HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-2045 MPOJC Long Range Transportation Plan1
2
3
Urbanized Area Policy Board
Jill Dodds Coralville City Council
Tom Gill Coralville CIty Council
Kingsley Botchway II Iowa City City Council
Rockne Cole Iowa City City Council
Terry Dickens Iowa City City Council
Susan Mims, Chair Iowa City City Council
Pauline Taylor Iowa City City Council
John Thomas Iowa City City Council
Mike Carberry Johnson County Board of
Supervisors
Janelle Rettig Johnson County Board of
Supervisors
Terry Donahue Mayor, North Liberty
Vacant North Liberty City Council
Steve Berner, Vice-Chair Mayor, Tiffin
Louise From Mayor, University
Heights
David Ricketts University of Iowa
Chris Lynch (ex-officio) Iowa City Community
School District
MPOJC Staff
Kent Ralston Executive Director
Darian Nagle-Gamm Senior Transportation
Engineering Planner
Brad Neumann Asst Transportation Planner
Emily Bothell Asst Transportation Planner
Sarah Walz Asst Transportation Planner
Transportation Technical Advisory Committee
Vicky Robrock Manager, Coralville Transit
Dan Holderness City Engineer, Coralville
Kelly Hayworth City Administrator,
City of Coralville
Chris O’Brien Director of Resource
Management, Iowa City
Ron Knoche Director of Public Works,
Iowa City
Jason Havel City Engineer, Iowa City
Mark Rummel Asst. Director, Resource
Management., Iowa City
Geoff Fruin City Manager, Iowa City
Dean Wheatley Planning Director,
North Liberty
Louise From Mayor, University Heights
Doug Boldt City Administrator, Tiffin
Greg Parker Engineer, Johnson County
Tom Brase Director, Johnson County
Seats
Brian McClatchy Manager, University of Iowa
Cambus
David Kieft Business Manager,
University of Iowa
Sadie Griener Facilties Management,
University of Iowa
Terry Dahms MPOJC Regional Trails and
Bicycle Committee Rep.
Cathy Cutler (ex-officio) Planner, Iowa DOT
Darla Huggaboom (ex-officio) Federal Highway
Administration, Ames
Brock Grenis (ex-officio) East Central Iowa Council of
Governments
Mark Bechtel (ex-officio) Federal Transit
Administration, Kansas City
Regional Trails and Bicycling Committee
Louise From City of University Heights
Terry Dahms Johnson County Trails
Foundation
Doug Boldt City of Tiffin
Brian Loring Bicyclists of Iowa City
Becky Soglin Johnson County
Sherri Proud City of Coralville
Michelle Ribble University of Iowa
Shelly Simpson City of North Liberty
Juli Seydell Johnson City of Iowa City
Anne Duggan Think Bicycles of Johnson
County
4
5
Table of Contents
Background 1
Regional Context 5
Guiding Principles 29
Transportation Funding 53
Road and Bridge Network 59
2017-2025 Project map and tables 79-83
2026-2035 Project map and tables 84-87
2036-2045 Project map and tables 88-90
Bicycle and Pedestrian Network 91
2017-2045 Project maps and tables 99-102
Passenger Transportation 103
Freight Network 111
Aviation 117
Supporting Documents 121
6
7
Metropolitan Area map page 2
Land Use maps pages 6 - 7
Environmental maps pages 33 - 34
Frieght Network map page 112
Population and Demographics
Population Growth & Allocation charts page 8
Population Projection tables page 9
Population Density (TAZ) maps pages 10-11
Families with Children (Block Group) map page 12
Population pyramid page 23
Household Income (Block Group) map page 13
Multi-family Housing map page 11
Housing Density (TAZ) maps pages 18-19
School location map page 21
Youth preference charts page 21
Generational differences page 22-23
Non-white population page 51
Low-English Proficiency page 51
Employment
Employment clusters page 14
Major employers page 15
Employment density (TAZ) maps pages 16-17
Travel
Means of Transportation to Work table page 25
Vehicle Miles Travelled tables page 24
Commuting maps pages 26-27
Costs of Transport + Housing page 28
Commute times chart page 31
Road and Bridge
Arterial Street map page 60
Federal Functional Classification map page 62
Bridge Conditios map page 63
Pavement Condition Index map pages 64-65
Congestion maps pages 67-72
Level of Service (LOS) table page 66
Roundabout safety page 74
Vehicle Collision Map page 43
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Bike Network map page 92
Bike and Pedestrian Collision map page 44
Bicycle Equity Trends charts page 52
Strava heat maps pages 94-95
Passenger Transportation
Transit Funding chart page 106
Transit map page 104
Bus ridership information page 105
Formula Funding
Transit Revenue and Costs page 56
MPO Funding tables page 57
Funding Allocation Process page 58
List of Figures and Maps
8
1BACkGROUND
2 Johnson County
2 North Liberty 2 Coralville
6 Iowa City
1 Tiffin
1 Univ Heights
1 Univ of Iowa
1 ICCSD School Board (non-voting)
The Metropolitan Planning Organization
Federal legislation requires any urbanized area with a population over 50,000 to have a metro-
politan planning organization (MPO) to ensure that existing and future expenditures of Federal
funding for transportation projects and programs are based on the continuing, cooperative,
and comprehensive (“3-C”) planning process. This helps to ensure that metropolitan re-
gion-wide plans are developed through intergovernmental collaboration, rational analysis, and
consensus-based decision making. Transparency through public access to participation in the
planning process and electronic publication of plans is now required by federal law.
The Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPOJC) provides transportation
planning services for the Iowa City urbanized area, including Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty,
University Heights, Tiffin, Johnson County, and the University of Iowa. The MPO facilitate col-
laboration of governments, interested parties, and residents of the metro area in the planning
process. The Urbanized Area Policy Board
is organized to conform with the federal
requirements of the MPO. The Board is
composed of 15 voting members made up
of elected officials from each of the member
entities plus 1 representative appointed by the
president of the University of Iowa. Representa-
tion is proportional to population of the entity,
however Iowa City is limited to 6 members
to avoid having a majority of the seats on the
Board.
The Iowa City Community School District has
one non-voting school board member.
Î Smart transportation investment means
allocating scarce federal and other trans-
portation funding resources to the areas
of greatest need.
Î Planning for the metro area should reflect
the region’s shared vision for its future
and requires a comprehensive examina-
tion of the region’s future and investment
alternatives.
Î The MPO facilitates collaboration between
governments, interested parties, and
residents.
Meetings of the Urbanized Area Policy Board allow representa-
tives of the MPO entities to discussed shared goals.
Source: Photo courtesty Channel 4
2 BACkGROUND
The Metropolitan Area
The Metropolitan Area Planning Boundary is the area in which the metropolitan
transportation planning process is carried out. The boundary includes the five mu-
nicipal entities—Coralville, Iowa City, North Liberty, Tiffin, and University Heights—
and a portion of unincorporated Johnson County directly adacent to the metro area.
Only projects located within the urbanized area planning boundary are eligible for
federal funding through the MPO.
3BACkGROUND
The development and adoption of a Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is required by the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) for all urbanized areas in order to receive federal
funding under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act). The FAST Act is the
most current federal legislation (adopted 2015) that establishes federal transportation funding
programs for surface transportation modes.
The Plan must represent all municipalities in MPOJC’s long range planning area and be compre-
hensive, considering all modes of surface transportation. It should coordinate transportation
issues among and between adjacent municipalities and attempt to address conflicting perspec-
tives. The Plan should be continuing in its evolution and be updated as community priorities
change, but at least every five years according to Federal requirements.
The LRTPd parties have adequate opportunity to comment on the provisions of the proposed
plan. The Plan should reflect priorities for the community that can be translated into politically
viable and financially reasonable transportation projects during the life of the plan.
The LRTP is the transportation vision for the metro area in the same way that a comprehen-
sive plan is the land use vision for a municipality. A comprehensive plan provides the basis for
subsequent zoning and subdivision laws in a municipality, and a long range transportation plan
should provide a similar basis for the programming of projects for all modes of transportation.
To maximize effectiveness, a transportation plan should be consistent with the land use plans
of the individual entities.
THE VISION:
To ensure the strategic use of public investments
and policies for the creation of a safe, efficient,
and equitable transportation network that en-
hances economic opportunity and growth while
preserving our environment and quality of life.
Public meetings for the LRTP were held in Iowa City, North Liberty, and
Coralville during April and May of 2016.
4 BACkGROUND
What’s New?
The Future Forward 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan was developed with an emphasis on
nine guiding principles, an increased focus on multi-modal and active transportation, and the
development of performance measures to better assess how the transportation network is
performing now and in the future.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The Future Forward 2045 Plan is based on a set of nine guiding principles (see pages 30-52)
that set the tone and spirit from which to assess metro area capital transportation infrastruc-
ture needs against expected future project costs and funding allocations. These principles
were derived from past/present local planning efforts, giving credence to Federal Highway Ad-
ministration (FHWA) and Iowa DOT directives and national trends in transportation planning.
INCREASED FOCUS ON MULTI-MODAL AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
In recent years, there has been an increased emphasis on multi-modal transportation planning
from the federal, state, and local perspective. Concerns about sustainability, climate change, air
quality, health and well-being, active living, an aging population, and safety are a few reasons
for the increased focus. The Millennial generation (which makes up 42% of metro area popula-
tion) is leaning more towards active transportation nationally and here in Johnson County. This
Plan continues to build on its predecessor, including a more robust review of transportation
trends to help guide local decision making.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
The FHWA defines Transportation Performance Management (TPM) as a strategic approach
that uses system information to make investment and policy decisions to achieve national per-
formance goals. The development of performance measures also allow us to more effectively
measure how well the transportation network is meeting the needs of the metro area and help
determine the best use of scarce transportation funding. Required performance measures are
expected to be determined by the FHWA and Iowa DOT in the future, however they have not
been fully developed at the time of plan adoption. Nevertheless, MPOJC understands the value
in evaluating the performance of our network and has proactively included 25 performance
measures within this Plan, as they relate to the nine guiding principles.
Guiding Principles:
Î Economic Opportunity
Î Environment
Î Quality of LIfe
Î System Preservation
Î Efficiency
Î Choice
Î Safety
Î Health
Î Equity
5REGIONAlCONTExT
REGIONAl CONTExT
6 REGIONAl CONTExT
The Metropolitan Area
The Iowa City urbanized area is situated at the
crossroads of Interstate 80 / Interstate 380
Highway 218 / Highway 1 and Highway 6 in
Johnson County Iowa. In addition, the area is
served by two rail lines, the Iowa Interstate
Railroad and the CRANDIC Railroad. Iowa City
and Coralville are home to the University of
Iowa and the University of Iowa Hospitals and
Clinics, which are the major employers in the
metro area.
Metro area cities are consistently ranked
as ideal places to live, work, and locate a
business. Over the past five years our metro
communities have received national attention
as best places to raise a family, retire, find
a job, or start a business and rank highly as
healthy and safe communities. It is, therefore,
no surprise that Johnson County is the second
fastest growing county in the state.
People are attracted to Johnson County for
its low unemployment rate, diverse econom-
ic sectors, and educational opportunities,
including a high performing public school
system. Yet despite its many assets, Johnson
County, also ranks high in the percentage of
cost-burdened and extreme cost-burdened
households— with an estimated 34.7 percent
of households spending more than 30% of
their income on housing in 2010.1
1 University of Iowa Public Policy Center http://ppc.uiowa.edu/
housing/affordability/iowa
Note: Land use designations based on County property tax assessment classification.
Existing Land Uses
7REGIONAlCONTExT
These land use maps provide a general sense
of where municipalities have planned for
urban growth and development and the types
of land uses anticipated. Land use categories
represented on these maps are simplified in
order to make broad comparisions between
the municipalities, especially with regard to
transportation intensive uses such as industri-
al and commercial areas. These maps should
not be relied upon to make decisions about
whether a particular land use may be allowed
on a specific property or to draw conclusions
about land values or development potential of
specific properties.
Note: Land use designations derived from future land use plans and documents for each community.
Future Land Uses
Liberty High School under construction will open in North Liberty for the
2017-2018 school year.
8 REGIONAl CONTExT
Population Growth
The Iowa City Metropolitan Area is one of the fastest growing regions in the state. Between
2010 and 2014, the Census Bureau estimates the region has grown by nearly 12,500 resi-
dents—a 12% increase in four years.
Iowa City has experienced the greatest growth with 5,500 additional residents (44% of metro
population growth), while North Liberty has added nearly 5,000 new residents (39% of growth).
Coralville’s population increased by 1,500 residents (12% of growth), Tiffin’s population grew by
approximately 500 residents (4% of growth), and University Heights has grown by 74 persons
1% of metro population growth).
Allocation of total Metro Area Population Growth 2010-2014
Population growth in Iowa City and North
Liberty accounted for more than 80% of overall
population growth in the metro area.
The rate of growth for population at the community
level presents a somewhat different picture from
overall metro growth, with population in North Lib-
erty growing by over one third, and Tiffin growing by
a quarter between 2010 and 2014. This level of local
population growth often presents challenges for the
transportation system.
7%
26%
8%
37%
8%
12%
University
Heights
Tiffin Coralville North
liberty
Iowa City Metro
Population change by
community 2010-2014
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and American Community Survey 2014 population estimates and North Liberty Special
Census (2015).
9REGIONAlCONTExT
Current Population
Year State
Johnson
County Iowa City Coralville
North
liberty*Tiffin
University
Heights
Metro
Population
2010 Census 3,046,355 130,882 67,862 18,907 13,374 1,947 1,051 103,141
2014 Census Estimate 3,107,126 142,421 73,415 20,349 18,299 2,444 1,125 115,632
Net Pop. Growth 60,771 11,539 5,553 1,442 4,925 497 74 12,491
Growth 2%9%8%8%37%26%7%12%
Annual Growth Rate 0.5%2.2%2.0%1.9%9.2%6.4%1.8%3.0%
of Metro Area 2014 63%18%16%2%1%100%
44%12%39%4%1%100%
North Liberty performed a special census population count in 2014; all other population figures are 2014 census estimates.
of Metro Growth 2010 - 2014
Trends and Projections
MPOJC developed long-term population projections based on linear growth trends from 2000
to 2014. Based on these trends, the percentage of metro population residing in Iowa City by
the year 2045 is expected to decrease to 54% , while North Liberty’s proportion of the metro
population is expected to increase to 22%. All other municipalities are projected to maintain
relatively similar proportions of metro area population.
By the year 2045, growth trends indicate that the metro area will grow by 53%, or 67,770
people, to approximately 176,400 persons. Long-range transportation planning is therefore an
essential tool for ensuring the transportation network of today can meet the needs of tomor-
row as population growth will place increasing demands on our transportation network.
Metro Area Population 2045
Metro Area Population 2014
Iowa City
63%
Coralville
18%
North
Liberty
16%
Tiffin
2%
University
Heights
1%
Iowa City
54%
Coralville
18%
North Liberty
22%
Tiffin
5%
University Heights
1%
Iowa City 73,415 80,700 88,200 95,700
Coralville 20,349 24,500 28,200 32,000
North Liberty 18,299 25,000 32,000 38,500
Tiffin 2,444 4,690 6,800 8,800
University Heights 1,125 1,200 1,300 1,400
Johnson County (in MPO Boundary)9,906 11,791 13,505 15,219
Metro Population 125,538 147,881 170,005 191,619
Linear growth trends based on years 2000, 2010, and 2014 census population data/estimates
Sources: US Census Bureau, Community comprehensive plans, 2045 MPOJC Travel Demand Model
North Liberty and Tiffin's growth trends deviated from linear growth trends based on local knowledge/municipal staff
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
ENTITY
2025203520452014CENSUS
ESTIMATE
10 REGIONAl CONTExT
2014 estimate
Population Density
People per
acreTAZ maps A traffic analysis zone (TAZ) is the
unit of geography used in
transportation model-ing. The spatial extent of
zones depicted on these maps ranges from
fairly large areas in a suburban or rural
context to as small as a few city blocks in
the central parts of
Iowa City. Zones are constructed
from census block information. Typically
these blocks are used in transportation
models by providing socio-economic data.
Most of-ten the critical information is
the number of automobiles per
household, house-hold income, and
employment within these zones. This information
helps to further our understanding of
trips that will be produced and attracted
within
the zone. In 2014, the areas with
the great-est population densities tend
to be centered near the University
of Iowa Campus, in Downtown Iowa
City, and along major metro
11REGIONAlCONTExT
2045 projection
People per acreSignificant population and
housing growth is also expected in North Liberty,
the west area of Coralville, in Tiffin, and
the periph-ery of Iowa City. The greatest
densities of population (people per acre) in
2045 are expected near downtown Iowa City
and in the Riverfront Crossings district as
a result of policies aimed at
increasing population density and
continual redevelopment. To prepare for future
population growth, a new high school will be opened
in North Liberty in the fall of 2017. Two
new elemen-tary schools will be open on the
south and east periphery of Iowa City. A
new elemen-tary school was recently built
near Highway 6 and Park Road in Tiffin, and
an additional elementary school and middle
school are planned for the same site. Tiffin
also has recently constructed a new
high school and utilized the old high school as
a middle school. Much of this investment
in school infrastructure has occurred
in undeveloped greenfields”, therefore it is
expected that these schools will be catalysts
for
12 REGIONAl CONTExT
Families with Children
Not all households are considered families.
Under the U.S. Census Bureau definition,
family households consist of two or more
individuals who are related by birth, marriage,
or adoption, although they also may include
other unrelated people. Over half of the total
metro area families with children are located
in Iowa City; 22% are located in Coralville, and
20% in North Liberty. This is roughly propor-
tional to the population of metro area com-
munities.
Date prepared: January2017Source: American Community Survey 2011-2015 5-year estimates, MPOJC, Johnson County
Proportion of Metro Area Families with Children
Iowa City
54%
Coralville
22%
North
liberty
20%
Tiffin
3%
University
Heights
1%
13REGIONAlCONTExT
Household Income
Households located in auto-dependent
locations, such as suburban or rural loca-
tions, may spend upwards of 55% of their
incomes on transportation costs. Housing that
is located closer to employment, shopping,
restaurants and other amenities can reduce
household transportation costs to as little as
9% of household income.*
Thoughtful coordination of land use and
transportantion priorities can lead to wiser
investments in road infrastructure that reduce
transportation costs for households.
FHWA Transportation and Housing Costs Fact Sheet. http://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/livability/fact_sheets/transandhousing.cfm
Date prepared: January 2017
New dataset (not yet available in Census Block Group)
Iowa City 42,375$
Coralville 58,744$
North Liberty 72,451$
Tiffin 57,125$
University Heights 52,386$
Johnson County 55,700$
State of Iowa 53,183$
American Community Survey 5-Year estimates Median
Household Income Estimates (2011-2015)
14 REGIONAl CONTExT
Employment Clusters
Approximately 80% of the total workforce (over age 16) residing in the metro area
including those that commute from adjacent counties) work in the education
or healthcare. The University of Iowa and the University of Iowa Hospitals and
Clinics (UIHC) employ 40% of the total workforce, while the Iowa City Community
School District, Pearson, and ACT, Inc employ another 7% of the workforce. The
Veteran’s Heath Administration (VA) and Mercy Iowa City employ 4% of the total
workforce.
Education
53%Healthcare
27%
Manufacturing
9%
Public
Administration
3%
Human Services
2%
Government
services
2%
Retail/Grocer
3%
Auto Insurance
1%
2015
Metro Area Workers > 16 yrs of age 61,248
Commuters into Johnson County 15,955
Commuters out of Johnson County (8,850)
Est'd Daily Workers in Metro Area 68,353
Map: March 2017
Source: InfoUSA 2014; MPOJC Travel Demand Model, MPOJC, Johnson County
Source: American Community Survey 2010
Census Transportation Planning Package 2010
15REGIONAlCONTExT
Major Employers
Source: Iowa City Area Development Group january 2017 (ICAD) http://www.iowacityareadevelopment.com/
build/leading-employers.aspx
Company Name location Sector # Employees (year)
of Ttl
Workforce
1 University of Iowa Iowa City Post-secondary education 18,650 (2011)27%
2 University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Iowa City Healthcare 8,704 (2014)13%
3 Iowa City Community School District Iowa City Education 2,346 (2014)3%
4 Veterans Health Administration Iowa City Healthcare 1,562 (2011 CBJ)2%
5 Mercy Iowa City Iowa City Healthcare 1,559 (2014)2%
6 ACT, Inc.Iowa City Educational testing services 1,350 (2016)2%
7 Pearson Educational Measurement Iowa City Educational testing services 1,200 (2016)2%
8 Hy-Vee Iowa City, Cville Retail/Grocer 1,166 (2006)2%
9 City of Iowa City Iowa City Public administration 1,108 (2014)2%
10 Systems Unlimited Iowa City Human services 890 (2011 - CBJ)1%
11 International Automotive Components Iowa City Manufacturing - Automotive 750 (2016)1%
12 Rockwell Collins Coralville Manufacturing - Electronics 700 (2016)1%
13 General Dynamics Coralville Government services 700 (2011)1%
14 Integrated DNA Technologies Coralville Manufacturing - Biotech 620 (2016)1%
15 Procter and Gamble Iowa City Manufacturing - Personal care 530 (2016)1%
16 Oral B Laboratories Iowa City Manufacturing - Personal care 530 (2016)1%
17 GEICO Coralville Auto Insurance 500 (2016)1%
18 Johnson County Administration Iowa City Public administration 435 (2014)1%
19 Centro North Liberty Manufacturing - Plastics 399 (2014)1%
20 Alpla of Iowa Iowa City Manufacturing - Plastics 360 (2011)1%
16 REGIONAl CONTExT
Employment Density
2014 estimate
The greatest density of employment is located
in central Iowa City where the main University
campus and UIHC are located. The bulk of
metro area commercial retail is located adja-
cent to Highway 6 and Coral Ridge Avenue in
Coralville. The greatest density of industrial
uses is located in southeastern Iowa City
along Highway 6 and north of Penn Street
in North Liberty. There is a cluster of office
park employment in northeast Iowa City near
Interstate 80 (ACT Inc campus, Pearson cam-
pus, and the Northgate Office Park) and in
the Oakdale Research Park near Coral Ridge
Avenue in Coralville.
17REGIONAlCONTExT
2045 projection
Employees per acreIf recent trends hold, the metro
area can expect over 43,600 new jobs to be
created by the
year
2045.
Total Employees
Employee to
Population Ratio 2014 2014 2025
2035 2045 Iowa City 66,689 0.94 76,150 83,227 90,304 23,
615 35%Coralville 19,208 0.94 22,960 26,428 29,989 10,
781 56%North Liberty 5,406 0.33 8,219 10,520 12,657 7,
251 134%Tiffin 376 0.15 716 1,039 1,344
968 257%University Heights 223 0.22 261 283 305
82 37%Johnson County (in MPO Boundary)1,691 0.17 2,013 2,305 2,598
907 54%Totals 93,593 0.77 110,319 123,802 137,197 43,
604 47%Sources: InfoUSA; University of Iowa; 2014/2045 MPOJC Travel
Demand Model Assumes employment-to-population rates
remain constant
Net Change
2014 -
2045 Change
2014 -
2045 Entity
18 REGIONAl CONTExT
Housing Density
Transportation and land use are inextricably
connected. The density and mix of land uses
and other features shape the transportation
needs and habits of residents. Higher-density
mixed-use areas tend to be associated with
greater use of modes other than personal
vehicles. Transit tends to be more feasible
and desirable in compact areas, where large
numbers of people can be served efficiently.
Car trips tend to be shorter, and ride sharing
is also more feasible because there is a great-
er likelihood that individuals are traveling to
and from similar locations.
2014 estimate
19REGIONAlCONTExT
2045 projection
Based on current growth trends, the metro
area will add more that 30,000 new units of
housing (58% increase) in order to support
population growth.
Households
per
acreHousing Units
Population Per
Housing Unit 2014 2014 2025
2035 2045 Iowa City 30,483 2.32 34,807 38,042 41,277 10,
794 35%Coralville 9,147 2.24 10,934 12,585 14,281 5,
134 56%North Liberty 6,971 2.36 10,598 13,566 16,321 9,
350 134%Tiffin 1,028 2.39 1,958 2,839 3,674 2,
646 257%University Heights 511 2.00 599 649 699
188 37%Johnson County (in MPO Boundary)4,121 2.40 4,905 5,618 6,331 2,
210 54%Totals 52,261 2.32 63,802 73,299 82,583 30,
322 58%Sources: US Census Bureau, 2014/2045 MPOJC Travel
Demand Model Assumes population / housing unit rates
remain constant
Net Change
2014 -
2045 Change
2014 -
2045 Entity Housing
20 REGIONAl CONTExT
Note: Iowa City does not classify duplex (two-family) units as multi-fam-
ily housing, therefore dulplexes are not reflected on the Iowa CIty
portion of the map, though they are included for other communities.
Sources: Johnson County, North Liberty, Coralville, Tiffin, Iowa City. Date prepared: January 2017
Multi-family Housing
Multi-family housing (apartments, townhomes, and duplexes) has long
been an important housing option in the metro area, where approx-
imately half of all residents rent. Multi-family housing provides short-
term housing for university and college students and a more affordable
option for young families and retirees. It is an increasingly popular for
workforce housing, especially for those young professionals who prefer
to live close to their place of employment or in the downtown center.
Multi-family housing can increase housing densities to better support
public transportation, reduce public infrastructure costs, and allow for
shorter trips and more walkable communities.
21REGIONAlCONTExT
Youth and Transportation
The particular travel behaviors and needs of young people are not often considered in plan-
ning and yet, as any parent can attest, children generate much of family travel demand: travel
to daycare, school and after school activities (e.g. clubs, sports, arts), appointments, and social
activities with friends. Understanding youth travel seems relevant at this time with the addition
of a new high school in North Liberty, three new elementary schools (two in Iowa City and one
in Coralville), and much public discussion in the area regarding school redistricting.
As part of the LRTP process, the MPOJC conducted its first ever youth transportation survey.
More than 1,718 surveys were completed (342 K-6th elementary; 666 junior high; 710 high
school). The responses raise a number of interesting issues worthy of further consideration or
study. (See the supporting documentation for additional detail on the Youth Survey.)
Among junior high students:
13% reported that they are unable to
participate in after school activities
due to difficulty getting to and from
the places they need to go.
Of those who do participate in after
school activities, 23% reported
having difficulty getting to and from
after school activities.
Among high school students:
17% of respondents indicated they
are unable to participate in after
school activities because of difficul-
ties getting to and from the places
they need to go.
Of those who do participate in after
school activities, 20% reported dif-
ficulty getting to and from the after
school activities.
50%
39%
5%
6%
How junior high
students travel to school How junior high
students WANT to
travel to school
66%
7%
4%
12%
11%
How high school students would like to get to
school
Car Bus Walk Bicycle Motorcycle/Moped
39%
12%
25%
9%
15%
How students would like
to get to school
Car Bus Bicycle Walk Motorcycle / Moped
How high school students
travel to school
78%
16%
5%1%
How high school students get to school
How high school
students WANT to
travel to school
22 REGIONAl CONTExT
Generational Differences: Millennials vs Baby Boomers
Millennials (those born between 1983 and 2000) and Generation X (born between 1965 and
1983) are leaning towards more active transportation both nationally and here in the Johnson
County metro area. Less car-focused than older Americans and previous generations of young
people, Millennials have also experienced lower overall employment, increased schooling, and
are delaying marriage, family, and homeownership. This combination of factors has lead to
transportation behaviors that reduce their overall reliance on the automobile.1
Between 2001 and 2009, the average number of miles driven by 16-34 year olds dropped na-
tionally by 23% as younger drivers took fewer trips, shorter trips, and a larger share of trips by
modes other than driving. Drivers licensing among youth has continued to decline – from 85%
in 1996 to 73% in 2010. Millennials consistently report greater attraction to less auto intensive
lifestyles than older generations: urban living, residence in “walkable” communities, and open-
ness to the use of non-driving modes of transportation. Millennials are also more familiar with
new technologies including smartphone based “apps” that enable car or ride sharing services,
such as Uber or Lyft or Zipcar.
Some of these changes may be attributed to the severe economic recession, stagnation in
wages, rapid growth and dissemination of new technology, and the availability of new transpor-
tation alternatives. Whether these generational differences will persist over time remains un-
certain. However, planning efforts aimed at offering more modal choice coupled with land-use
patterns and urban design that offer people more choices as they age and form families, may
sustain more permanent changes that support less car-oriented lifestyles and aging in place.
1 Census Transportation Planning Package “2015 Generations Profiles – Johnson County, Iowa” using American Community Survey Data http://download.ctpp.
transportation.org/profiles_2015/transport_profiles.html
With members of the Millennial generation and
others expressing the desire to live in walkable com-
munities with access to multiple transportation
options, the nation has an opportunity to make signif-
icant strides towards reducing congestion, improving
transportation system efficiency, and reducing the
external impacts of driving—if only we can realign
public policy to support Americans in realizing those
desires.” —Milennials in Motion: Changing Travel
Habits of Young Americans and the Implications for
Public Policy. (Rep.). (n.d.). US PIRG.
commute by single occupant vehicles com-
pared with Millennials across the state
6% increase in commuting by
transit (2008-2013)
155%
increase in bicycle commuting.
Vehicle commutes reduced by 7.4%
2008 -2013)
Millennials in Johnson County
17%
2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013
DRIVE ALONE 73.19 75.80 62.73 59.66 80.91 82.68 73.58 76.66
CARPOOL 8.96 8.55 8.48 6.20 8.92 7.47 11.37 9.97
TRANSIT 4.44 2.87 8.30 8.82 0.87 0.72 1.72 1.81
BICYCLE 1.74 2.17 1.08 2.81 0.41 0.35 0.55 0.90
WALK 3.26 3.84 18.46 17.84 2.72 2.56 8.80 6.67
OTHER MEANS 2.39 1.04 0.00 2.57 0.92 0.98 0.92 1.36
WORK AT HOME 6.02 5.73 0.94 2.10 5.23 5.23 3.06 2.63
JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA STATE OF IOWA
Means of Transportation
to Work
Baby Boomers (%)Millennials (%)Baby Boomers (%)Millennials (%)
23REGIONAlCONTExT
Millennials in Johnson County commute by single-occupancy vehicles 17% less than Millenni-
als across the state. This is due to the presence of the University of Iowa, the large number of
Millennials and college-aged adults in the metropolitan area, and the unique travel habits of
students in a University-centered community. Students and college-aged adults tend to use
transit, walk, and bicycle at a greater rate than non-students.
Millenials in Motion: Changing Travel Habits of Young Americans and the Implications for Public Policy. U.S. PIRG Education Fun, Frontier Group. October 2014.
http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Millennials%20in%20Motion%20USPIRG.pdf
Are Millenials Really the ‘Going Nowhere’ Generation?” McDonald, N.C. Journal of the American Planning Association. July 2015.
Over the longer term, land use planners and
state and local policymakers can make public
transportation more accessible to an aging
population by encouraging mixed-use devel-
opment around rail and bus station areas.
This could enable older residents to remain in
their communities, perhaps in smaller homes,
and increase their access to transit and other
community services. This transit-oriented
development (TOD) should be appropriately
scaled for the setting and may take the form of
low to moderate density as exemplified by
La Crosse, Wisconsin’s downtown, mixed-use
transit center.”
Source: ”Impact of Baby Boomers on U.S. Travel, 1969 to
2009”, McGuckin et. al. AARP Public Policy Institute
Due to the presence of the University of Iowa, there is a significant number of young adults in the metro area. Millennials
those born between 1983 and 2000) make up the largest demographic group in the metro area.
10% 8% 6% 4% 2%0%2%4%6%8%10%
Under 5 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 to 49 years
50 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 69 years
70 to 74 years
75 to 79 years
80 to 84 years
85 years and over
TOTAL POPULATION (%)
AGEMILLENIALS
1983-2000
BABY BOOMERS
1946-1964
GENERATION X
1963-1983
MALE FEMALE
15%
23%
42%
24 REGIONAl CONTExT
3%
4%
14%
15%
3%
Iowa City Coralville North Liberty Tiffin University Heights
Change in VMT 2011 -2015540,000
560,000
580,000
600,000
620,000
640,000
660,000
680,000
Metro Vehicle Miles Travelled (1000s)
Vehicle Miles Traveled
Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is an estimate of the miles traveled by all vehicles within a specific
region each year. VMT has been generally trending upward since the Great Recession of 2008.
In 2015, VMT in the metro area reached an all-time high of 660 million miles traveled. A number
of factors influence VMT including income, household vehicle ownership, number and length of
trips, costs of transportation (in time and money), demographic changes, and the built environ-
ment.
VMT helps us understand generally how trends in vehicle use and congestion change over
time. VMT is also used to calculate the environmental effect of the transportation system, such
as deriving greenhouse gas emission estimates.
At the local level, Tiffin and North Liberty’s population and VMT grew at significantly faster rates
than other metro communities. Both have higher vehicle commuting rates because they have
further distances to travel to get to major employment centers and other regional destinations.
Source: US Energy Information Administration www.eia.gov/
petroleum/gasdiesel
Change in VMT 2011-2015
Vehicle Miles Travelled (1000's of miles)
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Iowa City 309,655 310,196 322,868 319,489 317,831 309,788 322,448 328,790
Coralville 205,222 206,252 234,052 232,576 217,004 216,616 234,896 240,699
North Liberty 35,765 39,062 47,481 46,672 46,410 45,080 49,700 51,647
Tiffin 30,014 30,099 30,856 30,812 29,653 29,742 34,336 35,206
University Heights 4,033 3,993 3,787 3,715 3,705 3,585 3,759 3,852
Metro 584,689 589,602 639,044 633,264 614,603 604,811 645,139 660,194
Source: Iowa DOT (http://www.iowadot.gov/maps/msp/vmt/VMT_by_city.htm#country1)
25REGIONAlCONTExT
According to the 2015 American Community Survey, 73% of workers who live in the metro
area commuted by personal vehicle. Of those, 63% drove alone while 9% carpooled. 11%
of residents walked to work while 8% used public transportation. Another 3% of metro area
residents rode a bicycle to work, while less than 2% took a taxicab, motorcycle, moped, or
other means.
Use of active transportation such as walking, bicycling, or taking transit for commuting to
work is increasing in the metro area: 14% more people walked to work in 2015 compared
to 2011; 21% more people ride bikes to work over the same time period. The number of
residents taking transit increased 11%, while the number of those taking a taxicab, riding a
motorcycle, or moped increased 31%. (This is likely attributed to the increasing popularity of
mopeds or scooters.)
Reliance on automobiles for work
trips increases as the distance from
the University of Iowa’s main campus
and hospital increases:
34% increase in
the percentage of metro
area households with no
vehicle (from 2011 to 2015)
Highest rates of pedestrian and
bicycle commuters:
University Heights, 21% and 15%
Commuting to Work
Highest rates of commuting
by automobile: Tiffin 93%,
North Liberty 89%
University
Heights
Tiffin
North
liberty
Coralville Iowa City
Metro
Area
Iowa
Workers 16 years and over 644 1,429 9,255 10,614 39,306 61,248 1,546,601
MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK
Car, truck, or van 53%93%89%82%66%73%89%
Drove alone 53%88%80%70%57%64%81%
Carpooled 0.3%4.5%9.0%11.6%8.9%9.2%8.8%
Public transportation (except taxis)3.4%1.6%0.6%9.2%9.9%8.1%1.1%
Walked 21%0.9%1.2%4.20%16%11%3.50%
Bicycle 15%0.4%1.6%1.0%3.7%3.0%0.5%
Taxicab, motorcycle, or other means 0.5%0.6%4.3%0.5%1.2%1.5%1.0%
Worked at home 6.7%3.8%3.3%3.4%3.5%3.5%4.5%
American Community Survey:2015Source: American Community Survey: 2015
VEHIClES AVAIlABlE 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
No vehicle available 3.2%3.4%3.7%3.8%4.3%
1 vehicle available 26%27%29%29%29%
2 vehicles available 47%47%45%45%45%
3 or more vehicles available 24%23%22%22%22%
Source: American Community Survey: 2015
26 REGIONAl CONTExT
16,000 commuters
ENTER Johnson County
everday for work.
As of 2010, nearly 16,000 people commute into
Johnson County on a daily basis. Approximately
40% of the commuting workforce comes from
Linn County (Cedar Rapids), 19% from Washing-
ton County (Washington), and 14% from Cedar
County (West Branch). 78% of commuters
arrive by single-occupancy vehicle, with the re-
maining commuters mostly carpooling or taking
a bus.
8,900 commuters
LEAVE Johnson County
everday for work.
Nearly 8,900 Johnson County residents com-
mute to adjacent counties on a daily basis, with
76% traveling to Linn County and 8% traveling
to Washington County. 90% of those trips are
by single-occupancy vehicles while the remain-
ing commuters mostly carpool.
27REGIONAlCONTExT
Commuting within the Metro Area for Work
Many metro area residents live in one com-
munity but travel daily to another community
for work. The greatest number of inter-city-
commuters travel from Coralville to Iowa City
4,611), followed by Iowa City residents who
commute to Coralville (3,038), and North
Liberty residents who travel to Iowa CIty on a
daily basis for work (1,325).
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2006-
2010 Five-year estimates. Special Tabulation: Census Transpor-
tation Planning
28 REGIONAl CONTExT
The Big Picture:
Average Housing + Transportation Costs as Percent of Household Income
Source: Housing and Tranpsortation Fact Sheets, Center for Neighborhood Technology. Based on data from the American Community Survey: 2015.
http://htaindex.cnt.org/
29GUIDINGPRINCIPlES
GUIDING PRINCIPlES
30 GUIDING PRINCIPlES
The Metro Area
transportation network:
500 miles of roads
24 miles of Interstate Highway
29 miles of state highway
66 miles of arterial streets
333 miles of local roads
36 miles of rail line
414 miles of transit routes
70 miles of separated trails or wide
sidewalks (side paths) in Johnson
County
6 miles of bike lanes
GUIDING PRINCIPLE #1
Economic Opportunity
Supports growth, innovation, job creation, and productivity
An efficient, reliable, and accessible transportation network is an essential component for
fostering economic opportunity—one that connects suppliers with producers; businesses with
workers and customers; and people with employment centers, education, and services. A true
multi-modal transportation network, where all modes of transportation are considered and
provided, ensures the flexibility to support a variety of industries and businesses while provid-
ing a ladder of opportunity for residents seeking employment.
In many ways, the transportation system in the Iowa City Urbanized Area performs very well.
Geographically, the region benefits from being situated at the crossroads of Interstates 80 and
380, Highway 1, and Highway 6. Our metro area is also served by several longstanding railways
that currently serve industrial areas but are also ideally located to offer future passenger ser-
vice between major employment centers, medical facilities, and educational institutions in the
corridor. In addition, local efforts have produced one of the most heavily utilized public transit
systems in the country (ridership per capita) as well as a robust biking and pedestrian culture.
When compared with peer communities, the region boasts minimal congestion on roadways
as shown by very low delays per auto commuter – at 25% less than the national average [2015
American Community Survey]. Maintaining minimal road congestion, and providing access to
job centers of the future will be a key component of ensuring economic opportunity through-
out the region for both commuters and freight alike.
With more than 1,600 physicians and
dentists and more than 9,200 non-phy-
sician staff members, the UIHC are a
major employer in the metro area.
Annually, more than 35,000 patients are
admitted to the hospital. This is in addi-
tion to more than 900,000 clinic visits at
the main campus and outreach clinics
located throughout the metro area.
All this activity presents a significant
challenge for transportation, including
parking and transit.
Source: https://uihc.org/basic-facts
31GUIDINGPRINCIPlES
Strategies to Enhance Economic Opportunity:
Focus transportation dollars to areas of greatest need.
Direct investments towards areas that encounter significant congestion
Encourage use of intelligent transportation technologies and efficient intersection de-
sign to improve corridor efficiency
Employ strategies that improve multi-modal access to employment centers
Perform transportation engineering evaluations upon request to aid in maximizing effi-
ciency at spot locations
Facilitate the annual Traffic Signal Timing program and provide updated signal timing
recommendations at least once every five years
Many Metro Area commu-
nities enjoy lower average
commute times to work when
compared with the state (18.8
minutes) and national (24.8
minutes) averages.
PERFORMANCE
MEASURE DEFINITION
DESIRED
TREND BASELINE
Travel time to
work
Average travel time to work Decrease 18.5
minutes
2014)Transit access to
employment
Percent of metro employees within
1/4 mile of transit route
Increase 93%Average Commute
Time in Minutes
32 GUIDING PRINCIPlES
Environment
Preserves and protects our natural resources, including land, water, and air
While pollutant emissions from motor vehicles have dropped dramatically over the last three
decades, air quality problems remain a concern in metropolitan areas, in part due to growth in
VMT. Research has linked air pollution with public health problems and led the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA) to establish lower thresholds for acceptable levels of air pollution.
On a global scale, climate change has focused attention on the environmental impacts of the
transportation sector, which contributes more than 25% of our nation’s greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions.1
Transportation, land use, and development patterns have a signficant impact on our environ-
ment. While the MPO has prioritized preserving and improving existing transportation infrastruc-
ture to address congestion and safety issues, the long-range plan considers more broadly how
to minimize these conflicts as the metro area grows.
How we use our land impacts the type and design of transportation infrastructure and deter-
mines the feasibility of travel modes. While it is important to recognize differences in local and
regional land use and economic development objectives, coordinating land use with transporta-
tion goals is an essential step in addressing many environmental concerns.
Using land efficiently conserves farmland and environmentally sensitive areas, such as wet-
lands and woodlands that absorb and filter stormwater, reduce localized flooding and its
impacts, and provide opportunities for recreation and scenic views that enhance quality of
life and economic development in our communities.
Encouraging compact development with well connected street patterns that accomodate
pedestrians and bicyclists helps to reduce travel demand by reducing the length and num-
ber of trips necessary to meet daily needs and by allowing people more options in how they
travel.
Mixed use development at appropriate locations can reduce travel times and distances for
residents to access their daily needs.
Locating residential areas near destinations like employment centers, schools, and daily
shopping can reduce the length and number of trips.
1 (Source: U.S. DOT Transportation and Climate Change Clearinghouse https://climate.dot.gov/about/transportations-role/overview.html.)
GUIDING PRINCIPLE #2
land Use Patterns and
Carbon Emissions
Substantial reduction in VMT can be achieved
through land use changes alone. Compact devel-
opment can reduce the need to drive by 20 to 40
percent, as compared with traditional suburban
development patterns, resulting in a 7-10% reduction
in CO2 transportation related emissions by 2050.
The term “compact development” does not im-
ply high-rise or even uniformly high density, but
rather higher average “blended” densities. Compact
development also features a mix of land uses,
development of strong population and employment
centers, interconnection of streets, and the design of
structures and spaces at a human scale.
Source: “Growing Cooler: The Evidence for Urban Development and
Climate Change.” Urban Land Institute. R. Ewing, et. al. (2007)
33GUIDINGPRINCIPlES
Wetlands Map
Attention to the natural and social environment should be demonstrated
during transportation project development. Projects included in the LRTP
are often years away from final design; therefore detailed environmental
review may not be feasible at the early stages of the planning process.
However, the MPO can identify potential impacts to natural and historic
resources which can help ensure that transportation projects have mini-
mal impacts on the environment.
Environmental Consultation
Federal code outlines requirements for MPOs regarding environment
consultation. During project development, MPOJC encourages its member
entities to strive to avoid or minimize any detrimental effects that trans-
portation projects may have on the environment. The MPO encourages
member entities to follow the steps used to define mitigation in 40 CFR
1508.20, which are:
1. Avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of
an action
2. Minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action
and its implementation
3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the
affected environment
4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action
5. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute
resources or environments
Avoiding negative impacts to the environment should always be a prima-
ry goal during project implementation. When this cannot be achieved,
minimizing impacts and compensating for those impacts that cannot be
avoided can help to ensure that negative environmental externalities are
factored into the costs of a project.
34 GUIDING PRINCIPlES
To help understand potential environmental impacts of trans-
portation projects, MPOJC consults with the following local,
regional, and statewide organizations which have an interest in
environmental issues in our area:
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Johnson County Soil and Water Conservation
Iowa Valley Resource Conservation and Development
Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Iowa City Sierra Club
Johnson County Environmental Advocates
Iowa Corps of Engineers
Johnson County Heritage Trust
Environmental Justice
To ensure that local transportation projects/policies adhere to
the principals of environmental justice as directed in Executive
Order 12898, the maps on pages 13 and 51 (reference median
household income and non-white population map page num-
bers) illustrate social and environmental factors that will be
considered during the development of transportation projects.
These figures provide general information; more detailed inves-
tigations of specific project impacts will be analyzed during the
project-level studies and subsequent National Environmental
Protection Agency processes.
Floodplain Map
35GUIDINGPRINCIPlES
Strategies to Safeguard the Environment:
Avoid impacts to environmentally sensitive features, such as woodlands and wetlands, early
in the planning process when planning for and designing and building new infrastructure.
Expand context sensitive and sustainable solutions in the planning and design of transpor-
tation infrastructure.
Continue to monitor National Ambient Air Quality Standards thresholds for fine particulate
mater (PM 2.5) and improve air quality when possible.
Reduce pollution emissions, including CO2
Integrate land use and economic devleopment goals with transportation planning. Encour-
age and support land use plans and policies to enhance overall transportation efficiency,
including compact and mixed use development.
Follow adopted MPO “Complete Streets” Policy.
long Range Transportation Plans
should include:
Discussion of the types of potential
environmental mitigation activities
and potential areas to carry out these
activities, including activities that may
have the greatest potential to restore
and maintain the environmental func-
tions accepted by the metropolitan
transportation plan. This discussion
may focus on policies, programs, or
strategies, rather than at the project
level. The discussion shall be devel-
oped in consultation with Federal,
State, and Tribal land management,
wildlife, and regulatory agencies.”
Source: Federal Code section 23 CFR Section 450.322
Improvements to 5th Street in Coralville included green infra-
structure to filter stormwater.
PERFORMANCE
MEASURE DEFINITION
DESIRED
TREND BASElINE
VMT Metro Area vehicle miles traveled Decrease 660,194 (1000's
of miles)
Housing density Metro area housing units per acre Increase 1.4
Air quality Annual average concentration of
PM 2.5 in Johnson County
Decrease 9.3-9.6
EPA annual
standard = 12)
36 GUIDING PRINCIPlES
Quality of Life
Enhances livability and creates vibrant and appealing places that serve
residents throughout their lives.
Transportation affects the daily life of every resident in the metropolitan area. When poorly de-
signed, transportation infrastructure can act as a barrier, isolating neighborhoods and limiting
access to community destinations, including schools, parks, and recreation. As a result, travel
may require more time and expense than is necessary. On the other hand, a well-designed and
coordinated transportation network can enhance all travel modes, allowing residents to fully
participate in the social and economic life of their neighborhood and community regardless of
their economic status or physical ability.
The ease and comfort with which people are able to move through their community or neigh-
borhood has benefits that are difficult to quantify. Streets that are attractive and safe for all
users, encourage social interaction, build neighborhood cohesion, and contribute to the phys-
ical health and well-being of residents. Context sensitive designs and aesthetic enhancements
foster a sense of identity and safety that attracts investment. Low stress travel routes with few
conflict points and reliable speeds can determine whether the commute to and from work or
daily errands is a frustrating or pleasant experience.
As the metropolitan area grows and travel needs evolve, we must invest wisely to ensure that
the infrastructure of today has the flexibility to serve the needs of tomorrow. Planning for
infrastructure investment should consider the unique needs of the community while reflecting
a vision for how the community hopes to grow. We want our transportation dollars to generate
jobs, housing, and business opportunities, but to do so we must ensure safe, reliable, clean,
and healthy travel experiences for everyone. In this way we can enhance the quality of life in
our metropolitan area.
GUIDING PRINCIPLE #3
The information above represents selected results from on-line surveys posted
by the MPOJC (January-March 2016). A total of 1,271 responses to the General
Transportation survey were received along with 215 responses to the Private
Vehicle Survey. Results are not statistically significant.
Metro Priorities
Walking school bus for Lincoln Elementary School in Iowa City. Courtesty Iowa City Press Citizen
1. Improve or expand transit routes/options.
2. Add more sidewalks/trails/ ADA accessible routes.
3. Reduce congestion/travel times on roadways.
4. Provide more on-street bike facilities.
5. Provide carpooling/vanpooling options.
37GUIDINGPRINCIPlES
Strategies to Enhance Quality of life:
Promote projects that enhance connections between existing neighborhoods, jobs, and
local services.
Provide accessible, safe, and low-stress solutions in all transportation modes.
Promote more transportation choices to enhance each person’s quality of life.
Reduce combined housing and transportation costs by encouraging coordinated land use
and transportation planning.
Provide more transit training for transit users to increase ridership and access.
Promote mobility technology.
Implement supportive services that encourage personal responsibility.
Continue to incorporate safety issues in transportation planning for all modes.
Continue to support Complete Streets designs and recommendations.
Provide pedestrian-friendly streets and recreational trails.
Built with seniors and children in mind.
Support efforts in areas with high growth/high density development potential that justify
transportation infrastructure investments.
Bike to Work Week is an annual event supported by MPO
communities that encourages people to commute to work
by bicycle and to raise awareness of area trails and bicycle
facilities.
PERFORMANCE
MEASURE DEFINITION
DESIRED
TREND BASElINE
Travel delay to
work
Annual hours of delay per auto
commuter
Decrease 6 hrs / yr
Trail access Percentage of metro area within
1/4 mile of trail system
Increase 80%
38 GUIDING PRINCIPlES
Costs rise as road
conditions decline
Allowing the lane-mile to deteriorate and then
making major repairs more than doubles the
cost of that lane-mile over 25 years.
Costs rise as the
road network expands
Each new lane-mile constructed will require reg-
ular maintenance and preservation treatment for
its entire lifetime. The more lane-miles a system
has, the higher the overall maintenance costs. In
addition to maintaining the surface pavement, ad-
ditional miles of road also increase costs for snow
removal, restriping, and other operational aspects
that keep a roadway functioning.
Reconstruction of First Avenue for grade separation under the Iowa Interstate Railroad.
System Preservation
Maintain the existing facilities in good and reliable condition
Across the Iowa City Urbanized Area, deficient bridges and deteriorating pavement impact
thousands of trips made every day. Recent trends (FY07-FY17) indicate that the region is fund-
ing reconstruction and capacity improvements of existing roads compared to new construction
by a factor of 4:1. This emphasis on the reconstruction of roadways has set the bar for future
investments as our existing system ages. In order to continue to invest in repair and preventa-
tive maintenance of roadways, the Future Forward 2045 plan identifies strategies that focus on
the planning, maintenance, and financing of the area’s transportation system and equipment to
ensure it remains in good and reliable condition.
With scarce funding and an aging system, it is more important than ever to focus on advancing
the existing system through repair and preventative maintenance by maximizing results from
each dollar spent. Rehabilitating a road that has deteriorated is substantially more expensive
than keeping that road in good condition. According to the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, every $1 spent to keep a road in good condition avoids
6-$14 to rebuild the same road once it has deteriorated significantly.
GUIDING PRINCIPLE #4
39GUIDINGPRINCIPlES
Strategies to Ensure System Preservaton
1. Effectively manage and maximize exisiting transportation assets by prioritizing
rehabilitation and replacement of aging infrastructure over system expansion.
2. Focus investment on roadways with the highest traffic volumes.
3. Establish achievable pavement condition targets.
4. Ensure investments are adequate to improve bridge and pavement
conditions, keep transit fleet in good state of repair, and maintain bicycle and
pedestrian facilities.
5. Include cost-benefit analysis when evaluating future road investments.
Job Creation
Repair and preservation projects create oppor-
tunities for a variety of workers, require less
spending on land acquisition, and get through
the planning and permitting phases more quickly.
These factors put more people to work faster.
Savings to drivers
Vehicles get better gas mileage travelling on
smooth roads, and go farther on a single tank of
gas. Smooth roads are also gentler on tires and
suspensions, reducing repair costs.
Costs to drivers
Allowing roadways to deteriorate and remain in
poor condition has a cost to individuals as well.
Vehicle owners pay as much as $746 annually in
additional vehicle operating costs in areas with a
high concentration of rough roads, more than
twice the annual cost for the average American
driver.
Source: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
AASHTO) and The Road Information Project. (2009). “Rough Roads Ahead:
Fix Them Now or Pay for It Later.” http://roughroads.transportation.org/
PERFORMANCE
MEASURE DEFINITION
DESIRED
TREND BASElINE
Bridges Percent of bridges (IDOT, County, &
City) in Johnson County rated as
being deficient
Decrease 20.0%
2015)
Pavement
Condition Index
Percent of pavement measured at
fair or better condition
Increase 93% (2014)
State/Federal
Increase 70% (2013)
Local Federal
Aid Routes
40 GUIDING PRINCIPlES
Complete Streets Policy
Complete Streets” are rights of way designed and
operated to enable safe access for all users, including
pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of
all ages and abilities.
MPOJC’s Complete Streets policy, which was strength-
ened in 2015, applies to projects funded with federal
Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) and
Transportation Alternative funds and is part of the
evaluation for all road projects. The stated goals of
the policy are:
1. Creating a comprehensive, integrated, and con-
nected transportation network that supports compact,
sustainable development, and creates livable commu-
nities.
2. Providing a connected network of facilities accom-
modating all modes of travel.
3. Identifying opportunities to repurpose rights-of-way
to enhance connectivity for all modes to commercial,
recreation, education, public services, and residential
destinations.
Choice
Offer multi-modal transportation options that are affordable and accessible
An integrated and comprehensive network of pedestrian and bicycle facilities help to expand
transportation choice and complement transit services. Though a majority of residents may
choose private motor vehicles for most of their daily trips, nearly everyone relies on other
modes to meet some of their needs, whether it is walking to a bus stop or neighborhood park;
catching a bus to school, work, or special events (such as Hawkeye sports); or accessing a trail
system for recreation.
For individuals who do not own or have limited access to a private vehicle, these facilities are
invaluable. For low-income residents, affordable and efficient transportation options are a step-
ping stone to economic opportunity. For people with disabilities, transportation choice allows
for full participation in community life. For children and youth, a sizeable but often overlooked
part of the population, choice allows for independent access to schools, libraries, parks, and
other activities.
Time and convenience are the primary factors that influence how most people travel. It follows
that transportation choice is greater in areas where development is relatively compact and
destinations that serve residents’ daily needs are nearby (e.g. schools, employment, shopping,
parks). While housing density is essential for efficient transit services, a safe and comfortable
pedestrian network is essential to enable access to alternative transportation.
The reconstruction of 5th Street in Coralville includes new mixed-use development and a streetscape designed with transit, pedes-
trian, and bicycle facilities.
GUIDING PRINCIPLE #5
41GUIDINGPRINCIPlES
Strategies to Ensure Transportation Choice:
1. Ensure compliance with the MPO Complete Streets Policy and Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
2. Coordinate land use with planning to optimize multi-modal transportation,
focusing investment in areas adjacent to compact and mixed use development.
3. Enhance access to activity centers (e.g. commercial areas, schools, parks
and recreation, and employment centers) by ensuring transit service and safe,
low-stress pedestrian routes and bike facilities are available.
4. Assist communities with achieving Bike Friendly and Walk Friendly status as well
as implementation of Safe Routes to School projects.
6. Follow FHWA, National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), and
AASHTO best practices when planning and developing
50% of respondents
would like to ride the bus more
often.
34%
would like to
commute by
bike more often.
Travel time and convenience are
the top criteria for choosing how
to travel to work.
Future Forward 2045 General
Transportation Survey (2016)
PERFORMANCE
MEASURE DEFINITION
DESIRED
TREND BASElINE
Mode Split Percentage of workers commuting
via walking, biking, transit, or
rideshare
Increase 14.9%
2015)
Facilities Miles of roadway that include bike
lanes
Increase 6.2 miles
Percentage of roadway miles that
do not include sidewalks
Decrease 13 miles
42 GUIDING PRINCIPlES
GUIDING PRINCIPLE #6
Safety
Transportation network designed and maintained to enhance the safety and
security of all users
The safety of motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians is a top priority in transportation planning.
Motor vehicle collisions result in premature deaths, serious injuries, and are a cause of major
economic losses and disruptions to the transportation system. Safety concerns can discourage
residents from utilizing active transportation such as bicycling, walking, and transit.
Planning for transportation safety should be a comprehensive, system-wide, multi-modal pro-
cess that integrates safety into surface transportation decision-making. MPOJC supports these
processes through:
Maintaining the metro collision report, which identifies problem areas and provides
countermeasures
Performing transportation engineering studies
Conducting road safety audits
Evaluating pedestrian and bicycle accommodations
Inventorying ADA facilities
Reviewing traffic signal timings and operations
Assisting MPO entities with safety-related grant funding applications
Grant funding scoring criteria used by the MPO Urbanized Area Policy Board helps support
safety initiatives, placing a greater weight on capital infrastructure projects that address docu-
mented safety issues.
Increasing Population and VMT
From 2010 to 2014, metro area population increased 12% while metro VMT increased by only
4%. Population growth is outpacing VMT growth as drivers are, on the whole, driving fewer
miles and/or shifting trips to other modes of transportation. During the same period, overall
collisions decreased by 2%, fatal collisions reduced by 8%, and serious injury collisions reduced
by 17%.1 The reduction in collision rate and severity could be attributed to a variety of factors
such as infrastructure safety and efficiency improvements, intelligent transportation systems,
in-vehicle technologies, and educational outreach campaigns.
CollisionsMetroArea
Bicycle commuting increased 21%
Pedestrian commuting increased 14%
Bicycle
13%
Pedestrian18% INCREASED COllISIONS 1 Iowa Department of Transportation SAVER: 2006-2010 and
2011-
2015 comparison.
68%
increase in
collisions
due
to distracted
driving. 1/3
of distracted
driving collisions attributed to
use of
electronic communications or
other
hand-held devices.
VMT increased 4%
Fatalities reduced 8% Seriousinjuries
reduced
17%
OVERAll COllISIONS 2% 2006-2010 and
43GUIDINGPRINCIPlES
Highest Collision Intersections:
1. Highway 6 & Sycamore St (Iowa City)
2. Highway 6 and S Gilbert St (Iowa City
3. Mormon Trek Blvd & Melrose Ave
Iowa City)
4. Highway 6 and Boyrum St (Iowa City)
5. Coral Ridge Ave and Commerce Dr
Coralville)
6. 2nd St and 1st Ave (Coralville)
7. W Burlington St/Grand Ave & S Riverside
Dr (Iowa City)
8. E Burlington St & Gilbert St (Iowa City)
9. Burlington St & Madison St
Iowa City)
10. Riverside Dr & Hawkins Dr (Iowa City)
Highest Collision Mid-Block locations
1. 2nd St between 25th Ave & 23rd Ave
Coralville)
2. 2nd St between 1st Ave & Hawkins Dr/
Rocky Shore Dr (Coralville)
3. 2nd St between 4th Ave & 1st Ave
Coralville)
4. Coral Ridge Ave between Commerce Dr
Holiday Rd/Heartland Dr (Coralville)
5. 2nd St between Camp Cardinal Blvd &
20th Ave (Coralville)
Vehicle Collision Map
Collision Trends
While the number of metro area collisions due to drug/alcohol impairment has remained rela-
tively flat, distracted driving collisions in the metro area have increased 68%. Of the distracted
driver collisions, 51% were caused by drivers under the age of 24. The increase in distracted
driving collisions represents a major safety challenge and places drivers, passengers, and more
vulnerable road users at an increased risk of serious injury or death.
44 GUIDING PRINCIPlES
Bike & Pedestrian
Collision Map, 2010-2015
Collision Trends
Bicycling, walking, and transit are be-
coming increasingly popular ways for
residents to meet their transportation
needs. Between 2011 and 2015, the
number of bicycle commuters in the
metro area increased 21%, pedestrian
commuters increased 14%, and transit
commuters increased 11%.
Although metro area collisions are
trending down, there has been a 13%
increase in bicycle collisions and 18% in-
crease in pedestrian collisions. Between
2011 and 2015, four pedestrians were
killed in collisions in the metro area.
During the same time period there
were no bicycle fatalities and only 5%
of all bicycle crashes resulted in major
injury (8 bicyclists).
45GUIDINGPRINCIPlES
Strategies to Improve Safety:
Continue metro area collision report-
ing and recommend countermea-
sures.
Provide transportation engineering
services upon request to member
entities.
Provide information on top collision
trends such as distracted or impaired
driving, and incidents involving bicy-
cles and pedestrians.
Provide recommendations for facili-
ties based on Statewide Urban Design
Standards (SUDAS), FHWA, NACTO,
and AASHTO best practices and de-
sign principles that have proven to be
safe and reliable.
Continue to produce road, pedestrian,
and bicycle safety audits as requested
by member entities.
Assist the Policy Board in evaluating
safety considerations during the grant
funding process.
Assist MPO entities in identifying
and applying for safety related grant
funds.
Assist in development of Traffic Inci-
dent Management Plans.
Partner with local and state agencies
on safety education and outreach
campaigns to address safety issues
such as distracted and imparied
driving.
Iowa Department of Transportation SAVER: 5-Year Total, 2011-2015
FWHA Safety Performace Measures: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hslp/spm/safety-pm-fs.cfm
Iowa Department of Transportation SAVER: 2006-2010 and 2011-2015 comparison.
Governors Traffic Safety Bureau
Since Iowa first enacted a seat belt law in July of 1986, 6,766 people have escaped
serious injury or death because prior to a crash, they chose to wear a seat belt.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE DEFINITION
DESIRED
TREND BASElINE
Fatalities Number of fatalities (5-year total)Decrease 24
Rate of fatalities per 100 million
vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
Decrease 0.761
Serious Injuries Number of serious injury accidents
5-year total)
Decrease 127
Rate of serious injury collisions per
100 million VMT
Decrease 4.023
Nonmotorized
Fatalities/injuries
Number of non-motorized fatalities/
injuries (5-year total)
Decrease 32
Rate of non-motorized fatalities and
serious injuries per 100 million VMT
Decrease 1.016
Bicycle Collisions Total Collisions Decrease 170
Pedestrian Collisions Total Collisions Decrease 154
46 GUIDING PRINCIPlES
Efficiency
Builds a well-connected transportation network with coordinated land use pat-
terns to reduce travel demand and delay, miles traveled, and energy consumption
An efficient transportation network is essential to support the economy and livability of our
metro area. The ease with which people, goods, and services move across the metro area
is perhaps the most perceptible hallmark of a healthy transportation system. An inefficient
transportation network with excessive congestion, delays, indirect routes, and few transporta-
tion choices limits mobility, increases frustration for users, and increases costs in terms of time,
delay, fuel consumption, and vehicle emissions.
Improving the efficiency of our transportation network should be a multi-faceted approach
whereby we seek to promote shared mobility by improving access to transit, reducing barriers
to active transportation such as bicycle and walking, promote land use patterns that support
efficient movement of goods services, and making smart investments in infrastructure and
intelligent transportation systems and efficient intersection design (e.g. roundabouts) to help
traffic move more efficiently. Priorities should be given to transportation infrastructure proj-
ects that improve the efficiency of the existing network for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles.
Vehicular Traffic Congestion
According to the 2014 MPOJC Travel Demand Model, the metro area has relatively few areas of
major congestion: Level of Service (LOS) E or F. However, there are significant daily bottlenecks
during peak travel periods along Coral Ridge Avenue and Highway 965 in Coralville and North
Liberty, Penn Street in North Liberty, multiple interstate ramps along I-80 and Highway 218,
and at major arterial intersections.
In 2014, approximately 4% of road miles are considered congesting or significantly congested
LOS D, E, or F). By 2045, we expect this number to increase to 19% if no additional capacity in-
vestments are made to the network. If investments are targeted to the areas where congestion
is greatest, the metro area can reduce the miles of roadway that are congesting or significantly
congested to 17% by 2045. For a more information on road network congestion please see the
Road and Bridge Network chapter, beginning on page 60.
GUIDING PRINCIPLE #7
Prior to the construction of the First Avenue railroad overpass in
Iowa City, traffic congestion and delay was a signficant issue along
this important north-south corridor in Iowa City.
In 2014 4% of roads are congesting
or significantly congested during peak
hours.
In 2045 19% of roads are expected to
be congesting or significantly congested
if no additional capacity investments
are made.
In 2045 17% of roads are expected to
be congesting or significantly congested
if investments are targeted towards
areas of greatest need.
47GUIDINGPRINCIPlES
Strategies to Improve Network
Efficiency:
Encourage land-use patterns that support
efficient movement of goods, services,
and people to reduce travel times, fuel
consumption, and vehicle emissions.
Support multi-modal transportation by re-
ducing obstacles for active transportation
or shared mobility.
Facilitate the annual review of metro area
traffic signal timings to improve coordi-
nation and vehicle progression, thereby
reducing travel times in key arterial corri-
dors.
Provide traffic engineering expertise
including multi-modal LOS analyses to
member entities upon request.
Promote Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS) technologies such as GPS-
based advanced vehicle locators for
metro wide transit (BONGO), traffic signal
coordination, use of smartphone “apps”
for multi-modal wayfinding, vehicle shar-
ing, and route planning;.
Encourage telecommuting and staggered
shift times to reduce peak hour road
congestion.
Provide metro area decision makers with
systems-level road performance and LOS
to help direct transportation investments
to the areas of greatest need.
Support incident management programs
to speed the clearing of incidents.
A roundabout at 12th Avenue and Holiday Road in Coralville has reduced congestion and travel delay at this busy intersection.
PERFORMANCE
MEASURE DEFINITION
DESIRED
TREND BASEl INE
Congestion Percentage of major road mileage
at LOS of C or better at peak hours
Increase 96.40%
Vehicle Miles
Traveled
Local VMT per capita (annual,
1000's of miles)
Decrease 5709 (2015)
Calculated using 2014 Travel Demand Model (existing roads).
48 GUIDING PRINCIPlES
Historically, our transportation system was designed to move people and goods efficiently with
little regard to the impact on community health. Today there is growing awareness across com-
munities that transportation systems impact quality of life and health. Walkable, bikeable, and
transit-oriented communities are associated with healthier populations that experience more
physical activity, lower body mass index, lower rates of traffic injuries, and less air pollution.1
The way cities are planned and designed is strongly associated with the resulting levels of phys-
ical activity and health on both individual and community levels.2 In order to plan for a regional
transportation system that invites and enhances healthy and active lifestyles, we look to build
off of our multi-modal transportation options in order to generate active and motorized trans-
portation systems that are safe, well-maintained, and provide connectivity to destinations. The
region’s transportation system influences public health through four primary ways:
1. Active Transportation – People’s participation in active transportation (walking, bicycling,
and transit, to some degree) is influenced by the built and natural environment in which
they live. Transportation networks that encourage active transportation with continuous
and convenient sidewalks and crosswalks, bicycle facilities, and transit access can help peo-
ple increase their level of physical activity resulting in health benefits and disease preven-
tion.
2. Safety – All road users should be safe with minimal risks of injury. Well-designed
multi-modal transportation network designs that consider all users can reduce conflicts
and improve safety.
3. Air Quality – Air quality is an important component of transportation planning for com-
munities, especially for at-risk groups including children and elderly persons. Increased
numbers of vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled are associated with higher levels of air
pollutants resulting from vehicle emissions, which can negatively impact respiratory health.
4. Connectivity / Accessibility – The transportation network should allow people to effi-
ciently access the places they need in order to live a healthy and active lifestyle such as
grocery stores, places of work, hospitals, recreation facilities, and schools.
GUIDING PRINCIPLE #8
Health
Invites and enhances healthy and active lifestyles
Source: MPOJC Future Forward 2045 online pedestrian survey.
Why walk?
78%walk for health
or exercise
AESTHETICS75%of respondents think
walking in their
neighborhood is a
pleasant experience
DESTINATIONS
reported these destinations
MULTI-MODAL
Regularly take the bus as part of
their commute to work or school.16%
Occasionally take the bus as part
oftheircommute23%1. 2010 American Public Health Association Transportation Fact Sheet.
2. 2006 “Obesity, Physical Activity, and the Urban Environment”; Environmental Health. Sept. 2006.
49GUIDINGPRINCIPlES
Ensuring safe routes to schools and ensuring that schools, parks, and recreation centers are well-served by a network of sidewalks,
trails, and transit routes provides opportunity for youth to travel independently.
Strategies to Foster Health:
1. Promote active transportation through
the creation of a safe and convenient
transportation network throughout the
region.
2. Prioritize infrastructure improvements
near transit stops and public transpor-
tation facilities.
3. Encourage active lifestyles through
way-finding signs, maps, and other edu-
cational materials.
4. Improve elements of the transportation
network that are seen as unsafe such
as the scarcity of sidewalks, crosswalks
and bicycle facilities, in order to encour-
age active transportation and increase
safety.
5. Reduce injuries associated with motor
vehicle crashes through the improve-
ment of roadway facilities and availabili-
ty of transportation options.
6. Encourage active transportation to min-
imize air pollution from motor vehicles,
and the fuels used to operate them.
7. Address transportation needs and
prioritize critical gaps to ensure equity
and comprehensiveness in efforts to
enhance active living.
8. Ensure all people have access to safe,
healthy, convenient, and affordable
transportation options regardless of
age, income, and other socioeconomic
factors.
PERFORMANCE
MEASURE DEFINITION
DESIRED
TREND BASElINE
Physical activity Percent of adults in Johnson
County who are physically active
Increase 17.6%
2013)
Seat belt use Percent of adults reporting to
always use seat belts
Increase 86% (2013)
Asthma related
incidents
Number of asthma related
emergency room visits per 10,000
Decrease 30.16 per
10,000
2013)
1. Physical Activity. 2013. Policy Map. www.policymap.com
2. Seatbelt Use. 2013. Policy Map. www.policymap.com (Dec. 2016)
50 GUIDING PRINCIPlES
GUIDING PRINCIPLE #9
Equity
In order to be equitable, transportation planning must consider the unique needs and circum-
stances that impact mobility or access for individuals or neighborhoods to determine appro-
priate level investments. On a programmatic (micro) level, this includes the type and design of
infrastructure or services necessary to ensure all members of the community can meet their
daily needs. On a structural (macro) level, land use and transportation policies should support
compact, multi-modal development, including a range of affordable housing types located in
areas with convenient proximity to employment, education, and essential services.
The transportation network exerts a profound influence on people’s economic and social
opportunities. At a broad level, transportation is necessary for individuals to access employ-
ment, education, housing, health care, recreation, and other daily activities. Individuals who are
low-income, minority, elderly, limited English proficiency, youth, and persons with disabilities
often face transportation challenges. The costs of transportation may represent a major share
of household budgets. Inadequate or unreliable transportation is a significant obstacle to
gaining and retaining employment and, for the elderly and people with disabilities, can lead to
social isolation. For children, reliable transportation is key in ensuring good school attendance
and the opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities and recreation.
MPOJC efforts to support equitable transportation planning include:
Development of a Complete Streets Policy whereby all travel modes are accomodated in
the design of streets that receive federal funding. Maximizing opportunities for non-mor-
torized transit to lower costs and increase access to all households.
Completion of a comprehensive ADA sidewalk ramp inventory, which will allow MPO com-
munities to target accessiblity improvements and services, such as paratransit, to assist
individuals with limited mobility.
Development of grant funding criteria for MPO-funded projects that consider improve-
ments to ADA compliance and mode choice as well as improved access for roadways that
service multi-family development or other special populations.
Partnering with Johnson County, ECICOG, local human services agencies, for the develop-
ment of a Mobility Coordinator - a position dedicated to working person in need of special
transportation assistance.
Assessment of signalized intersections to assist with prioritization of audible Accessible
Pedestrian Signal (APS) enhancements.
Challenges to
Mobility & Access
24% of Americans living in poverty do not own an
automobile.
Because low-income individuals are less likely to
own a car, they are more likely to walk, wheel, or
bike, even when conditions are not ideal.
Low income and minority populations are less
likely to live near or travel along roads with safe,
accessible, and high-quality pedestrian and
bicycle facilities.
Low-income, minority, or immigrant individuals
are more likely to have jobs that require them to
commute outside of traditional ‘9 to 5’ business
hours, often in the dark and when or where
transit services are not operating.
Adults with disabilities are more than twice as
likely as those without disabilities to have inade-
quate transportation (31% versus 13%).
Children, older adults, and individuals with
physical or cognitive disabilities may be unable
to drive and are, more reliant on non-motorized
travel modes.
As individuals age, they are increasingly likely
to depend on public transit for their primary
transportation.
Provide access and opportunity for all people and all neighborhoods
Source: 2014 National Household Travel Survey.
51GUIDINGPRINCIPlES
Source: American Community Survey 5-year estimates 2011-15; Johnson County; MPOJC Source: American Community Survey 5-year estimates 2011-15; Johnson County; MPOJC
Percentage
Non-White Population
Percentage Limited-English
Speaking Population
52 GUIDING PRINCIPlES
Strategies to Ensure Equity:
1. Ensure a range of affordable transportation options for all people and neighborhoods.
2. Maximize the safety, convenience, and reliability of the public transit system.
3. Prioritize the expansion and improvement of the sidewalk and multi-use trail network,
especially for direct access from multi-family or mixed use development.
4. Support land use and development policies that support safe and convenient access
between housing and employment areas, schools, recreation, and commercial areas.
5. Provide targeted LOS evaluation for non-motorized travel to evaluate transportation
services and infrastructure serving low-income and disadvantaged neighborhoods.
6. Prioritize projects that create or enhance multi-modal access to employment, educa-
tion, or recreational facilities.
PLACE HOLDER FOR INFOGRAPHIC
BICYClE COMMUTING IN THE UNITED
STATES BY INCOME QUARTIlE
20%
30%
90%
60%
WHITE HISPANIC BlACk ASIAN
CHANGE IN U.S. BIkING
AS A SHARE OF PERSONAl
TRIPS, 2001-2009
Source: 2001-2009 National Household Transportation Surveys.
Included in “Building Equity” a report from People for Bikes)
39%
Poorest
Quartile
20%
Richest Quartile
20%
Third
Quartile
22%
Second Quartile
Equity and National Biking Trends
Performance
Measures Definition
Desired
Trend Baseline
Housing &
transportation
costs
Average proportion of household
income devoted to housing and
transportation costs
Decrease 49% metro
average
Access to transit Percent of metro land area within a 1/4
mile of transit route
Increase 64
53GUIDINGPRINCIPlES
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
54 TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
Î State Recreational Trails Program
SRT): Established to create recreational
trails in Iowa for the use, enjoyment and
participation of the public.
Î Revitalize Iowa’s Sound Economy
RISE): Promotes economic development
in Iowa through the construction or im-
provement of roads.
Î Transportation Safety Improvement
Program (TSIP): Funds roadway safety
improvements, research, studies or public
information initiatives aimed to increase
safety on public roads.
Î Primary Road Fund (PRF): Funds the
establishment, construction, and mainte-
nance of DOT facilities, state institutional
roads, state park roads, and restoration
of secondary roads and municipal streets
used as primary road detours.
Future Transportation Funding
Financial Planning Overview
A sound financial plan demonstrating how the unified vision for our regional transportation
system can be achieved is a critical element of Future Forward 2045. While this long range
transportation plan is not a programming document, FHWA regulations require that the plan
be ‘fiscally constrained’. To accomplish this, an analysis of fiscal constraint was undertaken for
the life of the Plan (2017-2045). This analysis fulfills the requirements of the current Federal
FAST Act’ transportation legislation outlined in 23 CFR 450.322 (10).
Financial Planning Overview
Following are brief descriptions of the primary funding sources used to forecast future funding
targets. While there are many additional State and Federal funding sources available, this list
includes only those that the MPOJC urbanized area has been successful in obtaining through
competitive grant processes.
LOCAL FUNDING SOURCES
In addition to road use tax revenue, a municipality’s general fund is often the primary funding
source for operations and maintenance costs. Funding for capital improvements on public
roads typically comes from the sale of bonds. General operating funds typically support pub-
lic transit capital and operations. Other local funding sources that help fund transportation
improvements include Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district revenues, fare or user fees and
assessments, transit levies, and property tax revenue.
STATE FUNDING SOURCES
Fiscal constraint is a required
component of long-range
planning. Transportation
expenditures included in this
plan should not exceed rev-
enue estimates during the
life of the plan. Simply put,
this plan includes only those
transportation improvements
that can be realistically com-
pleted based on anticipated
revenues.
55TRANSPORTATIONFUNDING
FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES
Î National Highway Performance Pro-
gram (NHPP): Funding for resurfacing,
restoring, and rehabilitating, routes on the
Eisenhower National System of Interstate
and Defense Highways.
Î DOT Surface Transportation Block
Grant (STBG): Funds improvements to
any roadway or bridge on the federal-aid
system, transit capital projects, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, enhancement proj-
ects, environmental restoration, and the
establishment of native species.
Î Regional Surface Transportation Block
Grant (STBG): Funds improvements to
any roadway or bridge on the federal-aid
system, transit capital projects, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, enhancement proj-
ects, environmental restoration, and the
establishment of native species. Regional
STBG funds are formula funds that are
provided to MPOJC and programed by
the Urbanized Area Policy Board using a
competitive grant process.
Î Regional Transportation Alternatives
Program (TAP): Funds enhancement
activities that have a direct relationship to
surface transportation facilities including:
facilities for bicycles and pedestrians (in-
cluding safety and educational activities),
landscaping and other scenic beautifica-
tion, historic preservation, and the preser-
vation of abandoned railway corridors for
bicycle and pedestrian uses. Regional TAP
funds are formula funds that are provided
to MPOJC and programed by the Urban-
ized Area Policy Board using a competitive
grant process.
Î Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality
Improvement (CMAQ): Flexible funding
for transportation projects and programs
tasked with helping to meet the require-
ments of the Clean Air Act. These projects
can include those that reduce congestion
and improve air quality.
Î Federal Recreational Trails Program
FRT): Funding for public recreational
trails. The recipient must use funding
for trail projects that are part of a local,
regional, or statewide trails plan.
STBG Project by Type (FY2012-2017)
MPOJC Formula Funding by Program
2006-2015
Financial Forecast
To forecast future state and federal dollars available for Future Forward 2045 projects and programs, we estab-
lish a 10-year historic average of funding programs and apply a 4% inflation rate recommended by the FHWA
for each fiscal year covered by this plan. (2017-2045)
STBG Funding
TAP/FLEX Funding
56 TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
Will there be sufficient funding for
all our transit (bus) needs?
TRANSIT REVENUE AND OPERATING COSTS (2017-2045)
IOWA CITY TRANSIT
2017-2025 2026-2035 2036-2045
State Transit Assistance $5,432,932 $8,772,758 $12,985,825
Urbanized Area Formula (5307 $15,232,177 $24,595,964 $36,408,035
Special Needs Formula (5310)$1,266,803 $2,045,554 $3,027,919
Local Tax/Transit Levy $36,008,670 $58,144,542 $86,068,126
Fare Revenue $15,662,664 $25,291,088 $37,436,988
Contracts/Other $9,394,009 $15,168,856 $22,453,613
Total Revenue $82,997,255 $134,018,761 $198,380,506
Total Operating $69,775,491 $112,669,087 $166,777,772
CORA lVIllE TRANSIT
2017-2025 2026-2035 2036-2045
State Transit Assistance $2,998,540 $4,841,854 $7,167,127
Urbanized Area Formula (5307 $4,116,178 $6,646,546 $9,838,512
Special Needs Formula (5310)$351,243 $567,165 $839,543
Local Tax/Transit Levy $4,107,056 $6,631,816 $9,816,708
Fare Revenue $5,221,996 $8,432,151 $12,481,643
Contracts/Other $1,975,808 $3,190,411 $4,722,587
Total Revenue $18,770,820 $30,309,944 $44,866,121
Total Operating $18,210,790 $29,405,641 $43,527,532
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA CAMBUS
2017-2025 2026-2035 2036-2045
State Transit Assistance $7,974,761 $12,877,143 $19,061,318
Urbanized Area Formula (5307 $5,746,722 $9,279,447 $13,735,848
Special Needs Formula (5310)$1,778,693 $2,872,121 $4,251,441
Local Tax/Transit Levy $22,216,653 $35,874,057 $53,102,368
Fare Revenue $0 $0 $0
Contracts/Other $143,714 $232,061 $343,507
Total Revenue $37,860,543 $61,134,830 $90,494,483
Total Operating $35,093,936 $56,667,486 $83,881,722
4% increase/year
57TRANSPORTATIONFUNDING
How much funding has each MPO entity received?
Will there be sufficient funding for all our transportation infrastructure needs?
Municipality
Population
2000
Population
2010
Population
Change
MPOJC STP
Funds FY2002-
2018
MPOJC STP
Funds per
capita
MPOJC TAP
Funds FY2002-
2018
MPOJC TAP
Funds per
capita
Coralville 15,123 18,907 3,784 11,365,000$ 601$ 786,000$ 42$
Iowa City 62,220 67,862 5,642 23,016,759$ 339$ 1,360,000$ 20$
North Liberty 5,367 13,374 8,007 4,230,000$ 316$ 367,000$ 27$
Tiffin 975 1,947 972 820,000$ 421$ 490,000$ 252$
University Heights 987 1,051 64 420,000$ 400$ 215,000$ 205$
Johnson Co.*n/a 3,132 1,055,000$ 337$ 195,000$ 62$
MPOJC estimated unincorporated population within Metro Planning Boundary
Anticipated Funding & Needs (2017 - 2045)
Short-Term (FY17-25)$9,645,474 $9,744,562 $78,046,421 $137,141,028 $87,691,895 $146,885,590 -$59,193,694
Mid-Term (FY26-35)*$14,227,998 $20,014,098 $115,125,947 $192,407,063 $129,353,945 $212,421,161 -$83,067,216
Long-Term (FY36-45)*$17,923,582 $6,481,440 $145,028,790 $182,428,683 $162,952,373 $188,910,123 -$25,957,750
TOTAL $41,797,055 $36,240,100 $338,201,158 $511,976,774 $379,998,213 $548,216,874 -$168,218,661
Adjusted for inflation
Cost Band / Funding Period
Bike & Ped
Funding
Bike & Ped Needs
Road & Bridge
Funding
Road & Bridge
Needs
Total Funding Total Needs
Revenue Shortfall
2017 - 2045
Funding is not allocated based on population. Please see following page for more details on the fudning allocation process.
4% inflation rate; year of expenditures considered to the the mid-year of funding period. Historically a 40% match is typcial for projects that receive state and federal funding. For more information on
state and federal funding see Supporting Documents.
58 TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
Funding Allocation Process for Surface Transportation Block Grant and Alternatives Funds
STBG and Transportation Alternatives
Set-Aside funds are federal formula funds
distributed annually by the Iowa DOT.
Allocation of federal funds from STBG, (for-
merly STP) and Transportation Alternatives
funding Set-Aside (formerly TAP) is a primary
responsibility of MPOJC.
MPOJC entities and other stakeholders work
cooperatively through committees and the
Urbanized Area Policy Board, which includes
elected officials from each MPOJC commu-
nity, to make decisions regarding which
transportation projects will receive funding.
59ROADANDBRIDGE
ROAD AND BRIDGE NETWORk
60 ROAD AND BRIDGE
Arterial Streets Map
61ROADANDBRIDGE
24 miles
Interstate Highway
29 miles
Principal arterials
state highways)
66 miles
Major arterials
45 miles
Collector streets
333 miles
Local roads
497 total
centerline miles
in the Metro Area
ROAD AND BRIDGE NETWORk
Vision
To create a comprehensive, integrated, and connected road network, accomodat-
ing mulitple modes of travel, to support sustainable growth and development and
enhance quality of life.
Transportation Network
The nearly five-hundred mile metropolitan area roadway network is the backbone of the
transportation system in the urbanized area. The arterial street network provides multi-modal
access to neighborhoods, commercial and industrial areas, schools, and parks. Arterial streets
are the main routes for commercial deliveries, emergency service vehicles, school buses, and
public transit vehicles provide the most direct routes for bicyclists and pedestrians. Local roads
provide direct access to households, carry the lowest amount of traffic, have the lowest speeds,
and tend to be most popular with pedestrians and bicyclists.
Arterial Streets
The MPOJC Arterial Streets Map (see opposite page) reflects the metropolitan area arterial
streets including the U.S. Highway, State Highway, and Interstate System, and shows where
future arterial street extensions are expected. Future arterial streets show the general location
and connectivity of an arterial street corridor; the exact location will be determined through the
design and engineering process. Future arterial corridors are identified by metro area entities.
The Arterial Streets Map is approved by the MPOJC Urbanized Area Policy Board coincident
with the adoption of the LRTP.
62 ROAD AND BRIDGE
Functional Classification
Functional classification is a tool used to
define the role of roadways within the larger
transporation network. Each classification
fits within a hierarchy based on the level of
mobility and access that the particular road-
way is intended to provide. Roadways with
higher classifications better serve mobility and
provide less access to individual properties,
whereas roadways with lower classifications
provide better access to individual properties
and provide less overall mobility. Vehicles are
able to move with the highest speeds and
least delay on higher-order roadways, such as
expressways, while bicyclists and pedestrians
tend to move with the greatest ease on low-
er-order streets, such as residential, local, and
collector streets.
Classification of Metro Area Roadways
The MPO works with local jurisdictions, the
Iowa DOT, and the FHWA to determine the
federal functional classification of metro area
roadways. Approximately 35% of the metro
area roadways are classified on the Federal
Functional Classification map (see left). This
designation is significant as federal funding
can only be spent on roadways functionally
classified as collector or higher.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Interstate
Principal Arterials
Minor Arterials
Collector
Local 67%
9%
13%
6%
5%
333 centerline miles
45 centerline miles
66 centerline miles
29 centerline miles
24 centerline miles
Metro area
roadways eligible for
Federal Funding
63ROADANDBRIDGE
Status of the Metro Area’s Bridges
Across the nation, bridge deficiency is rated using a standard methodology defined
by the FHWA and reported in the National Bridge Inventory.
According to a 2013 report by Transportation for America, Iowa’s bridges ranked
the third-worst nationally in terms of the overall percentage of structurally deficient
bridges. Over the past 5 years, the percent of deficient highway bridges in the
county and across the state is increasing.
This map depicts the location of the deficient bridge structures in Johnson County.
Of these deficient bridges, 16 bridges are owned by the Iowa DOT, 34 are owned by
the County and 15 are owned by Cities (not including pedestrian or railroad bridge
structures). [Note: due to scale of the map, dots for multiple bridges in small areas
map may overlay eachother.]
There are two types of bridge
deficiencies. A bridge deficiency does not
imply a bridge is unsafe.
Structurally-deficient - A bridge having
deterioration to one or more major
components, but the bridge is not unsafe.
Functionally Obsolete– The geometric design
of a bridge does not meet the current design
standards.
64 ROAD AND BRIDGE
Pavement Condition
The condition of our region’s infrastructure
is monitored using a numerical rating called
Pavement Condition Index (PCI). PCI measures
the type, extent, and severity of pavement sur-
face distress and the smoothness and com-
fort of the road. PCI monitors motorist safety,
condition of the surface of roads, and identi-
fies maintenance and rehabilitation needs. PCI
rates the condition of the surface of a road
network from 0-100, where 0 is very poor and
100 is excellent.
PCI for State and Federal Highways:
Pavement condition data for state and federal
highways in Iowa is collected by the Iowa DOT
and is shown on the map to the left. The pave-
ment condition of all state and federal high-
ways in the metro area averages 70, which
means roads are generally in good condition.
very poor excellent
State and Federal Highways
This analysis used 2014 PCI data to identify the
condition of the region’s pavement.
Average PCI 70
93% of State and Federal Highways are in fair to
excellent condition.
7% are are in poor or very poor condition.
65ROADANDBRIDGE
PCI for local Federal Aid Routes:
Pavement condition of local roads eligible for
federal aid is collected through the Institute
for Transportation at Iowa State University
InTrans) and is shown in the map to the right.
The pavement condition of all Federal Aid
eligible roadways is in relatively good condi-
tion averaging 61. [Information on pavement
condition by community and for local streets
can be found in the Supporting Documents
section of this plan.]
Within the metro area, 70% of local Federal
Aid routes are classified as as being in fair or
excellent condition; which can be attributed
to the region’s continued investment in the
repair and maintenance of our roadways. The
region’s pavement condition will be tracked
over time in order to measure performance
and help prioritize improvements.
NOTE: The PCI numbers obtained from the Iowa DOT and InTrans are not
comparable values as they are derived from different equations.
70% of Local Federal Aid Routes are in fair to excel-
lent condition.
30% are are in poor or very poor condition.
local Federal Aid Routes
This analysis used 2013 PCI data to identify the
condition of the region’s pavement.
Average PCI 61
Local Federal Aid Routes are those roadways eligible
for Federal transportation funding. Minor Collectors
within the Urbanized Area and all Major Collectors,
Arterials, Freeways/Expressways, and Interstates are
eligible for Federal transportation funds.
very poor excellent
66 ROAD AND BRIDGE
Vehicular level of Service
MPOJC uses the Level of Service (LOS) method to evaluate the delay vehicle drivers experience.
The Iowa DOT and MPOJC have adopted LOS E as the design capacity for the purposes of
vehicular traffic modeling and planning. LOS E represents the “ultimate theoretical capacity” of
roadways. As traffic approaches LOS E, drivers experience congestion and delays, and some
begin to divert to adjacent, less congested routes.
Bicycle and Pedestrian level of Service
MPOJC also evaluates bicycle and pedestrian
LOS at specific locations at the request of our
member entities. This allows for comparison
of the experience of drivers, pedestrians, and
bicyclists simultaneously at specific locations.
Bicycle and pedestrian LOS considers con-
ditions including pavement width, number
of travel lanes, traffic speeds, average daily
traffic (ADT), delay, presence of heavy vehicles,
corner circulation area, and the presence of
pavement markings or other facilities specific
to bicyclists and pedestrians.
level of
Service Technical Description Peak Hour Delay
A Free flow, unencumbered movement. No
restriction on speed or maneuverability.
NONE
B Reasonable flow. Slight restriction on
maneuverability.
SLIGHT
C Stable flow. Some restriction on speed. Drivers
must be careful when changing lanes.
MINIMAL
D
Approaching unstable flow. Density of traffic is
increased. Speed declines. Maneuverability is
limited.
MINIMAL
E Operating at capacity; unstable flow. Vehicles
are closely spaced with little room to maneuver.
MODERATE
F Very congested. Speeds vary; unpredictable.
POTENTIAL
GRIDLOCK
67ROADANDBRIDGE
2014 Vehicular Level of Service
Existing Roadways
Data Source: 2014 MPOJC Travel Demand Model
Existing Roads
Roadways that are built and operational as of 2014.
Committed Roads
Roadway projects that have programmed funding but are not yet built.
Planned Roads
Roadway projects that are not funded or built, but are anticipated for the future.
LOS is used to indicate areas where traffic congestion may be problematic
during peak travel periods.
In 2014, the majority of roads in the metro area experience relatively little
congestion and high levels of service during peak hours. Over 96.4% of road
miles perform at LOS A, B, or C. That said, Coral Ridge Avenue and Highway 965
in Coralville and North Liberty, Penn Street in North Liberty, and some Inter-
state 80 and Highway 218 interchange ramps regularly experience significant
congestion during peak hours performing at LOS E or F.
PEAk HOUR TRAFFIC CONGESTION
68 ROAD AND BRIDGE
2014 Vehicular Level of Service
Existing & Committed Roadways
The MPOJC Travel Demand Model
The MPOJC has developed two traffic models in
conjunction with the Iowa DOT’s Office of Systems
Planning. The “Base” model, calibrated to the year
2014, is used to represent exisiting traffic patterns.
The “Future“ model is designed to represent fore-
casted travel patterns in the year 2045.
The model is used to:
Estimate average daily traffic;
Identify future problem areas;
Test various infrastructure and land use
scenarios;
Make recommendations about appropropri-
ate roadway capacity;
Provide travel time/emergency response time
analysis;
Evaluate changes in traffic patterns over time.
Committed projects are those that had funds programmed in 2014, but were
not yet completed. This map shows that the relative impact of these few
projects on metro congestion is minimal (when compared to the “existing”
conditions map) as these projects were not intended to be significant system
expansion or capacity projects. For more information on proposed capital
infrastructure projects, refer to pages 79-90.
Data Source: 2014 MPOJC Travel Demand Model
69ROADANDBRIDGE
2045 Vehicular Level of Service
Existing Roadways: “No Build Scenario”
In the instance that no additional projects were funded
in the metro area transportation network by the year
2045, the map shows that congestion would increase
significantly.
During peak hours, it is estimated that 15.2% of major
road mileage would be significantly congested during
peak hours at LOS E or F. The corridors with the
greatest impacts Interstate 380, Coral Ridge Avenue/
Highway 965 in Coralville/North Liberty, Penn Street in
North Liberty, 1st Avenue, Highway 6, and 12th Avenue
in Coralville, North Dubuque Street in the unincor-
porated portion of Johnson County, Dubuque Street,
Burlington Street, Melrose Avenue, Benton Street,
Highway 6, Scott Boulevard in Iowa City, and Ireland
Avenue in Tiffin.
For more information on proposed capital infrastruc-
ture projects, refer to pages 79-90.
Data Source: 2045 MPOJC Travel Demand Model
70 ROAD AND BRIDGE
2045 Vehicular Level of Service
Existing & Committed Roadways
Limitations of the
Travel Demand Model
Traffic models are best used for general indications
of traffic patterns.
Traffic forecasts are generated with the best infor-
mation available, but no model software can pre-
dict future political, cultural, and economic deci-
sions including:
Local decisions related to annexation and
zoning patterns;
Private sector decisions on where to locate
high traffic generation land uses;
Cost of fuel;
Individual decisions of preferred transporta-
tion mode.
FUTURE FORECASTED
CONGESTION
In the instance that no additional road projects (outside of what has already
been programmed) were developed in the metro area transportation network
by the year 2045, the map shows that congestion would be extensive – virtu-
ally to the same extent as in the “no build” scenario. Approximately 13.4% of
metro area major roads would experience significant congestion at LOS E or
F during peak hours. This indicates that the current “committed” projects are
not intended to be significant system expansion or capacity projects. For more
information on proposed capital infrastructure projects, refer to pages 79-90.
Data Source: 2045 MPOJC Travel Demand Model
71ROADANDBRIDGE
2045 Vehicular Level of Service
Existing, Committed, & Planned Roadways
FUTURE FORECASTED
CONGESTION
If federal funds continue to be distributed to the met-
ro area for investment in the transportation network
as expected, and planned road/capacity projects are
able to be completed, peak hour congestion in the
metro area would be lessened to a degree (compared
to a “no build” scenario). The increase shown on the
map is due primarily to forecasted population growth.
Approximately 6.5% of major roads are expected to
have significant congestion during peak hours by the
year 2045 including the Coral Ridge Avenue / Highway
965 and Penn Street corridors, 1st Avenue and North
Dubuque Street north of Interstate 80, portions of
Highway 6 in Iowa City and Coralville, portions of
Burlington Street, Melrose Avenue, Benton Street,
Dodge Street and Scott Boulevard in Iowa City, Ireland
Avenue north of Interstate 80, and multiple Interstate
80, Interstate 380, and Highway 218 interchange
ramps.
For more information on proposed capital infrastruc-
ture projects, refer to pages 79-90.
Data Source: 2045 MPOJC Travel Demand Model
72 ROAD AND BRIDGE
2045 Vehicular Level of Service
Existing, Committed, Planned,
Illustrative Roadways
Illustrative projects are those that do not currently
have a funding source identified. These may be proj-
ects which did not score high enough to be including
in the fiscally constrained list of projects, or those
which have other non-federal funding sources identi-
fied. Although there are no funding sources currently
identified for illustrative projects, metro area entities
expect these will be completed by the year 2045.
If all planned projects, including illustrative, are
completed by the year 2045 the metro area is still
expected to experience congestion in the Coral Ridge
Avenue / Hwy 965 and Penn Street corridors, 1st
Avenue and North Dubuque Street north of Interstate
90, portions of Highway 6 in Iowa City and Coralville,
portions of Burlington Street, Melrose Avenue, Ben-
ton Street, Dodge Street, and Scott Boulevard in Iowa
City, Ireland Avenue north of Interstate 80 in Tiffin,
and at multiple interstate interchanges.
For more information on proposed capital infrastruc-
ture projects, refer to pages 79-90.
FUTURE FORECASTED
CONGESTION
Data Source: 2045 MPOJC Travel Demand Model
73ROADANDBRIDGE
Successes 2012 - 2017
Between FY2012 and FY2017, over $15,560,000 in federal Surface Transportation Program
funds were distributed through the MPO and invested in the metropolitan area road network.
More than 88% of the funds were dedicated to improving the existing transportation network—
this includes reconstruction, overlay projects, addition of travel lanes, spot improvements, and
other investments in existing infrastructure. The remaining 12% of federal funding was allocat-
ed toward construction of new roadway connections. In addition to the major road projects
listed to the left, the metro area has applied many creative stretagies to address transportation
issues, including:
Road Diets / Lane Reductions: Several “road diets” were executed, funded, or scheduled
for completion in the metro area, including South Sycamore Street, Lower Muscatine Road,
Mormon Trek Boulevard, and First Avenue in Iowa City. A road diet, also referred to as a lane
reduction or 4-to-3 lane conversion, reduces the number of travel lanes and/or effective width
of the road in order to enhance safety, mobility, and access for all road users. Reclaimed space
may be allocated for turn lanes, bus lanes, pedestrian refuge islands, bike lanes, sidewalks, bus
shelters, parking, or landscaping.
Coordination of Traffic Signals: Traffic signals in the high-volume 2nd Street (Highway 6) cor-
ridor in Coralville were coordinated to reduce vehicular travel time and delays, especially during
peak periods. Other metro area arterial corridors that had existing coordinated traffic signal
systems received updated timings/coordination plans based on current traffic patterns.
One-Way to Two-Way Conversions: Sections of Governor and Washington Streets in Iowa
City were reverted from one-way to two-way traffic. Current literature on urban street network
design stresses that two-way streets are associated with higher levels of economic activity,
improve livability in downtown areas, are more predictable for the travelling public, provide
greater access to adjacent properties, and result in reduced VMTd and fuel consumption.
Examples of capital infrastructure
projects completed 2012-2017 funded
in-part through MPOJC
First Avenue railroad grade separation project –
Iowa City
South Sycamore Street reconstruction and
roundabout – Iowa City
Continued expansion of Coral Ridge Avenue
corridor from two to four lanes – Coralville
Reconstruction of 1st Avenue including center
turn lane – Coralville
Expansion of the Penn Street corridor from two
to four lanes – North Liberty
Reconstruction of Highway 965 and signalization
of Scales Bend intersection – North Liberty
Extension of Ireland Avenue to Highway 6 - Tiffin
Wide sidewalk constructed on north side of
Melrose Avenue – University Heights
Sunset Street wide sidewalk project – University
Heights
Mehaffey Bridge Trail – Johnson County
Oakdale Boulevard extension to Dubuque Street
Johnson County / Coralville
74 ROAD AND BRIDGE
37%
75%
90%
40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Overall
Collisions
Injury
Collisions
Fatality
Collisions
Pedestrian
Collisions
Reduction in Collisions with Roundabout
Source: Federal Highway Administration and the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety.
The MPOJC Complete Streets Policy helps to ensure that road proj-
ects serve all users. Rendering of improvements to Highway 965 in
North Liberty include improved safety accomodations for pedestri-
ans at a busy intersection.
Average % Reduction in Collisions
with Roundabouts
Roundabouts: Ten new roundabouts were constructed in Coralville, Iowa City, and North Lib-
erty in the last five years. Roundabouts are increasingly seen as safer and more efficient alterna-
tives to traditional intersection traffic controls, such as stop signs or traffic signals. Roundabouts
have been proven to reduce collision fatalities by 90 percent and injury collisions by 75 percent
at intersections while also reducing vehicle delay.
On-street Bicycle Facilities: Dedicated bicycle lanes were installed on the Market Street and
Jefferson Street one-way corridors, Sycamore Street, Camp Cardinal Boulevard, and Rohret Road,
and are planned for Mormon Trek Boulevard, Clinton and Madison Streets, and First Avenue in
Iowa City. Bicycle lanes are designated by a white stripe, a bicycle symbol, and signage that alerts
road users that a portion of the roadway is for exclusive use by bicyclists. Bike lanes enable
bicyclists to travel at their preferred speed and facilitate predictable behavior and movements
between bicyclists and motorists.
Complementary Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge or Underpass Facilities: Dedicated pedestri-
an/bicycle bridges were constructed at the Dubuque Street and Dodge Street interchanges with
Interstate 80 in order to extend the trail network and improve access to recreational facilities and
employment centers. A pedestrian underpass was constructed for Coral Ridge Avenue north of
Holiday Road in Coralville, and for Highway 965 near Cherry Street in North Liberty. Pedestrian/
bicycle bridge facilities were also added to the Butler Bridge in Iowa City, and the Mehaffey Bridge
in Johnson County.
Rendering of a roundabout for the intersection of North Dubuque Street and North Liberty Road near the new Liberty High School.
75ROADANDBRIDGE
Road and Bridge Infrastructure Challenges
Aging Infrastructure: As the metropolitan region continues to grow, the transportation net-
work must be continuously maintained and modernized. The emphasis on expansion of the
road network during the last half of the twentieth century overlooked the resources necessary
to replace and rehabilitate aging facilities and equipment. As population increases on the
periphery of the metropolitan area, there is a higher demand placed on the roadway network,
especially in outlying areas. The challenge is to provide adequate capacity to provide a reason-
able LOS for vehicular traffic and keeping the system in a state of good repair.
Projected Funding Shortfall: As the metropolitan region continues to grow, the transporta-
tion network must be continuously maintained and modernized. The need for repair, pres-
ervation, and capacity improvements continues to far outweigh available funding. This rep-
resents a major challenge in meeting the needs of our growing metropolitan area and keeping
the system in a state of good repair. It is estimated that capital transportation infrastructure
needs in the metro area 2017 - 2045 total nearly $550 million dollars, yet it is estimated that
only $380 million in federal funds will be available, creating a shortfall of $168 million dollars
MPOJC Needs Assessment – 2016).
Safety: Improving the safety of our transportation network is an on-going mission. Overall
collisions across the metro area have slightly decreased (-2%) or remained relatively steady.
In recent years, even though VMT is increasing (comparing the five year periods 2006 – 2010
and 2011 – 20150. However, collisions related to distracted driving have increased 68%. One
third of all distracted driving collisions are attributed to the use of electronic communication
or other hand-held devices.
Another trend to be aware of is the increase in vehicle collisions with bicyclists and pedestri-
ans in the metro area, 13% and 18% respectively. This may be partly attributed to the increase
in distracted driving collisions and also due to the increase in bicycle and pedestrian com-
muting across the metro area. While collisions can and do cause serious injuries for vehicle
passengers, bicyclists and pedestrians are amongst the most vulnerable of road users. It is
important that attention be given to strategies that aim to reduce conflicts between modes of
transportation.
The MPO will continue to support safety efforts with the update of the semi-annual metro
collision report and the provision of transportation engineering studies as requested. Addi-
tional in-depth collision analysis on distracted driving, bicycle/pedestrian collisions, and other
collisions trends (using the Iowa DOT’s web-based SAVER application) could supplement these
initiatives and help support safety planning. Public outreach/educational campaigns designed
to educate on the dangers of distracted driving or to provide tips for safely negotiating the
roadway near bicyclists and pedestrians would complement the MPO’s safety planning ser-
vices.
168 million shortfall between
metro area capital transportation
needs and expected funding by the
year 2045.
76 ROAD AND BRIDGE
VMT Increasing: Metro area VMT has increased 7% from 2012 to 2015. While there are many
factors that influence changes in VMT such as population growth and changes in the built
environment, fuel prices also play a role. In the Midwest, the increase in VMT may be in-part
attributed to a 31% decrease in Midwest fuel (US Energy Information Administration). As fuel
prices decrease, there is less incentive for drivers to seek alternative forms of transportation,
carpool, or make fewer trips.
Automated Vehicle Technologies: 94% of collisions in the United States can be attributed to
choices drivers make behind the wheel (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2017).
Proponents of automated vehicle technologies tout them as the next revolution in roadway
safety because they have the potential to greatly reduce driver errors and improve safety. In
recent years there has been considerable advancement with automated vehicles technologies
aimed to reduce collisions and improve the efficiency of our transportation network.
Automated vehicle technologies fall into two categories: connected (communication between
vehicles) and autonomous (vehicle sensors) technologies. Connected technologies allow ve-
hicles to communicate with other vehicles and the world around them – this concept is more
about supplying useful information to a driver or a vehicle to help the driver make safer or
more informed decisions. Examples of connected technologies include the ability to adjust to
the pace of traffic, changes in speed, or maintaining position within the lane. Autonomous ve-
hicle technologies range from self-parking or auto-collision avoidance (braking) technologies, to
vehicles that do not require a human driver at all —completely relying on computer technology.
Automated vehicle technologies have the potential to significantly reshape the transportation
landscape of the metro area. Iowa has taken a leadership role in assisting with the study of
these technologies. In October 2016, the Iowa DOT agreed to transform the heavily used I-380
corridor, between the Cedar Rapids and Iowa City metro areas, into a test site for autonomous
vehicle technologies. Such studies will help answer important questions about how transporta-
tion agencies prepare for and facilitate the adoption of automated vehicle technologies.
77ROADANDBRIDGE
Climate Change:
Climate change and an increase in global mean temperatures have been linked to greenhouse
gas emissions. These emissions are responsible for almost all of the increase in greenhouse
gases over the last 150 years, are primarily sourced from burning fossil fuels for electricity,
heat, and transportation (International Panel on Climate Change, 2007). Climate change should
be considered from two different perspectives relating to transportation – how climate change
affects the transportation network and how transportation contributes to climate change.
How Climate Change Affects the Transportation Network:
Climate change poses an immediate and long-term threat in terms of increased extreme
weather events that affect the reliability and capacity of the local transportation network.
Flooding results in road closures, damage to infrastructure, disruption of traffic patterns, and
an increase in travel times and VMT as drivers seek alternate routes. The metropolitan area
has been significantly affected by flooding of the Iowa River and its tributaries in recent years,
including a major flood in 2008 and several smaller flood events in years following. The expec-
tation is that the area will continue to experience both small and large scale flooding events.
Metro transportation planners should seek strategies to make the transportation network
more resilient against such events. The Iowa City Gateway Project, expected to be completed in
FY2018, is an example of such a project. The project will raise Dubuque Street above the 100-
year flood plain and reduce backwater caused by the current Park Road bridge to help reduce
Dubuque Street closures and lessen the effect of future flooding events on the metro transpor-
tation network. As new and rehabilitated transportation systems are developed, climate change
impacts should be routinely incorporated into planning for these systems.
How Transportation Contributes to Climate Change:
Transportation accounts for 27% of total U.S. GHG emissions (US National Climate Assessment,
2010). Transportation contributes to changes in the climate through the burning of fossil fuels
and carbon emissions. Strategies aimed at reducing VMT such as improved land-use/transpor-
tation planning and coordination, more efficient land use and transportation network patterns,
increased density of the built environment, and support of active transportation and vehicle
sharing can reduce vehicular travel demand and result in decreased emissions. Increasing fuel
efficiency in fossil-fuel dependent vehicles and seeking of alternative fuels that are renewable
or burn cleaner should also be priorities for reducing the transportation sector’s impact on
GHG emissions and climate change.
78 ROAD AND BRIDGE
EconomyEnvironmentQuality of lifeSystem PreservationEfficiencyChoiceSafety HealthEquityG U I D I N G P R I N C I P lESMETGUIDINGPRINCIPlE
S M E T Use Pavement Condition Index (PCI) to help direct investments to
areas of greatest need.Support policies and programs that improve pedestrian and
bicycle safety and access.Consider the installation of roundabouts as an alternative
to traditional traffic control.Promote policies and projects that encourage alternatives to
single-occupancy vehicle travel.Evaluate potential impacts of extreme weather and
other climate-related stressors.Support projects that address risks due to flooding
or other natural hazards.Develop detour routing plans based
on travel demand analysis.Support projects that reduce metropolitan area
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).Encourage use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (
ITS) to reduce congestion.Include analysis of fuel consumption within capacity and
Level of Service analysis.Reduce traffic
congestion and fuel consumption Provide a transporation system that is
resilient to natural hazards Distribute bi-annual metro
collision and countermeasures report.Raise awareness of the dangers of
distracted driving and walking.Consider bicycle and pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) along with vehicular
LOS in traffic studies.Utilize multi-disciplinary safety teams to identify improvements in
the right-of-way.Preserve and
maintain existing transportation infrastructure Prioritize implementation
of Complete Streets policy Identify and report
on transportation safety issues Approach every transportation project as an opportunity to improve
transportation for all users.Consider reallocating extra space in right-of-way for
use by other modes. Provide educational and planning assistance to local governments to fully
realize Complete Streets principles.Ensure investments are adequate for improving
bridge and pavement conditions. Consider revising grant funding criteria
to prioritize system preservation.Ensure all projects meet
minimum
Complete Streets standards.
STRATEGIES:IMPROVING THE
79
FISCAllY CONSTRAINED ROAD AND BRIDGE PROJECTS
Capital infrastructure projects that did not make
the fiscally-constrained approved list of projects
due to a lack of forecasted funding) are includ-
ed in the Supporting Documents section of this
plan. Projects descriptions and cost estimates
for 2017-2025 road and bridge projects are
provided on the following pages.
Fiscal constraint is a required component
of long-range planning. This plan includes
only those projects that can be realistically
completed based on anticipated revenues.
The Urbanized Area Policy Board has
approved the inclusion of the forthcoming
capital infrastructure projects in the fiscal-
ly-constrained list of projects that become
eligible to receive federal funding through
the MPOJC. For more information on the
process by which these projects were select-
ed for inclusion in the LRTPn, please refer to
the Financial Planning chapter on page 53.
2017-2025
ROAD AND BRIDGE
80 ROAD AND BRIDGE
Projects highlighted in green have funding programmed in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
ID Project Title Project Description $
Cost Estimate at
Construction
Entity
1 965 Phase 3 (FY18)Penn Street to Zeller Street. Final corridor improvements including utility relocations, water
quality BMP's, curb & gutter and storm sewer system, landscaping, and trail
5,000,000 North
Liberty
2 1st Ave from 6th St to 9th St (FY18)0.4 mile reconstruction of 1st Avenue between 6th Street and 9th Street $9,500,000 Coralville
3 Melrose Ave Improvements (FY20)Reconstruct Melrose Avenue between Highway 218 & city limits $4,640,000 Iowa City
4 Prentiss St Bridge Replacement
FY18)
Reconstruct the Prentiss Street Bridge $1,334,000 Iowa City
5 American legion Rd-Scott Blvd to
Taft Ave (FY20)
Reconstruct American Legion Road to urban standards $9,048,000 Iowa City
6 Roberts Ferry (FY18)Grade and pave street, install curb, gutter, and sidewalks or trails $970,920 Tiffin
7 Burlington & Madison Intersection
Improvements (FY18)
Reconstruct the intersection of Burlington and Madison Streets to add turn lanes on Madison
Street, signal improvements and utility upgrades. This project also includes pavement
improvements from Riverside Drive to Capitol Street.
2,944,688 Iowa City
8 Benton St Rehabilitation Project
FY21)
PCC patching and HMA overlay of Benton Street from Mormon Trek Boulevard to Greenwood
Drive including bike lanes and updating ADA curb ramps
2,929,116 Iowa City
9 Park Road and Hwy 6 Roundabout
FY18)
Construct two-lane Roundabout at Intersection of Park Road and Hwy 6 $2,204,000 Tiffin
10 Penn St Improvements - CRANDIC RR
to Front St
RR to N Front Street Operational improvments including widening, turn lanes, and signals or
roundabout, with wide sidewalk
2,320,000 North
Liberty
11 Traffic Signal Improvements Fiber optic installation, traffic signal upgrades, and signal coordination on Coral Ridge
Avenue and 1st Avenue
1,450,000 Coralville
Fiscally Constrained Road & Bridge Projects 2017-2025
81ROADANDBRIDGE
ID Project Title Project Description $
Cost Estimate at
Construction
Entity
Fiscally Constrained Road & Bridge Projects 2017-2025
12 Melrose Ave Preventative
Maintenance
Pavement repair within city limits $116,000 University
Heights
13 1st Ave & Oakdale Blvd Intersection Reconstruction of the 1st Avenue & Oakdale Boulevard. intersection as either a roundabout or
turn lanes with traffic signals, includes 1st Avenue to southerly E. Grantview Drive intersection
2,900,000 Coralville
14 1st Ave North Phase 1 0.7 mile reconstruction of 1st Ave. between southerly E. Grantview Dr. and Meade Dr. from
rural to urban cross section
4,060,000 Coralville
15 Hwy 6/Jones Blvd Intersection Traffic signalization $319,000 Coralville
16 Park Rd (Hwy 6 to Forevergreen Rd)Grade & Pave Street, Install Curb, Gutter and Sidewalks or Trails $8,700,000 Tiffin
17 Hwy 6 (Stephans St to Park Road)Grade & Pave Street, Install Curb, Gutter and Sidewalks or Trails and Install Center Turn Lane $2,320,000 Tiffin
18 Sunset Street Preventative
Maintenance and Crosswalk
Improvements
Pavement repair between Benton Street and Melrose Avenue, and Oakcrest Avenue
crosswalk visibility improvements
116,000 University
Heights
19 Park Road (Hwy 6 south to Clear
Creek Bridge) Phase One
Grade & Pave Street, Install Curb, Gutter and Sidewalks or Trails $1,160,000 Tiffin
20 1st Ave North Phase 2 0.9 mile reconstruction of 1st Avenue (and North Liberty Road) between Meade Drive and
the future Forevergreen Road Extension
5,220,000 Coralville
21 Park Rd (Bridge to I-80) Phase Two Grade & Pave Street, Install Curb, Gutter and Sidewalks or Trails $1,160,000 Tiffin
22 5th St Reconstruction #1 0.35 mile reconstruction of 5th Street between 2nd Ave. and 6th Ave.$1,522,500 Coralville
23 5th Street Reconstruction #2 0.25 mile reconstruction of 5th Street between 6th Ave. and 10th Ave.$1,087,500 Coralville
24 5th St Reconstruction #3 0.6 mile reconstruction of 5th Street between 12th Ave. and 20th Ave.$2,610,000 Coralville
82 ROAD AND BRIDGE
ID Project Title Project Description $
Cost Estimate at
Construction
Entity
Fiscally Constrained Road & Bridge Projects 2017-2025
25 Hwy 6 (Park Road to I-380)Grade & Pave Street, Install Curb, Gutter and Sidewalks or Trails $1,160,000 Tiffin
26 Penn St Widening Alexander Way to Jones Boulevard. Reconstruct and widen existing roadway, with wide
sidewalk.
2,162,240 North
Liberty
27 Park Rd (1-80 to 340th)Grade & Pave Street, Install Curb, Gutter and Sidewalks or Trails $406,000 Tiffin
28 Fairchild Brick Street Reconstruction This project will reconstruct multiple blocks of brick street on Fairchild Street and will include
complete removal of the existing pavement, salvage of existing bricks, and construction of
new a 7 inch concrete pavement base with asphalt setting bed and brick surface
377,000 Iowa City
Total Costs 2017 - 2025 $77,736,964
Estimated Funding $78,046,421
Remaining $309,457
83ROADANDBRIDGE
ID Project Title Project Description $
Cost Estimate
at Construction
Entity
1 Reconfigure I-80/1st Ave Interchange Upgrade to Diverging Diamond Interchange $27,161,400 DOT
2 I-80 6-lane Project (East)Six lane I-80 from east of Iowa Hwy 1 to eastern MPO boundary $18,560,000 DOT
3 I-80/I-380/Highway 218 Interchange Reconfiguring I-80/I-380/Hwy218 interchange including I-380 six lane project from I-80 to
Forevergreen Road
348,000,000 DOT
4 I-380 and Forevergreen Interchange Build interchange $19,720,000 DOT
5 Forevergreen Rd Reconstruction Kansas Avenue to Jones Blvd. Replace rural section roadway with widened urban section,
with trail. In conjunction with IDOT and interchange project
5,800,000 DOT / North
Liberty
6 Dodge St - Governor to Bowery Street reconstruction and storm sewer improvements. This is a joint project with Iowa City $12,425,920 DOT / Iowa
City
Total Costs 2017 - 2025 $431,667,320
Estimated Funding $431,667,320
Remaining $0
Fiscally Constrained Iowa DOT Projects 2017 - 2025
84 ROAD AND BRIDGE
FISCAllY CONSTRAINED ROAD AND BRIDGE PROJECTS
Projects descriptions and cost estimates for 2026-2035 road and bridge
projects are provided on the following pages.
2026-2035
85ROADANDBRIDGE
ID Project Title Project Description $
Cost Estimate at
Construction
Entity
1 Melrose Ave East Improvements Streetscape, storm water and intersection improvements, utility relocations and construction
of bike lanes east of Sunset St. (0.35 mile)
912,000 University
Heights
2 South Gilbert St Improvements Reconstruction from Benton Street to Stevens Drive. This project does not include
improvements to the Gilbert St. / Highway 6 intersection.
6,575,520 Iowa City
3 965 Phase 4-7 Zeller Street to Forevergreen Road. Final corridor build-out including utilities, 5-lane build
out, storm sewer system, landscaping & trail
15,200,000 North Liberty
4 Benton St - Orchard to Oaknoll This is a capacity related improvement identified by the Arterial Street Plan $7,828,000 Iowa City
5 Melrose Ave Preventative
Maintenance
Pavement repair within city limits $152,000 University
Heights
6 Sycamore St - East/West leg from "l"
to South Gilbert Street
This project will reconstruct Sycamore Street to arterial standards using the Complete Streets
Policy; This phase will be the east-west leg of Sycamore Street
4,620,800 Iowa City
7 Sycamore St - Highway 6 to Highland This project involves additional lanes to improve capacity and storm sewer improvements $1,140,000 Iowa City
8 1st Ave North Phase 3 0.9 mile reconstruction of North Liberty Rd. between future Forevergreen Rd. Extension and
Dubuque St.
6,840,000 Coralville
9 I-380/Penn St Overpass Widen bridge deck over I-380 for additional lanes plus bike/ped facility $10,640,000 North Liberty
10 Ireland Ave (I-80 to Interstate RR)Grade & Pave Street, Install Curb, Gutter and Sidewalks or Trails $2,280,000 Tiffin
11 linn St Reconstruction - Burlington St
to Iowa Ave
Part of the downtown streetscape master plan, this project reconstructs Linn St from
Burlington St to Iowa Ave. Project also improves sidewalk pavement, addresses critical
update to water main, replaces and relocates storm sewer between Washington & Iowa
2,941,200 Iowa City
12 22nd Ave Reconstruction 0.45 mile reconstruction of 22nd Avenue between Hwy 6 and 10th St.$2,565,000 Coralville
Fiscally Constrained Road & Bridge Projects 2026-2035
86 ROAD AND BRIDGE
ID Project Title Project Description $
Cost Estimate at
Construction
Entity
Fiscally Constrained Road & Bridge Projects 2026-2035
13 Hwy 6 (Ireland Ave to West City
limits
Grade & Pave Street, Install Curb, Gutter and Sidewalks or Trails and Install Center Turn Lane $3,040,000 Tiffin
14 Burlington St Bridge - South This project is a replacement of the Burlington Bridge over the Iowa River that will also
increase the number of lanes
24,320,000 Iowa City
15 12th Ave Reconstruction #2 0.5 mile reconstruction of 12th Avenue between 8th St. and Interstate 80 $2,850,000 Coralville
16 Oakdale Blvd Reconstruction #1 1 mile reconstruction of Oakdale Boulevard between 12th Ave. and Crosspark Rd.$5,700,000 Coralville
17 Highway 6 - Deer Creek Rd to Jones
Blvd
0.52 mile reconstruction of Hwy 6 between Deer Creek Rd. and Jones Blvd., conversion from
rural to urban cross section
7,904,000 Coralville
18 10th St Reconstruction #2 0.75 mile reconstruction of 10th Street between 20th Ave. and 25th Ave.$4,275,000 Coralville
19 Camp Cardinal Blvd Reconstruction #1 0.38 mile reconstruction of Camp Cardinal Blvd. between Hwy 6 and Clear Creek $2,888,000 Coralville
20 5th St Reconstruction #4 0.15 mile reconstruction of 5th Street between 10th Ave. and 12th Ave.$380,000 Coralville
21 Sunset St Preventative Maintenance Pavement repair between Benton St. and Melrose Ave.$152,000 University
Heights
22 Iowa Ave Culvert Repair This project will repair a box culvert that carries Ralston Creek under Iowa Ave.$528,960 Iowa City
Total Costs 2026 - 2035 $113,732,480
Estimated Funding $115,125,947
Remaining $1,393,467
87ROADANDBRIDGE
ID Project Title Project Description $ Cost Estimate
at Construction Entity
7 I-80 6-lane Project (West)Six lane I-80 from 80/380 west to the western MPO boundary $88,800,000 DOT
8 I-380 6 lane Project (North)Six lane I-380 from North of Forevergreen Rd to the North MPO boundary $88,800,000 DOT
Total Costs 2026 - 2035 $177,600,000
Estimated Funding $177,600,000
Remaining $0
Fiscally Constrained Iowa DOT Projects 2026 - 2035
88 ROAD AND BRIDGE
Projects descriptions and cost estimates for 2036-2045 road and bridge
projects are provided on the following page.
2036-2045
FISCAllY CONSTRAINED ROAD AND BRIDGE PROJECTS
89ROADANDBRIDGE
ID Project Title Project Description $
Cost Estimate at
Construction
Entity
1 Burlington St Median Construct the Burlington Street median from Gilbert Street to Madison Street. Project
includes relocation of water and sewer utilities. This project will require a traffic signal
preemption system. (Part of the Riverfront Crossings amendment to City- URA).
7,342,080 Iowa City
2 Melrose Ave Preventative Maintenance Pavement repair within city limits $192,000 University
Heights
3 Gilbert St IAIS Underpass This project relocates the sidewalks of the Gilbert St. underpass at the IAIS Railroad.
The sidewalks are moved further from the street and existing erosion problems are
addressed.
627,840 Iowa City
4 Traffic Signal Pre-Emption System This project will install a city-wide Geographic Information System based traffic signal
pre-emption system for emergency vehicles. This system is necessary if the Burlington
St Median Project is constructed between Madison St and Gilbert St.
2,344,320 Iowa City
5 Melrose Ave West Improvements Streetscape and storm water improvements, utility relocations and construct bike lanes
west of Sunset St. (0.2 mile)
960,000 University
Heights
6 North Gilbert St Paving This project will reconstruct the 900 block of North Gilbert Street to improve the
pavement form a chip seal to concrete pavement with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.
1,426,560 Iowa City
7 Taft Ave Herbert Hoover Hwy to 420th Street.$33,406,080 Iowa City
8 Sunset St Improvements Streetscape and storm water improvements, utility relocations and construct bike lanes
south of Melrose Ave. (0.35 mile)
768,000 University
Heights
9 Oakdale Blvd - Highway 1 to Scott Blvd This project would construct an extension north across I-80 to a new intersection with
Iowa Hwy 1.
28,800,000 Iowa City
10 Holiday Rd Reconstruction #2 0.8 mile reconstruction of Holiday Road between 12th Ave. and Parkway Dr.$5,760,000 Coralville
11 Sunset St Preventative Maintenance Pavement repair between Benton St. and Melrose Ave.$192,000 University
Heights
Fiscally Constrained Road & Bridge Projects 2036-2045
90 ROAD AND BRIDGE
12 Dubuque Rd - Bristol to Dodge Reconstruct and upgrade to urban cross sections.$2,570,880 Iowa City
13 Oakdale Blvd - Highway 1 to Prairie du
Chien
This project would construct Oakdale Blvd from Hwy 1, west to Prairie Du Chien Road.$15,820,800 Iowa City
14 Rohret Rd - lake Shore to City limits Project will reconstruct Rohret Rd to urban standards.$3,480,960 Iowa City
15 South Arterial and Bridge - US 218 to
Gilbert St
Construction of a south arterial street and bridge over the Iowa River, connecting from
Old Hwy 218/US 218 interchange on the west side of the Iowa River to Gilbert
Street/Sycamore 'L' intersection .
30,695,040 Iowa City
16 1st Ave Reconstruction 1.1 mile reconstruction of 1st Avenue between Interstate 80 and Oakdale Blvd.$10,560,000 Coralville
Total Costs 2036-2045 $144,946,560
Estimated Funding $145,028,790
Remaining $82,230
ID Project Title Project Description $
Cost Estimate
at Construction
Entity
Total Costs 2036 - 2045 $0
Estimated Funding $0
Remaining $0
Fiscally Constrained Iowa DOT Projects 2036 - 2045
ID Project Title Project Description $
Cost Estimate at
Construction
Entity
Fiscally Constrained Road & Bridge Projects 2036-2045
91BICYClEANDPEDESTRIAN
BICYClE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORk
92 BICYClE AND PEDESTRIAN
Bicycle Network
93BICYClEANDPEDESTRIAN
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Vision
To create an accessible, well coordinated bicycle and pedestrian network that allows
people to safely bike and walk to community destinations and to meet their daily
needs.
MPOJC and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Network
MPOJC staff coordinate bicycle and pedestrian planning within the urbanized area, including
multi-use trails and other bike and pedestrian facilities, and assist communities with transpor-
tation grant applications for state and federal funds.
The MPOJC Regional Trails and Bicycling Committee (RTBC) brings together representatives
from each MPOJC entity and bicycle advocacy groups to plan for improvements to the trail net-
work and to make recommendations on metropolitan bicycle and pedestrian issues, including
priorities for new infrastructure and policies such as the MPOJC Complete Streets Policy (adopt-
ed 2015). As part of a continuing effort to encourage bicycling, MPOJC prints an annual Metro
Area Trails Map, illustrating all on-street bike accommodations and off-street multi-use trails.
In 2009, MPO member entities adopted a Metro Bicycle Master Plan, which set a foundation
for creating a safe and accessible bicycle network, including targeted educational programs
and other program policy recommendations. In 2017, Iowa City embarked upon a stand alone
bicycle master plan.
12%
Johnson County commuters who bicycle or
walk to work.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2012
American Community Survey.
34%
of respondents to the Future Forward 2045
General Transportation Survey indicated they
would like to bike more often.
Obstacles:
Cars fail to yield to
pedestrians
Intersections difficult
to cross
Lack of snow and ice
removal
Traffic speeds
Source: Future Forward 2045 Pedestrian and Bicycle
Surveys. (MPOJC)
92%
Separated Trails &
Wide Sidewalks
67%
On-street
Bike Lanes 44%
On-street
With
Sharrows
28%
On-street
No Markings
34%
Rural Roads/
Shoulders
Where do you feel
comfortable riding?
Source: Future Forward 2045 Online Bicycle Survey (MPOJC)
94 BICYClE AND PEDESTRIAN
Understanding Bicycle Ridership
The MPO recently purchased Strava Metro’s
suite of data services. Strava is a website and
mobile app used to track cycling activities
using a smartphone or GPS device. Strava
users track their rides with the Strava app on
a smartphone or with a GPS device. Wheth-
er for commuting to/from work, recreation,
or other purposes; these users record their
speed, route, and other useful information.
While Strava data represents a distinct subset
of cyclsits (more avid recreational and com-
petitive bicyclists), the information can help
planners determine where popular cycling
routes exist and gain an understanding of
their relative level of use by time of day. The
suite of data services includes ridership data
collected over a 24-month period from July
2015 to June 2017.
MPOJC has begun to analyze the Strava data
to better understand general cycling routes
to evaluate differences between commuter
and recreation routes. The two maps included
here represent the total number weekday
bike trips and total number of weekend bicy-
cle trips from July 2015 – June 2016.
Weekend Bicycling
95BICYClEANDPEDESTRIAN
Inset: shows a more detailed view of bicycling routes in the center of Iowa City
during the weekday.
Weekday Bicycling
96 BICYClE AND PEDESTRIAN
Successes 2012-2017
Complete Streets Policy: Adopted in January 2015, the MPOJC Complete Streets Policy applies
to all projects using MPOJC-allocated funds—STBG or Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside
Funds (formerly called the Surface Transportation Program and the TAP respectively). All new
and reconstructed streets (except for roadways on which bicycling is prohibited) will consider
bicycle facilities (e.g. bike lanes, shared lane arrows, and way-finding signs) and all sidewalks,
curb ramps, and bus stops in the project corridor must be ADA-compliant. In addition, Iowa City
and Coralville have adopted their own municipal Complete Streets policies.
ADA Facility Inventory: MPOJC completed a comprehensive inventory and evaluation of all
sidewalk, curb ramp, and bus stop facilities in the Metro Area to identify potential deficiencies.
More than 6,000 ramp locations within the urbanized area were evaluated and photographed
by field technicians from 2012-2014. Each MPO community was provided data indicating all
locations where ADA-compliant facilities are missing. As required by federal law, MPO com-
munities must draft transition plans that outline methods and priorities for addressing these
deficiencies over time.
Bike Friendly Communities: Currently, four MPO entities have earned Bicycle Friendly desig-
nations from the League of American Bicyclists: University Heights (Bronze), Iowa City (Silver)
and University of Iowa (Silver), and Coralville (Bronze).
Bike Share: In 2017, the University of Iowa and the City of Iowa City will partner to create the
first bike share program in Johnson County. Supported by a $135,000 grant through the DOT
Iowa Clean Air Attainment Program, $50,000 from the Coca-Cola Foundation and additional
funding from the University of Iowa, the first phase of the program calls for 30 bikes at three
different bike stations located on or near the campus.
Examples of Trail and Pedestrian Projects
Completed 2012-2017
Highway 1 Trail from Orchard Street to Sunset
Street (Iowa City)
North Dubuque Street Trail Extension & Pe-
destrian/Bike Bridge over I-80 (Iowa City/DOT)
Clear Creek Trail sections between Ireland and
Jasper Avenue (Tiffin)
Mehaffey Bridge repaving and separated trail
Johnson County)
Cherry Street wide sidewalk from Stewart
Street to Penn Meadows Park (North Liberty)
Coralville’s recently completed reconstruction of 5th Street is a
good example of the Complete Street principals with bicycle,
pedestrians, bus, and automobile facilties integrated in a way
that makes travel comfortable and safe for all users.
North Dubuque Street Pedestrian/Bike Bridge over I-80.
97BICYClEANDPEDESTRIAN
Challenges for Pedestrians and Bicyclists
The Iowa River and major roadways (I-80, I-380, Highways 1, 6, and 218) all present ob-
stacles to providing a continuous bicycle network. Facitlities or other accomodations that
allow for safer more accessbile commuting between the east and west sides of the river
across highways and busy intersections remain a challenge.
On-street bicycle facilities and routes are an essential part of a complete and continuous
bicycle network, however, the real and perceived safety of bicycling on the street remains
an obstcle for achieving higher rates of bike commuting, especially amoung youth.
Seasonal maintenance of on- and off-street remains a challenge for keeping the bicycle
and pedestrian network open and safe throughout the year.
Wayfinding is consistently mentioned as an issue for bicyclists, especially in areas where
there are gaps in the off-street trail network. A consistent and recognizabel system of
signage, distances, and identification of multi-use trails and on-street routes is essential
for helping bicyclists and pedestrians to navigate the network.
Ensuring adequate and secure bicycle parking at major desitnations, both public and pri-
vate, as well as in areas of multi-family or mixed use development will helps to encourage
and enable bicycle ridership.
98 BICYClE AND PEDESTRIAN
STRATEGIES:
IMPROVING BICYCLE AND
PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION
EconomyEnvironmentQuality of lifeSystem PreservationEfficiencyChoiceSafety HealthEquityG U I D I N G P R I N C I P lESMETGUIDINGPRINCIPlE
S M E T Use bikability and walkability as tools to promote
economic development and investment.Expand participation in Bike-to-Work
Week and Bike month.Continue to pursue and promote "Bike Friendly" designations, including
Bike Friendly Business designations.Evaluate intersections and corridors with high pedestrian or bicycle collision rates and
develop a mitigation plan.Raise awareness of the dangers of
distracted driving and walking.Ensure safe bicycle/pedestrian access to all commercial/employment
areas, schools, and parks.Include connectivity as a criterion
in land development processes.Adopt bicycle parking ordinances in
all Metro Area municipalities.Recognize and promote the
economic benefits of bicycling Reduce obstacles
for non-motorized transportation Improve
bicycle and pedestrian safety Maximize
pedestrian and bike access Ensure compliance with Complete Streets policies for all new
and reconstructed road projects.Continue to expand and enhance bicycle and pedestrian facilties,
including the trail network.Prioritize ADA transition plans to bring all streets, sidewalks, and
bus stops into compliance.Ensure routine maintenance and prompt repair to
bicycle and pedestrian facilities.Design on-street facilities according to
AASHTO and NACTO guidelines.Increase participation in Safe
Routes to Schools programs.Develop educational programs to promote
99BICYClEANDPEDESTRIAN
The Urbanized Area Policy Board
UAPB) has approved the inclusion of
the forthcoming capital infrstructure
projects in the fiscally-constrained list
of projects that become eligible to
receive federal funding through the
MPOJC. For more information on the
process by which these projects were
selected for inclusion in the LRTP,
please refer to the Financial Planning
chapter.
Capital infrastructure projects that
did not make the fiscally-constrained
approved list of projects (due to a lack
of forecasted funding) are included in
the Supporting Documents section of
this plan.
Fiscal constraint is a required compo-
nent of long-range planning. This plan
includes only those projects that can be
realistically completed based on anticipat-
ed revenues.
Projects descriptions and cost estimates for 2017-2045 bicycle and pedestrian
projects are provided on the following pages.
2017-2045
FISCAllY CONSTRAINED BICYClE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS
100 BICYClE AND PEDESTRIAN
ID Project Title Project Description $
Cost Estimate
at Construction
Entity
1 Clear Creek Trail Phase 6 and 7
FY18)
1.9 mile extension of Clear Creek Trail west to I-380 $1,726,534 Coralville
2 Mehaffey Bridge Trail Extension
FY18)
Construct trail from North Liberty City Limits to USACE Mehaffey Bridge Boat Ramp (2 miles)$222,000 Johnson
County
3 Highway 1 Sidewalk/Trail (FY18)Construct 10' trail adjacent to Highway 1 between Sunset Street and Mormon Trek Boulevard $873,480 Iowa City
4 Iowa River Trail (FY20)From Rocky Shore Drive northwest .50 miles to Clear Creek $1,019,640 Coralville
5 Clear Creek Trail Phase 6 (FY19)From Kimberite Street south .10 miles to Brown Street $245,920 Tiffin
6 Clear Creek Trail (FY18)Over Iowa Interstate Railroad $48,720 Tiffin
7 Riverside Dr Streetscape Streetscape improvements on Riverside Drive between Myrtle Avenue and Benton Street $87,000 Iowa City
8 Riverside Dr Pedestrian Tunnel Construct a tunnel through the railroad embankment on the west side of Riverside Drive
south of Myrtle Avenue
1,803,468 Iowa City
9 Clinton St Streetscape Improve Clinton Street Streetscape south of Burlington Street consistent with the Riverfront
Crossings Plan. Minor pavement improvements and lane striping a part of project
1,740,000 Iowa City
10 Clear Creek Trail - 1st Ave to Biscuit
Creek
0.25 mile extension of Clear Creek Trail from 1st Ave. to Biscuit Creek $290,000 Coralville
11 Trail south on Ireland Ave (Clear
Creek Trail to Villages Development)
Grade and Pave .50 trail extension along Ireland Ave to Villages Development $232,000 Tiffin
12 Trailhead at Ireland Grade and Pave Trailhead $34,800 Tiffin
13 Trail south on Ireland Ave (Railroad
to Clear Creek Trail)
Grade and Pave .25 mile trail extension along Ireland Ave to connect to Clear Creek Trail $116,000 Tiffin
Total Costs 2017- 2025 $8,439,562
Estimated Funding $9,645,474
Remaining $1,205,912
Fiscally Constrained Bicycle & Pedestrian Projects 2017-2025
Projects highlighted in green have funding
programmed in the TIP.
101BICYClEANDPEDESTRIAN
ID Project Title Project Description $ Cost Estimate
at Construction
Entity
1 Highway 6 Trail - Sycamore to Heinz Extend existing trail along Hwy 6 between Sycamore Street and Heinz Road.$2,887,878 Iowa City
2 Iowa Riverfront Pedestrian Bridge New pedestrian bridge over Iowa River just south of Interstate 80 $3,325,000 Coralville
3 Willow Creek Trail - West Connect Willow Creek Trail from its current west terminus via a tunnel under Highway 218, to
connect with the trail in Hunters Run Park and further west.
4,277,280 Iowa City
4 Penn Street Trail Jones Blvd to Kansas Ave. 10ft wide trail along ROW $845,120 North
Liberty
5 Trail Construction - Coralville Zone 1 Reconstruction of trails in Zone 1. Zone 1 is located east of 12th Avenue and south of I-80.
Total length: 1.5 miles.
802,560 Coralville
6 Trail Reconstruction - Coralville Zone 2 Reconstruction of trails in Zone 2. Zone 2 is located west of 12th Ave., south of I-80, and east
of Coral Ridge Ave. Total length: 3.5 miles.
1,662,500 Coralville
7 Cherry Street Trail Corridor Penn Meadows Park to CRANIC RR. 10ft wide sidewalk.$304,000 North
Liberty
Total Costs 2026 - 2035 $14,104,338
Estimated Funding $14,227,998
Remaining $123,660
Fiscally Constrained Bicycle & Pedestrian Projects 2026-2035
102 BICYClE AND PEDESTRIAN
ID Project Title Project Description $
Cost Estimate
at Construction
Entity
1 Old Highway 218 Trail/Wide
Sidewalk
This project will construct an 8' wide sidewalk adjacent to Old Highway 218 between Sturgis
Ferry Park and McCollister Boulevard.
1,056,000 Iowa City
2 Willow Creek Trail - Phase III Construct a trail from Willow Creek Drive, under Highway 1, around perimeter of airport, to
connect with Iowa River Corridor (IRC) Trail.
1,670,400 Iowa City
3 Trail Reconstruction - Coralville Zone 3Reconstruction of trails in Zone 3. Zone 3 is located west of 1st Ave., north of I-80, east of
Coral Ridge Ave., and south of Oakdale Blvd. Total length: 2.7 miles.
1,620,000 Coralville
4 Old Highway 218 Streetscape Streetscape improvements on Old Hwy 218 entrance - Sturgis Ferry Park to US Hwy 6. This
project includes landscaping, lighting and sidewalk improvements. The project should be
coordinated with Sturgis Ferry Park upgrade and /or Riverside Drive Redevelopment project.
1,559,040 Iowa City
5 Interstate 80 Aesthetics
Improvements
Landscaping and aesthetic treatments in the Interstate 80 corridor. The objective of this
project is to mitigate the visual impact of the addition of a third lane to I-80 and to provide
cohesive and pleasing feel to the Iowa City corridor.
576,000 Iowa City
6 Iowa River Trail - Benton to Sturgis
Park
Extend the Iowa River Trail from Benton Street to Sturgis Park on the west side of the Iowa
River.
2,619,280 Iowa City
Total Costs 2036 - 2045 $9,100,720
Estimated Funding $17,923,582
Remaining $8,822,862
Fiscally Constrained Bicycle & Pedestrian Projects 2036-2045
103PASSENGERTRANSPORTATION
PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION
104 PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION
Metro Area Transit Service
Metro area transit consists of buses and paratransit vehicles.
Iowa City, Coralville, and the University of Iowa provide transit ser-
vices and are coordinated to provide connectivity across jurisdic-
tional boundaries. North Liberty began providing intra-city service
in 2016.
According to the American Community Survey, the metro area
ranks 11th in the nation for the highest number of bus rides: 66
rides per capita (based on a metro population of 109,437). All
Iowa City and Coralville buses include bike carrying racks on stan-
dard route service.
11TH
AMONG U.S.
METRO AREAS
bus rides per capita
105PASSENGERTRANSPORTATION
Vision
To deliver transportation services that support and promote a safe and comprehen-
sive transit system in the metropolitan area and to enhance access to opportunities
and quality of life for all individuals.
MPOJC and the Transportation Network
MPOJC provides transit planning and grant administration in the Iowa City Urbanized Area for
Coralville Transit, Iowa City Transit, and University of Iowa CAMBUS. Coralville Transit and Iowa
City Transit are municipal transit systems operated by the City of Coralville and the City of Iowa
City, respectively. University of Iowa CAMBUS is an open-to-the-public transit system operated
by the University of Iowa to serve University of Iowa facilities. Planning and programming activ-
ities are conducted by MPOJC for transit capital and operating grant programs of the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) and the Iowa DOT. These activities include:
Î Production of planning documents necessary to implement the federally mandated
planning process.
Î Individual short-and long-range transit planning projects requested by MPOJC member
agencies.
Î Planning and administration associated with state and federal grant applications.
PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION
Future Forward 2045 Long-Range Transportation Plan
7.2 MIllION
Number of bus rides provided in the Iowa City
metro in 2014. This represents almost 30% of
the total rides in Iowa’s urban areas.
20%
growth in metro bus ridership over the past
decade.
3,634
Number of commuter trips from Cedar Rapids
to Iowa City area per day on I-380.
70
Number of employee vans operated by the
University of Iowa serving the hospitals and
campus.
Year 2016:
6,788,957 rides
Rides (annual)Total Ridership in Metropolitan Area,
1986-2016
Year 2014 7,244,
472 rides Year
2,000:5,077,
757 rides
Year 1986:5,917,
106 PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION
Successes 2012-2017
Coralville Transit Intermodal Facility – Financed by the FTA and completed in 2015, this
12.9 million facility includes 425 parking spaces to serve park and ride customers and com-
mercial users, 2 bus bays serving 30 buses daily, space for interstate bus service, waiting area,
restroom/shower facilities, bike lockers, and offices for city staff and the Iowa Bicycle Coalition.
North Liberty Transit Service – Beginning in Fall 2016, fixed route bus service operated by
Johnson County SEATS began serving North Liberty. The new service, which operates during off-
peak hours (10:00am to 2:00pm) Monday-Friday, is intended to augment peak AM and PM ser-
vices already provided by Coralville Transit, to serve residents seeking rides to human services
and recreation programs, medical appointments, or shopping in North Liberty. Bus fairs are set
at $2, including paratransit rides during service hours.
Van pool/car pool/Express Bus Service – In preparation for the Iowa DOT’s I-80/I-380 in-
terchange reconstruction project to begin in 2018, MPOJC is working with the Iowa DOT, the
ECICOG, and other local stakeholders to develop three new transportation programs aimed at
reducing traffic congestion on I-80 and I-380 during and after the interchange reconstruction
project.
Î Car Pool/Van Pool Programs: In 2016, the Iowa DOT’s RideConnect began offering both
vanpool and carpool options covering a 7-county region (ECICOG). The van pool program is
operated by V-Ride, which already serves the VA Hospital in Iowa City. Iowa’s Creative Corri-
dor provides marketing for the program.
Î Express Bus Service: Beginning in 2018, a fixed route bus service will operate for the
duration of the I-80/I-380 interchange reconstruction project. The Iowa DOT will fund the
service between Iowa City and Cedar Rapids for the entirety of the interchange project with
the understanding that the service will be financed locally once the project is complete.
Routes would serve downtown Cedar Rapids, Kirkwood Community College (Cedar Rapids),
the Iowa City Downtown interchange, University of Iowa Hospital/campus, and the Coralville
Transit intermodal Facility. More than 3,600 work related commuters use I-380 each day.
Ridership for the express bus service is projected at 300 riders per day.
Car sharing – In 2015, the City of Iowa City and the University of Iowa brought Zipcar to the
urbanized area. The car share program allows anyone to reserve a car online or by phone. Cars
stations are provided at 5 locations in Iowa City and on the UI campus. Zipcar is available 24
hours per day at an hourly rate of $7 or a daily rate of $66.
Transportation Network Companies – In addition to the 10 taxi companies serving the ur-
banized area, Transportation Network Companies (TNCs), including Uber and Lyft, were permit-
ted to be part of the transportation network in the urbanized area in 2016. These companies
offer phone-based apps to dispatch drivers and include a GPS component for estimating driver
arrival times.
Proposed Capital Infrastructure Projects
The Iowa City Transit maintenance and bus
storage facility has been at its current site at
1200 South Riverside Drive since 1984. Built
on an old landfill site, the current facility does
not allow for future expansion or growth due
to the soil conditions, as well as air quality
issues due to methane gasses. Remedial work
has been completed over the years to stabi-
lize the environmental issues, but the facility
has become more expensive to operate. A
new facility is estimated to cost $20 million.
IOWA CITY
CORALVILLE
How is transit funded?
107PASSENGERTRANSPORTATION
Passenger Rail Service Studies
CRANDIC Corridor - Phase I of the Iowa City to Cedar Rapids Passenger Rail Conceptual Fea-
sibility Study was completed in October 2015 by the CRANDIC, the Iowa DOT, and local stake-
holders.The study explored the conceptual feasibility of a passenger rail service operating in
the existing CRANDIC corridor between Iowa City and Cedar Rapids, considering potential types
of passenger rail service, general capital, operating and maintenance costs, service frequencies,
regulatory issues, and funding options.
Phase II of the Iowa City-North Liberty Passenger Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study, focused on
the conceptual feasibility of a passenger rail service operating between Iowa City and North
Liberty. The conceptual capital cost for implementation of a passenger rail service between the
two cities is $40.06 million, in 2016 dollars. Conceptual annual operations and maintenance
costs for the first year of passenger rail operations are expected to be $1.39 million, in 2016
dollars.
Further study will evaluate the potential for implementation of passenger rail service on the
Iowa City-North Liberty Corridor, including detailed analysis of ridership and revenue forecasts,
modified cost estimates, benefit cost analysis and financial plan, availability of public and private
funding, operating plans, conceptual station designs, and environmental fatal-flaws analysis and
screening. The potential for phased implementation of passenger rail service, including addi-
tional frequencies in the Iowa City-North Liberty Corridor and the potential extension of ser-
vices north to the Eastern Iowa Airport in Cedar Rapids and downtown Cedar Rapids will also
be considered.
Amtrak – The Iowa DOT, in coordination with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and
the Illinois DOT, are evaluating intercity passenger rail service between Chicago and Council
Bluffs-Omaha. Expanding passenger rail service through this corridor could reduce travel times,
increase frequency of passenger rail service, and improve reliability versus other travel modes.
The Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Tier 1
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was completed in 2012. The Tier I EIS focused on broad
corridor and service level issues such as evaluating potential routes, levels of service, ridership
potential, and environmental impacts. A Tier 2 EIS would include project level environmental
study, preliminary designs, right-of-way acquisition, construction of infrastructure upgrades,
and implementation of the service.
The State of Iowa, in conjunction with the State of Illinois, received FRA funding for a Chicago
to Iowa City passenger rail service in which Iowa would implement the Quad Cities to Iowa City
section of the project. The State of Iowa has not matched any of the grant funding at this time.
Further implementation depends on the Governor’s Office, the Iowa Legislature, and the FRA.
108 PASSENGERTRANSPORTATIONFutureForward2045Long-Range Transportation Plan
COST OF A NEW
FIXED ROUTE BUS:
460,000 (FY17)
Passenger Transportation Challenges
Lack of federal and state funding for large capital projects: Nation-wide transit programs contin-
ue to struggle with the lack of funding for both transit rolling stock and facilities. In Iowa alone,
63% of transit buses are operating beyond their useful life. The cost to replace transit buses
beyond their useful life in Iowa is $161 million. Over the past five years, Federal funding for bus
replacement has averaged just over $7 million per year*.
Funding for transit facilities, such as bus maintenance and storage facilities, is also an issue
in Iowa and our metro area. Almost 88% of transit agencies in Iowa report a need for additional
vehicle storage capacity and 64% report a need for additional maintenance space. Support for
additional investment in bus fleet and bus facility infrastructure, at both the state and federal
level, has become a priority for all transit agencies.
Lack of funding for additional bus service programs: Over the past twenty years the hour-
ly cost to operate a fixed route transit bus in our metro area increased by about 70%**. As a
result, certain services were either eliminated or never implemented. Sunday transit service
is one program Iowa City and Coralville eliminated due to rising costs. Planned programs that
target late night and weekend services have also been put on hold due to budget issues.
Improving coordination with human services providers: Johnson County is fortunate to
have many social service options available for every need. Unfortunately, the need for trans-
portation services is also very real for social service agencies. Even with existing efforts to bring
human service organizations together to plan and coordinate transportation efforts, additional
coordination is necessary. Coordination efforts should benefit from the hiring of a human ser-
vices/transportation mobility coordinator.
How to adjust with the increase in private transportation options: TNCs, such as Uber
and Lyft, and other ridesharing efforts will impact local transit service efforts and budgets as
we go forward. Coordination with these programs will be necessary as the public trend toward
transportation choice and need increases. These choices will become part of the transportation
network in the urbanized area.
Avoid losing focus on long-term benefits of passenger rail service: Two separate passenger
rail projects have been studied in the metro area. The local commuter passenger rail project
on the CRANDIC rail line between Iowa City and Cedar Rapids has been studied three times
in twenty years while the Amtrak project between Iowa City and Chicago (to Des Moines and
Omaha) continues to be studied by the Iowa DOT. There is support locally for the concept of
passenger rail service; but the financial support from state and federal sources is lacking. With
so much uncertainty in capital and operating funding, support wanes and we limit our invest-
ment opportunities that come with passenger rail corridor service, such as Transit Oriented
Developments.
Iowa Public Transit Association legislative brochure/2016
MPOJC Transit Performance Statistics
Number
of buses
Percent of
buses
beyond
useful life"
Iowa City Transit
Fixed Route 31 52%
Paratransit 13 69%
Coralville Transit
Fixed Route 10 50%
Paratransit 3 100%
University of Iowa Cambus
Fixed Route/Paratransit 35 20%
109PASSENGERTRANSPORTATION
STRATEGIES
IMPROVING PASSENGER
TRANSPORTATION
EconomyEnvironmentQuality of lifeSystem PreservationEfficiencyChoiceSafety HealthEquityG U I D I N G P R I N C I P lESMETGUIDINGPRINCIPlE
S M E T Establish
a Mobility Coordinator position.
Extend late night routes.Provide late night/
weekends ADA cab service.Increase route frequency
and reduce travel times.
Provide real-time information.Use the new 2014 Travel Demand Model's transit component to
assist with route planning.Complete passenger rail study (Iowa
City to North Liberty).Complete Amtrak study (
Chicago to Iowa City).Initiate express bus service (Iowa
City to Cedar Rapids).Support car sharing/
van pools/car pools.Extend/
Create new transportation services Increase
transportation training/education/partnerships Improve
transit facilities and equipment Extend existing
transit routes for
jobs Equipment purchase (buses).Construct Iowa City transit maintenance
and bus storage facility.Improve bus shelters to
be safe and pleasant.Concentrate development around transit corridors in
density/mixed-use neighborhoods.Locate transit improvements
110 PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION
111FREIGHTNETWORk
FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION NETWORk
112 FREIGHT NETWORk
Metro Area Arterial Street
and Rail Lines
113FREIGHTNETWORk
FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION NETWORk
Vision
Provide and maintain a system of roads and rails within the Iowa City Urbanized Area that will allow
local industry to transport their goods safely and efficiently to other parts of Iowa, other states, and
foreign markets.
MPOJC and the Freight Network
Within the Iowa City Urbanized Area motor carrier traffic is served by the Federal Interstate Sys-
tem, the network of Federal and State Highways, and the local arterial street system. Interstates
80 (east-west) and 380 (north-south) and U.S. Highways 6 (east-west) and 218 (north-south)
comprise the major routes for motor carriers in the urbanized area. State Highway 1 serves as
a major route in the southwest portion of the urbanized area, running east-west through south
Iowa City. Together Highway 6 and Highway 1 provide access to the the heaviest industrial uses
in the area.
Freight rail service is provided on the Iowa Interstate Railroad (IAIS) and the CRANDIC Railroad.
IAIS is a Class 2 railroad that extends east-west through the Iowa City Urbanized Area between
Omaha and Chicago. The CRANDIC is a Class 3 short line, extending between Cedar Rapids
through the Iowa City urbanized area) and Hills, and between Cedar Rapids and the Amana
Colonies. CRANDIC’s Iowa City to Hills line is leased by the IAIS. Most of CRANDIC’s remaining
rail service operates between Cedar Rapids and the Amana Colonies where it intersects with
the IAIS. IAIS has constructed a switching yard and maintenance facility at this location.
Industrial and commercial land uses are the principal generators of truck and rail traffic. These
are possible indicators of where it may be necessary to provide special accommodation on the
street system and rail network for freight transportation. The location of railroad corridors and
highways drive the location of commercial and industrial zoning and land uses. For the CRAN-
DIC line, the main products moved are coal, grain, food products, and paper. The commodities
moved along the IAIS nclude agricultural products, plastics, paper, steel, scrap, lumber, and
coal. Ethanol and feed markets throughout the country depend on this rail line as this is one of
the top carriers in these products.
MPOJC assists member governments with planning, programming, and funding improvements
to the arterial street system that include special accommodations for large trucks. Improve-
ments to the freight rail system are largely generated by the private sector, although MPOJC
has assisted with rail system improvements through state and federal grant programs. Safety,
security, and resiliency with respect to flooding and extreme weather events is an important
consideration for the industry.
Freight Transportation
Network Trends
Goods moving by truck are steadily increasing.
Evolving and increasing oversize/overweight
freight movements.
Rail network miles continue to steadily decrease.
Rail freight is increasing with larger rail cars and
longer trains.
Increased emphasis on rail safety.
Record agricultural production and changing
practices means reanalyzing the freight network.
Growth in energy production.
Growth in need for intermodal facilities to
transfer shipment modes.
Impact of E-commerce on market trends and
freight movements.
Automated/self-driving vehicles.
Growth in Iowa’s biorenewable chemical industry.
Natural gas as a transportation fuel.
Freight Transportation
Network Challenges*
Financial
Infrastructure
Labor and driver shortages
Freight operations
Policy support and communication
Regulation
Transload and intermodal terminals
Iowa Department of Transportation/Iowa State Freight Plan, 2016
114 FREIGHT NETWORk
Successes
Iowa Clean Air Attainment Program (ICAAP): Over the last twenty years, the railroads
have slowly relocated maintenance and switching facilties to locations outside the urbanized
area. In the 1990s, a grant from the ICAAP was used to relocate the interchange between the
IAIS and the CRANDIC Railroad from south Iowa City to the Amana Colonies, approximately 20
miles to the west of the Iowa City. The relocation reduced arterial street congestion in the south
and east parts of Iowa City and improved air quality. The IAIS is now in the process of moving
most of their switching/storage yard and maintenance facilities to the Amana Colonies. Anoth-
er ICAAP funded initiative is the grade separation project elevating the IAIS over First Avenue
in Iowa City, which has significantlyreduced congestion and travel delays along an important
north-south travel corridor and one of only two.
Revitalize Iowa’s Sound Economy (RISE): In the fall of 2010, Iowa City received just over $1
million in Iowa DOT’s Rail Port Grant funding for a rail port project in Iowa City’s newest industri-
al campus. The industrial park, located just off of Highway 6 at 420th Street on Iowa City’s east
side, includes two rail sidings and one rail spur on the IAIS rail line that bisects the industrial
park. The $2.1 million project is intended to help market the property to potential industries
that will locate to the 173-acre park.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): As part of their overall flood mitigation plan,
the City of Coralville worked with the CRANDIC Railroad to elevate the rail bed for use as flood
protection. The Clear Creek to Rocky Shore Drive portion of the CRANDIC line was raised seven
feet with a flood gate at Rocky Shore Drive. Earthen embankments along with permanent and
removable floodwalls were also constructed along the Iowa River between Clear Creek and the
Iowa River Power Company parking lot.
Freight Challenges*
How to maintain and improve multimodal system without weakening the economy .
Infrastructure critical to the movement of freight are in need of significant improvements.
Labor and driver shortages.
Change in business operations: the development of large-scale farming and manufacturing.
Developing and supporting competitive access to the global marketplace .
Regulatory obstacles that hinder the movement of freight with all modes of transportation.
Lack of transload and intermodal terminals.
Iowa in Motion – State Freight Plan 2016
Source: Frieght Advisory Council, Metropolitan
Planning Organizations, Regional Planning Affilia-
tions, Iowa Department of Transportation, INRIX
Highway Freight Bottlenecks
115FREIGHTNETWORk
STRATEGIES:
IMPROVING FREIGHT
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
EconomyEnvironmentQuality of lifeSystem PreservationEfficiencyChoiceSafety HealthEquityG U I D I N G P R I N C I P lESMETGUIDINGPRINCIPlE
S M E T Provide input from local freight providers
and users to (FAC).
Support national freight goals Continue to participate in the DOT's
Freight Advisory Council (FAC)Use advanced technology, performance management, innovation, competition, and
accountability in operating
the freight transportation system. Improve the contribution of freight transportation system to economic
efficiency, productivity, and competitiveness.Reduce congestion of
the freight transportation system.Improve safety, security, and resilience of
the freight transportation system. Improve the state of good repair of
the freight transportation system. Reduce adverse environmental and community impacts
116 FREIGHT NETWORk
117AVIATION
AVIATION NETWORk
118 AVIATION
AVIATION
Vision
Continue to provide aviation services that promote a safe and secure air transporta-
tion system in the metropolitan area through cooperative working partnerships.
Iowa City Municipal Airport
The Iowa City Municipal Airport is classified by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as a
general aviation airport. General aviation airports support local businesses, provide critical
community access, allow for emergency response, and provide other specific aviation functions.
General Aviation Airports should be capable of supporting most general aviation aircraft, includ-
ing business jets. The 580-acre Iowa City Municipal Airport has 82 based aircraft, including 65
single-engine aircraft, 7 multi-engine aircraft, seven jets, 1 helicopter, and 2 ultra light/experi-
mental aircraft. The airport currently uses 2 runways (5,004 feet and 3,900 feet) and accomo-
dates an estimated 36,900 annual aircraft takeoffs and landings.
Airport Master Plan 2016/Strategic Planning Areas of Emphasis
The Airport Master Plan process evaluated many aspects of the airport facility. The following
areas of emphasis have been specifically identified by the Airport Commission:
Runway Alternatives
Obstruction Evaluation
Building Area Plan
Surrounding Land Uses
Financial Feasibility
Public and Agency Outreach
There were many forms of outreach throughout the Iowa City Municipal Airport Master Plan
process:
Development of a Master Plan Advisory Group (MPAG)
Airport User Survey
Public Open House
Community Meetings
2 Iowa City Runways
36,900 Aircraft Takeoffs
and Landings in Iowa City
Aviation in Iowa contributes
approximately $5.4 billion to
Iowa’s economy while support-
ing an estimated 47,304 jobs
in Iowa with a payroll of $2.7
billion annually
119AVIATION
The Eastern Iowa Airport
The Eastern Iowa Airport is the primary air transportation gateway for eastern Iowa and parts
of western Illinois. Classified as a small hub, primary commercial service airport, by the FAA, it is
home to one fixed base operator (FBO) (Landmark Aviation), five airlines (Delta, United, Amer-
ican Airlines, Frontier Airlines, and Allegiant Air), the Transportation Security Administration
TSA), and four rental car companies. Several business that rely on air shipping are located on
airport property, including Nordstrom, FedEx, UPS, and the Unites States Postal Service.
In 2014 the Eastern Iowa Airport updated its airport Master Plan. The previous plan was com-
pleted in 2005. Airport officials, community leaders, and the general public all played anim-
portant role in the Master Planning process. Airport staff and Commission officials were closely
involved in the development of this Master Plan. A Master Plan Advisory Committee (MPAC) was
also appointed to assist in the preparation of this Plan and met regularly throughout the study
period to ensure a comprehensive, community-based perspective. Two public open houses
were also held during the process to inform and engage the public.
The Quad Cities International Airport
The Quad Cities International Airport (QCIA) serves travelers from eastern Iowa and western
Illinois regional areas. There are currently four airlines serving 10 nonstop hub cities. The QCIA
enplaned 367,048 passengers in 2015. In 2006, the QCIA conducted a survey to find out where
QCIA travelers were coming from. In the survey, the QCIA discovered that 67% of travelers us-
ing their facilities came from eastern Iowa; 5% from Johnson County.
The Eastern Iowa AIrport is located twenty
miles north of the Iowa City urbanized area
and five miles to the southwest of downtown
Cedar Rapids near Interstate 380 and within
the Cedar Rapids/Iowa City Technology
Corridor.
The 3,288-acre facility can accommodate any
plane regardless of size and is located within
500 miles of one-third of the US population.
The five airlines that serve the airport trans-
ported over 439,000 passengers into in 2011.
There are 130-170 based aircraft owned or
leased by corporations and major employers
in the Cedar Rapids area.
120 AVIATION
Aviation Network Challenges*
To move toward the vision set for the public aviation system, at least $821 million will be needed for development
of Iowa’s aviation system over the next 20 years ($493 million at commercial airports and $328 million at general
aviation airports).
From the total anticipated improvement costs, an estimated:
387 million is needed to improve airfield facilities.
140 million is needed for vertical infrastructure improvements such as hangars, terminals, and maintenance
buildings.
294 million is needed for runway safety areas, equipment, parking, communications, weather and other
development.
Aviation Network Trends**
Aircraft Trends: light sport aircraft, very light jets, and unmanned aerial vehicles.
NextGen and FAA Database Changes: Transformation from ground based traffic control to satellite based
system of traffic management.
Aviation System Users: User trends for general aviation, business aviation, agriculture, commercial opera-
tions, and military operations.
Sustainability and technologies: Reduce environmental impacts, maintain high levels of economic growth,
and to remain consistent with the needs and values of local communities.
Biofuels: Research, development, and use of sustainable fuels.
Iowa Department of Transportation-Office of Aviation Vision for Iowa Airports
Iowa Aviation System Plan/2010-2030
EconomyEnvironmentQuality of lifeSystem PreservationEfficiencyChoiceSafety HealthEquityG U I D I N G P R I N C I P lESMETGUIDINGPRINCIPlE
S M E T Support the Iowa DOT'
s Vision for Aviation Develop a system of enhanced airports to meet the
needs of corporate aircraft.Build hangars to meet the needs of based
aircraft at all airports.Identify and address obstructions to primary runway
approaches at all airports.Establish guidelines that help all airports and communities promote land use planning
and compatible
land use around airports.Develop facilities and services at selected airports to meet the needs of personal
and business travelers using
airports
around the
state.STRATEGIES:
Supporting Documentation 121
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
122 Supporting Documentation
Supporting Documentation 123
This map shows the location of parks and open space
across the metropolitan planning boundary.
A. Regional Context
124 Supporting Documentation
Supporting Documentation 125
B. FinancialForecastofStateandFederalTransportationDollars
To forecast future state and federal dollars available for Future Forward 2045 projects and
programs, we establish a ten-year historic average of funding programs and apply a 4% infla-
tion rate for each fiscal year covered by this plan (2017-2045). A 4% straight-line growth rate is
recommended by the FHWA.
Table 1: Ten-Year Averages of State & Federal Funding Sources
YEARINTERSTATE MAINTENANCEPRIMARY ROAD FUNDCONGESTION MITIGATION & AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENTRECRATIONAL TRAILS PROGRAM STATE-FEDSURFACE TRANSPORTION PROG (MPO)TRANS
ALTERNATIVES PROGTRANS SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGREVITALIZE IOWA'S SOUND ECONOMYFY06 $601,000 $0 $215,442 $327,912 $
1,751,000 $147,000 $500,000 $0 FY07 $23,622,000 $560,000 $
0 $0 $1,289,000 $118,000 $500,000 $0 FY08 $12,415,000 $0 $0 $0 $
1,278,000 $120,000 $0 $0 FY09 $10,432,000 $0 $0 $281,000 $
1,554,000 $126,000 $0 $1,243,801 FY10 $28,219,000 $0 $0 $416,159 $
1,785,930 $137,000 $0 $0 FY11 $5,063,000 $709,000 $0 $0 $1,991,
000 $147,000 $12,595 $154,734 FY12 $0 $2,604,045 $0 $441,000 $2,270,000 $156,000 $
0 $1,632,950 FY13 $8,972,997 $8,270,920 $180,500 $0 $2,220,000 $
170,000 $21,500 $2,230,600 FY14 $2,072,457 $0 $408,100 $947,305 $2,746,982 $
271,288 $700,000 $0 FY15 n/a n/a $0 $450,000 $2,732,816 $269,554 $1,000,000 $1,
861,707 10 YR AVG $10,155,273 $1,349,329 $80,404 $286,
338 $1,961,873 $166,184 $273,410 $712,379 DOT targets used as
base projection for STBG (MPO) & TA Set-Aside / FLEX funding Based on historical averages, the
total amount of anticipated funding available from state and federal sources is
identified in Figure XX. The federal funding programs utilized in this exercise
include the National Highway Performance (NHPP) Program, Primary Road Funds (PRF), DOT
Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (DOT STBG) funds, the Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program, the Federal Recreational Trails (FRT) Program, Regional Surface Transportation Block
Grant Program (MPO STBG) and Regional Transportation Alternative Set-Aside Program (MPO TA Set-
Aside) funds. The state funding
126 Supporting Documentation
Table 2: Forecasted State & Federal Funding Summary by Program and Funding Period
IM PR & STP SRT & FRT TSIP RISE CMAQ STP (MPO)TAP/FLEX*40% Match
Short-Term (FY17-25)$106,021,050 $14,086,995 $2,989,365 $2,854,395 $7,437,239 $839,420 $28,386,360 $2,797,920 $28,300,202
Mid-Term (FY26-35)$156,391,204 $20,779,667 $4,409,599 $4,210,506 $10,970,640 $1,238,225 $41,872,600 $4,127,200 $41,745,509
Long-Term (FY36-45)$197,012,296 $26,176,983 $5,554,949 $5,304,144 $13,820,156 $1,559,841 $52,748,600 $5,199,200 $52,588,498
TOTAL $459,424,551 $61,043,644 $12,953,913 $12,369,046 $32,228,035 $3,637,486 $123,007,560 $12,124,320 $122,634,209
Cost Band / Funding Period
LocalSourceSTATEANDFEDERALFUNDINGSOURCES
Discretionary Progams Formula-Based Programs
For the purpose of this plan, we check that there is enough non-federal road use tax, special assessments, property tax, and interest revenue
available (after operations and maintenance expenses) to provide a 40% local match for anticipated federal funds. To do this we average the last
three years of City Street Finance Reports from the Iowa DOT and extrapolate the figures using a 4% inflation rate. Over the 29 year lifespan of
this plan this comes to $410,120,361 which can accommodate the $122,634,209 minimum 40% local match projected to be necessary. Much of
the remaining balance will be used for municipal road maintenance, repair, and related needs.
Supporting Documentation 127
Assumes a 4% annual growth rate.
No local match included for NHPP, PRF, or TSIP
Regarding Total DOT Funds (2017-2025): The forecasts were supplemented with actual programmed/planned amounts, since
the DOT has a higher than average volume of project dollars programmed in this area currently.
The FY17-21 revenue forecast was replaced with the actual amount programmed in the DOT’s 5-year program for the MPO
area ($213,935,000).
The FY22-25 revenue forecast was supplemented with the remaining cost for the I-80/I-380 interchange that is not currently
programmed ($187,820,000), as it is anticipated that the project will continue to be funded.
NHPP
Total DOT
Funds
PR & STP
DOT)TSIP RISE ICAAP STP (MPO)
Road & Bridge
40% Match
Total Road &
Bridge Funds TAP/FLEX*SRT & FRT
Bike & Ped
40% Match
Total Bike &
Ped Funds TOTAL
FY17 $10,155,273 $10,155,273 $1,349,329 $273,410 $712,379 $80,404 $2,719,000 $2,341,189 $7,475,711 $268,000 $286,338 $369,558 $923,896 $18,554,880
FY18 $10,561,484 $10,561,484 $1,403,302 $284,346 $740,874 $83,620 $2,827,760 $2,434,836 $7,774,739 $278,720 $297,791 $384,341 $960,852 $19,297,075
FY19 $10,967,695 $10,967,695 $1,457,275 $295,282 $769,370 $86,837 $2,936,520 $2,528,484 $8,073,768 $289,440 $309,245 $399,123 $997,808 $20,039,270
FY20 $11,373,906 $11,373,906 $1,511,248 $306,219 $797,865 $90,053 $3,045,280 $2,622,132 $8,372,796 $300,160 $320,698 $413,905 $1,034,764 $20,781,465
FY21 $11,780,117 $11,780,117 $1,565,222 $317,155 $826,360 $93,269 $3,154,040 $2,715,779 $8,671,825 $310,880 $332,152 $428,688 $1,071,719 $21,523,661
FY22 $12,186,328 $12,186,328 $1,619,195 $328,091 $854,855 $96,485 $3,262,800 $2,809,427 $8,970,853 $321,600 $343,605 $443,470 $1,108,675 $22,265,856
FY23 $12,592,539 $12,592,539 $1,673,168 $339,028 $883,350 $99,701 $3,371,560 $2,903,074 $9,269,881 $332,320 $355,059 $458,252 $1,145,631 $23,008,051
FY24 $12,998,749 $12,998,749 $1,727,141 $349,964 $911,845 $102,917 $3,480,320 $2,996,722 $9,568,910 $343,040 $366,512 $473,035 $1,182,587 $23,750,246
FY25 $13,404,960 $13,404,960 $1,781,114 $360,901 $940,341 $106,134 $3,589,080 $3,090,369 $9,867,938 $353,760 $377,966 $487,817 $1,219,543 $24,492,441
Sub-Total $106,021,050 $106,021,050 $14,086,995 $2,854,395 $7,437,239 $839,420 $28,386,360 $24,442,012 $78,046,421 $2,797,920 $2,989,365 $3,858,190 $9,645,474 $193,712,945
FY26 $13,811,171 $13,811,171 $1,835,087 $371,837 $968,836 $109,350 $3,697,840 $3,184,017 $10,166,967 $364,480 $389,419 $502,599 $1,256,499 $25,234,637
FY27 $14,217,382 $14,217,382 $1,889,061 $382,773 $997,331 $112,566 $3,806,600 $3,277,665 $10,465,995 $375,200 $400,873 $517,382 $1,293,454 $25,976,832
FY28 $14,623,593 $14,623,593 $1,943,034 $393,710 $1,025,826 $115,782 $3,915,360 $3,371,312 $10,765,024 $385,920 $412,326 $532,164 $1,330,410 $26,719,027
FY29 $15,029,804 $15,029,804 $1,997,007 $404,646 $1,054,321 $118,998 $4,024,120 $3,464,960 $11,064,052 $396,640 $423,780 $546,946 $1,367,366 $27,461,222
FY30 $15,436,015 $15,436,015 $2,050,980 $415,582 $1,082,816 $122,214 $4,132,880 $3,558,607 $11,363,080 $407,360 $435,233 $561,729 $1,404,322 $28,203,417
FY31 $15,842,226 $15,842,226 $2,104,953 $426,519 $1,111,312 $125,431 $4,241,640 $3,652,255 $11,662,109 $418,080 $446,687 $576,511 $1,441,278 $28,945,613
FY32 $16,248,437 $16,248,437 $2,158,926 $437,455 $1,139,807 $128,647 $4,350,400 $3,745,902 $11,961,137 $428,800 $458,140 $591,293 $1,478,234 $29,687,808
FY33 $16,654,648 $16,654,648 $2,212,900 $448,392 $1,168,302 $131,863 $4,459,160 $3,839,550 $12,260,166 $439,520 $469,594 $606,076 $1,515,189 $30,430,003
FY34 $17,060,859 $17,060,859 $2,266,873 $459,328 $1,196,797 $135,079 $4,567,920 $3,933,197 $12,559,194 $450,240 $481,047 $620,858 $1,552,145 $31,172,198
FY35 $17,467,070 $17,467,070 $2,320,846 $470,264 $1,225,292 $138,295 $4,676,680 $4,026,845 $12,858,223 $460,960 $492,501 $635,640 $1,589,101 $31,914,393
Sub-Total $156,391,204 $156,391,204 $20,779,667 $4,210,506 $10,970,640 $1,238,225 $41,872,600 $36,054,310 $115,125,947 $4,127,200 $4,409,599 $5,691,199 $14,227,998 $285,745,149
FY36 $17,873,280 $17,873,280 $2,374,819 $481,201 $1,253,787 $141,511 $4,785,440 $4,120,493 $13,157,251 $471,680 $503,954 $650,423 $1,626,057 $32,656,589
FY37 $18,279,491 $18,279,491 $2,428,792 $492,137 $1,282,283 $144,728 $4,894,200 $4,214,140 $13,456,280 $482,400 $515,408 $665,205 $1,663,013 $33,398,784
FY38 $18,685,702 $18,685,702 $2,482,765 $503,073 $1,310,778 $147,944 $5,002,960 $4,307,788 $13,755,308 $493,120 $526,861 $679,987 $1,699,969 $34,140,979
FY39 $19,091,913 $19,091,913 $2,536,739 $514,010 $1,339,273 $151,160 $5,111,720 $4,401,435 $14,054,336 $503,840 $538,315 $694,770 $1,736,924 $34,883,174
FY40 $19,498,124 $19,498,124 $2,590,712 $524,946 $1,367,768 $154,376 $5,220,480 $4,495,083 $14,353,365 $514,560 $549,768 $709,552 $1,773,880 $35,625,369
FY41 $19,904,335 $19,904,335 $2,644,685 $535,883 $1,396,263 $157,592 $5,329,240 $4,588,730 $14,652,393 $525,280 $561,222 $724,334 $1,810,836 $36,367,564
FY42 $20,310,546 $20,310,546 $2,698,658 $546,819 $1,424,758 $160,808 $5,438,000 $4,682,378 $14,951,422 $536,000 $572,675 $739,117 $1,847,792 $37,109,760
FY43 $20,716,757 $20,716,757 $2,752,631 $557,755 $1,453,254 $164,025 $5,546,760 $4,776,025 $15,250,450 $546,720 $584,129 $753,899 $1,884,748 $37,851,955
FY44 $21,122,968 $21,122,968 $2,806,604 $568,692 $1,481,749 $167,241 $5,655,520 $4,869,673 $15,549,479 $557,440 $595,582 $768,681 $1,921,704 $38,594,150
FY45 $21,529,179 $21,529,179 $2,860,577 $579,628 $1,510,244 $170,457 $5,764,280 $4,963,321 $15,848,507 $568,160 $607,036 $783,464 $1,958,660 $39,336,345
Sub-Total $197,012,296 $197,012,296 $26,176,983 $5,304,144 $13,820,156 $1,559,841 $52,748,600 $45,419,065 $145,028,790 $5,199,200 $5,554,949 $7,169,433 $17,923,582 $359,964,669
TOTAL $459,424,551 $459,424,551 $61,043,644 $12,369,046 $32,228,035 $3,637,486 $123,007,560 $105,915,387 $338,201,158 $12,124,320 $12,953,913 $16,718,822 $41,797,055 $839,422,764
Assumes a 4% annual growth rate
No local match included for NHPP, PRF, or TSIP.
Table 3: Forecasted State & Federal Funding Forecast by year
128 Supporting Documentation
Fiscal Year RUTF Other Road Funds Total Receipts O&M Total (recipts less O&M)
FY17 $14,492,434 $19,596,462 $34,088,896 $25,023,459 $9,065,437
FY18 $15,072,131 $20,380,320 $35,452,452 $26,024,398 $9,428,054
FY19 $15,651,829 $21,164,179 $36,816,008 $27,025,336 $9,790,672
FY20 $16,231,526 $21,948,037 $38,179,564 $28,026,274 $10,153,289
FY21 $16,811,223 $22,731,896 $39,543,119 $29,027,213 $10,515,907
FY22 $17,390,921 $23,515,754 $40,906,675 $30,028,151 $10,878,524
FY23 $17,970,618 $24,299,613 $42,270,231 $31,029,089 $11,241,142
FY24 $18,550,316 $25,083,471 $43,633,787 $32,030,028 $11,603,759
FY25 $19,130,013 $25,867,330 $44,997,343 $33,030,966 $11,966,377
Sub-Total $151,301,011 $204,587,063 $355,888,074 $261,244,914 $94,643,160
FY26 $19,709,710 $26,651,188 $46,360,899 $34,031,905 $12,328,994
FY27 $20,289,408 $27,435,047 $47,724,454 $35,032,843 $12,691,612
FY28 $20,869,105 $28,218,905 $49,088,010 $36,033,781 $13,054,229
FY29 $21,448,802 $29,002,764 $50,451,566 $37,034,720 $13,416,846
FY30 $22,028,500 $29,786,622 $51,815,122 $38,035,658 $13,779,464
FY31 $22,608,197 $30,570,481 $53,178,678 $39,036,596 $14,142,081
FY32 $23,187,894 $31,354,339 $54,542,234 $40,037,535 $14,504,699
FY33 $23,767,592 $32,138,198 $55,905,789 $41,038,473 $14,867,316
FY34 $24,347,289 $32,922,056 $57,269,345 $42,039,411 $15,229,934
FY35 $24,926,986 $33,705,915 $58,632,901 $43,040,350 $15,592,551
Sub-Total $223,183,484 $301,785,515 $524,968,998 $385,361,272 $139,607,727
FY36 $25,506,684 $34,489,773 $59,996,457 $44,041,288 $15,955,169
FY37 $26,086,381 $35,273,632 $61,360,013 $45,042,227 $16,317,786
FY38 $26,666,079 $36,057,490 $62,723,569 $46,043,165 $16,680,404
FY39 $27,245,776 $36,841,349 $64,087,124 $47,044,103 $17,043,021
FY40 $27,825,473 $37,625,207 $65,450,680 $48,045,042 $17,405,639
FY41 $28,405,171 $38,409,066 $66,814,236 $49,045,980 $17,768,256
FY42 $28,984,868 $39,192,924 $68,177,792 $50,046,918 $18,130,874
FY43 $29,564,565 $39,976,782 $69,541,348 $51,047,857 $18,493,491
FY44 $30,144,263 $40,760,641 $70,904,904 $52,048,795 $18,856,109
FY45 $30,723,960 $41,544,499 $72,268,460 $53,049,734 $19,218,726
Sub-Total $281,153,220 $380,171,363 $661,324,582 $485,455,109 $175,869,474
TOTAL $655,637,714 $886,543,941 $1,542,181,655 $1,132,061,295 $410,120,361
Assumes a 4% annual growth rate
Urban Area Cities & Johnson County
Table 4: total Non-Federal Road Fund Receipts & Operations & Maintenance Costs FY17-45
Supporting Documentation 129
RUTF Other Road Funding O&M RUTF Other Road Funding O&M RUTF Other Road Funding O&M
Tiffin $2,108,600 $433,005 $194,415 $0 $610,329 $202,454 $42,590 $206,813
University Heights $162,358 $41,502 $104,946 $233,541 $85,646 $109,286 $30,085 $70,210
North Liberty $1,280,773 $2,911,514 $2,695,526 $1,335,444 $4,724,650 $954,822 $1,390,662 $3,834,781 $1,103,997
Iowa City $6,508,053 $13,519,852 $16,656,849 $6,776,827 $12,856,911 $14,568,241 $7,056,460 $5,310,215 $6,410,183
Coralville $1,832,109 $1,966,106 $2,055,459 $1,889,224 $1,264,074 $1,742,140 $1,965,997 $5,622,555 $1,528,607
RUTF Farm to Market O&M RUTF Farm to Market O&M RUTF Farm to Market O&M
Johnson County $3,931,886 $1,330,188 $8,657,854 $4,214,626 $1,404,858 $8,624,597 $4,397,035 $1,466,507 $8,624,597
2013 2014 2015
2013 2014 2015
TABLE 5: Total Non-federal Road Fund Receipts & Operations & Maintenance Costs, 2013-2015
130 Supporting Documentation
Supporting Documentation 131
C. Road & Bridge
Location of projects programmed between 2012-2017
The map to the left shows the location of Surface Transportation
Program and Transportation Alternatives Program projects pro-
grammed between 2012 and 2017.
132 Supporting Documentation
Highest Collision Locations
The ten highest ranking intersections and five highest ranking mid-block locations in the Iowa City Urbanized Area for the years 2013 through 2015 are listed below.
These are also shown on the location map on page XX.
Table 6: Ten Highest Ranking Intersections
Table 7: Five Highest Ranking Mid-Block Locations
Supporting Documentation 133
Local Pavement Condition Index by Community
Each year, the Institute for Transportation at Iowa State University (InTrans), collects pavement
condition data for roads in Iowa. As part of this data collection, InTrans record the Pavement
Condition Index (PCI), which gives users the level of quality they should expect when driving on
the roadways. The PCI ranges from zero to one hundred, with one hundred being the best pos-
sible score a roadway can receive. PCI is summarized and mapped below for each community.
For more information on the Program please visit: http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/ipmp/.
10%
22%
68%
Coralville
Poor or very Poor Fair Good or Excellent
134 Supporting Documentation
4%
11%
85%
North Liberty
Poor or very Poor Fair Good or Excellent
Supporting Documentation 135
40%
50%
10%
University Heights
Poor or very Poor Fair Good or Excellent
45%
24%
31%
Iowa City
Poor or very Poor Fair Good or Excellent
136 Supporting Documentation
1%
19%
80%
Tiffin
Poor or very Poor Fair Good or Excellent
Supporting Documentation 137
Unfunded Capitol Transportation Infrastructure Projects
The following tables outline projects that were submitted to the MPO for inclusion in the fiscally constrained ‘approved projects’ scenario ap-
proved as part of this plan, but were not ultimately selected.
Although the following projects cannot currently receive federal funding through the MPO, it’s possible that these projects may become eligible
should additional funding become available or if the Policy Board approved the removal of a project from the approved projects list and replaces
the project with a currently unfunded project(s) of equal construction cost. All changes to the fiscally constrained list must be approved by the
Urbanized Area Policy Board and updated in this Plan so the ‘approved projects’ list remain fiscally constrained for the 2017-2045 time frame.
ID Project Title Project Description $
Cost Estimate
at Construction
Entity
1 Front Street Improvements -
Dubuque to Zeller
Dubuque Street to Zeller Street. Replace rural section roadway with urban section.$1,206,400 North Liberty
2 Dubuque Street Access Road and
Traffic Signal
This project will result in the construction of an access drive from the north end of
Laura Drive to Dubuque Street, south of the Interstate 80 / Dubuque St interchange.
A traffic signal will be installed at this new access, and the traffic signal will be
coordinated with the I-80 interchange signals. May also facilitate a second means
of access from the Peninsula area to Dubuque St.
2,320,000 Iowa City
3 Peninsula Secondary Access
Road
This project will establish a more reliable access to the Peninsula neighborhood by
either elevating Foster Rd from Laura Dr to No Name road by creating a secondary
access to the area. This project will not be necessary if the Taft Speedway Levee
Project is constructed.
3,692,280 Iowa City
4 12th Avenue Reconstruction #1 0.4 mile reconstruction of 12th Avenue between 6th St. and 8th St.$1,740,000 Coralville
5 Forevergreen Rd. Extension 1.8 mile extension of Forevergreen Rd. between 12th Ave. and Dubuque St. $10,440,000 Coralville
6 Oakdale Boulevard - Westerly
Extension
1.5 mile extension of Oakdale Blvd. west of the future Jones Blvd. intersection $7,250,000 Coralville
7 McCollister Blvd - Gilbert to
Sycamore
Extend proposed McCollister Boulevard from Gilbert Street to Sycamore Street.$3,915,000 Iowa City
8 10th Street Reconstruction #1 0.42 mile reconstruction of 10th Street between 12th Ave. and 20th Ave. $1,218,000 Coralville
9 Foster Rd Extension - Dubuque
to Prairie Du Chien
Construct Foster Road between Dubuque Street and Prairie Du Chien Road $3,132,000 Iowa City
Illustrative Road & Bridge Projects 2017 - 2025
138 Supporting Documentation
10 Dubuque Street Improvements -
Cherry to Juniper
Cherry to Juniper Street. Replace rural section roadway with urban section and
intersection improvements.
4,872,000 North Liberty
11 Dubuque St Reconstruction -
Washington St to Iowa Ave
This project reconstructs Dubuque Street from Washington to Iowa Avenue. The
project also improves sidewalk pavement, addresses critical utility updates, and
enhances the retail environment with streetscape components.
1,582,820 Iowa City
TotaI Illustrative Project Costs 2017- 2025 39,785,680$
Illustrative Road & Bridge Projects 2017 - 2025
ID Project Title Project Description $
Cost Estimate
at Construction
Entity
12 Highway 6 - Jones. Blvd. to I-
380
1.0 mile reconstruction of Hwy 6 between Jones. Blvd. and I-380, conversion from
rural to urban cross section $
15,200,000 Coralville
13 Gilbert / US 6 Intersection Left
Turn Lanes
Reconstruct the intersection of Gilbert & US 6 to include dual left turn lanes on
Gilbert St.
7,356,800 Iowa City
14 McCollister Blvd - Sycamore St
to Scott Blvd Extend proposed McCollister Boulevard from Sycamore Street to Scott Boulevard.
13,813,760 Iowa City
15 Holiday Road Reconstruction #1
0.9 mile reconstruction of Holiday Road between 1st Ave. and 12th Ave.
5,130,000 Coralville
16 Dubuque Street Improvements -
Juniper to NL Rd Juniper Street to NL Road roundabout. Roadway and intersection improvements.
5,320,000 North Liberty
17 12th Avenue Reconstruction #3 0.4 mile reconstruction of 12th Avenue between Interstate 80 and Holiday Rd.$2,280,000 Coralville
18 12th Avenue Reconstruction #4 0.7 mile reconstruction of 12th Avenue between Holiday Rd. and Oakdale Blvd.$3,990,000 Coralville
19 Coral Ridge Avenue South
Extension
2.2 mile extension of Coral Ridge Avenue south of James St., over Highway 218, to
IWV Rd. SW
3,544,023 Coralville
Illustrative Road & Bridge Projects 2026 - 2035
Supporting Documentation 139
Project Title Project Description $
Cost Estimate
at Construction
Entity
23 Camp Cardinal Boulevard
Reconstruction #2
0.58 mile reconstruction of Camp Cardinal Blvd. between Clear Creek and Kennedy
Parkway
4,176,000 Coralville
24 340th Street (Park Road to
Ireland Ave)
Grade & Pave Street, Install Curb, Gutter and Sidewalks or Trails $9,600,000 Tiffin
25 Highway 965 Extension This project will be initial phase of constructing Hwy 965 extended from the south
side of Hwy 218 to Melrose Avenue to arterial standards.
22,170,123 Iowa City
26 25th Avenue Reconstruction 0.16 mile reconstruction of 25th Avenue between Hwy 6 and 10th St. $1,536,000 Coralville
Total Illustrative Project Costs 2036- 2045 $37,482,123
Illustrative Road & Bridge Projects 2036 - 2045
Illustrative Road & Bridge Projects 2026 - 2035
20 Ireland Ave (Clear Creek Bridge
to Railroad St.)Replace Bridge and Grade and Pave
2,280,000 Tiffin
21 Oakdale Blvd Bridge/Overpass Construct an Overpass over I-380 connecting Oakdale Blvd in Tiffin to Oakdale Blvd
in Coralville
15,200,000 Tiffin
22 Kirkwood Avenue to Capitol
Street Connection Extend Kirkwood Avenue to the intersection of Benton Street and Capitol Street.
4,560,000 Iowa City
Total Illustrative Project Costs 2026- 2035 $78,674,583
140 Supporting Documentation
Supporting Documentation 141
D. Transit
This map shows all metro area transit routes with a one
quarter mile buffer, indicating a walkable distance to
transit.
142 Supporting Documentation
Current Fixed Route/Paratransit Transit Programs:
Iowa City Transit (includes University Heights): Iowa City Transit provides service on 17 regular routes from 6:00 a.m.-11:00 p.m. All routes
operate daily with 30-minute service during peak periods. The Seventh Avenue (during a.m. and p.m. peak periods), Melrose Express, Westside
Hospital, Eastside Express, and Westport routes operate hourly all day long. Midday service is hourly except on the Towncrest and Oakcrest
where service is 30 minutes all day during the University academic year. The Eastside Loop operates when Iowa City schools are in session.
Hourly evening service is provided to the same general service area using combined routes, from 6:30 p.m.-11:00 p.m. Saturday service oper-
ates hourly all day with service ending at 7:00 p.m. Iowa City Transit also extends service to Chatham Oaks Care Facility located on the west side
of Iowa City. There is no fixed route service on Sundays.
During peak periods Iowa City Transit operates 20 buses. Twelve buses operate weekdays off-peak. During evening hours and Saturdays five
buses are in service. The Downtown Iowa City Transit Interchange is the hub of Iowa City Transit’s operations. All regular routes arrive and de-
part at the interchange except for the Eastside Loop, allowing for coordinated transfers between buses.
The existing fare structure is a $1.00 base fare, $32 unlimited ride 31-day pass, and $8.50 for a ten-ride ticket strip. There is a 75¢ youth fare for
K-12 aged children. Children under five may ride free accompanied by an adult. There is also a K-12 31-day pass available for $27 and a student
semester pass for $100 for persons attending the University of Iowa or Kirkwood Community College. There is a monthly pass for University of
Iowa faculty/staff for $28 per month. Elderly persons may ride during off peak hours and all day Saturday for 50¢. Eligible persons with disabil-
ities and low income elderly persons may ride free during off peak hours. Free transfers are available and may be used on Coralville Transit.
There is one free-fare route, the Downtown Transit Shuttle.
All Iowa City Transit fixed route buses are lift/ramp-equipped. Demand responsive paratransit service is provided during fixed-route service
hours, operated by Johnson County SEATS.
Coralville Transit (includes North Liberty): Coralville Transit operates three routes on weekdays between 6:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. and one
evening route until 12:00 a.m. An additional peak hour (tripper) route provides service to the core area of Coralville during the a.m. and p.m.
rush hours when the University of Iowa and the Iowa City Community School District are in session. The Lantern Park and Tenth Street routes
operate in the core area of Coralville with half hour headways except during midday when headways are one hour. The Express Route operates
on a 60-minute headway, with midday service (no service at Coral Ridge Mall). Saturday service is provided on one route that serves the Lantern
Park/10th Street service area from 7:00 a.m.-7:30 p.m. Coralville Transit offers a commuter route to North Liberty on weekdays from 7 a.m.-8
a.m. and 5 p.m.-6 p.m. There is no midday service and this route does not service Coral Ridge Mall. The 1st Avenue route serves the Coralville
Intermodal to UIHC and VA Hospital areas. The Express, 1st Avenue, Night, and Saturday routes all serve the Coralville Intermodal. Park and
Ride commuter service is available to and from the Coralville Intermodal.
Coralville Transit operates seven buses during weekday peak periods, three buses off peak, and one bus evenings and Saturdays. No service is
offered on Sunday. All Coralville Transit routes interchange at the Downtown Iowa City Transit Interchange and at the University of Iowa Hospi-
tals and Clinics.
The base fare on Coralville Transit is $1.00. Children under five, accompanied by an adult, ride for free. A 31-day pass is offered for $32, and a
20-ride pass for $20. Saturdays and evenings persons 5 to 15 years of age are eligible for a 75¢ youth fare. Elderly and disabled residents of
Coralville may be eligible to ride for free at any time with a Coralville pass. Medicare recipients may ride at half-fare rates. Free transfers are
available and may be used on Iowa City Transit.
All Coralville Transit fixed route buses are lift/ramp-equipped. Demand responsive paratransit service is provided during fixed-route service
hours, operated by Johnson County SEATS.
Supporting Documentation 143
University of Iowa Cambus: Cambus provides service on 13 routes Monday through Friday, and four routes Saturday and Sunday during the
academic year. Cambus is a no fare service designed to facilitate circulation throughout the University campus. Although designed primarily to
serve University students, faculty, and staff, Cambus is also open to the general public.
Cambus operates two separate levels of service throughout the year. Academic year service is the highest level of service; summer/interim
service is approximately 75% of academic year service. Difference in level of service is in the amount of service provided, not in the areas served.
The service area remains the same during both periods.
The primary routes, Red and Blue, operate in nearly identical clockwise and counter clockwise loops which serve the residence halls, University
Hospitals, most academic buildings, Iowa City, and commuter parking lots. The Red, Blue and Hawkeye routes operate on Saturday and Sunday,
for 28 weeks per year. The other routes are designed for specific functions: providing service to Oakdale Campus, providing service to com-
muter lots, providing service to residence halls, providing a shuttle between main campus and the hospital area, and service to Mayflower and
Hawkeye Apartments.
During the academic year Cambus operates 25 buses during daytime peak hours, 12 buses between 6:30 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., and five buses
between 9:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. Weekend service on the Red, Blue, Hawkeye-Interdorm, and Studio Arts routes operates between noon and
midnight with three buses. Cambus also operates a Safe Ride service on Friday and Saturday nights from midnight to 2:20 a.m. with two buses.
All Cambus fixed route buses are ramp/lift equipped. Cambus operates a special paratransit system, Bionic Bus. Similar to the fixed-route
system, it is intended for University students, faculty and staff, but is also open to the public. The Bionic Bus system operates small accessible
buses on a demand responsive basis. Service hours are the same as fixed route scheduled hours on Saturday and Sunday. A reduced level of
service is provided during summer and interim periods.
North Liberty: The City of North Liberty will implement an off-peak fixed route transit service this fall. Johnson County SEATS, the regional transit
provider, will provide the service with vehicles leased to SEATS by the East Central Iowa Council of Governments (ECICOG). The service will be of-
fered Monday through Friday and will start at the Food Pantry around 10:25 A.M. and proceed on an agreed upon loop route, making five loops
per day. The fare will initially be set at $2/ride. Complementary paratransit service will also be offered during the fixed route service hours.
Johnson County SEATS: Iowa City and Coralville Transit systems contract with Johnson County SEATS for provision of demand-responsive para-
transit service. Johnson County SEATS provides scheduled service to rural Johnson County, and ADA service to the cities of Iowa City, Coralville,
and University Heights. Paratransit service is available during the fixed-route service hours, as well as on Sundays from 8:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m.
To qualify for SEATS service, you must have a transportation disability that precludes you from utilizing fixed-route service. While all fixed-route
buses are now lift-equipped, SEATS is available to pick up and drop off passengers who are unable to, or are not mobile enough, to reach a stan-
dard bus stop.
Johnson County SEATS also provides demand response service throughout Johnson County.
144 Supporting Documentation
This map shows the transit coverage as compared to the median household income
by block groups (2010).
Maps include Iowa City, Coralville and Cambus transit routes
Transit service is not available in Tiffin.
North Liberty’s Off-Peak Fixed Route is not shown on these maps.
Transit service does not go beyond city limits
Supporting Documentation 145
This map shows the transit coverage as compared to the
existing commercial & industrial land uses.
Maps include Iowa City, Coralville and Cambus transit routes
Transit service is not available in Tiffin.
North Liberty’s Off-Peak Fixed Route is not shown on these maps.
Transit service does not go beyond city limits
146 Supporting Documentation
Maps include Iowa City, Coralville and Cambus transit routes
Transit service is not available in Tiffin.
North Liberty’s Off-Peak Fixed Route is not shown on these maps.
Transit service does not go beyond city limits
This map shows the transit coverage as compared to special needs
and elderly housing locations.
Supporting Documentation 147
This map shows the transit coverage as compared to the percent non-
white population by block groups (2010).
Maps include Iowa City, Coralville and Cambus transit routes
Transit service is not available in Tiffin.
North Liberty’s Off-Peak Fixed Route is not shown on these maps.
Transit service does not go beyond city limits
148 Supporting Documentation
TRANSIT REVENUE AND OPERATING COSTS (2017-2045)
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
513,374 $533,909 $555,265 $577,476 $600,575 $624,598 $649,582 $675,565 $702,588
1,439,334 $1,496,907 $1,556,784 $1,619,055 $1,683,817 $1,751,170 $1,821,217 $1,894,065 $1,969,828
119,704 $124,492 $129,472 $134,651 $140,037 $145,638 $151,464 $157,522 $163,823
3,402,567 $3,538,670 $3,680,216 $3,827,425 $3,980,522 $4,139,743 $4,305,333 $4,477,546 $4,656,648
1,480,012 $1,539,212 $1,600,781 $1,664,812 $1,731,405 $1,800,661 $1,872,687 $1,947,595 $2,025,499
887,668 $923,175 $960,102 $998,506 $1,038,446 $1,079,984 $1,123,183 $1,168,111 $1,214,835
7,842,659 $8,156,365 $8,482,620 $8,821,925 $9,174,802 $9,541,794 $9,923,466 $10,320,404 $10,733,220
6,593,295 $6,857,027 $7,131,308 $7,416,560 $7,713,223 $8,021,751 $8,342,622 $8,676,326 $9,023,379
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
283,341 $294,675 $306,462 $318,720 $331,469 $344,728 $358,517 $372,857 $387,772
388,950 $404,508 $420,688 $437,516 $455,016 $473,217 $492,146 $511,832 $532,305
33,190 $34,518 $35,898 $37,334 $38,828 $40,381 $41,996 $43,676 $45,423
388,088 $403,612 $419,756 $436,546 $454,008 $472,168 $491,055 $510,697 $531,125
493,442 $513,180 $533,707 $555,055 $577,257 $600,348 $624,362 $649,336 $675,309
186,700 $194,168 $201,935 $210,012 $218,413 $227,149 $236,235 $245,684 $255,512
1,773,711 $1,844,659 $1,918,446 $1,995,184 $2,074,991 $2,157,991 $2,244,310 $2,334,083 $2,427,446
1,720,792 $1,789,624 $1,861,209 $1,935,657 $2,013,083 $2,093,607 $2,177,351 $2,264,445 $2,355,023
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
753,559 $783,701 $815,049 $847,651 $881,557 $916,820 $953,493 $991,632 $1,031,298
543,025 $564,746 $587,336 $610,829 $635,262 $660,673 $687,100 $714,584 $743,167
168,074 $174,797 $181,789 $189,060 $196,623 $204,488 $212,667 $221,174 $230,021
2,099,318 $2,183,291 $2,270,622 $2,361,447 $2,455,905 $2,554,141 $2,656,307 $2,762,559 $2,873,062
0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
13,580 $14,123 $14,688 $15,276 $15,887 $16,522 $17,183 $17,870 $18,585
3,577,556 $3,720,658 $3,869,485 $4,024,264 $4,185,235 $4,352,644 $4,526,750 $4,707,820 $4,896,132
3,316,131 $3,448,776 $3,586,727 $3,730,196 $3,879,404 $4,034,580 $4,195,964 $4,363,802 $4,538,354
4% increase/year
IOWA CITY TRANSIT
Special Needs Formula (5310)
Local Tax/Transit Levy
Fare Revenue
Contracts/Other
Total Revenue
Total Operating
Total Operating
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA CAMBUS
State Transit Assistance
Urbanized Area Formula (5307
Urbanized Area Formula (5307
Special Needs Formula (5310)
Local Tax/Transit Levy
Fare Revenue
Contracts/Other
Total Revenue
Total Revenue
Total Operating
CORALVILLE TRANSIT
State Transit Assistance
State Transit Assistance
Urbanized Area Formula (5307
Special Needs Formula (5310)
Local Tax/Transit Levy
Fare Revenue
Contracts/Other
Supporting Documentation 149
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
730,691 $759,919 $790,316 $821,928 $854,805 $888,998 $924,558 $961,540 $1,000,001 $1,040,002
2,048,621 $2,130,566 $2,215,789 $2,304,420 $2,396,597 $2,492,461 $2,592,159 $2,695,846 $2,803,679 $2,915,827
170,376 $177,191 $184,279 $191,650 $199,316 $207,289 $215,580 $224,203 $233,171 $242,498
4,842,914 $5,036,630 $5,238,096 $5,447,619 $5,665,524 $5,892,145 $6,127,831 $6,372,944 $6,627,862 $6,892,976
2,106,519 $2,190,779 $2,278,410 $2,369,547 $2,464,329 $2,562,902 $2,665,418 $2,772,035 $2,882,916 $2,998,233
1,263,428 $1,313,965 $1,366,524 $1,421,185 $1,478,032 $1,537,154 $1,598,640 $1,662,586 $1,729,089 $1,798,252
11,162,549 $11,609,051 $12,073,413 $12,556,350 $13,058,604 $13,580,948 $14,124,186 $14,689,153 $15,276,719 $15,887,788
9,384,315 $9,759,687 $10,150,075 $10,556,078 $10,978,321 $11,417,454 $11,874,152 $12,349,118 $12,843,083 $13,356,806
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
403,283 $419,414 $436,190 $453,638 $471,784 $490,655 $510,281 $530,692 $551,920 $573,997
553,597 $575,741 $598,771 $622,721 $647,630 $673,536 $700,477 $728,496 $757,636 $787,941
47,240 $49,129 $51,094 $53,138 $55,264 $57,474 $59,773 $62,164 $64,651 $67,237
552,370 $574,465 $597,444 $621,341 $646,195 $672,043 $698,925 $726,882 $755,957 $786,195
702,322 $730,415 $759,631 $790,017 $821,617 $854,482 $888,661 $924,208 $961,176 $999,623
265,732 $276,362 $287,416 $298,913 $310,869 $323,304 $336,236 $349,686 $363,673 $378,220
2,524,544 $2,625,526 $2,730,547 $2,839,768 $2,953,359 $3,071,494 $3,194,353 $3,322,127 $3,455,013 $3,593,213
2,449,224 $2,547,193 $2,649,080 $2,755,043 $2,865,245 $2,979,855 $3,099,049 $3,223,011 $3,351,932 $3,486,009
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
1,072,549 $1,115,451 $1,160,069 $1,206,472 $1,254,731 $1,304,920 $1,357,117 $1,411,402 $1,467,858 $1,526,572
772,894 $803,810 $835,962 $869,401 $904,177 $940,344 $977,957 $1,017,076 $1,057,759 $1,100,069
239,222 $248,791 $258,742 $269,092 $279,856 $291,050 $302,692 $314,799 $327,391 $340,487
2,987,984 $3,107,503 $3,231,804 $3,361,076 $3,495,519 $3,635,340 $3,780,753 $3,931,983 $4,089,263 $4,252,833
0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
19,329 $20,102 $20,906 $21,742 $22,612 $23,516 $24,457 $25,435 $26,452 $27,511
5,091,978 $5,295,657 $5,507,483 $5,727,782 $5,956,894 $6,195,169 $6,442,976 $6,700,695 $6,968,723 $7,247,472
4,719,888 $4,908,684 $5,105,031 $5,309,233 $5,521,602 $5,742,466 $5,972,165 $6,211,051 $6,459,493 $6,717,873
4% increase/year
IOWA CITY TRANSIT
Special Needs Formula (5310)
Local Tax/Transit Levy
Fare Revenue
Contracts/Other
Total Revenue
Total Operating
Total Operating
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA CAMBUS
State Transit Assistance
Urbanized Area Formula (5307
Urbanized Area Formula (5307
Special Needs Formula (5310)
Local Tax/Transit Levy
Fare Revenue
Contracts/Other
Total Revenue
Total Revenue
Total Operating
CORALVILLE TRANSIT
State Transit Assistance
State Transit Assistance
Urbanized Area Formula (5307
Special Needs Formula (5310)
Local Tax/Transit Levy
Fare Revenue
Contracts/Other
150 Supporting Documentation
4% increase/year
IOWA CITY TRANSIT
Special Needs Formula (5310)
Local Tax/Transit Levy
Fare Revenue
Contracts/Other
Total Revenue
Total Operating
Total Operating
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA CAMBUS
State Transit Assistance
Urbanized Area Formula (5307
Urbanized Area Formula (5307
Special Needs Formula (5310)
Local Tax/Transit Levy
Fare Revenue
Contracts/Other
Total Revenue
Total Revenue
Total Operating
CORALVILLE TRANSIT
State Transit Assistance
State Transit Assistance
Urbanized Area Formula (5307
Special Needs Formula (5310)
Local Tax/Transit Levy
Fare Revenue
Contracts/Other
2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045
1,081,602 $1,124,866 $1,169,860 $1,216,655 $1,265,321 $1,315,934 $1,368,571 $1,423,314 $1,480,246 $1,539,456
3,032,460 $3,153,758 $3,279,908 $3,411,105 $3,547,549 $3,689,451 $3,837,029 $3,990,510 $4,150,130 $4,316,136
252,198 $262,286 $272,778 $283,689 $295,036 $306,838 $319,111 $331,876 $345,151 $358,957
7,168,695 $7,455,443 $7,753,661 $8,063,807 $8,386,360 $8,721,814 $9,070,687 $9,433,514 $9,810,855 $10,203,289
3,118,162 $3,242,889 $3,372,604 $3,507,508 $3,647,809 $3,793,721 $3,945,470 $4,103,289 $4,267,420 $4,438,117
1,870,183 $1,944,990 $2,022,789 $2,103,701 $2,187,849 $2,275,363 $2,366,378 $2,461,033 $2,559,474 $2,661,853
16,523,300 $17,184,232 $17,871,601 $18,586,465 $19,329,924 $20,103,120 $20,907,245 $21,743,535 $22,613,277 $23,517,808
13,891,078 $14,446,721 $15,024,590 $15,625,574 $16,250,597 $16,900,621 $17,576,645 $18,279,711 $19,010,900 $19,771,336
2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045
596,957 $620,835 $645,668 $671,495 $698,355 $726,289 $755,341 $785,554 $816,977 $849,656
819,459 $852,237 $886,327 $921,780 $958,651 $996,997 $1,036,877 $1,078,352 $1,121,486 $1,166,346
69,926 $72,723 $75,632 $78,658 $81,804 $85,076 $88,479 $92,018 $95,699 $99,527
817,643 $850,349 $884,363 $919,737 $956,527 $994,788 $1,034,579 $1,075,962 $1,119,001 $1,163,761
1,039,608 $1,081,192 $1,124,440 $1,169,417 $1,216,194 $1,264,842 $1,315,436 $1,368,053 $1,422,775 $1,479,686
393,349 $409,083 $425,446 $442,464 $460,162 $478,569 $497,712 $517,620 $538,325 $559,858
3,736,942 $3,886,419 $4,041,876 $4,203,551 $4,371,693 $4,546,561 $4,728,423 $4,917,560 $5,114,263 $5,318,833
3,625,449 $3,770,467 $3,921,286 $4,078,137 $4,241,263 $4,410,913 $4,587,350 $4,770,844 $4,961,678 $5,160,145
2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045
1,587,635 $1,651,141 $1,717,186 $1,785,874 $1,857,309 $1,931,601 $2,008,865 $2,089,220 $2,172,788 $2,259,700
1,144,072 $1,189,835 $1,237,428 $1,286,925 $1,338,402 $1,391,938 $1,447,616 $1,505,520 $1,565,741 $1,628,371
354,107 $368,271 $383,002 $398,322 $414,255 $430,825 $448,058 $465,980 $484,619 $504,004
4,422,946 $4,599,864 $4,783,859 $4,975,213 $5,174,222 $5,381,191 $5,596,438 $5,820,296 $6,053,108 $6,295,232
0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
28,611 $29,755 $30,946 $32,183 $33,471 $34,810 $36,202 $37,650 $39,156 $40,722
7,537,371 $7,838,866 $8,152,420 $8,478,517 $8,817,658 $9,170,364 $9,537,179 $9,918,666 $10,315,413 $10,728,029
6,986,588 $7,266,051 $7,556,693 $7,858,961 $8,173,320 $8,500,252 $8,840,262 $9,193,873 $9,561,628 $9,944,093
Supporting Documentation 151
TRANSIT REVENUE AND OPERATING COSTS (2017-2045)
IOWA CITY TRANSIT
2017-2025 2026-2035 2036-2045
State Transit Assistance $5,432,932 $8,772,758 $12,985,825
Urbanized Area Formula (5307 $15,232,177 $24,595,964 $36,408,035
Special Needs Formula (5310)$1,266,803 $2,045,554 $3,027,919
Local Tax/Transit Levy $36,008,670 $58,144,542 $86,068,126
Fare Revenue $15,662,664 $25,291,088 $37,436,988
Contracts/Other $9,394,009 $15,168,856 $22,453,613
Total Revenue $82,997,255 $134,018,761 $198,380,506
Total Operating $69,775,491 $112,669,087 $166,777,772
CORALVILLE TRANSIT
2017-2025 2026-2035 2036-2045
State Transit Assistance $2,998,540 $4,841,854 $7,167,127
Urbanized Area Formula (5307 $4,116,178 $6,646,546 $9,838,512
Special Needs Formula (5310)$351,243 $567,165 $839,543
Local Tax/Transit Levy $4,107,056 $6,631,816 $9,816,708
Fare Revenue $5,221,996 $8,432,151 $12,481,643
Contracts/Other $1,975,808 $3,190,411 $4,722,587
Total Revenue $18,770,820 $30,309,944 $44,866,121
Total Operating $18,210,790 $29,405,641 $43,527,532
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA CAMBUS
2017-2025 2026-2035 2036-2045
State Transit Assistance $7,974,761 $12,877,143 $19,061,318
Urbanized Area Formula (5307 $5,746,722 $9,279,447 $13,735,848
Special Needs Formula (5310)$1,778,693 $2,872,121 $4,251,441
Local Tax/Transit Levy $22,216,653 $35,874,057 $53,102,368
Fare Revenue $0 $0 $0
Contracts/Other $143,714 $232,061 $343,507
Total Revenue $37,860,543 $61,134,830 $90,494,483
Total Operating $35,093,936 $56,667,486 $83,881,722
4% increase/year
152 Supporting Documentation
Supporting Documentation 153
E. PublicInputBelowisasummaryofeffortsundertakenbytheMPOtogatherpublicinputontheFuture
Forward 2045 plan as well as the feedback received. The MPO solicited for input through online
surveys, workshops, presentations, social media, press releases, and the MPOJC website.
Outreach
Presentations
In June 2015, MPO staff offered to provide a presentation to any committees or commissions
in the urbanized area seeking more information about the Long Range Transportation Plan
revision process, or more detail about what the plan encompasses. Over the course of two
years, staff presented to four interested committees or groups. Staff also presented pertinent
information, related to the Long Range Transportation Plan, to the Regional Trails and Bicycling
Committee, the Transportation Technical Committee, and the Urbanized Area Policy Board.
Surveys
In February and March 2016, the MPO posted six surveys—general transportation, passenger
vehicle, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and youth—on it’s website for approximately 2 months.
Anyone who lives, works, attends school or conducts business in Johnson County was encour-
aged to complete one or many surveys. While the surveys were not statistically significant, they
provide significant information regarding the way people travel throughout the Metro area. In
total, over 3,500 surveys were collected.
In addition, the MPOJC conducted its first ever youth transportation survey. While the youth
survey was available in an online format, Kingsley Botchway of the ICCSD assisted MPOJC by
distributing paper copies to all public schools. We received more than 1,718 completed sur-
veys (342 K-6th elementary; 666 junior high; 710 high school). The survey focused on students
preferred mode of transportation to and from school. We did not receive responses from all
schools, most notably several Iowa City elementary schools did not complete the survey.
Workshops
The MPO hosted a series of workshops in March and April 2016, which sought feedback on
transportation projects submitted by member entities for consideration in the plan. In addition,
participants were asked to provide feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the transpor-
tation network. To gather this feedback, Staff provided participants with a map that illustrated
all projects submitted for consideration along with basic information about each project. Par-
ticipants could review the projects and then ‘vote’ for their 5 most important projects in each
category (road/bridge and bike/pedestrian). Participants were also asked to ‘vote’ on aspects of
transit service that could be improved.
Public comment collected during development of the Future Forward 2045 plan was also
considered.
154 Supporting Documentation
Press Releases / MPOJC Website
The five media outlets listed below were used to notify residents of public comment periods,
public workshops, public surveys, and meetings.
1. Press-releases were sent to subscribers of the MPOJC e-news list.
2. The planning process and draft chapters were posted on the MPOJC Website.
3. Cambus, Iowa City and Coralville buses displayed workshop posters.
4. Notices of public input opportunities were delivered to MPOJC public input organizations
over 35).
5. Notices of public input opportunities were tweeted on Twitter and posted on Facebook.
Capturing and Organizing Public Input
Public input received from each public outreach opportunity is summarized below.
Presentations
Conducted 4 formal presentations to interested parties
Over 5 presentations to the Regional Trails and Bicycle Committee and Transportation
Technical Advisory Committee
Over 9 presentation to the Urbanized Area Policy Board
Surveys
Received 3,983 surveys responses
Workshops
Held 3 workshops:
March 23rd, 2016 North Liberty
April 7th, 2016 Coralville
April 12th, 2016 Iowa City
3,983 Total
Survey Responses
Over 100 Individuals
Attended Workshops
Youth (1,718)
Bike (304)
Transit (215)
Vehicle (240)
General (1,271)
Pedestrian (235)
Supporting Documentation 155
Presentation and Comment
MPOJC initiated a formal public comment period lasting 30 days prior
to the adoption of the Long Range Transportation Plan. After the formal
public comment period, an open house was held (May 11th, 2017) for
the public to provide feedback in person on the Long Range Transpor-
tation Plan.
156 Supporting Documentation
Survey Fact Sheets
Supporting Documentation 157
158 Supporting Documentation
Supporting Documentation 159
F. SurveysGeneralTransportationSurvey
The Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPOJC) is a transportation poli-
cy-making organization made up of representatives from Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty,
Tiffin, University Heights, Johnson County, and the University of Iowa. The purpose of the MPO
is to ensure that scarce federal transportation spending occurs through a comprehensive,
cooperative, and continuing process that benefits our entire metro area. MPOJC is revising
its long-range transportation plan–a requirement for securing state and federal funding for
transportation projects. The “Future Forward 2045 Plan” will help guide metropolitan area deci-
sion-making regarding transportation improvements and investments extending 25 years into
the future. This plan considers all modes of transportation—car, truck, freight, transit, pedestri-
an, and bicycle—and makes specific recommendations for transportation projects and funding
sources.
Please help us by answering these survey questions—it takes 5 minutes or less.
Your feedback will be used to develop more detailed surveys for each mode of transportation.
Your answers will also help to shape the vision of the Plan and prioritize transportation funding
for the greater community.
1. What mode of travel do you use for each of the following activities?
Commuting to Work/School
Private vehicle Always/mostly Sometimes Never
Carpool/vanpool Always/mostly Sometimes Never
Transit (bus) Always/mostly Sometimes Never
Walk Always/mostly Sometimes Never
Bike Always/mostly Sometimes Never
Shopping
Private vehicle Always/mostly Sometimes Never
Carpool/vanpool Always/mostly Sometimes Never
Transit (bus) Always/mostly Sometimes Never
Walk Always/mostly Sometimes Never
Bike Always/mostly Sometimes Never
Recreation
Private vehicle Always/mostly Sometimes Never
Carpool/vanpool Always/mostly Sometimes Never
Transit (bus) Always/mostly Sometimes Never
Walk Always/mostly Sometimes Never
Bike Always/mostly Sometimes Never
3,983 Total
Survey Responses
Youth (1,718)
Bike (304)
Transit (215)
Vehicle (240)
General (1,271)
Pedestrian (235)
160 Supporting Documentation
2. What factors influence your choice of transportation for commuting to work/school?
Please rank the top 3 in order of importance.)
123
Travel time/distance
Convenience
Safety
Cost
Other __________________________________________________
3. Is there a transportation mode that you would like to use more often than you cur-
rently do?
Private vehicle
Carpool/vanpool
Transit (Bus)
Walk
Bike
None
4. What obstacles or issues prevent you from choosing the above transportation mode
more often?
Travel time/distance
Lack of convenient access (e.g. location of stops, access points, etc.)
Concerns about safety (e.g. locations, connectivity, signals, lighting, visibility)
Lack of familiarity with facilities/schedules/how to use this transportation mode
Costs of lack of cost savings
Other ____________________________________________
Supporting Documentation 161
5. Based on your personal experiences, how would you rate the following facilities aspects of
the transportation network in the Iowa City area?
Speed of traffic Poor Fair Good Very Good Uncertain/unfamiliar
Condition of Roads Poor Fair Good Very Good Uncertain/unfamiliar
Attractiveness of Roads Poor Fair Good Very Good Uncertain/unfamiliar
Traffic safety Poor Fair Good Very Good Uncertain/unfamiliar
On-street bicycle facilities Poor Fair Good Very Good Uncertain/unfamiliar
e.g. bike lanes)
Crosswalks Poor Fair Good Very Good Uncertain/unfamiliar
Sidewalks Poor Fair Good Very Good Uncertain/unfamiliar
Off-street trails Poor Fair Good Very Good Uncertain/unfamiliar
Traffic signals Poor Fair Good Very Good Uncertain/unfamiliar
Transit (bus) service Poor Fair Good Very Good Uncertain/unfamiliar
Overall connectivity Poor Fair Good Very Good Uncertain/unfamiliar
6. Based on your personal experiences, how would you rate the overall transportation net-
work in the greater Iowa City urban area?
Poor Fair Good Very Good Uncertain/unfamiliar
7. Based on your personal experiences, how would you improve the overall transportation net-
work in the greater Iowa City urban area?
Add more sidewalks/trails/ADA accessible routes
Reduce congestion on roadways & reduce travel times
Improve or expand transit routes/options
Provide carpooling/vanpooling options
Other ______________________________________________
8. Please list up to 3 specific improvements you would like to see. (EXAMPLE: Provide marked
crosswalk at First and Main Streets.)
Thank you for your participation!
162 Supporting Documentation
Bike Survey
The Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPOJC) is a transportation poli-
cy-making organization made up of representatives from Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty,
Tiffin, University Heights, Johnson County, and the University of Iowa. The purpose of the MPO is
to ensure that scarce federal transportation spending occurs through a comprehensive, coop-
erative, and continuing process that benefits our entire metro area. MPOJC is revising its long-
range transportation plan–a requirement for securing state and federal funding for transporta-
tion projects. The “Future Forward 2045 Plan” will help guide metropolitan area decision-making
regarding transportation improvements and investments extending 25 years into the future.
This plan considers all modes of transportation—car, truck, freight, transit, pedestrian, and bicy-
cle—and makes specific recommendations for transportation projects and funding sources.
Please help us by filling out this bicycle survey—it takes 10 minutes or less.
Through this survey, we hope to obtain helpful information from a wide spectrum of cyclists
that will help us to improve bicycle safety and encourage more people to bicycle. The survey will
provide us with detailed information and valuable input as we plan current and future projects.
1. Tell us a little about yourself:
Age Gender
18 Female
18-24 Male
25-34 Prefer not to answer
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 or over
Prefer not to answer
2. How would you classify yourself as a biker?
Beginner Moderate Experienced
3. Where do you live? Refer to map
4. Where do you work or go to school? Refer to map
Supporting Documentation 163
Please tell us about your cycling habits . . .
5. How often do you bike for the following purposes during warm weather months
April-September)? (check all that apply)
Commuting to Work/School
Rarely/Never A few times a month A few times a week Daily
For Leisure or Exercise
Rarely/Never A few times a month A few times a week Daily
Running Errands
Rarely/Never A few times a month A few times a week Daily
6.[IF ANSWERED A FEW TIMES TO DAILY COMMUTER]
Tell us why you choose to commute to work or school by bike: (Choose up to 3)
I work close to home/short ride
It is healthy and good exercise
It is environmentally-friendly
It is faster or more convenient than car or bus
Bike facilities (lanes or trails) provide convenient route
Cost savings (gas/parking)
I have a shower/change facility at work
I can park my bike indoors
I do not have regular access to a car
Other ____________________________________________
7. [IF RARELY/NEVER COMMUTER]
What keeps you from commuting by bike to work or school? (Choose up to 3)
Takes too long or is too far from home
Roadway condition is poor
Don’t feel safe/comfortable (due to speeds, traffic, road conditions)
May need access to a car for errands or appointments during or immediately around
the workday
No bike facilities (lanes/trails) along route to work
No change/shower facility at destination
No safe place to store bike at destination
164 Supporting Documentation
Please tell us a bit about your riding preferences . . .
8. How comfortable are you with riding on the following?
OFF-street facilities such as trails and wide sidewalks.
Uncomfortable (would avoid) Somewhat uncomfortable Not sure
Comfortable Very Comfortable
ON-street where there are marked bike lanes.
Uncomfortable (would avoid) Somewhat uncomfortable Not sure
Comfortable Very Comfortable
ON-street where there are NO marked lanes or routes.
Uncomfortable (would avoid) Somewhat uncomfortable Not sure
Comfortable Very Comfortable
Riding outside city limits on road shoulders or rural roads.
Uncomfortable (would avoid) Somewhat uncomfortable Not sure
Comfortable Very Comfortable
9. When riding, do you seek out bike trails or other off-street facilities even if it means a
longer ride?
Yes No Other ___________________________
10. When riding on the street, do you seek out streets with bike lanes even if it means a
longer ride?
Yes No Other ___________________________
Please tell us a about the routes that you regularly ride.
11. How often do you encounter the following issues on your bike route?
Frequently Sometimes Rarely
Poor road surface conditions
Worn-out bike lane markings
Vehicles driving or parking in bike lanes
Car doors opening into travel lane
High traffic volumes
Vehicles not sharing the road
Speeding cars
Presence of heavy vehicles like trucks
Difficult to locate directional signs or missing signs for bike routes or trails
Lack of safe and convenient connections between bicycle facilities—
for example connection between a trail and a bike lane or)
Conflicts with other cyclists or pedestrians
Other___________
Supporting Documentation 165
12. How familiar are you with the following trails in the metro area?
Please indicate how familiar you are with the trail with “not familiar” meaning you have not rid-
den or do not know of the trail and “very familiar” meaning you have used the trail on multiple
occasions.
Not familiar Somewhat familiar Very familiar
Clear Creek Trail
Court Hill Trail
Highway 1 Trail
Highway 6 Trail
Iowa River Trail South of I/80
Iowa River Trail North of I/80
North Liberty Trail
North Ridge Trail
Sycamore Greenway Trail
13. What tools, if any, do you use for finding bike routes or trails? (Check all that apply.)
Metro Area Trail map
Other paper map
Google maps
Other on-line tool or phone app _________________________________________
None
14. Are there bike racks available at those destinations where you most frequently bike?
e.g. shopping areas, schools, worksites, parks, etc.)
Yes No
15. List any specific destinations where bike racks are missing, inadequate, or in poor
locations. (You may list up to 5).
16. Suggest up to five specific locations within the metro area where you think improve-
ments are needed for bicycling facilities. Suggested improvements could include trail
extensions, bike lanes, street crossing improvements, sharrows, signage, amenities, etc.
166 Supporting Documentation
Passenger Vehicle Survey
The Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPOJC) is a transportation poli-
cy-making organization made up of representatives from Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty,
Tiffin, University Heights, Johnson County, the University of Iowa, and the Iowa City Community
School District. The purpose of the MPO is to ensure that scarce federal transportation spend-
ing occurs through a comprehensive, cooperative, and continuing process that benefits our
entire metro area.
MPOJC is revising its long-range transportation plan–a requirement for securing state and
federal funding for transportation projects. The “Future Forward 2045 Plan” will help guide
metropolitan area decision-making regarding transportation improvements and investments
extending 25 years into the future. This plan considers all modes of transportation—automo-
bile, freight, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle—and makes specific recommendations for trans-
portation projects and funding sources.
1. Where do you live?
Iowa City
Coralville
North Liberty
Tiffin
University Heights
Other__________________
2. Where do you work?
Iowa City
Coralville
North Liberty
Tiffin
University Heights
Other__________________
3. What is your age?
4. What is your gender?
Male
Female
Prefer not to answer
Supporting Documentation 167
5. How often do you drive for:
Rarely/Never A few times a month A few times a week Daily
Commuting purposes (work/school)
Leisure/Social Outings
Running errands
6. Tell us why you use your vehicle for commuting, leisure/social outings, or running
errands (check all that apply):
Work/School is too far from home
I have to run errands before/during/after work
I have free parking at work
It is faster or more convenient than walking, riding a bus or bicycling
I have to transport children to school
Weather conditions
Other
7. How often do you encounter the following issues while driving?
Frequently Sometimes Rarely
Poor road surface conditions
Difficulty making left-turns
Long traffic queues/delays/congestion
Lack of traffic control at intersections
Not enough traffic lanes
Excessive traffic speeds
Conflicts with cyclists or pedestrians
Lack of convenient parking
Lack of convenient connections between home and work
Visibility issues
Other
8. Would you ride a bicycle and/or walk more if additional bicycle and pedestrian facili-
ties were available?
Yes___ No___ Unsure___
168 Supporting Documentation
9. While of the following bike and pedestrian facilities would be helpful to you? (check all
that apply)
On-street bicycle lanes
More separated off-street bicycle trails
Availability of bicycle facility maps
Improved bicycle facility signage/wayfinding signs
More sidewalks
Improved maintenance of existing facilities
Parking, restrooms, water fountains, benches
Bicycling and walking groups
Safe Routes to School Program for Children
10. Would you consider riding the bus if additional facilities were available?
Yes___ No___ Unsure___
11. I would use the bus more often if (check all that apply):
There was a route that I could take to work/school/childcare facility
There was a route that would take me to the shopping district where I needed to run
errands
The busses ran more frequently
The busses expanded their hours of operation
If it didn’t take so long to reach my destination
Thank you for participating!
Supporting Documentation 169
Transit Survey
The Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPOJC) is a transportation poli-
cy-making organization made up of representatives from Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty,
Tiffin, University Heights, Johnson County, the University of Iowa, and the Iowa City Commu-
nity School District. The purpose of the MPO is to ensure that scarce federal transportation
spending occurs through a comprehensive, cooperative, and continuing process that benefits
our entire metro area. MPOJC is revising its long-range transportation plan–a requirement for
securing state and federal funding for transportation projects. The “Future Forward 2045 Plan”
will help guide metropolitan area decision-making regarding transportation improvements and
investments extending 25 years into the future. This plan considers all modes of transporta-
tion—automobile, freight, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle—and makes specific recommenda-
tions for transportation projects and funding sources.
Please help us by answering these survey questions—it takes 10 minutes or less.
1. Where do you live?
Iowa City
Coralville
North Liberty
Tiffin
University Heights
Other__________________
2. Where do you work?
Iowa City
Coralville
North Liberty
Tiffin
University Heights
Other__________________
3. What is your gross annual household income?
24,999 or less
25,000 to 49,999
50,000 to 74,999
75,000 to 99,999
100,000 to 149,999
150,000 or more
170 Supporting Documentation
4. What is your age?
Under 18
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 or over
5. What is your gender?
Male
Female
Prefer not to answer
6. Which best describes your employment status?
Student
Part-time employed
Full-time employed
Unemployed
Retired
Other________
7. Do you ride the Iowa City, Coralville, or the University of Iowa Cambus public bus ser-
vices?
Yes___ No___
8. Which Iowa City bus routes, if any, do you ride? (check all that apply)
I don’t ride the Iowa City bus
7th Avenue Cross Park
Manville Heights Manville Heights Night/Weekend
Broadway Broadway Night/Weekend
Melrose Express Court Hill
North Dodge North Dodge Night/Weekend
Eastside Express Plaen VIew
Eastside Loop AM or PM Rochester
Free Shuttle North Free Shuttle South
Towncrest Towncrest Night/Weekend
Lakeside Westport
Mall Westside Hospital
Westwinds Westwinds Night/Weekend
Oakcrest Oakcrest Night/Weekend
Supporting Documentation 171
9. Which Coralville bus routes, if any, do you ride? (check all that apply)
I don’t ride the Coralville bus
Lantern Park 10th Street
Night Route Saturday Route
AM Express Express
1st Avenue North Liberty Route
PM Special
10. Which University of Iowa Cambus routes, if any, do you ride? (check all that apply)
I don’t ride the Cambus
Red Route Blue Route
Pentacrest Research Park
Interdorm Mayflower Shuttle
Hawkeye-Interdorm Hawkeye Express
Hawkeye Hospital Hawk Lot/Hospital
Hospital/Finkbine Arena North Hospital Shuttle
Hospital via Hancher East Campus Shuttle
ABW/Studio Art Shuttle Studio Arts Shuttle
Music/Theatre Shuttle Saferide Service
11. I use the public bus primarily to: (check all that apply)
Commute to and from work/school
Access shopping during the week
Get to and from downtown Iowa City during the week
Access shopping on the weekends
Get to and from downtown Iowa City on the weekends
Other_______________________
12. How satisfied are you with the current route coverage?
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Not satisfied
Uncertain
172 Supporting Documentation
13. How satisfied are you with the amount of time it takes you to reach your destina-
tion?
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Not satisfied
Uncertain
14. Would you prefer fewer bus stops on routes to decrease travel times?
Yes___ No___ I don’t know___ No opinion___
15. Is there a bus stop within easy walking distance of your home?
Yes___ No___
16. Is there a bus stop within easy walking distance of your workplace/school?
Yes___ No___
17. How many blocks are you willing to walk if it reduced travel time on the bus?
One block
Two blocks
Three blocks
Over three blocks
I would not walk any further
18. Do you transfer at the downtown Iowa City hub to another route or bus service?
Yes___ No___
19. I would use the bus more frequently if I did not have to transfer at the downtown
Iowa City hub.
Yes___ No___ Not Sure___
20. When you transfer buses are you transferring within a bus service or between bus
services?
Within a bus service (EXAMPLE: Iowa City bus to Iowa City bus)
Between bus services (EXAMPLE: Iowa City bus to Coralville bus)
21. How many times per week do you ride a public bus on average?
Less than 5
5 to 10
Greater than 10
Supporting Documentation 173
22. What times of day do you ride a public bus in an average week?
Early morning (6am to 8am)
Morning (8am to 10am)
Midmorning (10am to 12pm)
Early afternoon (12pm to 2pm)
Late afternoon (4pm to 6pm)
Early Evening (6pm to 8pm)
Evening (8pm to 10pm)
Late Evening (10pm to midnight or later)
Saturday Use
23. How satisfied are you with the current hours of operation?
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Not satisfied
Uncertain
24. Identify up to 3 Iowa City routes you would use, or use more often, if it’s hours were
expanded (in the AM or PM)?
25. Identify up to 3 Coralville routes you would use, or use more often, if it’s hours were
expanded (in the AM or PM)?
26. Identify up to 3 University of Iowa Cambus routes you would use, or use more often,
if it’s hours were expanded (in the AM or PM)?
27. Which of the following do you feel is the most important to improve? (please choose
up to 3)
Total travel time
On-time performance/reliability
Hours of operation
Frequency of service
Cleanliness of bus
Bus stop amenities
Availability of information
Courtesy of staff
Service area
174 Supporting Documentation
28. Would you be interested in special Express routes running with fewer stops during
peak travel hours to decrease commute times (morning and evening rush hours)?
Yes___ No___ I don’t know___ No opinion___
29. Would Sunday service be useful to you?
Yes___ No___ Not sure/No opinion
30. Would having to transfer multiple times deter you from riding the bus?
Yes___ No___ Not sure/No opinion
31. Do you use bongo (bus on the go) to find bus locations and arrival times? (Check all
that apply)
Yes – phone
Yes – Online
Yes – text
Yes – QR (Quick Response) Code
No
32. I would use the bus more often if (check all that apply):
There was a route that I could take to work/school
There was a route that would take me to the shopping district where I needed to run
errands
The busses ran more frequently
The busses expanded their hours of operation
If it didn’t take so long to reach my destination
I would not increase use even if there were changes in the routes or schedule
I am satisfied with the current level of service
Thank you for participating!
Supporting Documentation 175
Pedestrian Survey
The Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPOJC) is a transportation poli-
cy-making organization made up of representatives from Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty,
Tiffin, University Heights, Johnson County, and the University of Iowa. The purpose of the MPO
is to ensure that scarce federal transportation spending occurs through a comprehensive,
cooperative, and continuing process that benefits our entire metro area. MPOJC is revising
its long-range transportation plan–a requirement for securing state and federal funding for
transportation projects. The “Future Forward 2045 Plan” will help guide metropolitan area deci-
sion-making regarding transportation improvements and investments extending 25 years into
the future. This plan considers all modes of transportation—car, truck, freight, transit, pedestri-
an, and bicycle—and makes specific recommendations for transportation projects and funding
sources.
Please help us by filling out this pedestrian survey—it takes 10 minutes or less.
Through this survey, we hope to obtain helpful information from a wide spectrum of pedes-
trians of all ages (kids are welcome to take the survey) that will help us to improve safety and
accessibility and encourage more people to walk for transportation, recreation, or exercise.
1. Tell us a little about yourself:
Age Gender
18 Female
18-24 Male
25-34 Prefer not to answer
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 or over
Prefer not to answer
2. Where do you live? Refer to map (Same as bike survey)
3. How often do you walk for the following purposes during warm weather months
April-September)? (check all that apply)
Commuting to Work/School (walking may be combined with riding the bus)
Rarely/Never A few times a month A few times a week Daily
For Leisure or Exercise
Rarely/Never A few times a month A few times a week Daily
Running Errands
Rarely/Never A few times a month A few times a week Daily
176 Supporting Documentation
4.[IF FEW TO DAILY COMMUTER]
Tell us why you choose to walk to work or school
Choose up to 3)
I work close to home (short walk)
It is healthy and good exercise
It is environmentally-friendly
I walk to the bus stop
Cost savings (gas/parking)
I do not have regular access to a car
Other ____________________________________________
5. Tell us about the conditions you encounter or observe when walking to work or school
check any that apply)
Poor sidewalk or trail conditions (cracks or uneven sidewalks)
Sidewalks are too narrow
Missing sections of sidewalk or no sidewalk
Missing trail sections or connections
Lack of curb ramps at intersections
Vehicles parked or stopped over the sidewalk (i.e. driveways)
Cars failing to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks
Areas where it is difficult to see oncoming/opposing traffic.
Intersections are difficult to cross due to speeds and/number of vehicles
Lack of street lighting
Conflicts with cyclists
Lack of snow or ice removal
Other___________
6. Do you regularly use the bus as part of your commute? For example do you walk to or
from a bus stop.
Yes, I regularly take the bus as part of my commute
Yes, I occasionally take the bus as part of my commute
No, I do not take the bus as part of my commute
For the following questions, think about your own neighborhood (the area that you con-
sider within a easy walkable distance from your house)
7. Are there destinations in your neighborhood within a walkable distance?
Parks/Playgrounds Trails Schools Shopping/Restaurants
Supporting Documentation 177
8. I walking in your neighborhood a pleasant experience?
Yes Somewhat No
9. [IF SOMEWHAT OR NO]
In your opinion, what makes walking in your neighborhood an unpleasant experience?
check any that apply)
Too much traffic or traffic moving too fast along the street
Uncontrolled intersections along busy streets
Sidewalks are too close to the street
Too many driveways
Few trees, little shade
Lack of things to see along the way
Doesn’t feel safe
Lack of street lighting
Street or sidewalk network is disconnected
Other_____________________________________
10. [IF YES]
In your opinion, what makes your neighborhood pleasant to walk in? (check all that apply)
Traffic is slower
Sidewalks are a safe distance from the street
Driveways are spaced appropriately
Tree-lined streets
Nice things to see along the way
Feels safe
Destinations to walk to
Street or sidewalk network is connected
Other________________________________________________
For the final question please consider all the places and reasons that you walk—in your neighbor-
hood or in the larger community to access shopping, employment, recreation, etc.
11. Suggest up to five issues within the metro area where you think improvements are needed for
pedestrian facilities. Suggested improvements could include signs, crosswalks, wider sidewalks or
trails, improved maintenance or repair, etc.
Thank you for participating!
178 Supporting Documentation
Elementary /Junior High Survey
Supporting Documentation 179
180 Supporting Documentation
Supporting Documentation 181
182 Supporting Documentation
High School Survey
Supporting Documentation 183
184 Supporting Documentation
Supporting Documentation 185
186 Supporting Documentation
Supporting Documentation 187
APPROVED 2045 LONG RANGE PLAN SCORING CRITERIA
The following scoring criterion was approved by the MPO Policy Board on March 30th, 2016. The
criteria are one of several factors considered by the MPOJC Policy Board in making a decision on
which projects to include in the Long Range Transportation Plan.
Principle 1: Economic Opportunity – Supports metro area growth, innovation, job creation, and productivity
1. Project improves/provides direct access to planned growth area, existing jobs, or retail +1
2. Project involves more than one MPO jurisdiction +1 per jurisdiction
Principle 2: Environment – Preserves and protects our natural resources, including land, water and air quality
1. Project promotes air quality improvements via congestion reduction through one or more of the following:
Geometric improvements +1
ITS/signalization improvements +1
Reduction of VMT +1
Improvement to turning movements. +1
Principle 3: Quality of Life – Enhances livability and creates vibrant and appealing places that serve residents
throughout their lives
1. Project directly enhances safe route(s) to school, or improves transportation choices for locations specifical-
ly serving multi-family developments or elderly populations+1
Principle 4: System Preservation – Maintained in good and reliable condition
1. Maintenance or improvement to existing facility/infrastructure +5
Principle 5: Efficiency – Builds a well-connected transportation network and coordinating land use patterns to
reduce travel demand, miles travelled, and fossil fuel consumption
1. Project in a corridor with existing congestion (defined as having LOS E or F during peak hours according to
the adopted MPO Travel Demand Model) +5
2. Project in a corridor with forecasted future congestion (defined as having LOS E or F during peak hours
according to adopted MPO Travel Demand Model) +7
Principle 6: Choice – Offers multi-modal transportation options that are affordable and accessible
1. Project is on existing bus route +3
2. Separated trail or wide sidewalk (8’ or wider) +3
3. Project reduces modal conflict (pedestrian hybrid beacons, grade separation, dedicated bicycle lanes or
sharrows, bus pull off, etc.) +3
G. Scoring Criteria
188 Supporting Documentation
Principle 7: Safety – Designed and maintained to enhance the safety and security of all users
1. Sight distance or related safety issue documented by an expert (planner/engineer ect) +5
2. History involving two or more bicycle or pedestrian collisions in the last five years +7
3. Top 25 highest MPO accident locations or top 10 highest accident mid-blocks +7
Principle 8: Health – Invites and enhances healthy and active lifestyles
1. Project extends area trail network +3
2. Project addresses critical gap in the regional trail network +5
Principle 9: Equity – Provides access and opportunity for all people and neighborhoods
1. Project improves transportation network in lower-income neighborhoods +3
2. Focus of the project is to correct ADA non-compliance +5
Supporting Documentation 189
H. Performance Measures
PERFORMANCE MEASURE DEFINITION DESIRED TREND BASELINE
Travel time to work Average travel time to work Decrease 18.5 minutes
Transit access to
employment
Percent of metro employees within 1/4 mile of transit
route
Increase 93%
VMT Metro Area vehicle miles traveled Decrease 660,194 (1000's of
miles)
Housing density Metro area housing units per acre Increase 1.4
Air quality Annual average concentration of PM 2.5 in Johnson
County
Decrease 9.3-9.6 (EPA annual
standard = 12)
Travel delay to work Annual hours of delay per auto commuter Decrease 6 hrs / yr
Trail access Percentage of metro area within 1/4 mile of trail system Increase 80%
Bridges Percent of bridges (IDOT, County, & City) in Johnson
County rated as being deficient
Decrease 20.0% (2015)
Increase 93% (2014)
State/Federal
Increase 70% (2013)
Local Federal Aid Routes
PERFORMANCE MEASURE DEFINITION DESIRED TREND BASELINE
Mode Split Percentage of workers commuting via walking, biking,
transit, or rideshare
Increase 14.9% (2015)
Miles of roadway that include bike lanes Increase 6.2 miles
Percentage of roadway miles that do not include
sidewalks
Decrease 13 miles
Number of fatalities (5-year total)Decrease 24
Rate of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled
VMT)
Decrease 0.761
Number of serious injury accidents (5-year total)Decrease 127
Rate of serious injury collisions per 100 million VMT Decrease 4.023
Number of non-motorized fatalities/injuries (5-year total)Decrease 32
Rate of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries per
100 million VMT
Decrease 1.016
Bicycle Collisions Total Collisions Decrease 170
Pedestrian Collisions Total Collisions Decrease 154
Congestion Percentage of major road mileage at Level of Service C
or better at peak hours
Increase 97.90%
Vehicle Miles Travelled Local VMT per capita (annual, 1000's of miles)Decrease 5,709 (2015)
PERFORMANCE MEASURE DEFINITION DESIRED TREND BASELINE
Physical activity Percent of adults in Johnson County who are physically
active
Increase 17.6% (2013)
Seat belt use Percent of adults reporting to always use seat belts Increase 86% (2013)
Housing & transportation
costs
Average proportion of household income devoted to
housing and transportation costs
Decrease 49% metro
average
Economic Opportunity
Environment
Quality of Life
System Preservation
Pavement Condition
Index
Percent of pavement measured at fair or better
condition
Choice
Facilities
Safety
Health
Equity
Serious Injuries
Nonmotorized
Fatalities/Injuries
Efficiency
Fatalities
190 Supporting Documentation
PERFORMANCE MEASURE DEFINITION DESIRED TREND BASELINE
Mode Split Percentage of workers commuting via walking, biking,
transit, or rideshare
Increase 14.9% (2015)
Miles of roadway that include bike lanes Increase 6.2 miles
Percentage of roadway miles that do not include
sidewalks
Decrease 13 miles
Number of fatalities (5-year total)Decrease 24
Rate of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled
VMT)
Decrease 0.761
Number of serious injury accidents (5-year total)Decrease 127
Rate of serious injury collisions per 100 million VMT Decrease 4.023
Number of non-motorized fatalities/injuries (5-year total)Decrease 32
Rate of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries per
100 million VMT
Decrease 1.016
Bicycle Collisions Total Collisions Decrease 170
Pedestrian Collisions Total Collisions Decrease 154
Congestion Percentage of major road mileage at Level of Service C
or better at peak hours
Increase 97.90%
Vehicle Miles Travelled Local VMT per capita (annual, 1000's of miles)Decrease 5,709 (2015)
PERFORMANCE MEASURE DEFINITION DESIRED TREND BASELINE
Physical activity Percent of adults in Johnson County who are physically
active
Increase 17.6% (2013)
Seat belt use Percent of adults reporting to always use seat belts Increase 86% (2013)
Housing & transportation
costs
Average proportion of household income devoted to
housing and transportation costs
Decrease 49% metro
average
Choice
Facilities
Safety
Health
Equity
Serious Injuries
Nonmotorized
Fatalities/Injuries
Efficiency
Fatalities
Supporting Documentation 191
PERFORMANCE MEASURE DEFINITION DESIREDTRENDBASELINEModeSplitPercentageofworkerscommutingviawalking, biking, transit, or rideshare Increase 14.9% (2015)Miles of roadway that include bike lanes Increase 6.2milesPercentageofroadwaymilesthatdonotincludesidewalksDecrease13milesNumberoffatalities (5-year total)Decrease24Rateoffatalitiesper100millionvehiclemilestraveled (VMT)Decrease 0.761Numberofseriousinjuryaccidents (5-year total)Decrease127Rateofseriousinjurycollisionsper100millionVMTDecrease 4.023Numberofnon-motorized fatalities/injuries (5-year total)Decrease32Rateofnon-motorized fatalities and serious injuriesper100millionVMT Decrease 1.016BicycleCollisionsTotalCollisionsDecrease170PedestrianCollisionsTotalCollisionsDecrease154CongestionPercentageofmajorroadmileageatLevelofServiceCorbetteratpeakhoursIncrease 97.90%
Vehicle Miles Travelled Local VMT per capita (annual, 1000's of miles)Decrease 5,709 (2015)
PERFORMANCE MEASURE DEFINITION DESIRED TREND BASELINE
Physical activity Percent of adults in Johnson County who are physically
active
Increase 17.6% (2013)
Seat belt use Percent of adults reporting to always use seat belts Increase 86% (2013)
Housing & transportation
costs
Average proportion of household income devoted to
housing and transportation costs
Decrease 49% metro
average
ChoiceFacilitiesSafety
Health
Equity
SeriousInjuriesNonmotorizedFatalities/InjuriesEfficiencyFatalities
192 Supporting Documentation
Supporting Documentation 193
I: DefinitionsOrganizations
American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO): AASHTO is a nonprofit, nonpartisan
association representing highway and transportation departments in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico. It represents all five transportation modes: air, highways, public transportation, rail, and water. Its primary goal is to
foster the development, operation, and maintenance of an integrated national transportation system.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): An agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation that supports State
and local governments in design, construction, and maintenance of the Nation’s highway system (Federal Aid Highway
Program) and various federally and tribal owned lands. Through financial and technical assistance to State and local gov-
ernments, the Federal Highway Administration is responsible for ensuring that American’s roads and highways continue
to be among the safest and most technologically sound in the world.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA): An agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation that provides financial
and technical assistance to local public transit systems, including buses, subways, light rail, commuter rail, trolleys and
ferries.
Iowa Governor’s Traffic Safety Bureau (GTSB): A subdivision of the Iowa Department of Public Safety that administers
the State of Iowa’s allocation of federal highway safety funds.
Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT): The government organization, in Iowa, responsible for the organiza-
tion, construction and maintenance of the primary highway system.
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO): An organization made up of local elected and appointed officials respon-
sible for the development and coordination of transportation plans and programs, in cooperation with the state, for
metropolitan areas containing 50,000 or more residents.
National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO): NACTO is a non-profit association. NACTO’s mission is
to build cities as places for people, with safe, sustainable, accessible and equitable transportation choices that support a
strong economy and vibrant quality of life.
Regional Trails and Bicycle Committee (RTBC): The RTBC discusses and coordinates matters pertaining to pedestrian
and bicycle activity. This committee includes staff who oversee trail development and maintenance from MPOJC member
agencies, but also includes representatives of bicycle advocacy groups.
Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC): The TTAC advises the Urbanized Area Policy Board on policy
matters. This committee is composed of transportation planning, transit, and engineering staff members from MPOJC
member agencies.
Urbanized Area Policy Board (UAPB): The board is organized to conform to the federal requirements of the MPO. The
board is made up of elected officials from each the member entities plus one representative appointed by the president
of the University of Iowa.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The EPA, established in 1970, is an agency of the United States federal
government whose mission is to protect human and environmental health.
Strava: A social network for athletes (website and mobile app based).
194 Supporting Documentation
Terms
Accessible Pedestrian Signal APS: Accessible pedestrian signals are devices that communicate information about the
WALK and DON’T WALK intervals at signalized intersections in non-visual formats to pedestrians who are blind or who
have low vision.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): The ADA became law in 1990. The ADA is a civil rights law that prohibits
discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life, including jobs, schools, transportation, and
all public and private places that are open to the general public. The purpose of the law is to make sure that people
with disabilities have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. The ADA gives civil rights protections to
individuals with disabilities similar to those provided to individuals on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, age,
and religion. It guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities in public accommodations, employment,
transportation, state and local government services, and telecommunications.
Average Daily Traffic (ADT): The total traffic volume during a given time period.
Baby Boomers: The demographic cohort born during the post-World War II baby boom, approximately between the
years 1946 and 1964.
Complete Streets Policy: Rights of way designed and operated to enable safe access for all users, including pedestri-
ans, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities.
FAST Act: Signed into law on December 4, 2015, the FAST Act is the first federal law to provide long-term funding
certainty for surface transportation infrastructure planning and investment. The Act authorizes $305 billion over fiscal
years 2016 through 2020 for highway, highway and motor vehicle safety, public transportation, motor carrier safety,
hazardous materials safety, rail and research.
Federal Functional Classification (FFC): A tool used to define the role of roadways within the larger transportation
network. Each classification fits within a hierarchy based on the level of mobility and access that the particular roadway
is intended to provide.
Fiscal Constraint: A required component of long-range planning. Transportation expenditures included in this plan
should not exceed revenue estimates during the life of the plan.
Functionally obsolete bridge: The geometric design of a bridge does not meet the current design standards.
Housing Density: A measure of the number of housing units per a given area.
Level of Service (LOS): A qualitative assessment of a road’s operating conditions. For local government comprehen-
sive planning purposes, level of service means an indicator of the extent or degree of service provided by, or proposed
to be provided by, a facility based on and related to the operational characteristics of the facility. Level of Service indi-
cates the capacity per unit of demand for each public facility.
Metropolitan Area Planning Boundary: The area in which the metropolitan transportation planning process is car-
ried out.
Millennials: The demographic cohort following Generation X. There are no precise dates for when this cohort starts
or ends but the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years.
Mode Split: The percentage of travellers using a particular type of transportation or number of trips using said type.
Supporting Documentation 195
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): Standards established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency un-
der authority of the Clean Air Act that apply for outdoor air throughout the country.
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA): Signed into law on January 1, 1970, NEPA requires federal agencies to as-
sess the environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to making decisions.
Pavement Condition Index (PCI): A numerical index between 0 and 100 which is used to indicate the general condition of
pavement.
Statewide Urban Design And Specifications (SUDAS): The Institute for Transportation at Iowa State University maintains
Iowa’s SUDAS manuals for public improvements. Developing and maintaining Iowa’s unique SUDAS manuals is the result of a
lengthy and painstaking effort by more than 300 stakeholders across the state.
Structurally deficient bridge: A bridge having deterioration to one or more major components, but the bridge is not unsafe.
Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program: The FAST Act converts the long-standing Surface Transportation
Program into the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program acknowledging that this program has the most flexible eligibil-
ities among all Federal-aid highway programs and aligning the program’s name with how FHWA has historically administered
it. [FAST Act § 1109(a)]. STBG provides flexible funding that may be used by States and localities for projects to preserve and
improve the conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway, bridge and tunnel projects on any public road, pedestri-
an and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects, including intercity bus terminals
Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program Set-Aside: The FAST Act eliminates the MAP-21 Transportation
Alternatives Program (TAP) and replaces it with a set-aside of Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) program funding for
transportation alternatives (TA). These set-aside funds include all projects and activities that were previously eligible under TAP,
encompassing 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 management, and environ-
mental mitigation related to stormwater and habitat connectivity.
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Districts: TIF is a public financing method that is used as a subsidy for redevelopment, in-
frastructure, and other community-improvement projects. A TIF District reallocates funds from property taxes to encourage
investment within the district.
Traffic Analysis Zone: The unit of geography most commonly used in conventional transportation planning models. The size
of a zone varies, but for a typical metropolitan planning software, a zone of under 3,000 people is common.
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP): The programming document for federally funded surface transportation
improvements. The document includes transportation projects for all modes of surface transportation, including street and
highway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects.
Transportation Performance Management (TPM): A strategic approach that uses system information to make investment
and policy decisions to achieve national performance goals.
Travel Demand Model: Includes elements such as roadway and transit networks, and population and employment data to
calculate the expected demand for transportation facilities.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): An estimate of the miles traveled by all vehicles within a specific region each year.