East West Gateway TIP FY2011 2014

8/8/2019 East West Gateway TIP FY2011 2014

1/282

Transportation Improvement Program

F i s c a l y e a r s 2 0 1 1 t h r o u g h 2 0 1 4

St. Louis Metropolitan AreaApproved June 30, 2010

Amended July 28, 2010

f i n a l


2/282


3/282

50272-101

REPORT DOCUMENTATIONPAGE

1. REPORT NO. 2. 3. Recipient's Accession No.

4. Title and SubtitleTransportation Improvement ProgramFiscal Years 2011 Through 2014St. Louis Metropolitan Area

5. Report DateOctober 1, 2010

6.

7. Author(s)East-West Gateway Council of Governments

8. Performing Organization Rpt No.EWG-TIP-2011-0

9. Performing Organization Name and AddressEast-West Gateway Council of Governments

Gateway TowerOne Memorial Drive, Suite 1600St. Louis, MO 63102-2451

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.212030000

11. Contract (C) or Grant (G) No.

(C) MoDOT, Dated July 1, 2010IDOT, Dated July 1, 2010

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and AddressFederal Transit AdministrationFederal Highway AdministrationIllinois Department of TransportationMissouri Department of Transportation

13. Type of Report & Period CoveredFinal - FY 2011 - 2014

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract

This report describes the Transportation Improvement Program for the St. Louis metropolitan area for the four fiscalyears beginning October 2010. This program includes projects to improve the highway and public transit systems inthe area. Costs of highway and transit-related projects in this program include engineering, land acquisition, andconstruction. This improvement program was developed taking into account available funds. Jurisdiction over eachproject has been identified and priorities for projects have been determined on an annual basis.

17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors

b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms

c. COSATI Field/Group

18. Availability StatementEast-West Gateway Council of GovernmentsGateway TowerOne Memorial Drive, Suite 1600St. Louis, MO 63102

19. Security Class (This Report)UNCLASSIFIED

21. No. of Pages

20. Security Class (This Page)UNCLASSIFIED

22. Price


4/282


5/282

FINAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMFISCAL YEARS 2011 through 2014

ST. LOUIS METROPOLITAN AREA

Prepared By

East-West Gateway Council of GovernmentsGateway Tower

One Memorial Drive, Suite 1600St. Louis, Missouri 63102

The preparation of this report was financed in part by the U.S. Department of Transportation, FederalHighway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration in cooperation with the MissouriDepartment of Transportation and the Illinois Department of Transportation. The opinions, findings,and conclusions expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the Federal HighwayAdministration, Federal Transit Administration, Missouri Department of Transportation, or theIllinois Department of Transportation.

Approved - June 30, 2010Amended - July 28, 2010


6/282


7/282

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ADVMT Average Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel

BRIDG Highway Bridge Replacement and

Rehabilitation Program

BRO Off-System Bridge ProgramBRM On-system Bridge Program

BRRP Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation

Program

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments

CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

Program

CO Carbon Monoxide (vehicle emissions)

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EWGCOG East-West Gateway Council of

Governments

FLH Federal Lands Program

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

FXGDW Fixed Guideway

FY Fiscal Year

HBP Highway Bridge Program

HC Hydrocarbon (vehicle emissions)

HOV High Occupancy Vehicle

HPP High Priority Project

HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program

IDOT Illinois Department of Transportation

IEPA Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency

IVHS Intelligent Vehicle/Highway System

I-M Interstate Maintenance Program

MCTD Madison County Transit District

MoDOT Missouri Department of Transportation

MoDNR Missouri Department of Natural

Resources

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

MTIA Major Transportation Investment

Analysis

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NHS National Highway System

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

PM Particulate Matter

SAFETEA-LU

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, EfficientTransportation Equity Act A Legacy for

Users

SCCTD St. Clair County Transit District

S5307 Federal Transit Formula

Capital/Operating

S5309 Federal Transit - Discretionary

S5310 Federal Transit Elderly and Disabled

S5311 Federal Transit Rural Capital/Operating

S5316 Job Access / Reverse Commute

S5317 Federal Transit - New Freedom

SIP State Implementation Plan

SOV Single Occupancy Vehicle

SRTS Safe Routes to School Program

STAC State-Advance Construction

STIP State Transportation Improvement

Program

STP Surface Transportation Program

STP-E Surface Transportation Program

Enhancements

STP-N Surface Transportation Program Non-

attributable Program

STP-R Surface Transportation Program Rural

STP-S Surface Transportation Program

Suballocated

TCM Transportation Control Measures

TCSP Transportation and Community and

System Preservation

TMA Transportation Management Association

TSM Transportation System Management

TIP Transportation Improvement Program

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

VMT Vehicle Miles of Travel


8/282


9/282

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Geographic Area and Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Program Development Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Funding Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Project Solicitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Project Evaluation and Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Total Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Illinois Department of Transportation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Missouri Department of Transportation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Transit Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Local Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Financial Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Financial Capacity and Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

FTA Required Financial Capacity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Air Quality Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

TIP Project Implementation / Amendment Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Project Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

TIP Amendment and Project Selection Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

APPENDICES

A Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process Certification

B Obligated Federal Funds FY 2010

C Project Listings

D MoDOT Scoping Projects

E Transit Discretionary Projects

F MoDOT Advance Construction Projects


10/282


11/282

Page 1

Introduction

The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a schedule of transportation improvements planned byvarious agencies in the St. Louis metropolitan area. Federal legislation, described below, requires that the East-West Gateway Council of Governments prepare and approve the TIP for federal funds to be used on these

projects. Projects identified in this TIP have been given priorities based on, and are consistent with, theregions 20-year transportation plan,Legacy 2035.

The East-West Gateway Council of Governments (EWGCOG) ) is a voluntary association of localgovernments. The Council has been designated by the governors of Missouri and Illinois and the U.S.Department of Transportation as the MPO for the St. Louis region to represent the interests of localgovernments and citizens in the transportation planning process. Since the Council was formed in 1965, it hasbeen dedicated to assisting local governments solve problems that cross regional boundaries. It is the onlyorganization of local governments that spans the entire Missouri-Illinois St. Louis region. The Council itself ismade up of more than 200 villages, cities, and counties in the eight-county metropolitan area. The agencys 24-member Board of Directors consists of the areas chief local elected officials and selected citizens.Representatives of the two state transportation agencies, the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT)

and the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), as well as the chairman of the Bi-State DevelopmentAgency (doing business as Metro), are non-voting members of the Board.

The TIP is not a new requirement of federal law. However, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, EfficientTransportation Equity Act A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) and its predecessorsthe TransportationEquity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991(ISTEA)as well as the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) have made important changes in theway that decisions about transportation expenditures are made. SAFETEA-LU continues the commitment toensuring that federally funded transportation projects are adequately justified and have the support of the localcommunity. In addition, SAFETEA-LU requires that a variety of prescribed factors be considered in theplanning of those projects. It calls for involvement of local governments in decision-making and public inputas plans for highway and transit projects are conceived and developed. The CAAA requires that the TIP and

Long-Range Plan conform to plans to improve air quality in the metropolitan St. Louis area since the area ispresently categorized as a moderate non-attainment area with respect to the eight-hour ozone standard as wellas a non-attainment area for the fine particle standard.

The counties included in the St. Louismetropolitan area are shown in the figure. Theyinclude Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, and St.Louis counties and the City of St. Louis inMissouri as well as Madison, Monroe, and St.Clair counties in Illinois. These entities makeup the planning area covered by this TIP,including all counties in the air-quality non-

attainment area as required by SAFETEA-LU.

This TIP contains a tabulation of alltransportation improvements scheduled byvarious agencies for the federal fiscal years of2011 through 2014 that are envisioned by thetransportation plan for that same time period.In addition to requirements derived fromSAFETEA-LU for public participation in the


12/282

Page 2

development of the TIP and involving local governments in the selection of projects, there is an emphasis onfinancial planning. There must be reasonable assurance that federal, state, and local funds will be available toimplement proposed projects. This requirement results in a greater level of confidence that the includedprojects will be carried out in the manner and within the time proposed. Although SAFETEA-LU expired onSeptember 30, 2009, Congress has acted to extend funding for transportation projects through December 31,2010. Funding will likely remain at 2009 levels until Congress acts on a new transportation funding bill.

In February 2009, the President signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009(ARRA). Part of this law included increased funding towards transportation projects in the St. Louis Region.There was a three year deadline to construct projects funded by ARRA. These projects are not included in thisdocument since the projects are currently under construction or completed.

The following chapters describe how the program was developed in compliance with regional priorities andfederal guidelines. Summaries are provided showing the types, costs, and locations of planned improvements.Also described herein is the process for amending the program and policies and guidelines for implementingprogrammed projects.

The most essential component of this document, the list of improvement projects, is provided in Appendix C in

a uniform format and includes all programmed highway and transit improvement projects. The project listingsidentify project sponsors, sources of federal funds, and project costs. Also included are brief projectdescriptions and identification numbers that are unique to each project. To facilitate locating projectsgeographically, several maps are provided depicting projects by their identification numbers.

Finally, because the TIP is used for many different purposes by numerous funding and implementing agencies,local officials and planners, and the public at large, several indexes are provided to help identify specificprojects in the project listing section.

This TIP document was approved on June 30, 2010 by the East-West Gateway Council of GovernmentsBoard of Directors. At that time, the TIP did not include the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT)program. The TIP was amended on July 28, 2010 to include the MoDOT Program and 34 locally sponsored

projects. Further information regarding this amendment is available in the MoDOT section and Local Programsections of this document..


13/282

1 These numbers are not directly comparable to estimates from the BEA numbers cited above. BEA estimates aremore comprehensive than BLS estimates. But BLS estimates are more timely. Both data sets are useful forassessing economic trends. The BLS numbers here are not seasonally adjusted.

Page 3

Geographic Area, Population, and Employment

Population and employment for the years 1990 and 2000 are shown in Tables 1A and 1B, respectively.Population estimates for the year 2009 are also shown in Table 1A. The most recent employment estimatesfrom the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) are for the year 2008, and these are shown in Table 1B.

Population and employment are growing slowly in the St. Louis region, compared to the rest of the country.Between 1990 and 2000, the population of the eight counties served by the Council grew 3.9%. Nationally,population grew by 13.1%. Census estimates for the year 2009 indicate that population growth in the St. Louisregion continues to lag behind the rest of the nation. The estimated growth rate for the period 2000-2009 was4.3% in the St. Louis area, compared to 9% nationwide.

Employment growth is also slow in St. Louis, compared to the U.S. BEA reports that employment in the U.S.grew 19.6% between 1990 and 2000. In the St. Louis area, the number of jobs grew by just 11.7%. Between2000 and 2008, the number of jobs in the United States grew by 9.9%. In the St. Louis area, there was amodest 4% increase in employment during this period.

Within the St. Louis area, both jobs and population have moved away from the center of the region in recentdecades. The most robust growth in both jobs and population has been in Monroe, St. Charles, Jefferson, andFranklin counties. Between 1990 and 2000, these four counties increased their share of the regions populationfrom 20.4% to 24.3%. The centrifugal trend appeared to continue, as 2009 Census estimates indicate that thesefour counties increased their share of the population to 27.5%. Employment growth showed a similar pattern.Between 1990 and 2000, Monroe, Franklin, Jefferson, and St. Charles counties increased their share of theregions employment from 12.8% to 15.7%. The trend continued between 2000 and 2008, with the share ofemployment increasing to 19.2%.

Despite the outward movement, St. Louis County and St. Louis City continue to have the largest numbers ofpeople and jobs. In the most recent estimates available, St. Louis City and County together accounted for 52%of the regions population and over 65% of the jobs.

As this TIP is being prepared, the nation may be pulling out of an economic recession. Recent employmentestimates for the St. Louis Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) give some indication of how the region hasfared in the recent economic downturn. According to preliminary estimates from the Bureau of LaborStatistics (BLS), there were about 1.28 million payroll jobs in the St. Louis MSA in March, 2010. Thisrepresented a loss of more than 70,000 jobs since March, 20081. The unemployment rate for the region stoodat 11.0% in February, compared to 10.2% for the U.S. The unemployment rate for the region was 6.1% inFebruary, 2008.

Because the entire eight-county region is classified as being a moderate non-attainment area with respect tomeeting the federal eight-hour ozone standard, this Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includesurbanized portions of the region as well as rural portions of the metropolitan area. The total land area in the

regions eight counties comprises 4,487 square miles, with an estimated 80% classified as rural and 20% asurban (based on the 2000 urbanized area definition). As of 2000, approximately 84% of the population residesin the urbanized area of the region. An additional 3.4% lives in urban clusters (e.g., Eureka-Pacific in St. LouisCounty; Washington, Union, St. Clair, and Sullivan in Franklin County; etc.). Urban clusters is a conceptfrom the 2000 Census.


14/282

Page 4

TABLE 1 GROWTH TRENDS ST. LOUIS REGION 1990-2009

1 (A)POPULATION

JURISDICTION 1990% StateShare1990

% Reg.Share1990

2000% Change1990-2000

% StateShare2000

% Reg.Share2000

2009Estimate

Estim. %Change

2000-2009

Estim. %StateShare2009

Estim. %Regional

Share 2009

Franklin County 80,603 4.3% 3.4% 93,807 16.4% 4.8% 3.8% 101,263 7.9% 5.0% 3.9%

Jefferson County 171,380 9.2% 7.2% 198,099 15.6% 10.2% 8.0% 219,046 10.6% 10.8% 8.5%

St. Charles County 212,907 11.5% 8.9% 283,883 33.3% 14.6% 11.4% 355,367 25.2% 17.6% 13.7%

St. Louis County 993,529 53.6% 41.6% 1,016,315 2.3% 52.4% 40.9% 992,408 -2.4% 49.0% 38.3%

St. Louis City 396,685 21.4% 16.6% 348,189 -12.2% 17.9% 14.0% 356,587 2.4% 17.6% 13.8%

Total MO Region 1,855,104 100.0% 77.6% 1,940,293 4.6% 100.0% 78.1% 2,024,671 4.3% 100.0% 78.2%

Madison County 249,238 46.6% 10.4% 258,941 3.9% 47.7% 10.4% 268,457 3.7% 47.5% 10.4%

Monroe County 22,422 4.2% 0.9% 27,619 23.2% 5.1% 1.1% 33,236 20.3% 5.9% 1.3%

St. Clair County 262,852 49.2% 11.0% 256,082 -2.6% 47.2% 10.3% 263,617 2.9% 46.6% 10.2%

Total IL Region 534,512 100.0% 22.4% 542,642 1.5% 100.0% 21.9% 565,310 4.2% 100.0% 21.8%

Total Region 2,389,616 100.0% 100.0% 2,482,935 3.9% 100.0% 100.0% 2,589,981 4.3% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

1 (B)EMPLOYMENT

JURISDICTION 1990 % StateShare1990

% Reg.Share1990

2000 % Change1990-2000 % StateShare2000

% Reg.Share2000

2008Estimate

Estim. %Change2000-2008

Estim. %StateShare2008

Estim. %RegionalShare 2008

Franklin County 37,798 3.2% 2.7% 46,684 23.5% 3.5% 3.0% 52,870 13.3% 3.9% 3.2%

Jefferson County 47,575 4.0% 3.4% 64,569 35.7% 4.9% 4.1% 77,360 19.8% 5.7% 4.7%

St. Charles County 87,529 7.4% 6.2% 125,498 43.4% 9.5% 8.0% 168,415 34.2% 12.3% 10.3%

St. Louis County 693,136 58.4% 49.1% 787,265 13.6% 59.6% 49.9% 783,143 -0.5% 57.3% 47.7%

St. Louis City 321,187 27.1% 22.7% 296,175 -7.8% 22.4% 18.8% 285,011 -3.8% 20.9% 17.4%

Total MO Region 1,187,225 100.0% 84.1% 1,320,191 11.2% 100.0% 83.7% 1,366,799 3.5% 100.0% 83.3%

Madison County 113,331 50.3% 8.0% 124,832 10.1% 48.4% 7.9% 130,330 4.4% 47.4% 7.9%

Monroe County 7,426 3.3% 0.5% 11,229 51.2% 4.4% 0.7% 13,839 23.2% 5.0% 0.8%

St. Clair County 104,479 46.4% 7.4% 121,889 16.7% 47.3% 7.7% 130,514 7.1% 47.5% 8.0%

Total IL Region 225,236 100.0% 15.9% 257,950 14.5% 100.0% 16.3% 274,683 6.5% 100.0% 16.7%

Total Region 1,412,461 100.0% 100.0% 1,578,141 11.7% 100.0% 100.0% 1,641,482 4.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Annual County Employment Estimates (includes sole proprietors and home-based work)


15/282

Page 5

Program Development Process

Several federal requirements affect the process of assembling and developing the TIP. It must be developed inincrements of at least four years, indicate priority ranking of projects, and be financially attainable. Allimplementing agencies must demonstrate sufficient financing for each project. Projects must be selectedprimarily on their merits. The law also requires that the TIP include all federally funded transportationprojects, regardless of mode or implementing agency. The purpose of these requirements is to provide thepublic with accurate information about the timing, cost, and extent of federally funded transportation projects.

Several volunteer advisory committees assisted in developing the TIP. The Transportation Planning Committee(TPC), consisting of representatives of local governments, the two state transportation agencies, local transitagencies, and the business community, helped to develop a draft TIP for FY 2011-2014. In addition, commentsand recommendations were obtained from the Missouri Special Transportation Management Authority and theAir Quality Advisory Committee. The TIP also was evaluated to determine compliance with the variousrequirements of SAFETEA-LU and the CAAA.

A. Funding Categories

SAFETEA-LU continued the structure of federal funding programs established through ISTEA andreauthorized through TEA-21 for transportation projects and programs of all kinds. The law also strengthensthe cooperative planning process developed to provide local governments in major metropolitan areas, actingthrough the MPO, greater decision-making authority in determining which projects to implement. SAFETEA-LU and CAAA impose an array of requirements to verify that transportation programs comply with the intentof these laws.

Funding categories administered by the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administrationand included in the TIP are described below. One of the most significant features of SAFETEA-LU is that itallows state and local governments to exercise considerable flexibility in transferring funds among categories.This affords them a variety of options in selecting how to spend federal dollars for transportation projects.

C Surface Transportation Program (STP)

The Surface Transportation Program (STP) provides flexible funding for states and localities forimprovements on public roads and bridges, transit capital projects, and improvements to transitterminals and facilities. A minimum amount of a states STP funds must be spent in metropolitan areasof over 200,000 population. All locally sponsored projects programmed with STP-S funds utilize thesesuballocated funds. A minimum of 10% of STP funds statewide must be spent on transportationenhancements, non-traditional projects such as historic preservation, alternative non-motorizedtransportation, and landscaping. Transportation Enhancement projects (shown with the fundingcategory STP-E) must be related to surface transportation.

CHighway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)Under ISTEA and TEA-21, a 10% portion of the statewide apportionment of Surface TransportationProgram (STP) funds were set aside to address safety-related improvements. SAFETEA-LU eliminatedthis set-aside and established a new separate Highway Safety Improvement Program designatedspecifically to fund safety-related projects.


16/282

Page 6

C Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program

This program funds projects in air quality non-attainment areas and maintenance areas for ozone,carbon monoxide, and small particulate matter, with the goal of reducing transportation-relatedemissions and helping metropolitan areas comply with national ambient air quality standards.

Federal Lands Highway Program (FLH)

The Federal Lands Highway Program provides financial resources and technical assistance to support acoordinated program of public roads that service the transportation needs of Federal lands.

C National Highway System (NHS) Program

The NHS program provides funding for improvements to rural and urban roads that are part of theNational Highway System, including the Interstate system and designated connections to majorintermodal terminals.

C Interstate Maintenance (I-M) Program

The Interstate Maintenance (I-M) program provides funding for rehabilitation and reconstruction of theinterstate highway system. It cannot be used to add lanes or otherwise expand the capacity of theinterstates.

C Highway Bridge Program (BRIDG)

This program provides funding to (1) replace or rehabilitate on-system bridges that have been classifiedas structurally deficient or functionally obsolete by federal standards and (2) do bridge painting,provide seismic retrofitting, install scour countermeasures, and do systematic preventive maintenancefor on-system bridges regardless of whether or not the bridge is eligible for rehabilitation orreplacement. These funds are also allocated to local public agencies in Illinois as the BridgeReplacement and Rehabilitation Program (BRRP) and in Missouri as the On-System BridgeReplacement and Rehabilitation Program (BRM) and Off-System Bridge Replacement andRehabilitation Program (BRO).

C

High Priority Projects or earmarks(HPP)This program consists of projects specifically designated in SAFETEA-LU as High Priority Projects.For the purpose of categorizing projects and funding sources in the TIP, this designation also refers toearmarked projects included in other legislation such as appropriation bills. Designated funds can onlybe used for the project as described in the law.

C American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)

This program consists of projects specifically receiving federal funds provided through the AmericanRecovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009(ARRA). The ARRA allocated additional transportationfunding to the St. Louis Region. Funding was provided through the Federal Highway Administrationand Federal Transit Administration. Agencies with projects funded through ARRA are required toprovide reports to the Office of Management of Budget in order to show accountability and

transparency of the use of funds to Congress and the taxpayers. These are available atwww.recovery.gov. Although projects are not included in this TIP, there are projects currently underconstruction that are utilizing these funds.

Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS)This program is intended to enable and encourage children, including those with disabilities, to walkand bicycle to school; to make walking and bicycling to school safe and more appealing; and tofacilitate the planning, development and implementation of projects that will improve safety, and reduce


17/282

Page 7

traffic, fuel consumption, and air pollution in the vicinity of schools. Funding is available for usewithin approximately two miles of a primary or middle school (K-8).

State Advance Construction (STAC)This is a mechanism for a State to start construction on a project by using non-federal funds. In thefuture, the state may convert the project to federal-aid funding and receive federal reimbursement for

the project. To be eligible for conversion, the project must be determined to qualify for federal fundsand identify what year the conversion to federal funds will take place. The type of federal funds thatthe project may be converted to include: HPP, BRIDG, I-M, NHS, and STP. Description of theeligible use of these federal funding programs are listed above.

Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER)The TIGER Grant program was created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. It isa discretionary funding program that appropriated $1.5 billion in funding for local governments, stateor transit agencies on a competitive basis for capital improvements in surface transportation projectsthat would have a significant impact on the Nation, a metropolitan area or a region. Examples ofprojects include but not limited to: highway or bridge projects, public transportation projects, portinfrastructure investments, and passenger and freight rail.

Transportation, Community, And System Preservation Program (TCSP)This program is intended to facilitate the planning, development, and implementation of strategies tointegrate transportation, community, and system preservation plans and practices. Funding can be usedfor improving the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce impacts of transportation on theenvironment, and provide efficient access to jobs, services and centers of trade.

Transit programs administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) remained relatively unchanged instructure with the passage of SAFETEA-LU (the exception being the addition of the Section 5317 NewFreedom Program). Although SAFETEA-LU authorized increased federal funding for transit, annualappropriations vary significantly. Programs in the TIP administered by the FTA are as follows.

CSection 5307 Operating Assistance and Capital ProgramThis program provides capital and operating assistance for urban public transit services. Funds availableto the region are determined nationally by a formula based on population and existing transit service.

C Section 5309 Capital Assistance Program

This program provides a federal share of up to 80% for capital construction and equipment purchases.These funds are distributed on a discretionary basis by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

C Section 5310 Program

This program provides capital assistance to non-profit social service agencies to provide paratransitservices to the elderly and people with disabilities. These funds are made available to the region on apopulation-based formula.

C Section 5311 Program

This program provides capital and operating assistance for rural public transit services with fundinglevels determined by formula.


18/282

Page 8

C Section 5316 Job Access / Reverse Commute (JARC) Program

This competitive grant program provides funding for (1) Job Access projects targeted at developingnew or expanded transportation services for welfare recipients and low-income persons and (2) ReverseCommute projects targeted at providing transportation services to suburban employment centers fromurban, rural, and other suburban locations.

C Section 5317 New Freedom ProgramThis competitive grant program provides capital and operating assistance to encourage services andfacility improvements to address the transportation needs of persons with disabilities that go beyondthose required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In addition to these federal funding categories, some projects in the TIP may be implemented without federalfunds. While inclusion in the TIP is not required for projects done exclusively with state, local, or privatefunds, any project that could significantly affect travel demand or capacity, regardless of its funding source,must be evaluated as part of a regional air quality analysis.

B. Project Solicitation

For each successive TIP, Council staff work with the state DOTs and the regions transit providers to developthe DOTs and transit providers programs.

For the local programs, Council staff members conduct TIP Development Workshops (one for Missourisponsors and one for Illinois sponsors) to inform agencies in the region of the TIP development process andthe amounts available in the local funding categories. For the FY 2011-2014 TIP, there was no call forapplications for federal funds for local sponsors. This was in part due to the rescission of federal funds thatoccurred with the expiration of SAFETEA-LU on September 30, 2009. In Missouri, the rescission of fundscaused the St. Louis region to lose approximately $47 million in federal funds associated with local programs.Congress acted in March to restore these losses, and staff will work to program these funds during

development of the FY 2012-2015 TIP. The section titled Local Program presents more information on thelocal project evaluation process.

C. Project Evaluation and Selection

1. Selection of state highway and bridge projectsFor the FHWA funding categoriesSurface Transportation Program (STP), National Highway System (NHS),Interstate Maintenance (I-M), Highway Bridge Program (BRIDG), and Highway Safety Improvement(HSIP)the states submitted projects and the Council reviewed them to ensure that they conform to theregions air quality goals and are financially viable within the indicated program year. Following this review,

the Council approved them as part of each states program. Selection of state projects is discussed in moredetail in the sections covering the Illinois DOT and Missouri DOT programs.

2. Selection of transit projects

Metro, the St. Clair County Transit District, and the Madison County Transit District submitted projects forinclusion in the TIP under the FTA funding categoriesSection 5307, Section 5309, and the Fixed Guideway(FXDGW) funding provided under Section 5309. In addition, Metro submitted projects that have received


19/282

Page 9

funding from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (shown as SECUR funds in the project listings) forsecurity upgrades to rail and bus facilities. The council reviewed these projects with respect to the regions airquality goals and to make sure the projects are financially viable within the indicated program year. Followingthis review, the Council approved the projects as part of each transit agencys program. Selection of transitprojects is discussed in more detail in the section covering the overall transit program. Where transit projectswere proposed for funding in the STP-S, STP-E, and CMAQ, programs, they were evaluated against other

projects submitted under the local funding categories as described in Item 3 below.

A variety of transit projects submitted by agencies that provide services to elderly persons and persons withdisabilities were selected for funding through the Section 5309, Section 5310, Section 5316, Section 5317programs. In Missouri, these projects were selected based on need in a competitive process coordinated by theMissouri DOT. In Illinois, these projects are programmed as selected by the Illinois DOT using a statewideevaluation process.

3. Selection of local transportation projectsLocal governments are responsible for submitting projects in the STP-S, STP-E (in Missouri), and CMAQfunding categories in consultation with the MPO and the states. In addition, local governments in Missouri cansubmit bridge replacement and rehabilitation (BRM) projects on federal aid highways and local roads for

funding under the Highway Bridge Program. Safe Routes to School projects are selected by the respective stateDOTs as well as STP-E projects in Illinois.

Council staff evaluated local projects submitted for inclusion in the TIP with respect to how well they wouldmeet each of the six Project Priority Areas identified in the regions long-range transportation plan,Legacy2035.Legacy 2035 has established these six priority areas as an inclusive and strategic framework to ensurethat the needs of transportation system users constitute the principle reference points for regionaldecision-making. The six priority areas (in order of regional significance) and the goals of each are:

Preservation of the Existing Infrastructure will be achieved by managing and maintaining current roadway,bridge, transit, and intermodal assets.

Safety and Security in Travel will be achieved by decreasing the risk of personal injury and property damageon, in, and around transportation facilities.

Congestion Management will be achieved by ensuring that congestion of the regions roadways does notreach levels that compromise economic competitiveness.

Access to Opportunity will be achieved by addressing the complex mobility needs of persons living in low-income communities and persons with disabilities.

Sustainable Development will be achieved by coordinating transportation needs, land use plans, economicdevelopment goals, environmental quality standards, and community aesthetics.

Efficient Movement of Goods will be achieved by improving the movement of freight within and through theregion by rail, water, air, and surface transportation modes.

Legacy 2035 also identifies performance measures applicable to each of the priority areas, and Council staffhas refined these performance measures and incorporated them into the evaluation process for localtransportation projects submitted for TIP consideration. The performance measures are intended to beindicators of the magnitude of need of a submitted improvement. These indicators, in conjunction with adetermination of cost effectiveness, are used to recommend investments for inclusion in the TIP.


20/282

Page 10

For projects proposed for funding under the CMAQ program, an additional, critical consideration is whether ornot the project would result in a reduction in vehicle emissions. The U.S. EPA has designated the St. Louisregion as a moderate non-attainment area under the eight-hour ozone standard and as a non-attainment areawith respect to the fine particle (PM2.5) standard. Because of these designations, any project that would notresult in a reduction in vehicle emissions is precluded from consideration for funding under the CMAQprogram in the St. Louis region.

The project evaluation framework utilized for the selection of TIP investments in the STP-S program isdescribed below:

(a) Projects undergo a screening process involving the determination of project and sponsor eligibility,availability of local matching funds and a feasible financial plan, and financial need. With respectto project eligibility, improvements must be on a public road that is federally functionally classifiedas an urban major collector, a rural major collector, an arterial, an expressway, or an interstatehighway at the time of the project application. Bridge and bicycle or pedestrian projects proposingto use STP funds are not restricted to the roadway classification requirement but can be on anypublic road. However, bridge projects on routes classified as local roads are limited to a minimalamount of eligible road work.

(b) Projects are evaluated with respect to each of the six transportation priority areas (preservation,safety, congestion, access to opportunity, sustainable development, and goods movement). Theinvestments are assigned to a primary project priority area based on information provided in theproject application. The effectiveness of the improvement is then supplemented through theproject evaluation/scoring process by each additional priority area addressed. A weighting schemedeveloped for the priority areas is used to score a projects effectiveness.

(c) Projects can gain additional points based on the utilization of the facility (Person Miles of Travel orPMT) and the amount of local matching funds being proposed.

(d) Cost effectiveness is established for each project by determining an annualized total cost and

accounting for the projects total effectiveness score calculated in the previous two steps.

(e) Finally, all projects are ranked by cost effectiveness. If two projects have an identical costeffectiveness, the project requesting a lesser amount of federal funds is determined to have a higherpriority.


21/282

Page 11

In addition to evaluating each project relative to the six priority areas, staff apply the following set ofprinciples, adopted to assist in reaching consensus on the programming of local projects:

1. All projects must be consistent with clean air requirements and conform to the statesimplementation plans for air quality;

2. All projects must have a financial plan that demonstrates how the project will be paid for;

3. Projects must have a reasonable, demonstrated degree of political and community support;

4. Provisions are made to encourage reasonable program equity among the counties;

5. Efforts are made to obtain maximum advantage of flexibility in the use of financial resources andensure full use of federal, state, and local funds available to the region;

Measures of various indicators of need and programmed funding levels (allocated federal and state funds only)

are shown in Figures 2a and 2b.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Madison Monroe St. Clair

Figure 2a - Comparison of Funding - Illinois

Funding Total

Population

Employment

Zero Auto Households

Deficient Bridges Total

Pavements in Poor Condition

Vehicle Miles of Travel

Crashes


22/282

Page 12

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Franklin Jefferson St. Charles St. Louis St. Louis City

Figure 2b - Comparison of Funding - Missouri

Funding Total

Population

Employment

Zero Auto Households

Deficient Bridges Total

Pavements in Poor Condition

Vehicle Miles of Travel

Crashes


23/282

Page 13

D. Public Participation

Consistent with regulatory requirements (23 CFR 450.316 and 23 450.324(b)) and policies established inLegacy 2035, public review of the draft FY 2010-2013 Transportation Improvement Program took placethrough several different means. Citizens and members of organizations were able to download a copy of thefull draft version of the FY 2011-2014 TIP from the Councils Web site (www.ewgateway.org). Also, six

public open house meetings were held in the month of June, one in each of the Missouri counties and one tocover the three Illinois counties.

At these public open houses, copies of the full draft version of the FY 2011-2014 TIP and the draft air qualityconformity determination document, as well as supplemental materials such as tables, charts, and maps, wereavailable for review, discussion, and comment. Citizens from any county were invited to attend the open housemeeting that was closest or most convenient for them. All open house meetings were held from 4:00 p.m. until7:00 p.m.

The open house meeting schedules appeared on the Councils Web site, and in the CouncilsLocalGovernment Briefings newsletter. Ads were also placed in the public notice section of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, St. Louis American, Edwardsville Intelligencer, and the Belleville News-Democrat. The schedule for

the public open house meetings for the FY 2011-2014 TIP and air quality conformity determination documentis shown below as well as the total number of non-staff attendees.

Wednesday, June 2, 2010: Franklin County - 400 East Locust, Union, MO 63084 (6 attendees)

Thursday, June 3, 2010: St. Louis City - Schlafly Library, 225 North Euclid Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63108(7 attendees)

Monday June 7, 2010: Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair Counties - IDOT District 8 Headquarters, RegionalConference Room, 1102 Eastport Plaza Drive, Collinsville, IL 62234 (4 attendees)

Wednesday June 9, 2010: St. Louis County - Creve Coeur City Hall, Multipurpose Room, 300 N. New

Ballas Rd, Creve Coeur, MO 63141 (7 attendees)

Thursday, June 10, 2010: St. Charles County - St. Peters City Hall, Meeting Room A, One St. PetersCentre Boulevard, St. Peters, MO 63376 (19 attendees)

Tuesday, June 15, 2010: Jefferson County - Hillsboro City Hall, 101 Second (Main) Street, Hillsboro, MO63050 (8 attendees)

In June 2010, MoDOT submitted a revised draft FY 2011-2014 transportation program. The revised programwas submitted while staff was conducting public open houses for the draft TIP document. The magnitude ofchanges necessitated further review by Council staff and it was determined that a separate public open housewas needed for MoDOTs FY 2011-2014 Program. Thirty-four projects were also proposed to be added to the

local program. The open house meeting schedule appeared on the Councils Web site, and in the CouncilsLocal Government Briefings newsletter. Ads were placed in the public notice section of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and St. Louis American. At the open house, copies of MoDOTs FY 2011-2014 program, changes tothe local program as well as supplemental materials such as charts and maps were available. Citizens werealso able to download copies of the MoDOT program and revisions to the local program from the Councilswebsite.


24/282

Page 14

The date of the MoDOT public open house is shown below as well as the total number of non-staff attendees :

Wednesday July 14, 2010: St. Louis County Library - Mid County Branch 7821 Maryland AvenueClayton, MO 63105 (1 attendee)

Council staff and representatives of state DOTs, transit service providers, and local project sponsors wereavailable at the public open house meetings to provide information and answer questions from citizens,

members of organizations, and elected officials. Council staff provided comment sheets to enable participantsto submit comments at the open house meetings. Prepaid postage was provided on the backs of these commentsheets in case participants wished to submit their comments by mail at a later time. In addition, the commentsheets provided information on how participants could submit comments by e-mail or fax.

The public review and comment period for the draft versions of the FY 2011-2014 TIP and the air qualityconformity determination document lasted 33 daysfrom May 24, 2010 (when the documents were placed onthe Councils Web site) through June 25, 2010 In all, staff received 9 letters or comments.

The public review and comment period for MoDOTs revised FY 2011-2014 program and the revised localprogram lasted 20 days from July 2, 2010 through July 21, 2010. Staff received zero letters or commentsregarding the MoDOT program. Council staff will continue to review ways to involve citizens and

organizations, including traditionally underserved groups, more effectively in the TIP development process.


25/282

Page 15

Total Program

Major Projects from FY 2010-2013 TIP That Have Been Implemented

In accordance with 23 CFR 450.324(l)(2), following is a list of major projects (with the amount of fundingprogrammed for construction in the FY 2010-2013 TIP and how much the actual award was) that will have

gone to a letting (construction contract) or will have been implemented during FY 2010:

IDOT projects:

I-55/70 Resurfacing - Canteen Creek to 1 mile north of IL 157 - TIP# 5152-11 - $10.75 million (awardedat $9.6 million)

St. Clair Avenue Resurfacing - IL 161 to Bunkum Road - TIP# 5269-10 - $7.0 million North Belt West Resurfacing - IL 13 to IL 161 - $4.5 million

MoDOT projects:

New Mississippi River Bridge main span - TIP# 3479-08 - $190.5 million (awarded at $229.5 million)

MO 141 - Widening - MO AB to MO 340 - TIP# 3271A-07- $49.7 million (awarded at $44.85 million) MO 364 - Mid Rivers Mall Dr to Central School Rd - TIP# 6006B-10 - $31.8 million (June letting) I-55 - MO M to MO Z - TIP# 5124-11 - $17.0 million (awarded at $15.4 million) I-64 - Seismic Retrofit - 11th St. To 7th St. - TIP# 420J-02 - $12.6 million (awarded at $ 11.6 million)

Metro Projects:

Vandeventer Bridge Replacement - new MetroLink bridge - TIP# 4325-06 - $6.2 million Light Rail Vehicle Paint Booth - TIP# 4562-07;4109-04 - $4.8 million Van Replacement - replace 50 Call-A-Ride vans - TIP# 3396-05;4274-07;4879-09 - $4.8 million

Madison County Transit District Projects

Purchase of heavy duty buses - TIP# 5129-09 $5.5 million Alton Transfer Center - TIP # 449-00 - $ 5.0 million

Local projects:

St. Louis - Grand Avenue Viaduct over Union Pacific Railroad - TIP#9160A,B,C - $25 million St. Louis - Tucker Blvd Bridge Replacement, phase 2 -Washington to OFallon - TIP# 4607B-10 - $12.3

million Jefferson County - Lions Den Rd, phase 4 - Binning Rd to Old 21 - TIP# 4279-07 - $2.6 million St. Charles County - Ehlmann Rd - Zumbehl Rd to Shady Oak Dr - TIP# 4806-10 - $1.9 million


26/282

Page 16

Program Summary -FY 2011-2014 TIP

The total regional program summarized in this final FY 2011-2014 TIP contains 541 projects (124 new and417 reprogrammed) at a total cost of approximately $2.29 billion in federal, state, local, and private funding.The reprogrammed or rescheduled projects account for $2.06 billion of the total program and while the newprojects account total $227.1 million. Consistent with the goals ofLegacy 2035, this TIP continues theregions emphasis on preserving the existing infrastructure, committing 43.9 % of the total program ($1.0

billion over the next four years) to resurface and reconstruct roads, repair/replace bridges, and replace otheraging transportation systems and facilities.

Approximately 29% of the total program ($666.7 million) is allocated to adding capacity in the form of newroads, new bridges, and new lanes on existing roads. Much of this capacity-adding total ($513 million)can beattributed to the funding that IDOT and MoDOT have programmed for a new Mississippi River Bridge, relatedroad work and debt service on bonds. Projects to improve the operations and/or safety of the regionstransportation facilities account for $150.3 million (6.6% of the total program). Nearly 5% of the totalprogram is allocated towards MetroLink Improvements and Expansion($104.8 million). Almost $325 millionor 14 % of the total program is dedicated to replacing service vehicles and for providing upgrades andmaintenance for non-MetroLink equipment and facilities. The Other category includes such projects as biketrails, sidewalk improvements, landscaping, and system enhancements.

Total Regional Program - Total Dollars

Improvement Type by County

FY 2011-2014

PreservationCapacity

Adding

Operational &

Safety

MetroLink

Improvemts./

Expansion

Transit

Vehic./Equip./

Service

Other TOTAL%

Total

% of

Allocated

Franklin $19,501,930 $11,985,000 $9,179,000 $0 $633,000 $0 $41,298,930 5.0% 5.0%Jefferson $36,971,647 $7,551,000 $12,566,180 $0 $0 $0 $57,088,827 6.9% 6.9%St. Charles $62,299,895 $17,475,000 $7,968,018 $0 $23,600 $850,000 $88,616,513 10.8% 10.8%St. Louis $216,684,444 $13,068,915 $24,606,820 $646,830 $547,875 $1,180,000 $256,734,884 31.2% 31.2%

St. Louis City $80,224,000 $77,650,000 $1,764,078 $30,656,144 $3,817,448 $1,997,920 $196,109,590 23.8% 23.8%Multi-County $45,058,000 $0 $20,124,796 $15,556,517 $102,183,474 $0 $182,922,787 22.2% 22.2%Regional $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%Missouri Total $460,739,916 $127,729,915 $76,208,892 $46,859,491 $107,205,397 $4,027,920 $822,771,531 100.0%

Missouri % 56.0% 15.5% 9.3% 5.7% 13.0% 0.5% 100.0%

Jersey $0 $0 $494,200 $0 $0 $0 $494,200 0.0% 0.1%Madison $242,540,750 $24,127,875 $30,622,030 $0 $55,326,429 $15,128,543 $367,745,627 35.0% 39.0%Monroe $5,306,455 $3,400,000 $1,048,000 $0 $0 $178,750 $9,933,205 0.9% 1.1%

St. Clair $113,787,447 $299,500,000 $41,587,580 $7,733,209 $9,219,486 $10,592,603 $482,420,325 46.0% 51.2%Multi-County $31,600,000 $43,400,000 $300,000 $0 $649,938 $5,795,109 $81,745,047 7.8% 8.7%Regional $107,313,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $107,513,000 10.2%Illinois Total $500,547,652 $370,427,875 $74,051,810 $7,733,209 $65,195,853 $31,895,005 $1,049,851,404 100.0%

Illinois % 47.7% 35.3% 7.1% 0.7% 6.2% 3.0% 100.0%

Multi-State $42,113,311 $168,528,000 $0 $50,228,358 $152,474,164 $0 $413,343,833 100.0%% 10.2% 40.8% 0.0% 12.2% 36.9% 0.0% 100.0%

Regional Total $1,003,400,879 $666,685,790 $150,260,702 $104,821,058 $324,875,414 $35,922,925 $2,285,966,768 100.0%Regional % 43.9% 29.2% 6.6% 4.6% 14.2% 1.6% 100.0%

Note: Percent of allocated funding represents the share of funds identified for specific investments in counties.

Total Regional Program - Federal Dollars


FY 2011-2014


27/282

Page 17


Adding

Operational &

Safety

MetroLink

Improvemts./

Expansion

Transit

Vehic./Equip./

Service

Other TOTAL%

Total

% of

Allocated

Franklin $9,980,344 $0 $0 $0 $135,766 $0 $10,116,110 3.2% 3.2%

Jefferson $17,072,116 $0 $876,944 $0 $0 $0 $17,949,060 5.7% 5.7%St. Charles $41,068,569 $936,000 $4,744,918 $0 $18,880 $680,000 $47,448,367 15.1% 15.1%St. Louis $85,662,653 $499,915 $3,265,920 $517,464 $438,300 $915,000 $91,299,252 29.0% 29.0%St. Louis City $23,272,000 $0 $1,676,478 $24,524,915 $3,076,458 $1,703,578 $54,253,429 17.2% 17.2%Multi-County $0 $0 $87,796 $14,916,214 $78,712,719 $0 $93,716,729 29.8% 29.8%Regional $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%

Missouri Total $177,055,682 $1,435,915 $10,652,056 $39,958,593 $82,382,123 $3,298,578 $314,782,947 100.0%Missouri % 56.2% 0.5% 3.4% 12.7% 26.2% 1.0% 100.0%

Jersey $0 $0 $395,360 $0 $0 $0 $395,360 0.1% 0.1%Madison $196,648,225 $8,822,300 $25,249,600 $0 $45,334,467 $11,860,726 $287,915,318 58.3% 59.9%Monroe $3,052,500 $0 $906,000 $0 $0 $143,000 $4,101,500 0.8% 0.9%St. Clair $84,622,964 $39,880,000 $25,456,046 $6,422,147 $1,351,734 $6,933,954 $164,666,845 33.3% 34.2%Multi-County $20,660,000 $0 $300,000 $0 $213,116 $3,036,087 $24,209,203 4.9% 5.0%Regional $12,860,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,860,000 2.6%

Illinois Total $317,843,689 $48,702,300 $52,307,006 $6,422,147 $46,899,317 $21,973,767 $494,148,226 100.0%Illinois % 64.3% 9.9% 10.6% 1.3% 9.5% 4.4% 100.0%

Multi-State $31,489,311 $63,360,000 $0 $39,811,487 $123,728,549 $0 $258,389,347 100.0%% 12.2% 24.5% 0.0% 15.4% 47.9% 0.0% 100.0%

Regional Total $526,388,682 $113,498,215 $62,959,062 $86,192,227 $253,009,989 $25,272,345 $1,067,320,520 100.0%Regional % 49.3% 10.6% 5.9% 8.1% 23.7% 2.4% 100.0%


Funding Breakdown by Geographic Entity

In Missouri, St. Louis County will receive approximately 31.2% of the total allocated funds. St. Louis City willreceive 23.8% of the total Missouri allocated funding. The main reason for the relatively large percentage offunds allocated to St.Louis City is MoDOTsprogramming of nearly$56 million in federal andstate funds for work indowntown St. Louisrelated to the I-70connector for a newMississippi River Bridge.

With respect to the totalprogram in Missouri,Franklin County willreceive 5.0%, JeffersonCounty 6.9%, and St.Charles County 10.8% ofthe total (federal, state,and local) allocatedfunds. Multi-countyprojects (i.e., projects thatcross county boundariesor projects that provideservices to more than onecounty) account for about 22.2% of the total allocated funds in Missouri. With respect to the Illinois program,


28/282

Page 18

Madison County accounts for 39.0% of the total allocated funds, while St. Clair and Monroe Counties receive51.2% and 1.1% respectively.

When considering federal funds only, St. Louis City will receive 17.2% of the allocated federal funds inMissouri, with St. Louis County at 29 %, Jefferson County at 5.7% and St. Charles County at 15.1%, andFranklin County at 3.2%. In Illinois, Madison County accounts for 59.9%, St. Clair County 34.2%, andMonroe County 0.9% of the total allocated federal funds.


29/282

Page 19

Illinois Department of Transportation Program

Evaluation and Ranking of Submitted Projects

IDOT typically develops a program based on its own assessment of district needs and priorities. This involvesevaluating the physical condition of its system, accident rates, roadway congestion, and operationaldeficiencies. Based on that assessment, and with consideration to the six priority areas identified inLegacy2035, IDOT annually develops a seven-year program that is submitted to East-West Gateway for inclusion inthe TIP. The first four-year portion of IDOTs program is proposed to be adopted by the Council with few, ifany, adjustments.

IDOTs projects fall into one of four categories. The first is projects that were included in years two, three, andfour of the previous TIP and are being reprogrammed. Reprogrammed projects represent IDOTs continuingcommitment to implement projects identified in earlier TIPs. The second category is projects using funds setaside for a particular improvement type in future years (i.e., preservation and maintenance, safety, constructionengineering, environmental impact mitigation) but for which specific projects have not previously beenidentified. The third category is projects broken out from larger projects identified in an earlier TIP for whichspecific details on location and scope are being defined for the first time. (When large construction projectsmove toward implementation, they are often divided into smaller, more manageable projects for the purpose ofdeveloping construction contracts.) The fourth category is new projects.

IDOT annually updates its program of improvements based on factors related to funding, system condition,available funding, project readiness, and cost effectiveness. Projects are modified, added, or removed from thehighway improvement program based on one or more of these factors. Projects not included in the FY 2011-2014 TIP will compete with other unfunded projects when the program is reevaluated next year.

Program Summary

IDOTs program for FY 2011-2014 contains 71 projects with a total cost of approximately $986.8 million.Included are 59 reprogrammed or rescheduled projects (accounting for $944.7 million) and 12 new projects(accounting for $42.1 million). Of the 71 projects in IDOTs program, 57 projects totaling $475.3 millionaddress the regional goal of preserving the existing system. Nine projects totaling $488.8 million involveadding capacity to the system. Three projects in IDOTs program addresses safety and operational needs, witha total cost of $20.5 million.

New Mississippi River Bridge ProjectsIDOT will be responsible for most of the total cost to construct a new bridge carrying I-70 over the MississippiRiver. This includes most of the costs related to the structure itself and all of the costs associated with the I-70and local road connections in Illinois. MoDOT will cover the costs to connect the new bridge to I-70 and thelocal road system in downtown St. Louis and will manage the project.

IDOTs program contains two projects addressing design, right of way, and construction costs for the newbridge and associated road work. IDOT has programmed approximately $422.3 million in total funds in FY2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 for these two projects.

SAFETEA-LU EarmarksSAFETEA-LU designated a total of $239 million in earmarked funds ($164 million in Illinois and $75 millionin Missouri) for constructing the new I-70 Mississippi River bridge structure and the connections in bothMissouri and Illinois. For the FY 2011-2014 period, IDOT will apply $63.4 million in SAFETEA-LU


30/282

Page 20

earmarked funds to cover land acquisition, utility adjustment, and construction costs associated with the newbridge.

Regional Set-AsidesIDOTs total program includes separate funds set aside to address preservation and maintenance needs, safetyimprovements, construction engineering, and environmental impact mitigation needs throughout the region.

These set-aside funds, which function as pots of money or accounts from which IDOT can draw to addressspecific needs, are shown in the row labeled Regional in the tables in this section. The regional set-asidefunds contain approximately $107.5 million, most of the money provided by the state.

IDOT Funds by Project Type and Geographic EntityThe tables below show the breakdown of total and federal funds by project type and geographic entity.

IDOT Program - Total Dollars


FY 2011-2014

Preservation Capacity AddingOperational

& SafetyOther TOTAL

% of

Total

% of

AllocatedMadison $225,713,000 $19,250,000 $20,500,000 $0 $265,463,000 26.9% 30.2%Monroe $2,000,000 $3,400,000 $0 $0 $5,400,000 0.5% 0.6%St. Clair $100,860,000 $287,850,000 $0 $0 $388,710,000 39.4% 44.2%Multi-County $31,600,000 $43,400,000 $0 $2,000,000 $77,000,000 7.8% 8.8%Regional $107,313,000 $0 $0 $200,000 $107,513,000 10.9%Multi-State $7,800,000 $134,928,000 $0 $0 $142,728,000 14.5% 16.2%

Total $475,286,000 $488,828,000 $20,500,000 $2,200,000 $986,814,000 100.0%

% 48.2% 49.5% 2.1% 0.2% 100.0%

Note: Percent of allocated funding represents the share of funds identified for specific investments in counties

IDOT Program - Federal Dollars


FY 2011-2014


& SafetyOther TOTAL

% ofTotal

% ofAllocated

Madison $186,510,000 $7,200,000 $15,938,000 $0 $209,648,000 49.4% 50.9%Monroe $1,360,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,360,000 0.3% 0.3%St. Clair $75,930,000 $33,600,000 $0 $0 $109,530,000 25.8% 26.6%Multi-County $20,660,000 $0 $0 $0 $20,660,000 4.9% 5.0%Regional $12,860,000 $0 $0 $0 $12,860,000 3.0%Multi-State $7,020,000 $63,360,000 $0 $0 $70,380,000 16.6% 17.1%Total $304,340,000 $104,160,000 $15,938,000 $0 $424,438,000 100.0%

% 71.7% 24.5% 3.8% 0.0% 100.0%

Note: Percent of allocated funding represents the share of funds identified for specific investments in counties


31/282

Page 21

Trends

As shown in the chart below, over the past 10 years the emphasis in IDOTs highway program has shifted backand forth several times between capacity adding and preservation. For the three-year period from FY 2004 toFY 2006, these two areas were given nearly equal emphasis.

Notwithstanding the percentage breakdowns, IDOT has identified a larger amount of funds to cover

preservation projects in this TIP ($475.3 million) compared to the FY 2010-2013 TIP ($389 million). The totalamount allocated for capacity adding has increased from $475 million in the FY 2010-2013 TIP to $489million in this TIP. Finally, the amount of funds to address safety and operational needs has increasedsignificantly from $300,000 in the FY 2010-2013 TIP to nearly $20.5 million in this TIP.


32/282

Page 22


33/282

Page 23

Missouri Department of Transportation Program


MoDOT develops its program by applying a formal rating system usingLegacy 2035's priority areas. Therating system analyzes the effectiveness of potential projects and assigns each project a score based on that

analysis. Using those scores to determine project priorities, MoDOT annually develops a five-year programthat is submitted to East-West Gateway for inclusion in the TIP. MoDOTs program generally is adopted bythe Council with adjustments resulting from a cooperative programming process.

Projects being proposed by MoDOT fall into one of three categories: (1) Projects that were originallyprogrammed for implementation in the current fiscal year but did not advance as scheduled; these projects arecarried over for implementation in the next fiscal year. (2) Projects that were included in years two, three, andfour of the previous TIP and are being reprogrammed; reprogrammed projects represent MoDOTs continuingcommitment to implement projects identified in earlier TIPs. (3) All other new projects.

Program Summary

MoDOTs program for FY 2011-2014 contains 128 projects at a total cost of $583.2 million. Included are 65reprogrammed or rescheduled projects (representing $429.4 million) and 63 new projects (representing $153.8million). In keeping with the priority of taking care of the existing system, 81 of the 128 projects in MoDOTsproposed program, totaling $350.7 million, involve preserving existing facilities. Thirty-eight projects focus onsafety and operational concerns, accounting for $72.9 million. Another 9 projects, representing $159.6 million,add capacity to the system.

MoDOTs program was amended into the FY 2011-2014 TIP by the Board of Directors at its July 28, 2010meeting. MoDOT made changes to its first draft program due to its new Five-Year Direction. The Five-YearDirection focuses on keeping Missouris roads and bridges in good condition. These changes included adding28 additional projects as well as modifications to costs, descriptions, or limits to 76 projects in their first draftprogram.

This years MoDOT program is significantly lower than the previous TIP. The FY 2010-13 TIP had 182projects totaling $1.21 billion. Due to funding constraints, MoDOT is unable to program as many projects asthey have in the past. Statewide, revenue is lower than in past years due to the ongoing economic recessionand other major projects funded by ARRA and Amendment 3 were constructed or are currently underconstruction. Until state revenues increase, MoDOT programs may remain smaller than in years past.

New Mississippi River Bridge ProjectIDOT will be covering most of the total cost associated with constructing a new bridge carrying I-70 over theMississippi River. This includes most of the costs related to the structure itself and all of the costs associatedwith the I-70 and local road connections in the Metro East area. MoDOT will cover the costs to connect thenew bridge to I-70 and the local road system in downtown St. Louis and will manage the project.

MoDOTs program contains three projects addressing design, right of way, construction, and bond paybackcosts for the new bridge. MoDOT has programmed approximately $90.5 million in total funds in FY 2011,2012, 2013, and 2014 for these four projects.

SAFETEA-LU designated a total of $239 million in earmarked funds ($164 million in Illinois and $75 millionin Missouri) for constructing the new bridge structure and the connections on both sides of the MississippiRiver.


34/282

Page 24

The contract for the bridge main span was awarded in December 2009 for $229.5 million. This was $39million higher than estimated. Cost savings from other contracts for the entire project should help alleviatethis difference. MoDOT also awarded the Missouri bridge approach contract in March 2010. Cost for thiscontract was $10.9 million which was $4.4 million lower than anticipated. In FY 2011, MoDOT expects toaward the contract for the interchange at Cass in St. Louis. The new bridge is expected to be completed by theend of 2014.

Scoping ProjectsMoDOTs project scoping policy is intended to ensure that projects have defined scopes and construction costestimates before they are committed to the TIP. MoDOT has identified 109 projects that have estimates forengineering and/or right-of-way acquisition but for which award dates and/or construction cost estimates havenot yet been determined. These scoping projects are not included in the following charts or in the projectlistings. A list of these projects is included as Appendix D.

Advance ConstructionMoDOT sometimes funds a project using a practice known as Advance Construction(AC). AC allows a stateDOT to construct a project by using non-federal funds. In the future, the state may convert the project tofederal-aid funding and receive federal reimbursement for the project. To be eligible for conversion, theproject must be determined to qualify for federal funds and identify what year the conversion to federal funds

will take place. The project listing in Appendix F identifies these projects, the year programmed, the year ofplanned conversion, and the anticipated federal category. A full description of each AC project is available inAppendix C.

MoDOT Funds by Project Type and Geographic EntityThe tables below show the breakdown of total and federal funds by project type and geographic entity.

MoDOT Program - Total Dollars


FY 2011-2014


& Safety Other Total % of Total

Franklin $6,659,000 $11,985,000 $9,179,000 $0 $27,823,000 4.8%Jefferson $18,242,000 $7,551,000 $11,470,000 $0 $37,263,000 6.4%St. Charles $40,457,000 $16,275,000 $7,835,000 $0 $64,567,000 11.1%St. Louis $166,596,000 $12,569,000 $23,709,000 $0 $202,874,000 34.8%St. Louis City $63,869,000 $77,650,000 $606,000 $0 $142,125,000 24.4%

Multi-County $45,058,000 $0 $20,082,000 $0 $65,140,000 11.2%

Regional $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%Multi-State $9,844,000 $33,600,000 $0 $0 $43,444,000 7.4%

Total $350,725,000 $159,630,000 $72,881,000 $0 $583,236,000 100.0%

% 60.1% 27.4% 12.5% 0.0% 100.0%


35/282

Page 25

MoDOT Program - Federal Dollars


FY 2011-2014


Adding

Operational

& SafetyOther Total % of Total

% of

AllocatedFranklin $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% 0.0%Jefferson $1,962,800 $0 $0 $0 $1,962,800 2.1% 2.1%

St. Charles $26,767,000 $0 $4,695,900 $0 $31,462,900 33.7% 33.7%St. Louis $46,551,800 $0 $2,537,100 $0 $49,088,900 52.6% 52.6%

St. Louis City $10,188,000 $0 $518,400 $0 $10,706,400 11.5% 11.5%Multi-County $0 $0 $45,000 $0 $45,000 0.0% 0.0%Regional $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%Multi-State $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% 0.0%Total $85,469,600 $0 $7,796,400 $0 $93,266,000 100.0%

% 91.6% 0.0% 8.4% 0.0% 100.0%


Trends

As shown in the chart below, over the past 10 years MoDOTs highway program has moved from having anearly equal emphasis onpreservation and capacityadding to a predominance ofpreservation-orientedprojects and back. For thisTIP, the breakdown betweenpreservation projects andcapacity adding projects isapproximately 60% and27% respectively, comparedto about 53% and 39% in

the FY 2010-2013 TIP.

The amount programmedfor capacity-adding projectshas decreased significantlyover the previous TIP, from$478 million to $159.6million. The primary reasonfor the award of the newMississippi River Bridgecarrying I-70 as well as withthe ARRA funded projects on MO 141 and I-55 in Jefferson County.

The percentage of MoDOTs program addressing operational and safety needs has ranged between 10 and 20%over the past several years. This TIP shows 12.5 % of MoDOTs projects allocated to operations and safety. Inabsolute terms, funds programmed to address operational and safety needs has decreased from $90.7 million inthe FY 2010-2013 TIP to $72.9 million in this TIP.


36/282


37/282

Page 27

Transit Program

Program Summary

The proposed program of transit projects for FY 2011-2014 contains 125 projects at a total cost of $462.7million. The program consists of 107 reprogrammed projects and 18 new projects. The new projects accountfor $16.8 million in total funds. Further breakdown of the program by agency is found below. There were 155transit and paratransit projects totaling $555.5 million programmed in the FY 2010-2013 TIP as approved.

In the FY 2011-2014 TIP, 26% of the total transit program is designated for acquiring new and replacementrevenue vehicles (buses and vans).

Improvements to the existing MetroLink system account for approximately 21.2% of the total transit program,while additional work related to completing the Southwestern Illinois College to Shiloh-Scott extension inIllinois accounts for approximately 1.5% of the total program.

Funds dedicated to replacing service vehicles and for providing upgrades and maintenance for non-MetroLinkequipment and facilities are included under the Equipment/Facilities and Maintenance category. This categoryaccounts for about 48.7% of the total transit program.

About 2.8% of the total transit program has been allocated for projects addressing safety and security concerns.For both Metro and Madison County Transit District, these projects are funded through the Section 5307 andSection 5309 programs administered by the FTA. In addition, Metro has received some funding from the USDepartment of Homeland Security.

The transit program in the FY 2011-2014 TIP includes only projects for which FTA (and state and localmatching) funds have been committed. This provides a more realistic financial picture.


Projects funded under Section 5307 (federal transit formula), Section 5309 (federal transit discretionary), andthe Fixed Guideway program were submitted for inclusion in the TIP by Bi-State Development Agency (doingbusiness as Metro), the St. Clair County Transit District (through Metros program), and the Madison CountyTransit District. Proposition A, a cent sales tax increase was approved by St. Louis County voters in March2010. This tax is expected to generate approximately $75 million per year. The passage of Prop A alsotriggered a 1/4 cent sales tax in the City of St. Louis which was approved by City voters in 1997, but could notbe collected until a sales tax was approved by St. Louis County voters.

Transit projects were programmed into the TIP as submitted by the sponsoring agencies. Where transit projectswere proposed for funding in the STP-S and CMAQ programs, they were evaluated against other submittedprojects as described in the Local Program section of this analysis. Projects using these kinds of localsuballocated funds are included in the Local Program section.

A variety of transit projects submitted by agencies that provide services to elderly persons and persons withdisabilities are selected for funding through the Section 5309 (discretionary capital assistance), Section 5310(federal elderly and persons with disability), Section 5311 (rural transportation), Section 5316 (job accessreverse commute), and Section 5317 (New Freedom) programs. Section 5309 funds are distributed on adiscretionary basis by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Section 5316, Section 5317, and, in Missouri,


38/282

Page 28

Section 5310 projects are selected based on need in a competitive process conducted by the Council. InIllinois, Section 5310 projects are selected by IDOT using a statewide evaluation process.

Projects being proposed for transit funding fall into one of three categories. The first category is projects thatwere originally programmed for implementation in the present fiscal year but did not advance as scheduled.These projects are carried over for implementation in the next fiscal year. The second category is projects thatwere included in years two, three, and four of the previous four-year TIP and are being reprogrammed. The

third category is new projects.

Metro ProgramMetros proposed program for FY 2011-2014 consists of 85 projects at a total cost of $397.7 million. Theprogram consists of 82 reprogrammed projects and 3 new projects. The new projects account for $8.1 millionin total funds. Metros program also includes $33 million in discretionary funding(not including SAFETEA-LU reauthorizations) that is not included in these totals because the funding has not been committed. Theseprojects are listed in Appendix E..

Further MetroLink ExpansionAt this point, there are no committed funds available to expand the MetroLink system, although recent studies

have been conducted to determine the preferred alignments for the MetroSouth, Northside, and Daniel Boonecorridors.

Madison County Transit District ProgramThe Madison County Transit Districts proposed program for FY 2011-2014 contains 26 projects at a total costof $56.4 million. The program includes 25 reprogrammed projects and one new project. The new projectaccounts for $75,000 in total funds.

Transit Program - Total Dollars


FY 2011-2014

Bus/Van

Acquisitions

MetroLink

Improvements

MetroLink

Expansion

Equip./Facilities

& Maintenance

Facility Safety /

SecurityTOTAL %

Franklin $0 $0 $0 $633,000 $0 $633,000 0.4%Jefferson $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%St. Charles $23,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $23,600 0.0%St. Louis $49,600 $646,830 $0 $498,275 $0 $1,194,705 0.8%

St. Louis City $943,125 $23,524,949 $0 $11,590,518 $0 $36,058,592 23.2%Multi-County $80,608,650 $15,556,517 $0 $21,574,824 $0 $117,739,991 75.6%Regional $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%Missouri Total $81,624,975 $39,728,296 $0 $34,296,617 $0 $155,649,888 100.0%

Missouri % 52.4% 25.5% 0.0% 22.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Madison $29,125,178 $0 $0 $20,967,909 $5,620,000 $55,713,087 69.8%Monroe $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%St. Clair $1,335,060 $7,733,209 $6,873,788 $7,544,618 $0 $23,486,675 29.4%Multi-County $0 $0 $0 $649,938 $0 $649,938 0.8%

Illinois Total $30,460,238 $7,733,209 $6,873,788 $29,162,465 $5,620,000 $79,849,700 100.0%Illinois % 38.1% 9.7% 8.6% 36.5% 7.0% 100.0%

Multi-State $7,989,970 $50,722,163 $0 $161,284,194 $7,175,506 $227,171,833 49.1%% 3.5% 22.3% 0.0% 71.0% 3.2% 100.0%

Regional Total $120,075,183 $98,183,668 $6,873,788 $224,743,276 $12,795,506 $462,671,421 100.0%

Regional % 26.0% 21.2% 1.5% 48.6% 2.8% 100.0%


39/282

Page 29

Transit Program - Federal Dollars


FY 2011-2014

Bus/Van

Acquisitions

MetroLink

Improvements

MetroLink

Expansion

Equip./Facilities

& Maintenance

Facility Safety /

SecurityTOTAL %

Franklin $0 $0 $0 $135,766 $0 $135,766 0.1%Jefferson $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%St. Charles $18,880 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,880 0.0%

St. Louis $39,680 $517,464 $0 $398,620 $0 $955,764 0.8%St. Louis City $777,000 $18,819,959 $0 $9,272,414 $0 $28,869,373 23.4%Multi-County $66,324,625 $14,916,214 $0 $12,388,094 $0 $93,628,933 75.7%Regional $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%Missouri Total $67,160,185 $34,253,637 $0 $22,194,894 $0 $123,608,716 100.0%

Missouri % 54.3% 27.7% 0.0% 18.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Madison $24,405,178 $0 $0 $16,700,465 $4,496,000 $45,601,643 78.0%Monroe $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%St. Clair $1,068,048 $6,422,147 $0 $5,190,870 $0 $12,681,065 21.7%Multi-County $0 $0 $0 $213,116 $0 $213,116 0.4%

Illinois Total $25,473,226 $6,422,147 $0 $22,104,451 $4,496,000 $58,495,824 100.0%Illinois % 43.5% 11.0% 0.0% 37.8% 7.7% 100.0%

Multi-State $6,787,419 $40,206,531 $0 $133,955,101 $7,060,296 $188,009,347 50.8%% 3.6% 21.4% 0.0% 71.2% 3.8% 100.0%

Regional Total $99,420,830 $80,882,315 $0 $178,254,446 $11,556,296 $370,113,887 100.0%Regional % 26.9% 21.9% 0.0% 48.2% 3.1% 100.0%

Trends

As shown in the chart below, over the past 10 years the transit program has moved from having a strongemphasis on expanding the MetroLink system to an emphasis on improving the existing MetroLink system,replacing transit vehicles, and upgrading equipment and facilities. With no funding available at this time toprovide for additional expansion of the MetroLink system, transit agencies necessarily have shifted theirresources to more of a taking care of the system approach.


40/282

Page 30


41/282

Page 31

Local Program

Status of Currently Programmed Projects

There were 240 locally-sponsored projects in the Missouri portion of the region programmed in the FY 2010-2013 TIP. Costs for those projects totaled about $430 million.

In the Illinois portion of the region, 115 locally-sponsored projects were programmed in the FY 2010-2013TIP. Total costs for those projects were $134 million.


In prior years, East-West Gateway has held an annual project solicitation process for local sponsors to submitapplications to the Council and to compete for suballocated funds. These funds include SurfaceTransportation Program-Suballocated (STP-S), Surface Transportation Program - Enhancements (STP-E),Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), and in Missouri On-System Bridge Rehabilitation andReplacement (BRM).

The expiration of SAFETEA-LU on September 30, 2009 brought the largest rescission of transportation fundsin history. Nationally, over $8.7 billion in funds were rescinded or taken back by the Federal HighwayAdministration in fiscal year 2009. This led to nearly $48 million in suballocated funds being lost to theMissouri side of the St. Louis region. Due to the loss of funding, East-West Gateway chose to maintain itscommitment to projects programmed in the TIP and to not add additional projects to future years of the TIPuntil it would be feasible to do so. The provisions of SAFETEA-LU have been extended through continuingresolutions since September 30 without addressing the rescission issue, however, on March 18, 2010SAFETEA-LU was extended through December 31, 2010. This extension addressed the rescission issue andmade possible the return of some of the funding lost to the region. The Council will look to programadditional local projects during the next round of project applications.

Program Summary

The local program section includes 34 projects that were amended to the FY 2011-2014 TIP on July 28, 2010.These projects include 31 projects funded by the Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) Programs in both Illinois andMissouri and the Illinois Transportation Enhancement Program (ITEP). Three other projects were funded byother federal programs.

MissouriThe local Missouri program for FY 2011-2014 contains 111 projects at a total cost of $127.3 million ($97.9million in federal funds). Included are 103 reprogrammed projects and eight new projects. Seven new projectstotaling $125,534 are funded by the SRTS Program SRTS projects are selected by MoDOT following astatewide review of project applications. The other new project is an earmark totaling $499,915.

IllinoisThe local Illinois program for FY 2011-2014 contains 106 projects at a total cost of $125.9 million($81.6million in federal funds . These projects represent 83 reprogrammed projects and 23 new projects.

The 23 new projects have a total cost of $13.7 million ($11.0 million in federal funds). One new project, theTri-City Port in Granite City, received $6 million in funding through the Transportation Investment Generating


42/282

Page 32

Economic Recovery (TIGER) program for its South Rail Loop project. . The TIGER Grant program is adiscretionary funding program that appropriated $1.5 billion in funding for local governments, state or transitagencies on a competitive basis for capital improvements in surface transportation projects that would have asignificant impact on the Nation, a metropolitan area or a region. There are also 10 new enhancement projectsand eight new Safe Routes to Schools projects. These programs are selected by IDOT after a statewide reviewof project applications. Nearly $3.1 million in enhancement funds and $909,675 in Safe Routes to Schoolfunds are included along with the new projects.

Trends

Consistent with the weight given to preservation inLegacy 2035, projects focusing on preserving the existinginfrastructure account for the largest portion of local project funds, about 60% of the total (compared to about55% of the total funds in the FY 2010-2013 TIP). The percentages of the total local funds that focus onaddressing operational and safety needs and on adding capacity have changed compared to the percentages inthe FY 2010-2013 TIP, from 12% to 22% and from 19% to 7%, respectively.

Local Program Total DollarsImprovement Type by County

FY 2011-2014

Preservation Capacity AddingOperational &

Safety

Transit Vehicles/

Service

MetroLink

ImprovementsOther TOTAL %

Franklin $12,842,930 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,842,930 10.1%Jefferson $18,729,647 $0 $1,096,180 $0 $0 $0 $19,825,827 15.6%

St. Charles $21,842,895 $1,200,000 $133,018 $0 $0 $850,000 $24,025,913 18.9%St. Louis $50,088,444 $499,915 $897,820 $0 $0 $1,180,000 $52,666,179 41.4%St. Louis City $14,770,000 $0 $1,158,078 $0 $0 $1,997,920 $17,925,998 14.1%

Multi-County $0 $0 $42,796 $0 $0 $0 $42,796 0.0%Missouri Total $118,273,916 $1,699,915 $3,327,892 $0 $0 $4,027,920 $127,329,643 100.0%

Missouri % 92.9% 1.3% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 100.0%

Jersey $0 $0 $494,200 $0 $0 $0 $494,200 0.4%

Madison $16,827,750 $4,877,875 $9,279,030 $456,342 $0 $15,128,543 $46,569,540 37.0%Monroe $3,306,455 $0 $1,048,000 $0 $0 $178,750 $4,533,205 3.6%St. Clair $12,927,447 $11,650,000 $41,587,580 $0 $0 $4,058,623 $70,223,650 55.8%Multi-County $0 $0 $300,000 $0 $0 $3,795,109 $4,095,109 3.3%

Illinois Total $33,061,652 $16,527,875 $52,708,810 $456,342 $0 $23,161,025 $125,915,704 100.0%

Illinois % 26.3% 13.1% 41.9% 0.4% 0.0% 18.4% 100.0%

Multi-State $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Regional Total $151,335,568 $18,227,790 $56,036,702 $456

Documents

East West Gateway TIP FY2011 2014