2021 - 2024 transportation improvement program (tip) · 2021. 3. 18. · congestion mitigation and...

2021 - 2024 Transportation Improvement

Program (TIP) Adopted: 03/18/2021

Table of Contents

Notice of Non-Discrimination.....................4 Self - Certification..........................................5 Introduction...................................................6 Planning Area Map........................................7 Federal Funding Information.......................8 Generic Project Information........................11Performance Measures (PM).......................14 Projects..........................................................15 Financial Plan...............................................16 Project Summary..........................................17 ARDOT Projects.........................................18Appendix ARDOT Performance Measures

Preparation and publication of this document was financed in part by funds provided by the United States Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway and Federal Transit Administrations. The provision of Federal financial assistance should not be construed as denoting

U.S. Government approval of plans, policies, programs or projects contained herein.

4 2021-2024 Transportation Improvement Program

Notice of Non-Discrimination

Notice of Non-DiscriminationThe Tri-Lakes Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) complies with all civil rights provisions of federal statutes and related authorities that prohibit discrimination in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Therefore, the MPO does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color, age, national origin, religion, disability, Limited English Proficiency (LEP), or low-income status in the admission, access to and treatment in the MPO’s programs and activities, as well as the MPO’s hiring or employment practices.

This notice is available from the ADA/504/Title VI Coordinator in large print, on audio tape and Braille, upon request. Free language assistance will be provided to persons of LEP upon request. Complaints of alleged discrimination and inquiries regarding the MPO’s nondiscrimination policies should be directed to:

Derrick HarrisMPO Study Director ADA/504/Title VI Coordinator Tri-Lakes Metropolitan Planning OrganizationP.O. Box 6409Hot Springs, AR 71902501-525-7577, Voice/TTY [email protected]

AVISO DE NO DISCRIMINACIÓNLa Organización de Planificación Metropolitana de Tri-Lakes (MPO) cumple con todas las disposiciones de derechos civi-les de los estatutos federales y las autoridades relacionadas que prohíben la discriminación en programas y actividades que reciben asistencia financiera federal. Por lo tanto, la MPO no discrimina por motivos de raza, sexo, color, edad, ori-gen nacional, religión, discapacidad, dominio limitado del inglés (LEP) o estado de bajos ingresos en la admisión, acceso y tratamiento en los programas de la MPO y actividades, así como las prácticas de contratación o empleo de la MPO.

Este aviso está disponible del Coordinador de ADA/504/Título VI en letra grande, en cinta de audio y Braille, a pedido. Se proporcionará asistencia lingüística gratuita a las personas de LEP que lo soliciten. Las quejas de supuesta discriminación y las consultas sobre las políticas de no discriminación de la MPO deben dirigirse a:

Derrick HarrisDirectoro de Estudios de MPO ADA/504/Coordinadoro del Título VI Organización de planificación metro-politana de Tri-LakesP.O. Box 6409Hot Springs, AR 71902501-525-7577, Voz / TTY [email protected]


Introduction

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962 provided that after July 1, 1965, Federal-aid highway projects could not be ap-proved in urban areas with populations of more than 50,000 unless they were based on a continuing, comprehensive transportation planning process carried on cooperatively by States and local communities in conformance with the objectives stated in section 9 of the Act.1 Therefore, to carry out the metropolitan transportation planning process, an MPO shall be designated for each urbanized area with a population of more than 50,000 individuals (as determined by the Bureau of the Census). The Tri-Lakes Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is a regional transportation planning organization that was established in 2003. The MPO serves the Hot Springs Area Transportation Study (HSATS), whose member jurisdictions and planning partners include, but are not limited to the following agencies:

· Garland County · City of Hot Springs, including Hot Springs Intracity

Transit. · Hot Springs Village · Town of Fountain Lake · City of Mountain Pine · Greater Hot Springs Chamber of Commerce · Hot Spring County · Arkansas Department of Transportation · Federal Highway Administration · Federal Transit Administration · National Park Service

FTA and FHWA jointly carry out the federal mandate to improve urban and rural transportation. Federal regulations, 23 U.S.C 135, 49 U.S.C 5304, and 23 CFR 450.200 et al, provide guidance on the Statewide and Non-Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming activities includ-ing the development and contents of the Statewide Trans-portation Improvement Program (STIP); and 23 U.S.C 135,

72021-2024 Transportation Improvement Program

49 U.S.C. 5303, and 23 CFR 450.300 et al provide guidance on the Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Program-ming activities, including the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

A TIP means a prioritized listing/program of transportation projects covering a period of four years that is developed and formally adopted by an MPO as part of the metropolitan transportation planning process, consistent with the Metro-politan Transportation Plan (MTP), and required for projects to be eligible for funding under title 23 U.S.C. and title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. An MTP means the official multimodal transportation plan addressing no less than a 20-year plan-ning horizon that the MPO develops, adopts, and updates through the metropolitan transportation planning process.

The State shall include each metropolitan TIP without change in the STIP, directly or by reference, after approval of the TIP by the MPO and the Governor (or his/her desig-nee). For nonattainment areas, FTA/FHWA must make a conformity finding on the TIPs before including them into the STIP. The complete STIP is then jointly reviewed and ap-proved or disapproved by FTA and FHWA. These conformity findings and approval actions constitute the determination that States are complying with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 135 and 49 U.S.C. Section 5304 as a condition of eligibility for federal-aid funding. Without these documents, approvals and findings, capital and/or operating assistance cannot be provided.

Figure 1.1 Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) map.

MPO PLANNING AREA MAP

U.S./ State Roads

City/ County Roads

MPO Boundary

Municipal Boundary

County Boundary

Interstate 30


Federal Funding Information

NATIONAL HIGHWAY PERFORMANCE PROGRAM (NHPP)

In general, the NHPP provides support for the condition and performance of the National Highway System (NHS), and to en-sure that investments of federal aid funds in highway construction are directed to support progress toward the achievement of performance targets established in a State’s asset management plan. Restoration work on all State Highway System bridges is also an eligible use of these funds.

NATIONAL HIGHWAY FREIGHT PROGRAM (NHFP)

The NHFP is for projects that will improve the efficient movement of freight on the National Highway Freight Network (NHFN) and support several goals, including:

· Investing in infrastructure and operational improvements that strengthen economic competitiveness, reduce con-gestion, reduce the cost of freight transportation, improve reliability, and increase productivity

· Improving the safety, security, efficiency, and resiliency of freight transportation in rural and urban areas

· Improving the state of good repair of the NHFN

· Using innovation and advanced technology to improve safety, efficiency, and reliability within the NHFN

· Improving the efficiency and productivity of the NHFN

· Improving state flexibility to support multi-state corridor planning and address highway freight connectivity

· Reducing the environmental impacts of freight movement on the NHFN

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (STBGP)

The STBGP provides flexible funding that may be used by states for projects to preserve and improve the conditions and performance on any state highway or bridge. A portion of these funds are set aside and sub-allocated as follows:

· Set asides

o Transportation Alternatives and Recreational Trails Projects (TAP or RTP), which provides funding for a variety of smaller-scale transportation projects such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities, recreational trails, safe routes to school projects, community improvements such as historic preservation and vegetation man-agement, and environmental mitigation related to stormwater and habitat connectivity

o Bridges not on federal aid highways (Off System Bridge)


· Sub-allocation

o A percentage of a state’s STBG apportionment (after set-asides) is to be obligated in the following areas in proportion to their relative shares of the State’s population:

Urbanized areas with population greater than 200,000 (STBGP>200K)

Areas with population greater than 5,000 but no more than 200,000 (STBGP)

Areas with population of 5,000 or less (STBGP)

HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP)

The HSIP funds are eligible for projects that will achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-state-owned public roads and roads on tribal lands. The HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that focuses on performance. A portion of these funds are set aside as follows:

· Set asides

o Railway-Highway Crossings Program (Rail Hwy) which provides funding for safety improvements to reduce the number of fatalities, injuries, and crashes at public railway-highway grade crossings.

CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CMAQ)

The CMAQ program provides a flexible funding source to state and local governments for transportation projects and pro-grams to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Funding is available to reduce congestion and improve air quality for areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter (nonattainment areas) and for former nonattainment areas that are now in compliance (maintenance areas).

· Sub-allocation

o CMAQ Program funds dedicated to West Memphis, AR (CMAQ AQ) for projects to the attainment or main-tenance of a national ambient air quality standard

o CMAQ Program flexible funds (CMAQ Flex) that may be used by states for projects to preserve and im-prove the conditions and performance on any state highway or bridge

FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM (FLAP)

The FLAP provides funds for projects on Federal Lands Access Transportation Facilities that are located on or adjacent to, or that provide access to Federal lands. This is a competitive grant program.


FERRY BOAT PROGRAM (Ferry Boat)

The Ferry Boat Program (Ferry Boat) provides funds for the construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities. This is a competitive grant program.

DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PROGRAM (DBE)

The DBE Program primary purpose is to provide training, assistance, and services to minority, disadvantaged, and wom-en business enterprises so as to increase their activity in the program, and to facilitate the firms’ development into viable, self-sufficient organizations capable of competing for, and performing on federally assisted highway projects.

ON THE JOB TRAINING PROGRAM (OJT)

The OJT Program is funded by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and allows states to hire and train skilled workers and get reimbursed for these efforts.


Generic Project Information

IRP DEBT SERIVCE

Conversion of advanced construction National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) funds to repay the bonds issued for the 2011 Interstate Rehabilitation Program. The 2011 Interstate Rehabilitation Program was approved by Arkansas voters in November 2011. Under this program, the Commission had the authority to issue up to $575 million in bonds for interstate rehabilitation to be partially repaid using NHPP funds.

VARIOUS BRIDGE PRESERVATION

Painting structural steel, adding or replacing guard rail at bridge ends, improvements to columns to control scour, and bridge deck restoration.

VARIOUS OFF-SYSTEM BRIDGE REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT ON CITY STREETS

Replacement or rehabilitation of eligible bridges on city streets.

BRIDGE INSPECTION / INSPECTION EQUIPMENT

Routine inspection of bridges and purchase of bridge inspection equipment

RAILROAD CROSSING PROTECTIVE DEVICES / SURFACING / HAZARD ELIMINATION

Safety improvements to reduce the number of fatalities, injuries, and crashes at public railway-highway grade crossings.

VARIOUS TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS

Funded with a set-aside of STBGP program funding for transportation alternatives (TAP). Projects in this category will be approved through a competitive selection process with the solicitation of applications. These set-aside funds include a vari-ety of smaller-scale transportation projects such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities, recreational trails, safe routes to school projects, community improvements such as historic preservation and vegetation management, and environmental mitigation related to storm water and habitat connectivity.


VARIOUS TRAIL PROJECTS

Projects in this category will be approved through a competitive selection process with the solicitation of applications. Eligi-ble projects include motorized and non-motorized trails and trail facilities.

VARIOUS RESURFACING / RESTORATION / REHABILITATION / RECONSTRUCTION

Federal funds dedicated for pavement and bridge improvement projects on the County Road System

VARIOUS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT / BRIDGE REHABILITATION ON COUNTY ROADS

Federal funds dedicated for bridge improvement projects for Off-System Bridges on the County Road System.

PE / RIGHT-OF-WAY / UTILITIES / CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING

Project development and construction management activities including surveys, environmental analysis, design, right-of-way acquisition, relocating utilities and providing construction inspection once a project is let to contract.

VARIOUS WILDFLOWER PROGRAMS

Funds to support ARDOT’s beautification program of planting wildflowers along the State Highway System.

MOTOR FUEL ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

Funding for ARDOT’s Internal Audit Motor Fuel Tax Section to offset the cost of International Fuel Tax Agreement audits and Motor Fuel Tax audits.

VARIOUS STATEWIDE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS

Improvements consistent with the state Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) that correct or improve a hazardous road location or feature or address a highway safety problem.

STATEWIDE PAVEMENT MARKINGS & SIGNING PROJECTS

Upgrading pavement markings and signs to meet desired levels of retro reflectivity for driver safety.

WORKFORCE TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT

Various courses and training for workforce development and educational activities for ARDOT employees.


VARIOUS PAVEMENT PRESERVATION PROJECTS

Projects to improve ride quality and extend the life of pavements on the State Highway System. Projects may increase lane widths and/or shoulder widths to current standards.

VARIOUS SIGNALS & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS

Signalization, signal upgrades, signal coordination, and the addition of turn lanes to improve the flow of traffic through inter-sections.

VARIOUS SEALING PROJECTS

May include fog seals, chip seals, high friction surface treatments or other surface treatments on the State Highway System to improve friction and long-term performance of the pavement.

VARIOUS FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM (FLAP) PROJECTS

Improves transportation facilities that are located on or adjacent to, or that provide access to Federal lands. This is a com-petitive grant program.

VARIOUS FERRY BOAT PROGRAM PROJECTS

Restoration or construction of ferry boats and/or ferry terminal facilities. This is a competitive grant program.

DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES (DBE) SUPPORTIVE SERVICES

Provides training, assistance, and services to minority, disadvantaged, and women business enterprises to facilitate the firms’ development into viable, self-sufficient organizations capable of competing for, and performing on federally assisted highway projects.

ON-THE-JOB TRAINING (OJT) SUPPORTIVE SERVICES

Hire and train workers in various highway construction skills.

Eligible activities for all programs can be found in the “FAST ACT” guidance at the following website: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/


Performance Measures

A key feature of the 2012 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) was the established of a perfor-mance and outcome-based program, whose objective is to encourage states to invest resources in projects that collectively will make progress toward the achievement of the national goals. The 2015 Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act built on the MAP-21 Performance-Based Planning and Programming (PBPP) provisions. The provisions which were implemented by various rulemakings, are administered by different agencies within the U.S. Department of Transportation. Transportation performance measure management outcomes are grouped into six elements to more effectively communi-cate the efforts under way to implement the statutory requirements: national goals, measures, targets, plans, reports, and accountability & transparency.

Pursuant to federal regulations, the TIP shall include, to the maximum extent practicable, a description of the anticipated effect of the TIP toward achieving the performance targets identified in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), linking investment priorities to those performance targets.

TIP/STIP Project Selection ProcessNotably, transportation investment priorities in the TIP and STIP are influenced by various federal, state, regional and local factors. For example, ARDOT’s STIP development process considers various factors including but not limited to the follow-ing: national goals and performance management requirements, Arkansas state highway needs and capital improvements study, determination of the funding distribution by category, ranking of projects, project selection validation, and final project selection by the Commission.

Federal regulations require MPO’s states, and transit providers to coordinate in the PBPP process. Therefore, the MPO coordinates with ARDOT, Hot Springs Intracity Transit (HSIT), and other planning partners in the metropolitan transportation planning and programming process. This not only ensures that projects in both the TIP and STIP are consistent, but that the TIP and STIP simultaneously support the achievement of various performance measures and targets.

Historically, the MPO has chosen to plan and program it’s MTP and TIP projects in support of all ARDOT’s (PM1, PM2, & PM3) and HSIT’s Transit Asset Management (TAM) and Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan (PTASP) targets. Ex-tensive discussion on the target setting processes and assessment on the progress of achieving these targets is led and reported by either ARDOT or HSIT, where applicable, and reported in various PBPP documents posted on our website https://wcapdd.org/tri-lakes-mpo. More information on the ARDOT’s and Tri-Lakes approved Performance Measures can be found in Appendix A.


Projects

The STIP is financially constrained overall but not for each year. Therefore, some projects may change years to ensure it remains financially constrained but offers flexibility with programming projects for each year fiscal year.

The following list contains projects for the fiscal years of 2021 – 2024. Please note: this version is a just a DRAFT and there-fore subject to change due to a public involvement period which will be held after initial technical and policy board approval. Additionally, please be aware that pavement preservation projects are shown for informational purposes only, as they are decided solely by the state and could change; any such changes will not require a STIP/TIP Amendment.

In addition, a project table has been included which highlights any major projects and there status from the previous Trans-portation Improvement Program (TIP) Fiscal Years (FY) 2019-2022.


Financial Plan

Funding Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 TBD Total:NHPP -$ 1,920$ -$ 3,520$ 5,360$ 10,800$ HSIP 3,870$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,870$ STBGP -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,760$ 5,760$

Total Federal Aid: 3,870$ 1,920$ -$ 3,520$ 11,120$ 20,430$ CAP 12,800$ -$ -$ 11,000$ -$ 23,800$ State 430$ 480$ -$ 880$ 2,780$ 4,570$ Local -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Act 416 -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,500$ 5,500$

Total Non-Federal: 13,230$ 480$ -$ 11,880$ 8,280$ 33,870$ Total TIP: 17,100$ 2,400$ -$ 15,400$ 19,400$ 54,300$

Highway Projects TIP 2021-2024

All projects in thousands (x$1,000)

Funding Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total:FTA 5305 112$ 115$ 117$ 118$ 462$ FTA 5307 780$ 808$ 835$ 885$ 3,308$ FTA 5310 -$ FTA 5339 125$ 125$ 125$ 125$ 500$

Total Federal Aid: 1,017$ 1,048$ 1,077$ 1,128$ 4,270$ State -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Local 553$ 581$ 606$ 657$ 2,397$

Total Non-Federal: 553$ 581$ 606$ 657$ 2,397$ Total STIP: 1,570$ 1,629$ 1,683$ 1,785$ 6,667$

Transit Projects TIP 2021-2024

All projects in thousands (x$1,000)

Total Federal 24,700$ Total State 33,870$ Total Local 2,397$

Total: 60,967$ All projects in thousands (x$1,000)


Project Summary

NHPP HSIP STBGP CAP STATE ACT 416 LOCAL1 061439 2021 Hwy. 7 - Deerpark Rd. Garland 5 1.4 Safety Improvements State -$ 3,870$ -$ -$ 430$ -$ -$ 4,300$ 2 061608 2022 Little Glazypeau Creek Strs. & Apprs. Garland 192 Structures & Approaches State 1,920$ -$ -$ -$ 480$ -$ -$ 2,400$ 3 06X151 2023 Gulpha Creek Strs. & Apprs. Garland 70B Structures & Approaches State 3,520$ -$ -$ -$ 880$ -$ -$ 4,400$ 4 CA0607 2021 Fleetwood Dr. - Hwy. 227 (Widening) Garland 270 1.64 Major Widening State -$ -$ -$ 12,800$ -$ -$ -$ 12,800$ 5 CA0612 2024 Ouachita River - Fleetwood Dr. (Widening) Garland 270 1.73 Major Widening State -$ -$ -$ 11,000$ -$ -$ -$ 11,000$

5,440$ 3,870$ -$ 23,800$ 1,790$ -$ -$ 34,900$

Funding Source (in thousands x$1,000) Total:

2021 - 2024 STIP/TIP Projects

Item Job Fiscal Year Description County Route Length Type of Work Agency Carrying Out

NHPP HSIP STBGP CAP STATE ACT 416 LOCAL1 06X046 TBD Hwy. 227 - Hwy. 270 Garland 70 6.29 System Preservation State -$ -$ 3,600$ -$ 900$ -$ -$ 4,500$ 2 06X342 TBD Hwy. 270 - Hwy. 7 Garland 70B 4.18 System Preservation State 2,240$ -$ -$ -$ 560$ -$ -$ 2,800$ 3 06X218 TBD Hwy. 7 - Valley St. Garland 70B 0.29 System Preservation State 80$ -$ -$ -$ 20$ -$ -$ 100$

4 06X261 TBD Hwy. 70 - Hwy. 5 Garland & Saline 128 8.48 System Preservation State

-$ -$ 1,680$ -$ 420$ -$ -$ 2,100$ 5 06X270 TBD Oakgrove Rd. - Hwy. 270 Garland 227 4.53 System Preservation State -$ -$ 480$ -$ 120$ -$ -$ 600$ 6 06X215 TBD Hwy. 70B - Ouachita Ave. Garland 7 0.36 System Preservation State 240$ -$ -$ -$ 60$ -$ -$ 300$ 7 06X245 TBD Hwy. 227 - Hwy. 270B Garland 270 1.1 System Preservation State 640$ -$ -$ -$ 160$ -$ -$ 800$ 8 06X220 TBD Hwy. 7 - S. of Hwy. 270B Garland 270 4.5 System Preservation State 2,080$ -$ -$ -$ 520$ -$ -$ 2,600$ 9 06X216 TBD Hwy. 70B - Crescent Ave. Garland 270B 0.19 System Preservation State 80$ -$ -$ -$ 20$ -$ -$ 100$

10 A60006 TBD Hollywood Ave. - Hwy. 270 Garland 270B 3.26 System Preservation State -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,000$ -$ 2,000$ 11 A60004 TBD Garland Co. Line - Stone Quarry Creek Hot Spring 270 4.69 System Preservation State -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,500$ -$ 3,500$

5,360$ -$ 5,760$ -$ 2,780$ 5,500$ -$ 19,400$

2021 - 2024 STIP/TIP Pavement Preservation Projects

County Route Length Type of Work Total:Funding Source (in thousands x$1,000)

Note: Pavement preservation projects are shown for informational purposes. Actual locations are subject to change as schedules and priorities warrant. Any deviations from this list will not require a STIP Amendment

Item Job Fiscal Year Description Agency Carrying Out

Job STIP Year Description County Route Lenth Status Type of Work Notes

061309 2019 Mitzi Pkwy. - Hwy. 290 Garland & Hot Spring 7 3.79 Let 08/05/2020 Safety Improvements

061438 2019 Bryant Rd. - Hwy. 298 West Garland 7 3.08 Let 01/08/2020 Safety Improvements061439 2020 Hwy. 7 - Deerpark Rd. Garland 5 1.4 Currently in the FY 21-24 TIP Safety Improvements *061547 2020 Hwy. 7S - Hwy. 5 (S) Garland 7 4.17 Let 09/16/2020 Major Widening

CA0607 2019 Fleetwood Dr. - Hwy. 227 (S) Garland 270 1.65 Currently in the FY 21-24 TIP Major WideningPart of the voter

approved 1/2 cent sales tax*

R60140 2020 Hwy. 70 East - Hwy. 7 North (East-West Arterial Ext.) Garland New 5.16 Let 11/06/2019 New Location

Partnering Project. County to contribute up

to $30M toward total project costs

06X006 2021 Little Glazypeau Creek Strs. & Apprs. Garland 192 N/A Currently in the FY 21-24 TIP Structures & Approaches Now Project #061608*

2019-2022 STIP/TIP Project Status

*In previous TIP/STIP 2019-2022 and found in the new DRAFT for 2021-2024

Hot Springs Area Transportation Study2021-2024 STIP

Job Number Job Name District County Route Section Length Cost

(X $1,000)061439 Hwy. 7 - Deerpark Rd. (Safety Impvts.) (S) 6 Garland 5 6 1.40 4,300$ 06X215 Hwy. 70B - Ouachita Ave. (Hot Springs) (S) 6 Garland 7 9 0.36 300$ 06X046 Hwy. 227 - Hwy. 270 (Hot Springs) (S) 6 Garland 70 8 6.29 4,500$ 06X342 Hwy. 270 - Hwy. 7 (S) 6 Garland 70B 8B 4.18 2,800$ 06X151 Gulpha Creek Strs. & Apprs. (Hot Springs) 6 Garland 70B 9B - 4,400$ 06X218 Hwy. 7 – Valley St. (Hot Springs) (S) 6 Garland 70B 9B 0.29 100$ 06X261 Hwy. 70 - Hwy. 5 (S) 6 Garland & Saline 128 11 8.48 2,100$ 061608 Little Glazypeau Creek Strs. & Apprs. (S) 6 Garland 192 2 - 2,400$ 06X270 Oakgrove Rd. - Hwy. 270 6 Garland 227 0 4.53 600$ CA0607 Fleetwood Dr. - Hwy. 227 (Widening) (S) 6 Garland 270 5 1.64 12,800$ CA0612 Ouachita River - Fleetwood Dr. (Widening) (S) 6 Garland 270 5 1.73 11,000$ 06X245 Hwy. 227 - Hwy. 270B (Hot Springs) 6 Garland 270 5 1.10 800$ 06X220 Hwy. 7 - S. of Hwy. 270B (Hot Springs) (S) 6 Garland 270 6 4.50 2,600$ A60004 Garland Co. Line - Stone Quarry Creek (S) 6 Hot Spring 270 7 4.69 $ 3,500A60006 Hollywood Ave. - Hwy. 270 (Hot Springs) (S) 6 Garland 270B 6B 3.26 2,000$ 06X216 Hwy. 70B - Crescent Ave. (Hot Springs) (S) 6 Garland 270B 6B 0.19 100$

PM:PD:AEP:1/26/2021 \\Csd1\statrpt\P&C-DIV\STIP\2021-2024 STIP\MPO\MPO Lists_For Meeting AEP.xlsx Page 1 of 1

!!!!

!!!!

?@7

KL270

AB192

AB290

IJ70

IJ70AB227

AB171

KL270

KLH270

IJ70

?@7

?@7

?@7

IJH70

AB128

AB128

AB171

KL270

KL270

?@5

Lake Hamilton

Lake Ouachita

Lake Catherine

S A L I N ES A L I N E

G A R L A N DG A R L A N D

MO

NTG

OM

ERY

MO

NT G

OM

E RY

H O T S P R I N GH O T S P R I N G

MALVERN

HOTSPRINGS

Lonsdale

Rockport

MountainPine

FountainLake

BonnerdaleCrossRoads

CrystalSprings

Pearcy

Sunshine

Hempwallace

Royal

PleasantHill

LakeHamilton

Hawes

Red Oak

LakeCatherine

WilsonSprings

MorningStar

MountainValley

BlueSprings

Jessieville

Hamilton

Mt.Moriah

Butterfield

MagnetCove

Owensville

HighPoint

OzarkLithia

Piney

!"#$30

?@]7

IJH70

KLH270

IJ70

KL270

?@88?@51

?@5

?@7

AB290

AB347

AB227

AB171

AB192AB128

AB298

Docu

ment

Path:

\\San

1\GIS

\Prog

ramsC

ontra

cts\Pr

ojects

\STIP

\STIP

_202

1_20

24\M

PO\H

SATS

.mxd

PM: PS: JL40961: 1/26/2021

0 1 20.5Miles

I

Hot Springs Area Transportation Study2021-2024 Statewide Transportation Im

provement Program

Pavement preservation projects are shown for informational purposes. Actual locations are subject to change as schedules and priorities warrant.

!!!!

!!!!

?@7

KL270

AB192

AB290

IJ70

IJ70AB227

AB171

KL270

KLH270

IJ70

?@7

?@7

?@7

IJH70

AB128

AB128

AB171

KL270

KL270

?@5

Lake Hamilton

Lake Ouachita

Lake Catherine

S A L I N ES A L I N E

G A R L A N DG A R L A N D

MO

NTG

OM

ERY

MO

NT G

OM

E RY

H O T S P R I N GH O T S P R I N G

MALVERN

HOTSPRINGS

Lonsdale

Rockport

MountainPine

FountainLake

BonnerdaleCrossRoads

CrystalSprings

Pearcy

Sunshine

Hempwallace

Royal

PleasantHill

LakeHamilton

Hawes

Red Oak

LakeCatherine

WilsonSprings

MorningStar

MountainValley

BlueSprings

Jessieville

Hamilton

Mt.Moriah

Butterfield

MagnetCove

Owensville

HighPoint

OzarkLithia

Piney

!"#$30

?@]7

IJH70

KLH270

IJ70

KL270

?@88?@51

?@5

?@7

AB290

AB347

AB227

AB171

AB192AB128

AB298

CA0607

061439

CA061206X21606X218

06X26106X261

06X215

06X245

06X22006X220

A60006

06X342

06X270

A60004

06X046

06X261

061608061608

06X15106X151

Docu

ment

Path:

\\San

1\GIS

\Prog

ramsC

ontra

cts\Pr

ojects

\STIP

\STIP

_202

1_20

24\M

PO\H

SATS

.mxd

PM: PS: JL40961: 1/26/2021

0 1 20.5Miles

I

Hot Springs Area Transportation Study2021-2024 Statewide Transportation Im

provement Program

Pavement preservation projects are shown for informational purposes. Actual locations are subject to change as schedules and priorities warrant.

(in thousands)JOB COUNTY ROUTE TERMINI TYPE WORKLENGTH

ESTIMATED COST

Funding Breakdown

AGENCY

CARRYING

OUT THE

PROJECT FFY MPO

2021-2024 HSATS TIP

- HSIP

- State

061439 Garland 5 Hwy. 7 – Deerpark Rd. (Safety Impvts.) (S) Safety Improvements

3,870

430

- TOTAL4,300 HSATS2021State1.40

- NHPP

- State

06X151 Garland 70B Gulpha Creek Strs. & Apprs. (Hot Springs) (S) Strs. & Apprs.

3,520

880

- TOTAL4,400 HSATS2024State-

- NHPP

- State

061608 Garland 192 Little Glazypeau Creek Strs. & Apprs. (S) Strs. & Apprs.

1,920

480

- TOTAL2,400 HSATS2022State-

Unfunded CAP project. Part of the voter approved ½ ¢ sales tax program.

- CAP

CA0612 Garland 270 Ouachita River – Fleetwood Dr. (Widening) (S) Major Widening

11,000


Part of the voter approved ½¢ sales tax program.

- CAP

CA0607 Garland 270 Fleetwood Dr. – Hwy. 227 (Widening) (S) Major Widening

12,800


- NHPP

XX2021-01 Statewide IRP Debt Service Miscellaneous

50,000

- TOTAL50,000 All2021State-

- NHPP

- State/Local

XX2021-02 Statewide Various Bridge Preservation System Preservation

14,400

3,600

- TOTAL18,000 All2021State/Local-

- NHPP

- Local

XX2021-03 Statewide Various Off-System Bridge Rehab / Replacement on City Streets Strs. & Apprs.

160

40

- TOTAL200 All2021State-

- STBGP

- Off-System Bridge

- State/Local

XX2021-04 Statewide Bridge Inspection / Inspection Equipment Miscellaneous

2,400

800

800


- Rail Hwy

- State

XX2021-05 Statewide RR Xing Protect Devices / Surfacing / Hazard Elim Safety Improvements

270

30

- TOTAL300 All2021State/RR-

- TAP

- Local

XX2021-06 Statewide Various Transportation Alternative Projects Miscellaneous

8,592

2,148

- TOTAL10,740 All2021Local-

ALL PROJECTS IN HSATS AREA Page 1


ESTIMATED COST

Funding Breakdown

AGENCY

CARRYING

OUT THE

PROJECT FFY MPO

2021-2024 HSATS TIP

- RTP

- Local

XX2021-07 Statewide Various Trail Projects Miscellaneous

1,494

374


- STBGP

- Local

XX2021-08 Statewide Various Resurf / Restore / Rehab / Recon / BR Repl / BR Rehab on

County Roads

4-R | Strs. & Apprs.

5,967

1,492


- Off-System Bridge

- Local

XX2021-09 Statewide Various Bridge Rehab / Replacement on County Roads Strs. & Apprs.

3,700

925


Funding in this category may be used for the development of any project within the 2021-2024 STIP.

- NHPP

- NHFP

- HSIP

- Rail Hwy

- STBGP

- CMAQ Flex

- State/Local

XX2021-10 Statewide PE / Right-of-Way / Utilities / CENG Project Development

7,726

1,047

2,000

147

3,930

1,150

4,000


- STBGP

- State

XX2021-11 Statewide Various Wildflower Programs Miscellaneous

24

6


- STBGP

XX2021-12 Statewide Motor Fuel Enforcement Activities Miscellaneous

20


- HSIP

- State

XX2021-13 Statewide Various Statewide Safety Improvements Safety Improvements

13,500

1,500


- NHPP

- STBGP

- State

XX2021-14 Statewide Statewide Pavement Markings & Signing Projects System Preservation

7,410

2,190

2,400


- Off-System Bridge

XX2021-15 Statewide Workforce Training and Development Miscellaneous

700




ESTIMATED COST

Funding Breakdown

AGENCY

CARRYING

OUT THE

PROJECT FFY MPO

2021-2024 HSATS TIP

State funding includes $14M for Fayetteville Shale severance tax projects.

- NHPP

- HSIP

- STBGP

- Act 416

XX2021-16 Statewide Various Pavement Preservation Projects System Preservation

33,600

1,000

1,000

66,150

101,750 - TOTAL All2021State-

Includes all MPOs with the exception inside the urbanized areas of CARTS, NARTS & WMATS.

- STBGP

- State/Local

XX2021-17 Statewide Various Signal and Intersection Improvements Intersection

Improvements 2,000

500


- Act 416

XX2021-18 Statewide Various Sealing Projects System Preservation

9,000


- FLAP

- State/Local

XX2021-19 Statewide Various Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) Projects Miscellaneous

2,960

740


- Ferry Boat

- State

XX2021-20 Statewide Various Ferry Boat Program Projects Miscellaneous

100

25


Funding amount is approximate.

- DBE

XX2021-21 Statewide Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) Supportive Services Miscellaneous

150



- OJT

- State

XX2021-22 Statewide On-the-Job Training (OJT) Supportive Services Miscellaneous

100

25


- NHPP


50,000


- NHPP

- State/Local


14,400

3,600


- NHPP

- Local


160

40




ESTIMATED COST

Funding Breakdown

AGENCY

CARRYING

OUT THE

PROJECT FFY MPO

2021-2024 HSATS TIP

- STBGP

- Off-System Bridge

- State/Local


2,400

800

800


- Rail Hwy

- State


4,140

460

- TOTAL4,600 All2022State/RR-

- TAP

- Local


8,592

2,148


- RTP

- Local


1,494

374


- STBGP

- Local


County Roads


5,967

1,492


- Off-System Bridge

- Local


3,700

925



- NHPP

- NHFP

- HSIP

- Rail Hwy

- STBGP

- CMAQ Flex

- State/Local


8,000

600

2,000

150

5,000

250

4,000


- STBGP

- State


24

6


- STBGP


20


- HSIP

- State


27,630

3,070




ESTIMATED COST

Funding Breakdown

AGENCY

CARRYING

OUT THE

PROJECT FFY MPO

2021-2024 HSATS TIP

- NHPP

- STBGP

- State


5,600

4,000

2,400


- Off-System Bridge


700


- NHPP

- HSIP

- STBGP

- Act 416


29,000

3,000

42,700

77,400



- STBGP

- State/Local


Improvements 2,000

500


- Act 416


9,000


- FLAP

- State/Local


2,960

740


- Ferry Boat

- State


100

25



- DBE


150



- OJT

- State


100

25


- NHPP


50,000


- NHPP

- State/Local


14,400

3,600




ESTIMATED COST

Funding Breakdown

AGENCY

CARRYING

OUT THE

PROJECT FFY MPO

2021-2024 HSATS TIP

- NHPP

- Local


160

40


- STBGP

- Off-System Bridge

- State/Local


2,400

800

800


- Rail Hwy

- State


3,230

1,470


- TAP

- Local


8,592

2,148


- RTP

- Local


1,494

374


- STBGP

- Local


County Roads


5,967

1,492


- Off-System Bridge

- Local


3,700

925



- NHPP

- NHFP

- HSIP

- Rail Hwy

- STBGP

- CMAQ Flex

- State/Local


8,000

600

2,000

150

4,607

643

4,000


- STBGP

- State


24

6


- STBGP


20




ESTIMATED COST

Funding Breakdown

AGENCY

CARRYING

OUT THE

PROJECT FFY MPO

2021-2024 HSATS TIP

- HSIP

- State


30,240

3,360


- NHPP

- STBGP

- State


5,600

4,000

2,400


- Off-System Bridge


700


- NHPP

- HSIP

- STBGP

- Act 416


73,400

1,000

29,400

82,100



- STBGP

- State/Local


Improvements 2,000

500


- Act 416


9,000


- FLAP

- State/Local


2,960

740


- Ferry Boat

- State


100

25



- DBE


150



- OJT

- State


100

25


- NHPP


50,000




ESTIMATED COST

Funding Breakdown

AGENCY

CARRYING

OUT THE

PROJECT FFY MPO

2021-2024 HSATS TIP

- NHPP

- State/Local


14,400

3,600


- NHPP

- Local


160

40


- STBGP

- Off-System Bridge

- State/Local


2,400

800

800


- Rail Hwy

- State


3,320

1,480


- TAP

- Local


8,592

2,148


- RTP

- Local


1,494

374


- STBGP

- Local


County Roads


5,967

1,492


- Off-System Bridge

- Local


3,700

925



- NHPP

- NHFP

- HSIP

- Rail Hwy

- STBGP

- CMAQ Flex

- State/Local


7,020

600

2,000

1,130

5,000

250

4,000


- STBGP

- State


24

6




ESTIMATED COST

Funding Breakdown

AGENCY

CARRYING

OUT THE

PROJECT FFY MPO

2021-2024 HSATS TIP

- STBGP


20


- HSIP

- State


30,780

3,420


- NHPP

- STBGP

- State


5,600

4,000

2,400


- Off-System Bridge


700


- NHPP

- HSIP

- STBGP

- State

- Act 416


63,400

1,000

53,100

29,000

87,300



- STBGP

- State/Local


Improvements 2,000

500


- Act 416


9,000


- FLAP

- State/Local


2,960

740


- Ferry Boat

- State


100

25



- DBE


150



- OJT

- State


100

25




ESTIMATED COST

Funding Breakdown

AGENCY

CARRYING

OUT THE

PROJECT FFY MPO

2021-2024 HSATS TIP

- FTA-5339

- Local

113FTA Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities < 200,000

(Capital-Rolling Stock/Support Equipment)

Transit

632

158

- TOTAL790 All2021Local-

- FTA-5339

- Local

114FTA Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities - Rural Areas


Transit

3,500

875


- FTA-5329

- Local

115FTA Statewide Safety Oversight Transit

211

53


- FTA-5304

- Local

116FTA Statewide Statewide Planning Program - FTA Planning Transit

117

29


- FTA-5310

117FTA Statewide Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities - State Admin Transit

279


- FTA-5310

- Local

118FTA Statewide Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities - Rolling Stock Transit

2,516

629


- FTA-5311

119FTA Statewide Rural Transit - State Admin Transit

1,343


- FTA-5311

- Local

120FTA Statewide Rural Transit - Project Admin Transit

2,872

718


- FTA-5311

- Local

121FTA Statewide Rural Transit - Capital - Support Equipment/PM Transit

219

55


- FTA-5311

- Local

122FTA Statewide Rural Transit - Capital - Intercity Transit

562

140


- FTA-5311

- Local

123FTA Statewide Rural Transit - Operating - Rural Transit

7,283

7,283


- FTA-5311

- Local

124FTA Statewide Rural Transit - Operating - Intercity Transit

1,152

1,152




ESTIMATED COST

Funding Breakdown

AGENCY

CARRYING

OUT THE

PROJECT FFY MPO

2021-2024 HSATS TIP

- FTA-5311

125FTA Statewide Rural Transit - RTAP Transit

229


- State

200PTF Statewide Public Transit Trust Fund Transit

5,000


- Local

201TLS Statewide Translease Transit

775


- State

202HUA Statewide HUA Transit

346


- FTA-5307

- Local

HSIT01 Garland Operating Assistance Transit

425

425

- TOTAL850 HSATS2021Local-

- FTA-5307

- Local

HSIT02 Garland Capital - Preventive Maintenance Transit

100

20


- FTA-5307

- Local

HSIT03 Garland Capital - Paratransit Service Transit

72

18


- FTA-5339

- Local

HSIT04 Garland Capital - Rolling Stock/Support Equipment Transit

125

25


- FTA-5305

- Local

HSIT05 Garland Consolidated Planning Grant (MPO) Transit

112

28


- FTA-5307

- Local

HSIT06 Garland Bus Associated Transit Enhancements Transit

8

2


- FTA-5307

- Local

HSIT07 Garland Capital - Rolling Stock-Conway Funds Transit

175

35


- FTA-5339

- Local



Transit

632

158


- FTA-5339

- Local



Transit

3,500

875




ESTIMATED COST

Funding Breakdown

AGENCY

CARRYING

OUT THE

PROJECT FFY MPO

2021-2024 HSATS TIP

- FTA-5329

- Local


211

53


- FTA-5304

- Local


117

29


- FTA-5310


285


- FTA-5310

- Local


2,566

642


- FTA-5311


1,370


- FTA-5311

- Local


2,929

732


- FTA-5311

- Local


223

56


- FTA-5311

- Local


573

143


- FTA-5311

- Local


7,428

7,428


- FTA-5311

- Local


1,175

1,175


- FTA-5311


233


- State


5,000


- Local


775




ESTIMATED COST

Funding Breakdown

AGENCY

CARRYING

OUT THE

PROJECT FFY MPO

2021-2024 HSATS TIP

- State


346


- FTA-5307

- Local


450

450


- FTA-5307

- Local


100

20


- FTA-5307

- Local


75

20


- FTA-5339

- Local


125

25


- FTA-5305

- Local


115

29


- FTA-5307

- Local


8

2


- FTA-5307

- Local


175

35


- FTA-5339

- Local



Transit

632

158


- FTA-5339

- Local



Transit

3,500

875


- FTA-5329

- Local


211

53


- FTA-5304

- Local


117

29




ESTIMATED COST

Funding Breakdown

AGENCY

CARRYING

OUT THE

PROJECT FFY MPO

2021-2024 HSATS TIP

- FTA-5310


290


- FTA-5310

- Local


2,640

660


- FTA-5311


1,395


- FTA-5311

- Local


2,984

746


- FTA-5311

- Local


226

57


- FTA-5311

- Local


574

144


- FTA-5311

- Local


7,548

7,548


- FTA-5311

- Local


1,195

1,195


- FTA-5311


235


- State


5,000


- Local


775


- State


346


- FTA-5307

- Local


475

475




ESTIMATED COST

Funding Breakdown

AGENCY

CARRYING

OUT THE

PROJECT FFY MPO

2021-2024 HSATS TIP

- FTA-5307

- Local


100

20


- FTA-5307

- Local


75

20


- FTA-5339

- Local


125

25


- FTA-5305

- Local


117

29


- FTA-5307

- Local


10

2


- FTA-5307

- Local


175

35


- FTA-5339

- Local



Transit

632

158


- FTA-5339

- Local



Transit

3,500

875


- FTA-5329

- Local


211

53


- FTA-5304

- Local


117

29


- FTA-5310


292


- FTA-5310

- Local


2,680

670




ESTIMATED COST

Funding Breakdown

AGENCY

CARRYING

OUT THE

PROJECT FFY MPO

2021-2024 HSATS TIP

- FTA-5311


1,420


- FTA-5311

- Local


3,040

760


- FTA-5311

- Local


230

57


- FTA-5311

- Local


576

144


- FTA-5311

- Local


7,693

7,693


- FTA-5311

- Local


1,215

1,215


- FTA-5311


237


- State


5,000


- Local


775


- State


346


- FTA-5307

- Local


525

525

- TOTAL1,050 HSATS2024Local-

- FTA-5307

- Local


100

20


- FTA-5307

- Local


75

20




ESTIMATED COST

Funding Breakdown

AGENCY

CARRYING

OUT THE

PROJECT FFY MPO

2021-2024 HSATS TIP

- FTA-5339

- Local


125

25


- FTA-5305

- Local


118

30


- FTA-5307

- Local


10

2


- FTA-5307

- Local


175

35


- NHPP

- State

06X215 Garland 7 Hwy. 70B – Ouachita Ave. (Hot Springs) (S) System Preservation

240

60

- TOTAL300 HSATSTBDState0.36

- STBGP

- State

06X046 Garland 70 Hwy. 227 – Hwy. 270 (Hot Springs) (S) System Preservation

3,600

900

- TOTAL4,500 HSATSTBDState6.29

- NHPP

- State

06X342 Garland 70B Hwy. 270 – Hwy. 7 (S) System Preservation

2,240

560


- NHPP

- State

06X218 Garland 70B Hwy. 7 – Valley St. (Hot Springs) (S) System Preservation

80

20


- STBGP

- State

06X261 Garland &

Saline

128 Hwy. 70 – Hwy. 5 (S) System Preservation

1,680

420

- TOTAL2,100 CARTS

HSATS

TBDState8.48

- STBGP

- State

06X270 Garland 227 Oakgrove Rd. – Hwy. 270 (S) System Preservation

480

120


- NHPP

- State

06X245 Garland 270 Hwy. 227 – Hwy. 270B (Hot Springs) (S) System Preservation

640

160




ESTIMATED COST

Funding Breakdown

AGENCY

CARRYING

OUT THE

PROJECT FFY MPO

2021-2024 HSATS TIP

- NHPP

- State

06X220 Garland 270 Hwy. 7 – S. of Hwy. 270B (Hot Springs) (S) System Preservation

2,080

520


- NHPP

- State

06X216 Garland 270B Hwy. 70B – Crescent Ave. (Hot Springs) (S) System Preservation

80

20


- Act 416

A60006 Garland 270B Hollywood Ave. – Hwy. 270 (Hot Springs) (S) System Preservation

2,000


- Act 416

A60004 Hot Spring 270 Garland Co. Line – Stone Quarry Creek (S) System Preservation

3,500



Appendix A Performance Measures

Performance Measures #2 & #3

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ! " � � � � � � # ! # $ % % � & ' ( ) � � ! ! � * � � � � � � � ! " � + � , � � % � ! � - � . / 0 12 3 4 5 6 2 7 6 2 2 8 9 5 4 6 : ; 8 4 6 < 6 9 2 7$ % % � & ' ( = >·

� ? @ � � @ � A B � @ C @ � � � D � � � � � E � � � � F � E � � � � G � � @ A E � E � � H � � � I H � � � � � � � � � � G � � @ A EJ � � � A � � � H � � � I H � � � C � K @ � B � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � L·

� E � M ? @ � F � E � � � � G � � @ � � C � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � G � � @ @ � � � � � N J � � � A � � � H � � � � O L· P � � � Q J R @ @ C B B � � � � � � � � � D � � C � � B � S � � � � � � � � � B � � � � B � � � � G J � G � � T � � � � @ N � � J @ O � � � C �@ � B � � � � � � � � � � G � � @ � � � � @ ? � � � � � @ � @ � � � � E H � � � C � U � ? � U � � � � � � � � � � A B � LV � % � � , � * � % ! � * ! ! � ! � ' � � ! � W % � � ! = - V � ' = 1 >· P C B B @ ? � � � � � � C � � � B � S � � P � � � Q J R F � E � � � � G � � � � � @ � A B � @ C � C � � � � D � � � G � � @ D � � C � � � I � � E @ � � � � � C � P � � � Q J R � � G � � @ � � @ � � L· P C B B � � � � � � � C � � � � @ � A B � @ C � � � � G � � @ � � � C � � � � � @ � � � � � S � P � � � Q J R � � � � � � � C � � @� � � ? � � � � � � � ? � ? B B E G � � � � ? � � � A E A � � C � � � � � @ L· P C B B � � � � � � A @ � B � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � G � � @ @ � � D � � � C � � C � � S � � � � � � � C � � �� G � � @ � � � C � @ E @ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � C � � � � � � � B � � � � � � @ � � � � � � � � � B � LX � B B � D � � G � @ @ ? � E � � � C � � @ ? � � @ D � � C � M ? @ � � � F � E � � � � G � � @ @ C � D � � � � � � � � U � L � � � �� A � ? � � C � � � G � � @ � � � � � G � � � M ? @ � � � � @ � � � � � S � � � � B � � � � � � C � @ � � � ? � � � L

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Y � � � � � � � � �

Z 3 [ 6 < 6 9 2 7 \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f c Z c g h i g j a f k c 4 c l i g m n 8 4 8 o f d p qr s t u v w x uy z { | } ~ � z � � u s �y z { z { ~ � � � u s �y z { z z ~� � � � � � � � � � � � � � @ � � � � S � � � � @ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� @ � � � � S � � � � @ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � F � � � � � �� @ � � � � � P � S � � � � @ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � F I � F F �� @ � � � � � P � S � � � � @ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � I � � � � � � �\ ] \ ] < e � � Z c g h i g j a f k c 4 c l i g m n 8 4 8 o f d p q � � � � u x �y z { z { ~ � � � � u s �y z { z z ~ �� @ � � � � S � � � � @ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � I � � � �� @ � � � � S � � � � @ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � F � � �� @ � � � � � P � S � � � � @ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� @ � � � � � P � S � � � � @ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � I � � �� G A @ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ © ¨ ª « ¬ ¦ « ¦ � ¨ « � � J � B E® � � � � � � � � � � � � � G A @ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ¯ ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ © ¨ ª « ¬ ¦ « ¦ � ¨ « � � J � B E° � � � � � � � � � � � � � G A @ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � M � � � � � � S � � � � � � @ � � � � J � B E\ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f c Z c g h i g j a f k c 4 c l i g m n ± ² d d ³ e b m g c b b q´ µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ º ·» ¼ ½ ¾ ¿ À Á ¼ Â Ã · µ Ä» ¼ ½ ¼ ½ À Å Â Ã · µ Ä» ¼ ½ ¼ ¼ ÀÆ Ç È É Ç Ê Ë Ì Í Î Ê Ë Ç È Ï Ë Ð Ë Ç Ñ Ð Ò Ç Ó Ç Ê Ë Ï Ô Ê Õ Ì Ì Ö É Ì Ê Ö Ô Ë Ô Ì Ê × Ø Ù Ú Û Ü × Ý ÙÆ Ç È É Ç Ê Ë Ì Í Î Ê Ë Ç È Ï Ë Ð Ë Ç Ñ Ð Ò Ç Ó Ç Ê Ë Ï Ô Ê Æ Ì Ì È É Ì Ê Ö Ô Ë Ô Ì Ê Ý Ù Ú Û Ü Þ ÙÆ Ç È É Ç Ê Ë Ì Í Ê Ì Ê ß Î Ê Ë Ç È Ï Ë Ð Ë Ç Ú à á Ñ Ð Ò Ç Ó Ç Ê Ë Ï Ô Ê Õ Ì Ì Ö É Ì Ê Ö Ô Ë Ô Ì Ê Ý â Ù ã ä Ù å Ø ÙÆ Ç È É Ç Ê Ë Ì Í Ê Ì Ê ß Î Ê Ë Ç È Ï Ë Ð Ë Ç Ú à á Ñ Ð Ò Ç Ó Ç Ê Ë Ï Ô Ê Æ Ì Ì È É Ì Ê Ö Ô Ë Ô Ì Ê å Ù å Ù å Ùæ ç æ ç è é ê ë ì í î ï ð î ñ ò ó ô í õ í ö ð î ÷ ø ù ú û û ü é ý ÷ î í ý ý þ ÿ � Ä Ä · º � �» ¼ ½ ¼ ½ À Å Â Ã · µ Ä �» ¼ ½ ¼ ¼ ÀÆ Ç È É Ç Ê Ë Ì Í Î Ê Ë Ç È Ï Ë Ð Ë Ç Ñ Ð Ò Ç Ó Ç Ê Ë Ï Ô Ê Õ Ì Ì Ö É Ì Ê Ö Ô Ë Ô Ì Ê × � Ù × Ý ÙÆ Ç È É Ç Ê Ë Ì Í Î Ê Ë Ç È Ï Ë Ð Ë Ç Ñ Ð Ò Ç Ó Ç Ê Ë Ï Ô Ê Æ Ì Ì È É Ì Ê Ö Ô Ë Ô Ì Ê Ý Ù Þ ÙÆ Ç È É Ç Ê Ë Ì Í Ê Ì Ê ß Î Ê Ë Ç È Ï Ë Ð Ë Ç Ú à á Ñ Ð Ò Ç Ó Ç Ê Ë Ï Ô Ê Õ Ì Ì Ö É Ì Ê Ö Ô Ë Ô Ì Ê ã ä Ù å Ø ÙÆ Ç È É Ç Ê Ë Ì Í Ê Ì Ê ß Î Ê Ë Ç È Ï Ë Ð Ë Ç Ú à á Ñ Ð Ò Ç Ó Ç Ê Ë Ï Ô Ê Æ Ì Ì È É Ì Ê Ö Ô Ë Ô Ì Ê å Ù å Ù� � Ì Ê Ö Ô Ë Ô Ì Ê È Ð Ë Ô Ê � � Ð Ï Ç Ö Ì Ê Ü � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ! " " # Ô Ï Ë È Ç Ï Ï$ � Ì Ê Ö Ô Ë Ô Ì Ê È Ð Ë Ô Ê � � Ð Ï Ç Ö Ì Ê Ü � � � � � � % � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ! " " # Ô Ï Ë È Ç Ï Ï& � Ì Ê Ö Ô Ë Ô Ì Ê È Ð Ë Ô Ê � � Ð Ï Ç Ö Ì Ê Ü � � � � � � � � ' ( ) � * � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ! " " # Ô Ï Ë È Ç Ï Ï

+ Ô Ö ß Æ Ç È Í Ì È Ó Ð Ê É Ç , Ç Ñ Ì È Ë å � Ø Û � Û Ý Ø Ý Ø

- õ . ü / 0 1 æ ç 2 3 - ò ý í û é ó í ì í î ï ð î ñ ò ó ô í õ í ö ð î ÷´ µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ º ·» ¼ ½ ¾ ¿ À ¼ Â Ã · µ Ä» ¼ ½ ¼ ½ À Å Â Ã · µ Ä» ¼ ½ ¼ ¼ ÀÆ Ç È É Ç Ê Ë Ì Í Ú à á � È Ô Ö � Ç Ï � 4 Ö Ç É 5 Ð È Ç Ð É " Ð Ï Ï Ô Í Ô Ç Ö Ð Ï Õ Ì Ì Ö É Ì Ê Ö Ô Ë Ô Ì Ê Þ Ø 6 ã Ù Þ Ø 6 Ø Ù Þ Ø 6 Ø ÙÆ Ç È É Ç Ê Ë Ì Í Ú à á � È Ô Ö � Ç Ï � 4 Ö Ç É 5 Ð È Ç Ð É " Ð Ï Ï Ô Í Ô Ç Ö Ð Ï Æ Ì Ì È É Ì Ê Ö Ô Ë Ô Ì Ê ã 6 7 Ù å 6 Ø Ù ä 6 Ø Ùæ ç æ ç è é ê ë ì í î ï ð î ñ ò ó ô í õ í ö ð î ÷ ÿ � Ä Ä · º �» ¼ ½ ¼ ½ À Å Â Ã · µ Ä» ¼ ½ ¼ ¼ ÀÆ Ç È É Ç Ê Ë Ì Í Ú à á � È Ô Ö � Ç Ï � 4 Ö Ç É 5 Ð È Ç Ð É " Ð Ï Ï Ô Í Ô Ç Ö Ð Ï Õ Ì Ì Ö É Ì Ê Ö Ô Ë Ô Ì Ê å å 6 Þ Ù å Ý 6 Ø ÙÆ Ç È É Ç Ê Ë Ì Í Ú à á � È Ô Ö � Ç Ï � 4 Ö Ç É 5 Ð È Ç Ð É " Ð Ï Ï Ô Í Ô Ç Ö Ð Ï Æ Ì Ì È É Ì Ê Ö Ô Ë Ô Ì Ê ã 6 ä Ù ä 6 Ø Ù8 õ 9 : 0 ; 8 . è 0 õ 0 ; . 9 - . ; . 8 <æ ç 2 3 - ò ý í û é ó í ì í î ï ð î ñ ò ó ô í õ í ö ð î ÷´ µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ º ·» ¼ ½ ¾ ¿ À ¼ Â Ã · µ Ä» ¼ ½ ¼ ½ À Å Â Ã · µ Ä» ¼ ½ ¼ ¼ ÀÆ Ç È É Ç Ê Ë Ì Í Æ Ç È Ï Ì Ê ß + Ô " Ç Ï = È Ð Ò Ç " Ç Ö Ì Ê Ë > Ç Î Ê Ë Ç È Ï Ë Ð Ë Ç Ë > Ð Ë Ð È Ç, Ç " Ô Ð � " Ç 7 Þ Ù 7 � Ù â 7 ÙÆ Ç È É Ç Ê Ë Ì Í Æ Ç È Ï Ì Ê ß + Ô " Ç Ï = È Ð Ò Ç " Ç Ö Ì Ê Ë > Ç Ê Ì Ê ß Î Ê Ë Ç È Ï Ë Ð Ë Ç Ú à á Ë > Ð ËÐ È Ç , Ç " Ô Ð � " Ç 7 ä Ù Ú Û Ü 7 Ø Ùæ ç æ ç è é ê ë ì í î ï ð î ñ ò ó ô í õ í ö ð î ÷ ÿ � Ä Ä · º �» ¼ ½ ¼ ½ À Å Â Ã · µ Ä» ¼ ½ ¼ ¼ ÀÆ Ç È É Ç Ê Ë Ì Í Æ Ç È Ï Ì Ê ß + Ô " Ç Ï = È Ð Ò Ç " Ç Ö Ì Ê Ë > Ç Î Ê Ë Ç È Ï Ë Ð Ë Ç Ë > Ð Ë Ð È Ç, Ç " Ô Ð � " Ç 7 × Ù 7 ã ÙÆ Ç È É Ç Ê Ë Ì Í Æ Ç È Ï Ì Ê ß + Ô " Ç Ï = È Ð Ò Ç " Ç Ö Ì Ê Ë > Ç Ê Ì Ê ß Î Ê Ë Ç È Ï Ë Ð Ë Ç Ú à á Ë > Ð ËÐ È Ç , Ç " Ô Ð � " Ç 7 ä Ù 7 Ý Ù

ù õ 0 . / ? 8 õ 0 ; . 9 - . ; . 8 < æ ç 2 3 - ò ý í û é ó í ì í î ï ð î ñ ò ó ô í õ í ö ð î ÷´ µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ º ·» ¼ ½ ¾ ¿ À ¼ Â Ã · µ Ä» ¼ ½ ¼ ½ À Å Â Ã · µ Ä» ¼ ½ ¼ ¼ À= È ! É 5 = È Ð Ò Ç " = Ô Ó Ç , Ç " Ô Ð � Ô " Ô Ë 4 Ì Ê Ë > Ç Î Ê Ë Ç È Ï Ë Ð Ë Ç á 4 Ï Ë Ç Ó � 6 Ý � � 6 å Þ � 6 Þ Ýæ ç æ ç è é ê ë ì í î ï ð î ñ ò ó ô í õ í ö ð î ÷ ÿ � Ä Ä · º �» ¼ ½ ¼ ½ À Å Â Ã · µ Ä» ¼ ½ ¼ ¼ À= È ! É 5 = È Ð Ò Ç " = Ô Ó Ç , Ç " Ô Ð � Ô " Ô Ë 4 Ì Ê Ë > Ç Î Ê Ë Ç È Ï Ë Ð Ë Ç á 4 Ï Ë Ç Ó � 6 Ý � � 6 å Ø

+ Ô Ö ß Æ Ç È Í Ì È Ó Ð Ê É Ç , Ç Ñ Ì È Ë Þ � Ø Û � Û Ý Ø Ý Ø

@ A B / 0 1 8 . A B è . 8 . / 9 8 . A B 9 B ü 9 . õ C D 9 ; . 8 < ø @ è 9 C þæ ç 2 3 - ò ý í û é ó í ì í î ï ð î ñ ò ó ô í õ í ö ð î ÷´ µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ º ·» ¼ ½ ¾ ¿ À ¼ Â Ã · µ Ä» ¼ ½ ¼ ½ À Å Â Ã · µ Ä» ¼ ½ ¼ ¼ ÀÜ Ê Ê ! Ð " à Ì ! È Ï Ì Í Æ Ç Ð 5 à Ì ! È E F É Ç Ï Ï Ô Ò Ç # Ç " Ð 4 Ñ Ç È � Ð Ñ Ô Ë Ð â 6 å Ý Ú Û Ü � â 6 â �Æ Ç È É Ç Ê Ë Ú Ì Ê ß á Ô Ê � " Ç G É É ! Ñ Ð Ê É 4 H Ç > Ô É " Ç = È Ð Ò Ç " � × 6 Ø Ù � ä 6 Þ Ù � ä 6 Þ Ùæ ç æ ç è é ê ë ì í î ï ð î ñ ò ó ô í õ í ö ð î ÷ ÿ � Ä Ä · º �» ¼ ½ ¼ ½ À Å Â Ã · µ Ä» ¼ ½ ¼ ¼ ÀÜ Ê Ê ! Ð " à Ì ! È Ï Ì Í Æ Ç Ð 5 à Ì ! È E F É Ç Ï Ï Ô Ò Ç # Ç " Ð 4 Ñ Ç È � Ð Ñ Ô Ë Ð ä 6 × Ø â 6 Ø ØÆ Ç È É Ç Ê Ë Ú Ì Ê ß á Ô Ê � " Ç G É É ! Ñ Ð Ê É 4 H Ç > Ô É " Ç = È Ð Ò Ç " � Þ 6 7 Ù � å 6 Þ Ù

Backup Information

PAVEMENTS

BRIDGE

TRAVEL TIME RELIABILITY

FREIGHT RELIABILITY

CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY(CMAQ)

Mid-Performance Report A-1 10/1/2020

In accordance with 23 CFR 490, FHWA established performance measures for State DOTs to use in

managing pavement performance on the NHS. The following is a list of the required performance

measures for pavements.


Percent of Interstate pavements in Good condition

Percent of Interstate pavements in Poor condition

Percent of non-Interstate NHS pavements in Good condition

Percent of non-Interstate NHS pavements in Poor condition

CONDITION BASED PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Data Collection Requirements:

Starting January 1, 2018, pavement data collected on the Interstate must include International

Roughness Index (IRI), percent cracking, rutting, and faulting. This data must be reported in the

Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) by April 15, 2019. This data will be gathered

and re-submitted every year on a full extent basis.

The same requirements become effective for non-Interstate NHS pavement data beginning

January 1, 2020 with a HPMS report date of June 15, 2021. This data will be gathered and

re-submitted at least every two years on a full extent basis.

Pavement Condition Determination:

Asphalt Pavement

Jointed Concrete Pavement

(JCP)

Continuously Reinforced

Concrete Pavement (CRCP)

IRI IRI IRI

Rutting Faulting --

Cracking % Cracking % Cracking %

Good: All measures are in good condition

Poor: Two or more measures are in poor condition

Fair: Everything else

Mid-Performance Report

PAVEMENTS

PERFORMANCE MEASURES


Pavement Condition Thresholds:

Good Fair Poor

IRI (inches/mile) <95 95-170 >170

Rutting (inches) <0.20 0.20-0.40 >0.40

Faulting (inches) <0.10 0.10-0.15 >0.15

Cracking (%) <5 5-20 (asphalt)

5-15 (JCP) 5-10 (CRCP)

>20 (asphalt) >15 (JCP)

>10 (CRCP)

TARGET SETTING REQUIREMENTS

State DOTs:

Must establish targets, regardless of ownership, for the full extent of the Interstate and

non-Interstate NHS.

Must establish statewide 2-year and 4-year targets for the non-Interstate NHS and 4-year

targets for the Interstates by May 20, 2018 and report targets by October 1, 2018 in the Baseline Performance Period Report.

May adjust 4-year targets at the Mid-Performance Period Progress Report (October 1, 2020).

State DOTs shall coordinate with relevant MPOs on the selection of targets to ensure consistency, to the maximum extent practicable.

Other Information:

State DOT targets should be determined from asset management analyses and procedures. The

targets reflect investment strategies that aim to achieve a state of good repair over the life cycle of assets at minimum practicable cost.

The minimum acceptable condition for interstate pavements is no more than 5% in poor

condition. FHWA will make this determination using the data in HPMS by June 15 of each year.

Any State DOT that does not meet the minimum condition will be required to obligate a portion

of its NHPP and Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds to address interstate pavement conditions. The first assessment will occur in June 2019.

MID-PERFORMANCE PERIOD

In the Department’s 2018 Baseline Performance Period Report the condition ratings and targets were

based on IRI only. With this Mid-Performance Period Update, the pavement condition ratings and

targets are transitioning from IRI Only to Full Distress, as shown in Pavement Condition Determination

Table above. The Current Condition, 2-year and 4-Year Pavement Performance Targets for the

Interstate and Non-Interstate NHS pavements were developed using Highway Performance Monitoring

System (HPMS) datasets for 2017 through 2019. Factors that were taken into consideration as part of

this estimation included the calculated Current Condition, projects that are anticipated to be completed

by 2021, estimated deterioration rates, and the anticipated level of available funding.


4-YEAR TARGET ADJUSTMENTS

A review of the current performance and targets revealed that the non-Interstate NHS pavements are

performing better than anticipated. This is primarily due to an increased emphasis placed on pavement

preservation and overall actual investments that exceeded the investment strategy targets due to the

following:

Additional funding provided by Local Public Agencies through Partnering Agreements

State Surplus funds exceeded estimates

Multiple Federal Fiscal Year Obligations applied to one or more projects

The 4-year non-Interstate NHS targets are being adjusting to account for the increase in preservation

projects on the non-Interstate portion of the NHS and the impact of additional revenue from State of

Arkansas Act 416 adopted in March 2019. The proposed targets are not intended to be “aspirational”,

but rather reflect a “realistic” approach to minimizing deterioration of the existing pavements on the

Interstate and non-Interstate NHS in an environment where available resources are improving. The

targets represent what is forecasted to be attainable if the strategies and funding estimates in the

Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) are implemented.

Performance Targets

2-year * 4-year ^

Percent of Interstate pavements in Good condition N/A 72%

Percent of Interstate pavements in Poor condition N/A 5%

Percent of non-Interstate NHS pavements in Good condition 36% 40%

Percent of non-Interstate NHS pavements in Poor condition 4% 4%

* Condition rating based on ARDOT’s 2019 HPMS pavement dataset – full distress.

Condition rating based on ARDOT’s Projected 2021 HPMS pavement dataset – full distress.


Per 23 CFR 490, FHWA established performance measures for State DOTs to use in managing bridge

performance on the NHS. The following is a list of the required performance measures for bridges.


Percent of NHS bridges by deck area classified as Good condition

Percent of NHS bridges by deck area classified as Poor condition


Measures are based on-deck area.

The classification is based on the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) condition ratings for deck,

superstructure, substructure, and bridge length culverts.

Condition is determined by the lowest rating of deck, superstructure, substructure, or culvert.

o If the lowest rating is greater than or equal to 7, the structure is classified as good.

o If it is less than or equal to 4, the classification is poor.

o Structures rated below 7 but above 4 will be classified as fair.

Deck area is computed using structure length and deck width or approach roadway width (for

bridge length culverts).

Additional Information:

State DOT targets should be determined from asset management analyses and procedures. The

targets reflect investment strategies that aim to achieve a state of good repair over the life cycle

of assets at minimum practicable cost.

If for three consecutive years more than 10% of a State DOT’s NHS bridges total deck area is

classified as Poor, the State DOT must obligate and set aside NHPP funds to eligible bridge

projects on the NHS.


A review of the Mid-Performance Period indicates that the 4-year target for poor bridges is still

reasonable with the mid-performance at 3.6%, but that the 4-year target for good bridges is 5.5% lower

than the 2-year mid-performance. A review of the individual bridges explained the unexpected drop

from good to fair. A few large bridges moved from good to fair in the two year period. One bridge in

particular, 07100 – Lake Village Bridge over the Mississippi River, accounted for 3.5% of the change by

itself. Mississippi inspects bridge 07100, and this bridge was not included in the model since it is a


BRIDGE



unique bridge and relatively new. It turns out there are design and construction issues with bridge

07100 that the model would not have accounted for even if it was in the model.

Another but less affecting issue is the makeup of the NHS itself. There were 248 bridge changes

(removed and added) from 2018 to 2020. Replaced bridges accounted for 28% of the changes to the

NHS, but the remainder is due to updates and corrections. Before 2019, there was no prescribed

procedure to maintain the current NHS in the bridge database, so errors existed. GIS tools are now

available to keep the bridge database in sync with the current NHS.

4-YEAR TARGET ADJUSTMENT

While the 4-year target of 6.0% poor is still reasonable, the number of large bridges moving to fair

condition earlier than projected necessitates a change to the 4-year good target of 50.0%. While there

may be some additional large bridges move from good to fair in the next two years, it is unlikely to drop

as much as the previous two years. A target of 42.0% gives a reasonable adjustment with some room

for downward movement if the trend continues. The following chart reflects the original targets with

the proposed change.

NHS Performance Measures

(by Deck Area)

2018

Baseline

2-year

Target

Current

Condition

Original

4-year Target

Revised

4-year Target

NHS bridges in Good condition 50.3% 50.0% 44.5% 50.0% 42.0%

NHS bridges in Poor condition 3.9% 4.0% 3.6% 6.0% 6.0%

RISK AND MITIGATION

The significant drop in good to fair bridges demonstrates the risk in projecting future conditions based

on past performance. Changes in design, construction and maintenance practices, material quality,

traffic, and environmental factors all can have a significant effect on the accuracy of the predictive

model. The following steps help to mitigate future risks in model performance.

Risk – A few large bridges changing states between Good and Fair or Fair and Poor can

significantly affect the accuracy of the model – as explained previously.

o Mitigation – Revising the bridge model better to fit the conditions of the last two years.

Risk – There is a “lag” between the dTIMS (predictive modeling software) investment

projections and the delivery of capital investments. In the 2018 model, the existing Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) was not modeled in the initial dTIMS run.

o Mitigation – Include the most recent STIP in the dTIMS model.

While it is not possible to eliminate all risk in a predictive model, it is possible to mitigate the risks and

increase the reliability of the predictive model. Planned improvements in the model include updates to

the deterioration curves and integration of truck traffic and environmental factors. The use of artificial

intelligence is also being investigated to help achieve better results. Validation checks along the way

ensure that any changes made give improved outcomes. While these actions do not affect the current

TAMP, it allows a higher degree of accuracy in the next TAMP.


In accordance with 23 CFR 490, FHWA established performance measures for State DOTs to use in assessing system performance on the Interstate and non-Interstate NHS. The following is a list of the required performance measures for travel time reliability.


Percent of Person-Miles Traveled on the Interstate that is Reliable

Percent of Person-Miles Traveled on the non-Interstate NHS that is Reliable


Measures are based on the Level of Travel Time Reliability (LOTTR) which is defined as the ratio

of the longer travel time (80th percentile) to a “normal” travel time (50th percentile) using data

from FHWA’s National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS) or equivalent.

A LOTTR will be calculated for each of the following periods for each segment of highway,

known as a Traffic Message Channel (TMC):

o 6:00 AM-10:00 AM Weekday

o 10:00 AM-4:00 PM Weekday

o 4:00 PM-8:00 PM Weekday

o 6:00 AM-8:00 PM Weekends

If any one of the four time periods has a LOTTR above 1.5, the TMC will be considered

unreliable.

All TMCs will have their length multiplied by the average daily traffic and a vehicle occupancy

factor of 1.7 (released by FHWA on 4/27/2018) to determine the person-miles traveled on that

TMC. Then the reliable TMCs will be summed and divided by the total person-miles traveled.

Additional information:

State DOTs must establish targets for the Interstate and non-Interstate NHS.

FHWA began introducing the NPMRDS provided by HERE in August 2013. The data was mainly considered as raw probe data.

In February 2017, FHWA switched the NPMRDS vendor from HERE to INRIX. Due to different

data processing approaches by the vendors, there are inconsistencies in the NPMRDS.


TRAVEL TIME RELIABILITY



The data used in the 2018 target setting included three years (2014-2016) of data in HERE

standard and one year (2017) of data in INRIX standard. Since that time, INRIX has backfilled

2016 data. Therefore, in the 2020 target setting, only the 2014-2015 data is in the HERE standard. 2016-2019 data is provided using the INRIX standard.

Population growth and increasing travel will affect travel time reliability, particularly in fast-

growing urban areas.

An extensive construction program on the Interstate system could result in multiple major work

zones. This scenario would have an effect on the reliability of the Interstates and non-Interstate NHS routes.

If FHWA determines that a State DOT has not made significant progress toward achieving the

target, the State DOT shall document the actions it will take to achieve the NHS travel time targets. There is no financial penalty for not meeting the proposed targets at this time.


In the 2018 Baseline Report, the 2-year target for Percent of Person-Miles Traveled Reliable on

Interstate was set to 91%. However, it was set with only one year (2017) of consistent data and four

years (2014-2017) of total data. A consistent trend was not established at that time.

The latest data (2019) for Percent of Person-Miles Traveled on Interstate Reliable is 97%, which

significantly outperforms the 2-year target of 91%. Considering the relatively flat trend line for this measure from recent years, the original 4-year target of 89% is very conservative.


The 4-year target for Percent of Person-Miles Traveled Reliable on Interstate can be adjusted to 93%.

This new target is set to be lower than the current trend line. It takes into consideration the estimation

of the increase in traffic over the next two years, along with construction impacts that can affect the

reliability of the system. A few large construction projects in Central Arkansas are going to start in the

near future that will potentially change traffic patterns. Figure 2 shows the data and targets for the

Percent of Person-Miles Traveled Reliable on Interstate.

Similarly, the 4-year targets for Non-Interstate NHS will be changed from 90% to 92%. Figure 3 shows the data and targets for the Percent of Person-Miles Traveled Reliable on Non-Interstate NHS.


Figure 2. Percent of Person-Miles Traveled on Interstate that is Reliable

Figure 3. Percent of Person-Miles Traveled on Non-Interstate NHS that is Reliable

94.5% 94.1% 95.3% 95.4%

97.0% 96.5%

70.0%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Pe

rce

nt

Re

liab

le

Year

% Person-Miles Traveled on Interstate that is Reliable

Higher is better

New Target

Old Target

86.4%

81.9%

96.5% 95.7% 96.3% 95.7%

70.0%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Pe

rce

nt

Re

liab

le

Year

% Person-Miles Traveled on Non-Interstate NHS that is Reliable

Higher is better

Old Target

New Target


In accordance with 23 CFR 490, FHWA established performance measures for State DOTs to use in

assessing freight movement on the Interstate System. The following is the required performance

measure for freight reliability.

Performance Measure

Truck Travel Time Reliability on the Interstate System


The measure is based on the Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR) Index.

The TTTR is defined as the 95th percentile truck travel time divided by the 50th percentile truck

travel time using data from FHWA’s NPMRDS or equivalent.

The TTTR will be calculated for each of the following five time periods for each segment of Interstate known as a Traffic Message Channel (TMC):

o 6:00 AM-10:00 AM Weekday

o 10:00 AM-4:00 PM Weekday

o 4:00 PM-8:00 PM Weekday

o 6:00 AM-8:00 PM Weekends

o 8:00 PM-6:00 AM All Days

The maximum TTTR for each TMC will be multiplied by the length of the TMC. Then the sum of

all length-weighted segments divided by the total length of Interstate will generate the TTTR Index.


Must establish targets for all Interstates.

FHWA began introducing the NPMRDS provided by HERE in August 2013. The data was mainly

considered as raw probe data.

In February 2017, FHWA switched the NPMRDS vendor from HERE to INRIX. The change in vendor resulted in inconsistencies due to the different approaches in the data processing.

The data used in the 2018 target setting include three years (2014-2016) of data in HERE

standard and one year (2017) of data in INRIX standard. Since theat time, INRIX has backfilled

2016 data. Therefore, in the 2020 target setting, only the 2014-2015 data is in the HERE standard. 2016-2019 data is provided using the INRIX standard.


FREIGHT RELIABILITY

PERFORMANCE MEASURE


Population growth and increasing travel will affect travel time reliability, particularly in fast-

growing urban areas.

Urban congestion often affects freight reliability. For example, 20 of the highest 40 TTTR

segments in Arkansas are located on urban Interstates, where very little truck traffic exists.

If FHWA determines that a state DOT has not made significant progress toward achieving the

target, the State DOT shall include as part of the next performance target report identification of

significant freight trends, needs, and issues within the State as well as a description of the

freight policies and strategies and an inventory of truck freight bottlenecks. There is no financial

penalty for not meeting the proposed targets at this time.


In the 2018 Baseline Report, a 2-year target for TTTR on the Interstate System was set to 1.45.

However, it was set with only one year (2017) of consistent data and four years (2014-2017) of total

data. A consistent trend was not established at that time.


The latest data (2019) for TTTR on the Interstate System is 1.21, which significantly outperforms the

2-year target of 1.45. Considering the relatively flat trend line for this measure in recent years, the

original 4-year target of 1.52 is very conservative. Therefore, the 4-year target for TTTR on Interstates

can be adjusted to 1.40. Figure 4 shows the data and targets for the TTTR on Interstates.

The proposed target is slightly higher than the trend line. This considers the estimation of the increase

in traffic over the next two years along with construction impacts that can affect the reliability of the

system. A few large construction projects in Central Arkansas are going to start in the near future that

will potentially change traffic patterns .

Figure 4. Truck Travel Time Reliability on Interstates

1.41

1.31

1.21 1.2 1.21 1.21

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

TTTR

Year

TTTR on Interstates Lower is better

Old Target

New Target


In accordance with 23 CFR 490, FHWA established performance measures for the State DOTs to use in assessing the CMAQ Improvement Program for traffic congestion on the NHS. The following is a list of the required performance measures for the CMAQ program.


Annual Hours of Peak Hour Excessive Delay per Capita (known as the PHED measure)

Percent of Non-Single Occupancy Vehicle (non-SOV) Travel


The PHED is used to determine traffic congestion levels on the NHS in urbanized areas.

The annual excessive delay is based on the difference between the actual travel time and the

threshold travel time for a roadway segment.

The threshold for excessive delay is based on the travel time at 20 miles per hour (mph) or 60 percent of the posted speed limit for both of the following periods:

o 6:00 AM-10:00 AM Weekdays

o 3:00 PM-7:00 PM or 4:00 PM – 8:00 PM Weekdays

The annual excessive delay is then multiplied by the hourly traffic volume and occupancy factor

for passenger cars, buses, and combination vehicles. Then the sum of annual excessive delay for

all segments is divided by the latest urbanized area population estimates to determine the PHED.

The Non-SOV measure is directly obtained from the Commuting data in the American

Community Survey from the U.S. Census.


These measures only apply to urbanized areas of more than one million people that are also in

nonattainment or maintenance areas for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particular matter for the

first performance period (January 1, 2018 – December 31, 2021). Therefore, these measures

only apply for Memphis-West Memphis-Marion Urbanized Area.

In the second performance period beginning on January 1, 2022, the population threshold

changes to greater than 200,000.

The PHED and Percent of Non-SOV travel measures will be a single target for the Memphis-West Memphis-Marion Urbanized Area.

Population growth and increasing travel will affect traffic congestion in urban areas.


CMAQ



These measures will not be subject to significant progress determination.


The targets were set in coordination with the Memphis MPO, West Memphis MPO, Tennessee DOT, and

Mississippi DOT through a Tri-State PM3 measures working group. The working group also included

members of the Arkansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee FHWA Division Offices as well as the University of

Tennessee.

The 2-year condition of the PHED and percent Non-SOV Travel were reviewed and compared with the

2-year targets established in the 2018 Baseline Report. Adjustments have been made for 4-year targets

to reflect the latest trend.


The current midpoint of PHED is 6.70 hours, which is significantly lower than the current 4-year target of

18.80 hours. The working group agreed to update the 4-year target for PHED to 8.00 hours considering

low construction activity in the Greater Memphis Area and the possible increase of telecommuting after COVID-19. Figure 5 shows the data and new target for PHED in the Greater Memphis Area.

Figure 5. PHED Trend Analysis for Greater Memphis Area (Source: Memphis MPO CMAQ Performance Plan 2020)

New Target

Lower is better


For Non-SOV, 2017 and 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) data for the Memphis TN-MS-AR

Urbanized Area shows that the percentage has declined from 16.5% to 16.0% in 2017 and 15.9% in

2018. The Tri-State working group reviewed trend analysis and discussed other factors that could

impact the 4-year target, including the change in the number of people communing to work due to

COVID-19. It was noted that those traveling to work are essential employees and less likely to have the

opportunity to carpool. Understanding that these factors may cause the future percentage to be lower

than the trend, the group decided to build in a buffer that was slightly lower than the linear trend

analysis. The working group agreed to update the 4-year target for Percent of Non-SOV Travel to 14.5%. Figure 6 shows the data and new target for Non-SOV in the Greater Memphis Area.

Figure 6. Non-SOV Trend Analysis for Greater Memphis Area (Source: Memphis MPO CMAQ Performance Plan 2020)

Old Target

New Target

Higher is better

PTASP & TAM Performance Measures

I I • l1

Hot Springs Intracity Transit

Agency Safety Plan

Table 5: Baseline 2019 Safety Performance Measures

R t f R t f S f Rate of Mean Distance

M d F I. . a e o 1 . . a e o a ety

S f o e ata 1t1es F t i·t· * nJuries 1 • • * E a ety Between MaJor

a a 1 1es nJur1es vents E t * M h . 1 F .1 ven s ec amca a1 ure

Fixed Route 0 0 1.5 0.0000075 0 0 20,000

(Bus)

Demand 0 0 0 0 0 0 27,000

Response

*rate = total number for the year/total revenue vehicle miles traveled

While safety has always been a major component of the Hot Springs Intracity Transit operation, the

adoption of this ASP will result in changes across all aspects of the organization. The SPTs set in Table 6

and Table 7 reflect an acknowledgement that SMS implementation will produce new information that will

be needed to accurately set meaningful SPTs. We will set our targets at the current NTD reported three

year average as we begin the process of fully implementing our SMS and developing our targeted safety

improvements. This will ensure that we do no worse than our baseline performance over the last three

years.

Table 6: Fixed Route (Bus) Safety Performance Targets

Mode Baseline Target

Fatalities 0 0

Rate of Fatalities* 0 0

Injuries 1.5 1.5

Rate of Injuries* 0.0000075 0.0000075

Safety Events 0 0

Rate of Safety Events* 0 0

Mean Distance Between 20,000 20,000

Major Mechanical Failure


Table 7: Demand Response Safety Performance Targets

Mode Baseline Target

Fatalities 0 0

Rate of Fatalities* 0 0

Injuries 0 0

Rate of Injuries* 0 0

Safety Events 0 0

Rate of Safety Events* 0 0

Mean Distance Between 27,000 27,000

Major Mechanical Failure

Other N/A N/A


Revised 02 08 21

Asset Category Current FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026

Revenue Vehicles Age - % of revenue

vehicles within a particular asset class that have exceeded their age

ULB

BU - Bus 0% 50% 50% 25% 25% 25%

CU - Cutaway Bus 16.7% 0% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Mileage - % of revenue vehicles within a

particular asset class that have exceeded their

mileage ULB

BU - Bus 0% 25% 25% 0% 0% 25%

CU - Cutaway Bus 16.7% 0% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Cumulative Condition Score - % of revenue

vehicles within a particular asset class that score below 2.0 on the

TERM Scale

BU - Bus 0% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

CU - Cutaway Bus 0% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Equipment

Cumulative Condition Score - % of non-revenue

vehicles within a particular asset class that score below 2.0 on the

TERM Scale

Non-Revenue/ Service Vehicle

0% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Facilities

Condition Score - % of Facilities that score below

2.0 on the TERM Scale

Administration 0% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Maintenance 0% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Passenger Facilities 0% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

2021 - 2024 transportation improvement program (tip) · 2021. 3. 18. · congestion mitigation and...

Documents