


Frontier MPO Annual Fund Estimates for Metropolitan Long-Range Plans 1 (Millions of dollars of estimated obligation limitation + match) SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM URBAN FUNDS STP Urban < 200,000 9

STP Urban > 200,000

Year Frontier 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Year 2010-2012 561,633 561,633 561,633 728,713 728,713 728,713

Match 140,408 140,408 140,408 182,178 182,178 182,178

Total 702,041 702,041 702,041 910,891 910,891 910,891

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

728,713 728,713 728,713 728,713 728,713

182,178 182,178 182,178 182,178 182,178

910,891 910,891 910,891 910,891 910,891

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

728,713 728,713 728,713 728,713 728,713

182,178 182,178 182,178 182,178 182,178

910,891 910,891 910,891 910,891 910,891

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

728,713 728,713 728,713 728,713 728,713

182,178 182,178 182,178 182,178 182,178

910,891 910,891 910,891 910,891 910,891

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

728,713 728,713 728,713 728,713 728,713

182,178 182,178 182,178 182,178 182,178

910,891 910,891 910,891 910,891 910,891

2010 -

2013 -

State Maintenance 11 1,533,000 1,533,000 1,533,000 1,533,000 1,533,000 1,533,000

4,136,754

Match 1,412,000 1,461,420 1,512,570 1,565,510 1,620,302 1,677,013

Total 2,824,000 2,922,840 3,025,139 3,131,019 3,240,605 3,354,026

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

1,735,709 1,796,458 1,859,334 1,924,411 1,991,765

1,735,709 1,796,458 1,859,334 1,924,411 1,991,765

3,471,417 3,592,917 3,718,669 3,848,822 3,983,531

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

2,061,477 2,133,629 2,208,306 2,285,597 2,365,593

2,061,477 2,133,629 2,208,306 2,285,597 2,365,593

4,122,954 4,267,258 4,416,612 4,571,193 4,731,185

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

2,448,388 2,534,082 2,622,775 2,714,572 2,809,582

2,448,388 2,534,082 2,622,775 2,714,572 2,809,582

4,896,777 5,068,164 5,245,549 5,429,144 5,619,164

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

2,907,917 3,009,694 3,115,034 3,224,060 3,336,902

2,907,917 3,009,694 3,115,034 3,224,060 3,336,902

5,815,834 6,019,389 6,230,067 6,448,120 6,673,804

4,554,454 $0.000

38,325,000

38,325,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 18,615,355 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 22,109,203 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 26,258,797

7,665,000 $0.000

BSATS

15,673,630

7,665,000 1,533,000 1,533,000 1,533,000 1,533,000 1,533,000

22,354,570

2,010 1,412,000 1,461,420 1,512,570 1,565,510 1,620,302 1,677,013

7,665,000 1,533,000 1,533,000 1,533,000 1,533,000 1,533,000

4,554,454

22,354,570

Frontier 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

7,665,000 1,533,000 1,533,000 1,533,000 1,533,000 1,533,000

4,554,454

4,470,914

Year

7,665,000 1,533,000 1,533,000 1,533,000 1,533,000 1,533,000

4,554,454

17,883,656

TRANSIT FUNDING

Urban Transit (5307)12

2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 31,187,214

56,922,100

56,922,100

113,844,199

113,844,199

Note: Does not include 2010 Funds in Total

Figure 81: Annual Fund Estimates / Surface Transportation Program Urban Funds â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Transit Funds

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

161 | P a g e

2035 metropolitan transportation plan adopted august 8 2011  
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you