TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Tuesday, April 7, :30 PM Planning Conference Room REQUESTED ATTENDEES:

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Tuesday, April 7, 2009 -- 1:30 PM Planning Conference Room REQUESTED ATTENDEES: Brad Finkeldei (MPO Member) Greg Moore (MPO Member)* Byron Low (FHWA Kansas Division) Steve Foust (FHWA Kansas Division) Cindy Terwilliger (FTA Region 7) Joni Roeseler (FTA Region 7) Christy Lane (KDOT Planning and Development) * Keith Browning (Douglas County Public Works Director)* Cynthia Boecker (Lawrence Assistant City Manager) * Casey Toomay (Interim - Lawrence Public Transit Administrator)* Wendy Koerner (Lawrence Transportation Specialist) Todd Girdler (Lawrence-Douglas County MPO Senior Transportation Planner)* Bart Rudolph (Lawrence-Douglas County MPO Transportation Planner) Shoeb Uddin (Lawrence City Engineer) Chuck Soules (Lawrence Public Works Director) * Scott McCullough, (Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Director)* Voting Member * AGENDA 1. Call Meeting to Order 2. Action Item: Approval of Minutes from the March 3, 2009 meeting 3. Action Item: 2030 Transportation Lawrence/Douglas County Long Range Transportation Plan Amendment #1 the MPO staff will discuss this amendment to add a new 2009 Bikeway System Map and related text revisions to the region s Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). The MPO staff will ask the TAC to review and approve this MTP amendment so that the L-DC MPO Policy Board can approve it at their next meeting on April 16, 2009. Page 1 of 4

4. Action Item: 2030 Transportation Lawrence/Douglas County Long Range Transportation Plan Amendment #2 the MPO staff will discuss this amendment to add text revisions related to the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA - Economic Stimulus) funded projects planned for our region to the MTP. The MPO staff will ask the TAC to review and approve this MTP amendment so that the L-DC MPO Policy Board can approve it at their next meeting on April 16, 2009. 5. Action/Discussion Item: TAC Bylaws Adoption of new bylaws to reflect the new re-designated MPO - the MPO and KDOT staffs will discuss this draft of new TAC Bylaws and allow the TAC to review and comment on the draft. The TAC may decide to revise the draft bylaws for approval later or may approve them at this meeting. 6. Action/Discussion Item: 2008-2012 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment #4 the MPO staff will discuss this amendment that deletes some road and bridge projects not selected by KDOT for funding with American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds and adds Transportation Enhancement projects that were recently selected by KDOT for ARRA funding. The MPO staff may ask the TAC to approve this amendment. 7. Action/Discussion Item: Public Participation Plan The MPO staff will present this document that has been posted for its required 45-day public comment period. The MPO staff will ask the TAC to approve this 2009 Public Participation Plan document to replace the 2004 Public Involvement Plan, so that the L-DC MPO Policy Board can approve it at their next meeting on April 16, 2009. The approval of this new PPP will bring this document into compliance with the latest federal planning regulations. 8. Quick Updates: a. Public Participation Plan b. 31 st Street Extension Project c. US Highway 56 Corridor Study d. 5-County Regional Transportation Study e. Lawrence-KU Transit Study f. UPWP Amendment #1 g. TIP Amendment #3 h. Bicycle Advisory Committee expansion i. Cooperative Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding 9. Other Business Page 2 of 4

10. Next Meeting: May 5, 2009 AGENDA ITEM INFORMATION 2. Action Item: Approval of Minutes from the March 3, 2009 meeting (see attached draft) 3. Action Item: 2030 Transportation Lawrence/Douglas County Long Range Transportation Plan Amendment #1 (see enclosed draft amendment) The MPO staff has been working with the Bicycle Advisory Committee and the TAC for several months to update the bikeway map for the region. This MTP amendment replaces the 2004 version of the Bicycle Facilities Map that is currently in the MTP with a new and expanded 2009 version called the Bikeway System Map. 4. Action Item: 2030 Transportation Lawrence/Douglas County Long Range Transportation Plan Amendment #2 (see enclosed draft amendment) The MPO staff has been working with KDOT staff and local officials over the last few months to develop a list of projects that will be sent to KDOT for consideration of receiving funds from the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA). This amendment adds the list of candidate ARRA projects and related text to explain what ARRA is to the regional transportation plan 5. Action/Discussion Item: TAC Bylaws Adoption of new bylaws to reflect the new re-designated MPO (see attached draft bylaws) The MPO staff has developed a new set of bylaws for the TAC that reflect changes made to the MPO process with the re-designation of the MPO Policy board in December 2008. These new draft bylaws will be presented to the TAC for review and possible approval. 6. Action/Discussion Item: 2008-2012 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment #4 (draft amendment will be distributed before or at the meeting) Page 3 of 4

The MPO and KDOT staffs have been working with the local governments in the region to amend the MPO planning documents to program funds for ARRA selected projects. This TIP amendment will add Transportation Enhancement (TE) projects funded through the ARRA and delete some road and bridge projects that ARRA funds were requested for but did not receive funding. This TIP amendment will complete the process of making our TIP reflective of the ARRA funds being sent to our region for surface transportation projects. 7. Action/Discussion Item: Public Participation Plan (See attached Public Participation Plan) The current public involvement plan for the L-DC MPO was approved in 2004 and needed to be updated and replaced by a new Public Participation Plan (PPP) that address all of the requirements in the latest version of the federal regulations for metropolitan transportation planning. The MPO staff has been working on the development of this new PPP for the last few months and has scheduled its approval by the MPO for April 2009. During the 45-day public review and comment period, staff received 2 positive comments, one thanking staff for including the cycling community during the creation of document and the other noting it was a nice plan with interesting results. Page 4 of 4

FINAL STAFF DRAFT TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) Minutes for Tuesday, March 3, 2009 Meeting VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT: Scott McCullough (Lawrence-Douglas County Planning) Christy Lane (KDOT) Todd Girdler (Senior Transportation Planner) Greg Moore (Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission) Charles Soules (Lawrence Public Works Director) Keith Browning (Douglas County Public Works Director) Cynthia Boecker (Lawrence Assistant City Manager) Casey Toomay (Interim Lawrence Transit Administrator) OTHERS PRESENT: Bart Rudolph (Transportation Planner) Shoeb Uddin (Lawrence City Engineer) Byron Low (FHWA) Cheryl Beatty (Eudora City Manager) Item 1: Call to Order Chairman Moore called the meeting to order at 1:32 PM. A quorum was present. Item 2: Approval of Minutes February 3, 2009 A motion to approve the minutes as presented was moved by Charles Soules, seconded by Scott McCullough and passed unanimously. Item 3: 2008-2012 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment #3 Todd Girdler presented this TIP amendment to the TAC for discussion and approval. He explained that this TIP amendment adds transit, road and bridge projects that are in the process of submission to KDOT for American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding. This TIP amendment was discussed at the last MPO meeting on February 19 th and the MPO asked staff to move on this amendment so it could be ready or MPO approval on March 12 th. This amendment is planned to be soon followed by amendment #4 that will add Transportation Enhancement (TE) projects funded with ARRA monies to the TIP and remove the road and bridge projects added with amendment #3 that did not receive ARRA funds. Scott McCullough told the TAC that the Lawrence Historic Preservation Planner, Lynne Zollner, had been contacted by KDOT to obtain information about the Carnegie Library and brick street projects that Lawrence is considering for TE submissions. Keith Browning told the TAC that the County Commission still needs to decide what level of local funding support they will provide to its ARRA proposed road projects. Cheryl Beatty said the same is true for the Eudora projects that still need the local share decided. The TAC briefly discussed whether they wanted the MPO to prioritize the ARRA submitted projects and decided that since our MPO does not get suballocated ARRA funds and that KDOT will make the decision about which projects from our region get this funding then there is no need for the MPO to prioritize them. It was suggested that each local government submitting projects let KDOT know which one is their highest priority. Charles Soules asked if the County would create a support letter for the TE projects that Lawrence and Eudora submits to KDOT. Keith Browning told the TAC that the cities need to send him the project information and he will ask the County Page 1 of 4

FINAL STAFF DRAFT Administrator about this to see if that can be done. A motion to approve this TIP amendment as presented was moved by Scott McCullough, seconded by Charles Soules and passed unanimously. Item 4: Metropolitan Transportation Plan Updates to reflect ARRA funding and projects Todd Girdler introduced this topic by stating that now that the projects which local governments want to seek ARRA funding for are known it seems that we also need to revise the Metropolitan Transportation Plan to specifically add those ARRA projects. Christy Lane noted that she had discussed this with the FHWA staff and they agreed that the plan as well as the TIP needed to be revised. The projects that need to be added to the list include the Kasold Drive and the Farmers Turnpike reconstruction projects. Charles Soules noted that this should not be a problem since we now have until December to obligate the funds since KDOT will quickly obligate over 50% of the ARRA funds on their own projects. The TAC then briefly discussed the difference between the rehabilitation and reconstruction of roads and how the reconstruction of regionally significant roads are projects that need to be individually identified in plans and do not fall under general headings of operation and maintenance projects. The TAC then discussed how the need for a MTP amendment will impact the TIP amendment #3 and #4 already planned. It was agreed that the MPO can move forward with TIP amendment #3 and that it will stay at KDOT until the MTP amendment is approved by the MPO in April and then KDOT can send the TIP amendment onto the FHWA and FTA for approval into the STIP. Since only the MPO needs to approve the MTP amendment it will just be sent to KDOT and the federal agencies as soon as the MPO approves it. It is hoped that by the end of April the MTP and TIP can both be amended to reflect the selection of ARRA funded projects for our region. The TAC then discussed how the ARRA funding changes needed in the MTP can be combined with the addition of the new Bikeway System Map into one MTP amendment. It was agreed that the staff should combine these things and bring one MTP amendment to the MPO for approval in April. Byron Low told the TAC that the revision of the MTP to add the planned ARRA funded projects should be relatively easy to accomplish. Scott McCullough stated that the staff should get to work on making the needed changes to the MTP soon and get that done so that the TIP amendments to add ARRA funded road, bridge, transit and transportation enhancement projects can be approved soon. Todd Girdler told the TAC that some other changes to the MTP to reflect recent developments with the KU-City transit coordination work could also be added to this MTP amendment. Scott McCullough moved that the MTP be amended to reflect the TIP changes reflected in amendment #3, passage of the ARRA and its funding for Kansas, the addition of a new bikeway system map to replace the bicycle facilities map now in the MTP, and the addition of text to note the ongoing work for KU-City transit coordination. This motion also included direction to staff to push the TIP Amendment #3 onto the MPO for approval at their March 12 th meeting as planned. This motion was seconded by Christy Lane and passed unanimously. Item 5: 2009 Unified Planning Work Program Amendment #1 Todd Girdler presented this UPWP amendment to the TAC for discussion and approval. He noted that this amendment makes technical adjustments to the budget to show the exact amount of the 2009 consolidated Planning Grant allocation from KDOT and to Page 2 of 4

FINAL STAFF DRAFT show the exact amount of the KU-City transit study. This amendment also adds the development of the Title VI Plan as a new work task for 2009. The other new thing added by this amendment is the ability to fund some staff time for the GIS Planner and GIS Analyst with MPO funding. A motion to approve this UPWP amendment was moved by Scott McCullough, seconded by Charles Soules and passed unanimously. Item 6: Quick Updates: a. Public Participation Plan Bart Rudolph told the TAC that this plan was out for public comments and three positive comments have been received. b. 31 st Street Extension Project Charles Soules and Keith Browning updated the TAC on this project and noted that the City is working to move the consultant from concept plan work to design work for the Haskell to O Connell section. The County will also be looking to change their contract with the consultants. c. US Highway 56 Corridor Study Todd Girdler informed the TAC that a draft project agreement is making its way around through study partners for review and should be finalized by KDOT soon. d. 5-County Regional Transportation Study Todd Girdler told the TAC that this month the study is conducting community dialogue meetings (one in each county), that next month there is a series of working group meetings scheduled, and that on May 5 th the Advisory Panel will meet again. e. TAC Bylaws Todd Girdler informed the TAC that a draft set of bylaws will be done and sent out to TAC members for review soon. f. Lawrence-KU Transit Study Casey Toomay told the TAC that the initial recommendations for KU-T system coordination was received from the consultant this morning and will be posted for public comment soon with hearings for these changes scheduled at KU and at the PTAC meeting later this month. She briefly described the changes proposed including the creation of a new Route 11 that combines elements of the T Route 8 and KU Routes 24 and 25. Todd Girdler told the TAC that these changes should increase the reported ridership for the transit system in Lawrence since public routes in this coordinated system will be counted. Cynthia Boecker told the TAC that interviews for a new Transit Administrator will take place tomorrow. g. Bikeway System Map Bart Rudolph informed the TAC that the new Bikeway System Map will be added to the T2030 document by amendment and that the MPO directed staff to explore the possibility of expanding the map to cover the whole county along with the expansion of the Bicycle Advisory committee to become a county-wide group. Item 7: Other Business Byron Low told the TAC that they should be prepared for a significant amount of oversight and paperwork related to the ARRA funded projects that this region receives. Page 3 of 4

FINAL STAFF DRAFT The Obama Administration is planning on these projects being reviewed by the public through a more transparent process than previous programs have employed. Item 8: Next Meeting The next TAC meeting will be held in the Planning Conference Room at the Lawrence City Hall at 1:30 PM on April 7, 2009. The TAC meeting was adjourned at 2:42 PM. Page 4 of 4

RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (L-DC MPO) is designated as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to carry out the Continuing, Cooperative and Comprehensive planning program, including transportation planning; and, WHEREAS, the MPO regional transportation planning process is conducted in order to foster the development of a multi-modal transportation system for the region that includes several forms of transportation including bicycling; and WHEREAS, the current Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) for the Lawrence- Douglas County Region (Transportation 2030 - Long Range Transportation Plan) includes recommendations for the update of the Lawrence Douglas County Bicycle Plan and the Bicycle Facilities Map; and, WHEREAS, Lawrence has established a Bicycle Advisory Committee to assist City and MPO staff in reviewing bicycling issues in Lawrence and in making recommendations to the MPO Policy Board and City Commission for the establishment of transportation policies regarding bicycle travel in Lawrence; and WHEREAS, the Lawrence-Douglas County MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has reviewed the recommendations from the Bicycle Advisory Committee and concurred with the BAC recommendations related to the Bicycle Facilities Map changes noted below. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that in accordance with the provisions of 23 CFR Part 450.210, the Kansas Department of Transportation and the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Organization hereby agree that the public involvement activities carried out in response to 23 CFR 450.324 (b) satisfy the public involvement requirements to make this change to the Bicycle Facilities Map and consequently to the current Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) for the Lawrence-Douglas County Region (Transportation 2030 - Long Range Transportation Plan) as noted below and shown on the attached bicycle facilities map. Remove the bicycle route following the Vermont and Kentucky alignments (with a few jogs) between 11 th Street and Indian Avenue Add a bicycle route following Massachusetts Street from 11 th Street to Indian Avenue with connections back over to Vermont and New Hampshire on the north end and back over to Vermont on the south Replace the future bike lanes designation along Rockledge Road between 6 th Street and 5 th Street with a future shared use path designation to provide a pathway connection between the 6 th /Rockledge and 3 rd /Iowa intersections Replace the bike lanes designation along Folks Road between Larissa and Harvard with a bike route designation

Replace the future bike lanes designation along Vermont Street between 6 th Street and 11 th Street with a bike route designation Replace the future bike route designation along Trail Road between Monterey and Folks with a bike route designation Add a bike route designation to Wellington between Stevens and Harvard Replace the future bike lanes designation along 29 th Street between the Haskell Rail Trail and Haskell Avenue with a future shared use path designation along 28 th Street between the Haskell Rail Trail and Haskell Avenue, and a future shared use path along Haskell Avenue between 28 th Street and 29 th Street Replace the future bike lanes designation along Monterey Way between Aspen Lane and just south of Hunters Hill Drive with a bike lanes designation Replace the future shared use path designation along Peterson Road between Kasold Drive and East 1130 Road with a shared use path designation Replace the future shared use path designation along Kasold Drive between Peterson Road and Grand Vista Drive with a shared use path designation Replace the future bike route designation along 25 th Terrace between O Connell and Franklin Roads with a bike route designation Add a future shared use path designation to a route following city owned property and easements part of which will follow utility/pathway easements between Kasold Drive just south of I-70 to a point of connection with the South Lawrence Trafficway Path north of the SLT-K10/6 th Street/US40 interchange Replace the future bike route designation along N 1200 Road between the Wakarusa Drive alignment and E 1150 Road with a future shared use path designation Replace the future bike route designation along N1750 Road between K-10 and E 800 Road with a future shared use path designation Replace the future bike route designation along E 800 Road between N1750 Road and N 1800 Road with a future shared use path designation Replace the bike lanes designation along Harvard Road between Stoneridge Drive and April Rain Road with a future bike lanes designation Replace the shared use path designation along Overland Drive between Stoneridge Drive and George Williams Way with a future shared use path designation Replace the future bike route designation along N 1500 Road between the eastern Lawrence city boundary and E 1750 Road with a future bike lane designation Replace the future bike route designation along E 1500 Road between N 1100 Road and N 1175 Road with a future shared use path designation Replace the future shared use path designation along George Williams Way between w 6 th Street and N 1700 Road with a future bike lane designation Replace the future shared use path designation along N 1700 Road between Dole Drive and George Williams Way with a future bike lane designation Remove the future bike route designation east of Queens Road and north of Overland drive that followed a future roadway identified in T2025 that was reconfigured in T2030. Remove the future bike lanes designation from N 1500 Road between K-10 and George Williams Way

Remove the future bike lanes designation from George Williams Way between Bob Billings Parkway and Bobwhite Drive Remove the future bike lanes designation from Bobwhite Drive between George Williams Way and Bob Billings Parkway Remove the future shared use path designation from the KU campus east of Louisiana Street Remove the shared use path designation along 6 th Street between K-10 and the South Lawrence Trafficway Trail Remove the shared use path designation south of the future park (former Lichtwardt property) northeast of the intersection of N 1700 RD and Dole Drive. Remove the future bike route designation from 10 th Street between Indiana Street and Delaware Street Add bike lane and shared use path designation to the future road network indentified in T2030 west of K-10 Add a future shared use path at connects the western edge of Bob Billing Parkway with the intersection of E 700 Road and Highway 40 Add a future bike route designation on 11 th Street between Indiana Street and Delaware Street. Add a future bike route designation along 11 th Street between Straford Road and Maine Street Add a future bike route designation along N 9 th Street between N 1650 Road and US 24/40 Add a future bike route designation along Lyon Street between N 8 th Street and N 9 th Street Add a future bike route designation along North Street between N 7 th Street and N 3 rd Street Add a future bike route designation along N 3 rd Street between Lyon Street and North Street Add a future bike lane designation along US 24/40 between N 7 th Street and the Douglas County line Add a future bike route designation along E 1150 Road starting at N 1800 Road and follows the route north designated as collector streets in the T2030 Future Thoroughfares Map. Add a future bike route designation along N 1550 Road between E 11 th Street and E 1625 Road Add a future bike route designation along E 1625 Road between N 1550 Road and N 1500 Road Add a future bike lane designation along Haskell Avenue between E 23 rd Street and E 11 th Street Add a future bike lane designation along E 1750 Road between N 1500 Road and N 1100 Road Add a future bike lane designation along N 1100 Road between E 1750 Road and E 1200 Road Add a future bike lane designation along E 1200 Road between N 1100 Road and N 1200 Road

Add a future bike lane designation along E 1400 Road between N 1100 Road and N 1250 Road Add a future bike lane designation along N 1250 Road between E 1400 Road and Lawrence city limit boundary Add a future bike lane designation along W 9 th Street between Rockledge Road and Vermont Street. Add a future shared use path designation to the south of the Wakarusa River along N 1200 Road and N 1175 Road between E 1150 Road and E 1600 Road Add a future shared use path designation to E 1600 Road between N 1175 Road and 31 st Street Add 3 future shared use path designations west of K-10 and North of Clinton Lake. One crosses diagonally the future thoroughfares street network and two start at Clinton lake and follow streams north into the future thoroughfares street network Add a future shared use path designation to E 1500 Road and along an alignment approximately 1/3 mile east of E 1500 Road from a point along E 1500 Road south of the Wakarusa River at approximately the N 1175 alignment to a point at or near the 31 st Street/Harper Street intersection Add a future shared use path designation along 15 th Street between Engel Road and Naismith Drive Add a shared use path designation in DeVictor Park north of Harvard Road Add a future shared use path designation extending the Burroughs Creek Trail north across the Kansas River to North Lawrence Revise the legend of the Bicycle Facilities Map to show Bike Routes, Bike Lanes, Shared Use Paths, Future Bike Routes, Future Bike Lanes, and Future Shared Use Paths Approve this revised map (BAC Approved 12-16-08) as the official map for use by City, County, MPO and State officials for bikeway planning and development in the Lawrence-Douglas County MPO metropolitan planning area, and rename this map as the Bikeway System Map Incorporate this map change into the current Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) for the Lawrence-Douglas County Region (Transportation 2030 - Long Range Transportation Plan) The Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Organization hereby approves this Bikeway System Map and MTP change on this day of 2009. Davonna Moore, L-DC MPO Chairperson Scott McCullough, L-DC MPO Secretary

Bicycle System Plan Chapter 8: Bicycle System Plan For many types of trips, bicycling represents a healthy alternative to using an automobile. Bicycling can also play an important role in helping the city to reduce congestion, improve air quality and develop a more balanced transportation system. The recommendations of Transportation 2030 propose improvements to existing on-street and trail facilities and development of an expanded system of bicycle-friendly roads and trails for the City of Lawrence and Douglas County s future. As a vital component of the transportation system in Lawrence and Douglas County, bicycles provide both commuter and multiuse transportation. Lawrence and Douglas County offer some of the best cycling opportunities in Kansas. Over the last five years Lawrence has continued to improve conditions for bicycling and to increase education about cycling issues. Accomplishments include: An ongoing, active Bicycle Advisory Committee; Installation of new multiuse trails and on-street bicycle lanes; Designation as the 51 st Bicycle Friendly Community in America; and, Designation at the Bronze Level from the League of American Bicyclists for being a bicycle friendly community in 2004, 2006 and redesignation in 2008. What is the Lawrence/ Douglas County Bicycle Advisory Committee? The Lawrence/ Douglas County Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) was established as a seven-member group of citizens interested in the promotion of bicycle transportation and safety. The BAC makes recommendations on the location and design of bicycle paths, expenditure of City funds, promotion of bicycle use and safety, street design issues related to bicycle use, and other bicycle and transportation issues. The Committee was instrumental in obtaining the City s Bicycle Friendly Community designation. The Bicycle Work Program was developed by MPO staff with oversight from the BAC. The Work Program identifies: Bicycle goals, objectives, and activities, The bicycle system and facility needs for the Lawrence/Douglas County region, and Bicycle education and safety awareness programs. What we ve heard There is a need for additional bicycle facilities in Lawrence, Eudora, Baldwin City and Douglas County. The Bicycle Work Program was last updated in 2004 by the MPO. Its Bikeway System Map was updated in 2009 and is summarized in this chapter. It has been adopted as the recommended Bikeway System Map as a component of T2030. Transportation 2030 121

Bicycle System Plan History The City of Lawrence has emphasized bicycle planning for over 30 years, starting with the creation of PedalPlan in 1976. PedalPlan outlined some of the deficiencies in the system, recommended bicycle routes, and proposed a signage scheme for the Lawrence community. These recommendations were implemented between 1976 and 1995. By the mid-1990s, increasing citizen concern about cycling issues prompted the City Commission to form the Bicycle Advisory Committee. Lawrence was named the 51 st Bicycle Friendly Community in 2000 by the League of American Bicyclists, a symbol of Lawrence s commitment to providing the best cycling opportunities in Kansas. The City was also the recipient of the award in 2004, 2006, and 2008, receiving recognition at the bronze level. As a recognized Bicycle Friendly Community, the City of Lawrence is working on enhancing existing facilities while planning for the future needs of cyclists in Lawrence. The Lawrence/Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Office takes seriously its role to create, develop, and educate the community about cycling and its facilities. The City of Lawrence's existing inventory of bicycle facilities includes: 80 miles of on-road designated routes, includes bike lanes and bike routes; 63 miles of additional on-road facilities are planned; 41 miles of hard surface multiuse paths; 40 miles of off-road paths, including the 10 miles from the Kansas River levee; 0.8 miles of rail trail (Haskell Trail) w/ approximately 1.5 miles planned (Burroughs Creek Rail Trail-TE funds are being requested this year); and, 29 miles of trails at Clinton Lake and additional off-road trails east of North Lawrence (along the Kansas River). These trails are rated by NORBA, (National Off-Road Mountain Biking Association). Off-road trails along the Kansas River are considered some of the best trails in the country. Cyclists come from surrounding states to ride these trails adding to the local tourist economy. 122 Transportation 2030

Bicycle System Plan Bicycle Facility Needs Facility needs identified in the Lawrence-Douglas County Bicycle Plan are based on general principles of safe and convenient bicycling, as well as specific location needs for various situations in Lawrence. These are summarized as follows: Safety and Convenience Whichever route a bicyclist may choose or need to use, that route should be as safe as possible for bicycling. Issues may include hazards (e.g., drainage grates, overhead obstructions, etc.), lighting, vehicular conflicts, or conflicts with other users. Routes should also provide access to various destinations by a reasonably direct means. Connections between Destinations The typical cyclist in Lawrence requires safe and convenient access to connect their residence with school, employment, or entertainment and shopping destinations. These linkages must provide safe access across high volume arterial streets. Some connections specific to Lawrence include: Access to the University of Kansas, primarily from residential areas; Access to Lawrence's downtown area, a destination for shopping, dining, and entertainment; and, Routes well suited for the commuter, multiuse rider, or fitness rider. These routes should provide a medium- to long-range round trip, safe access, and variety. Bicycle Level of Service Performance Measures The City of Lawrence has all the makings for a community with high bicycle mobility: a large University population, a relatively compact urban area, and a good climate. Although the City has done a good job of implementing a bicycle network, significant improvements are necessary to complete it to provide safe and direct connections. Determining how existing traffic operations and geometric conditions impact a bicyclist s decision to use or not use a specific roadway is the first step in defining the bicycle compatibility or performance of the roadway. In December of 1998, the U.S. Department of Transportation in association with the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Highway Safety Research Center developed a Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI) to evaluate existing facilities. This index also assists in determining what geometric improvements may be required for new facilities to achieve the desired level of service performance for bicycles. The BCI Compatibility Index can be applied to the City of Lawrence in the following three ways: (1) Evaluation of all existing and planned bicycle routes using the BCI index will provide for an accurate assessment of the bicycle network. (2) The BCI index is the first of its kind to provide a direct correlation of facilities to performance, which allow bicycle facility designers to examine the field variables to improve bicycle lane performance. Weak links in the existing and planned network can be determined, and sites needing improvements can be prioritized on index values. (3) The BCI index provides for performance measures that can be used in combination with traffic engineering standards to balance a street or corridor s level of service. As an example, one could argue that widening a roadway to improve automobile level of service must be done in balance with the bicycle level of service. Hence new roadways or roadways that are being redesigned or retrofitted can be assessed to determine if they are bicycle compatible. If the roadway does not meet the desired level of performance, the model can be used to evaluate changes that improve performance for bicycles. Transportation 2030 123

Bicycle System Plan Options Different levels of bicyclists feel comfortable on different types of facilities. The experience commuting bicyclist may prefer on-street facilities, while a less experienced rider may be more comfortable on a multiuse path. Some bicyclists have different access requirements to various locations at varying times of day. Maximum flexibility is important in accessing all parts of the community. Signage Bicyclists require clear and consistent signs to mark bicycle facilities. These signs not only assist the cyclist in choosing the most appropriate route, but also alert the motorist to the presence of cyclists, thereby increasing safety. Maps The City s Planned Bikeways Map (2006) provides information on existing and future facilities, safety, and related information. The MPO should continue efforts to disseminate these maps to schools, recreation centers, libraries, and other locations. Bicycle Parking Bicycle parking needs include the following: What we ve heard Additional funding is needed for bicycle facilities. The downtown area should have an adequate amount of dedicated, secure bicycle parking for commuters and business patrons; and, Safe and secure bicycle parking should be provided as necessary near schools, universities, libraries, recreational centers, other public buildings, at activity centers, and along activity corridors, as well as in City parks, especially where high use is anticipated (e.g., Holcomb, Lyons, Veterans, etc.). 124 Transportation 2030

Bicycle System Plan Ancillary Facilities To effectively use the bicycle as a transportation mode, the cyclist requires facilities in addition to routes and parking. Bicycle commuters require showers and lockers at their place of employment. Other needed ancillary facilities include access to other public transit modes (buses, carpools, etc.), and rest areas with water at suitable intervals or locations. Recommended Bicycle System Plan Lawrence-Douglas County Bicycle Plan Recommendations The 2004 Lawrence-Douglas County Bicycle Plan includes recommendations for existing and future bike lanes, routes, and trails within the City of Lawrence. Although popular and heavily used, the existing bike system does not yet provide a continuous system that serves the entire city. These paths, lanes, and routes serve both commuter and multiuse bicyclists. Bicycle commuters might use their bicycles daily for work and shopping trips and view their bicycles as vehicles. Multiuse bicyclists tend to ride their bicycles on a more occasional basis, seek attractive and safe routes, and view their bicycles as multiuse and exercise equipment. The majority of Lawrence s street bike facilities are on-street bike routes. These routes tend to be located along lower volume streets where the routes are shared by automobiles and bicyclists. There are very few separate on-street bike lanes in the city. To the extent possible, bike lanes should be promoted because the separate lane provides a defined physical space for the rider, which improves safety for the bicyclist. This physical lane also helps define the importance of the bicyclist as a means of travel within the community. Bicycle Action 1: Implement 2004 Lawrence-Douglas County Bicycle Plan Recommendations Implement the Lawrence-Douglas County Bicycle Plan, recommendations include the following: Transportation 2030 125

Bicycle System Plan Further develop bicycle facilities that extend into future growth areas as land uses are identified and continue to explore opportunities that provide connections to schools, parks, the downtown, and other activity areas. Establish a dedicated funding plan to complete implementation of a bicycle facilities plan and for maintenance of these facilities. What we ve heard Bicycle facilities lack continuity at some locations. Prioritize and implement critical segments that provide continuity for the system and provide connections to major activity centers, schools, Kansas University, etc. Evaluate existing bicycle routes and other corridors for opportunities to provide bicycle lanes, routes, or trails. Maintain existing route maps for all trails, lanes, and routes and provide appropriate signage. Implement a public information and education program that encourages this alternative mode of transportation. Bicycle Action 2: Update the Lawrence-Douglas County Bicycle Plan and Bicycle Facilities Plan Every Five Years The Lawrence-Douglas County Bicycle Plan should be updated every five years to address changing needs and priorities. The Bicycle Facilities Plan was updated and renamed the Bikeway System Map in 2009. Public and Private Development Proposals To create multimodal opportunities, two specific actions are required. The more difficult of the two is repairing and/or retrofitting areas within a City where facilities for bicyclists were not originally considered but are now needed. The easier opportunity is to establish standards and guidelines to accommodate bicycling in future private and public development. 126 Transportation 2030

Bicycle System Plan From the standpoint of public development, particularly in construction of new roads and reconstruction of existing roads, considerations related to bike lanes and routes, street crossings, and other design features should be addressed and embraced in all new projects. In order to assure that new private developments consider the bicyclists, there should be standards and checklists from which the applicant and the City can review the proposed development and be assured that future bicyclists that desire to travel to, from, and within that development can do so. These standards and guidelines do not need to be onerous, but they do need to be realistic. Requirements should include recognition of on- and off-site destinations and connections between the development and other activity centers. Particularly important destinations would include schools, parks, neighborhoods, citywide trails, libraries, recreation centers, bike lanes and routes, and activity areas. Bicycle Action 3: Adopt Bicycle Standards and Guidelines for New Developments Standards and guidelines should be adopted that Develop minimum bicycle standards and guidelines for all new roadways and reconstruction of existing roadways and Incorporate private development standards by providing bicycle facilities connecting to key destinations such as schools, parks, trails, and activity centers. Bicycle Action 4: Implement a Bicycle Demonstration Project Select a short-term demonstration project that embraces best engineering practices, bicycle design standards, and minimum Federal guidelines for bicycle facilities. Bicycle Action 5: Consider Bicycles in Development Review The City s development review process should be modified to include requirements for on- and off-site bicycle connections, facilities, and amenities. Bike Routes, Lanes, and Paths How Are They Different? Bikeway A general term for any street or trail which in some manner is specifically designated for bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes. Multiuse Paths This is a bikeway or trail that is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by open space or a barrier and is either within the road right-of-way or within an independent right-of-way. These are also referred to as a shared-use, multiuse trails, or Class I bikeways. Bicycle Lane This is a bikeway on a portion of a street that has been designated by signage, and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicycles. Also referred to as a Class II bikeway. Bicycle Route A segment of a system of roadways signed for the shared use of automobiles and bicyclists without pavement markings. Sometimes referred to as a Class III bikeway. Transportation 2030 127

Bicycle System Plan Douglas County Bicycle Recommendations What we ve heard Parking lots are needed at trail heads. What we ve heard At some locations there are missing connections between multiuse trails and the rest of the transportation system. There is a recognized lack of bikeways between Lawrence and surrounding Douglas County. Currently the only means of connecting these communities is by travel along the country roads and streets. For example, in Eudora bicyclists use Main Street coming from the north as well as 10 th Street, neither of which is designed to accommodate bicycles. Many jurisdictions elsewhere in the United States have elected to widen the shoulders of these connecting roads to five or six feet to allow room for the bicyclist, rumble strip, and edge debris. This is typically done at the time of resurfacing or reconstruction but in some cases can only be accomplished during major reconstruction due to existing geometric and physical constraints (e.g., ditches). Additional protection to the bicyclist can be accommodated with edge-line rumble strips that separate the vehicle lane from the shoulder. Where shoulder rumble strips are provided a six-foot wide shoulder is desirable. Bicycle Action 6: Implement Douglas County Rural Bicycle Plan Elements Identify potential rural bicycle corridors based upon existing and future demand. Identify potential bicycle corridors in the county s smaller cities. What we ve heard There should be more bicycle and pedestrian crossings over the Kansas River. Identify connecting corridors that integrate with existing and future city bicycle facilities with those in the county and potentially, adjacent counties. While addressing safety, explore the opportunity for widening the shoulders of county roads that lead into and out of Lawrence at the time of resurfacing and reconstruction. Bicycle Amenities A major element of the overall bicycle plan is the provision for adequate bicycle facilities as part of the manmade environment. A place to park a vehicle at the end of a trip is almost always provided, but rarely is there a place where the bicyclists can lock or store their bicycle. There is a wide range of facility designs available that can be public or part of a private development. 128 Transportation 2030

Bicycle System Plan Bicycle Action 7: Plan and Construct Bicycle Amenities Develop bicycle rack and storage requirements for new developments. Requirements should address design, location, and number. Requirements should also consider covered bicycle parking for major proposed developments. Provide functional bicycle racks and storage facilities at activity centers and along activity corridors. Explore the opportunity for trailhead restoration, information, and parking facilities for high demand trails. Bicycle Education, Safety, and Enforcement A functional bicycle plan needs ongoing education on air quality, laws for bicycles and motor vehicles, the health benefits of bicycle transportation, and its contribution to the reduction of congestion. This should be part of the overall City and MPO communication and education program. In addition, enforcement of the vehicle code for both bicyclists and automobile drivers is necessary to promote a safe environment. Bicycle Action 8: Develop a Bicycle Education Program and Enforce Traffic Laws Develop bicycle education program as part of City s overall communication and education program. Provide police resources and manpower to enforce bicycle and vehicular traffic laws. Use the City s Web site and local access television as information and education tools. Opportunities and Constraints for Bicycle Use in Lawrence There are many opportunities to increase the use of alternative modes of transportation, including bicycling: Demographics The presence of the University of Kansas and its students, faculty and staff, in addition to the general population provide a large base of potential users. Climate The climate in the Lawrence area is generally conducive to bicycling approximately nine months a year. Geography The relatively small land area of the immediate Lawrence metropolitan region makes cycling a feasible transportation choice. Incomplete Existing Bicycle System The City of Lawrence already has a series of trails and existing bicycle routes. Some constraints to bicycling in the City of Lawrence include the following: Existing Bicycle System While this system is an opportunity, it is also a constraint to cycling in many areas. Many routes do not provide a safe means across busy streets. Some routes do not have sufficient signage. Other routes have conflicts with multiple users or they may not provide complete linkage to desired destinations. Topography The steep topography of several areas of the city creates obstacles to bicycling. These include the University of Kansas (especially the eastern edge of campus); 9th Street near Avalon Street; areas of western Lawrence (such as 15th Street west); and the area around the 6th and Iowa Streets intersection. Barriers Barriers may be manmade or natural. Topographic constraints are considered a barrier. Other barriers include major arterials (e.g., 23rd Street/Clinton Parkway, Iowa Street, and 6th Street), railroad tracks, and the Kansas and Wakarusa rivers. Transportation 2030 129

Bicycle System Plan Lawrence/Douglas County Bicycle System The establishment of bicycle performance measures will be of little utility unless coupled with concerted action by the City to fund the comprehensive network of bicycle facilities. The Map shown in Figure 8.1 is the recommended T2030 Bikeway System Map. This bicycle network has been designed to provide direct connections between neighborhoods and activity centers. It includes bike lanes along streets and highways and off-street bicycle/pedestrian paths. The Updated Map was approved by the L-DC MPO in 2009. Bicycle Action 9: Implement the Bicycle Plan of the Lawrence-Douglas County Bicycle Plan Improvements include new bicycle trail, paths, lanes, and routes. Signage recommendations should also be considered and implemented to increase awareness of the city s bicycle network. Bicycle Action 10: Adjust Short-Term Funding Allocations for Bicycle Facilities T2030 s Financial Plan identifies $7.4 million to fund bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Consideration should be given to providing additional local funding for bicycle facilities. Project priorities in the region s Transportation Improvement Program should be adjusted annually to reflect the funding allocations of T2030. The Bicycle Advisory Committee should prioritize bicycle improvements and expenditures annually. 130 Transportation 2030

Bicycle System Plan Figure 8.1 T2030 Bikeway System Map Source: Lawrence-Douglas County Bike Plan 2004 (Map updated in 2009) http://www.lawrenceks.org/ pds/tr-tranmaps Transportation 2030 131

Bicycle System Plan This page intentionally left blank. 132 Transportation 2030

Financial Plan Chapter 14: Financial Plan A major component of Transportation 2030 is the financial element. The purpose of the financial element is to balance the transportation projects recommended for implementation with the resources of the community available to build and maintain transportation facilities and services. It is based on an analysis of past funding, expected funding, and projected needs. Federal transportation legislation requires MPOs to include a financial constraint analysis in its long-range transportation plan. The financial component should indicate how T2030 will be implemented with the resources that could reasonably be expected to be available. Specific language from the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) is provided below. The long-range transportation plan shall include a financial plan that demonstrates how the adopted long-range transportation plan can be implemented, indicates resources from public and private sources that are reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the plan, and recommends any additional financing strategies for needed projects and programs. The financial plan may include, for illustrative purposes, additional projects that would be included in the adopted long-range transportation plan if reasonable additional resources beyond those identified in the financial plan were available. For the purpose of developing the long-range transportation plan, the metropolitan planning organization and State shall cooperatively develop estimates of funds that will be available to support plan implementation. The estimates of revenues available for transportation improvements in the Lawrence-Douglas County area are based on current legislative policy. No change in these policies was assumed. The impacts of inflation in determining revenues and costs were considered. Transportation 2030 183

Financial Plan Revenue Estimation Methodology Estimating revenues available over the life of T2030 was done cooperatively between the MPO, the City of Lawrence, Douglas County, Lawrence Transit, and KDOT. Generally, historic expenditures of transportation funds invested on projects in the Lawrence/Douglas County area for approximately the past 5 to 10 years were used to calculate average annual funding amounts that were increased for inflation to estimate the revenues available for the duration of T2030. Estimated average funding amounts for most state and federal programs were developed using each program s revenues over the past years of ISTEA, TEA-21, and SAFETEA-LU implementation. This strategy represents a continuation of current programs at levels similar to recent, historical revenues. These funding figures were then adjusted for inflation and projected over the duration of T203 0 to arrive at total revenue estimates. T2030 addresses revenues and costs for street and highway projects, bicycle and pedestrian projects, and public, fixed-route transit service. Elderly and disabled public transportation (i.e., paratransit) services are included in the State s long - range transportation plan and therefore are not addressed in T2030. University transit services are not explicitly addressed in T2030 either, although recommendations regarding future coordination needs are discussed in the Transit System Plan chapter. Funding Assumptions for Roads and Bridges Federal Funding Assumptions The current Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) will end with federal fiscal year 2009. It is assumed that a new federal surface transportation program similar to SAFETEA-LU will be passed for federal fiscal year 2010 and beyond, and that federal funding levels to the Lawrence/Douglas County MPO region will continue at current levels adjusted by a 2% rate of inflation. 184 Transportation 2030

Financial Plan It is also assumed that the major programs of federal funding available to local governments for roadway and bridge projects (STP, BR and Safety) will continue in their current or similar form. It is assumed that the Surface Transportation Program or similar federal program will continue to be the chief federal funding source for locally sponsored roadway capacity improvements. It is assumed that Congress will pass new surface transportation legislation with a Transportation Enhancement program and that the region will receive funding from that program at levels similar to what our area received between 2000 and 2006 adjusted for inflation. Lastly, it is assumed that KDOT will continue to share federal funds with local governments at levels similar to the current levels and that KDOT will not significantly increase the amount of federal funding that they keep for their own projects. State Funding Assumptions The current Comprehensive Transportation Program (CTP) ends in 2009. This program is a large multi-year funding program designed to make major improvements to the transportation infrastructure around the state and to provide increased funding for transportation projects and services. In addition to the road improvements funded by the CTP, transit, railroad, and aviation projects are also funded. It is assumed that a new CTP will not be passed by the State Legislature immediately to replace the current program and that there will be a two-year gap before a new program is in place. For the State fiscal year 2010-2011 period it is assumed that 2009 KDOT funding levels will remain in place. It is assumed that the US-59 reconstruction project will be funded in the region during this two-year interim period. Starting with State fiscal year 2012, it is assumed that a new CTP will be in place and that the region will obtain sufficient KDOT funding for major roadway capacity projects. The level of funding for KDOT roadway and bridge projects in the MPO area is assumed to be at a level that represents the CTP funding level adjusted for inflation through 2030. Local Funding Assumptions Douglas County Funding: The current mix of Douglas County funds used for road and bridge improvements includes general funds and federal aid allocated to the County from KDOT. The assumption is that these funding sources will continue in the future at about current levels adjusted at a 5% rate of inflation. General funds raised from property Transportation 2030 185

Financial Plan taxes are typically used to provide the local match amount for federal aid projects and sometimes used to fully fund smaller road and bridge projects. The assumption included in the funding tables is that an amount of general funds equal to the required twenty percent match for federal aid will be available from the County. These funding practices are assumed to continue through the life of T2030. The County also receives Special City & County Highway Fund revenues from the State which are state gasoline taxes passed onto Douglas County. At present, all of this gas tax revenue is used by the County Public Works Department for maintenance projects, and this practice is assumed to continue. This gas tax revenue along with enhanced general fund revenues is assumed to be adequate to provide necessary maintenance o f the County road system in the future. It is also assumed that the County will occasionally receive some federal funding fo r Transportation Enhancement (TE) projects and that the local share of those projects wi ll be paid for with general fund revenues. City Funding: The current mix of City funding for roadway and bridge improvements includes property taxes, federal aid, and Special City & County Highway Fund monies. Like the County this last source from state gas taxes is used by each City for maintenance projects only, and this practice is assumed to continue through 2030. The level of local funding support for roadway and bridge projects is assumed to remain at current levels adjusted at a 2.5% rate of inflation. The assumption included in the funding tables is that an amount of funds equal to the required twenty percent match for federal aid will be provided by a City for their FHWA funded improvements and tha t other locally funded projects will be paid for with general fund revenues. The City of Lawrence, like Douglas County, receives some federal funding passed through KDOT to help fund road and bridge improvements. It is assumed that the curren t level of federal aid to Lawrence will continue in the future. It is also assumed that the Cities will continue to be awarded some Transportation Enhancement funds from KDOT for special projects (bikeways, historic preservation, streetscape, etc.). The level of TE funding for the Cities will be assumed to remain at about the level it received during the 2000-2006 period adjusted at a 2% rate of inflation. Project Cost Assumptions Project Cost Assumptions Projects cost estimates are based upon current construction costs increased by a 4% rate of inflation. 186 Transportation 2030

Financial Plan Funding Assumptions for Transit General Transit Assumptions The mix of funding for Lawrence Transit (the T ) includes farebox revenue, advertising, local general funds, KDOT operating assistance, federal formula operating assistance, federal formula capital assistance and federal discretionary capital assistance. It is assumed that future farebox revenue will continue at current levels adjusted for inflation. Other operating revenues from advertising fees are a small portion of the revenue mix and are also assumed to remain at current levels. Federal Transit Funding Assumptions Federal formula funds for both operating and capital assistance are expected to continue throughout the term of this plan at current levels adjusted at a 2% rate of inflation. There may be delays in reauthorizing the next federal surface transportation program after SAFETEA-LU expires at the end of federal fiscal year 2009. However, it is assumed that funding will continue to flow to the region by the enactment of continuing resolutions similar to those passed by Congress in recent years. The current levels of formula funds from the FTA are assumed to remain the same in the future. It is also assumed that the transit funding programs used locally (formula operating and capital assistance along with some discretionary capital assistance) will continue at current levels. The paratransit vehicle funding now provided to local agencies for the transportation of elderly persons and persons with disabilities is also assumed to continue at current levels. Discretionary capital funds from the FTA (Section 5309), are much less predictable and uncertain. It is assumed that some discretionary FTA funds will be available to help pay for bus purchases during the term of this plan, but it is not assumed that major amounts of discretionary funding will be available for new buildings. The assumption used in this Long Range Transportation Plan is that about every four years Lawrence Transit will be successful at securing discretionary capital funds for replacement buses and will be able to purchase four new buses with this funding. Transportation 2030 187

Financial Plan Lawrence Transit is considering application for funding from the Jobs Access- Reverse Commute Program; but, funding from this source has not been assumed in T2030. State Transit Funding Assumptions The amount of KDOT operating assistance increased substantially after the Comprehensive Transportation Program (CTP) was passed in 2000. It is assumed that this level of state support for transit in the Lawrence Area will continue in the future and that the State will pass an interim program if necessary to maintain this funding while developing a new CTP. It is assumed that no major disruption to state operating assistance for transit will occur even though there is expected to be a two-year period (2010-2011) between the end of the CTP and the start of its successor program. Future state funding is assumed to increase at a 2% rate of inflation. Local Transit Funding Assumptions The City of Lawrence provides a local match for formula capital and discretionary capital funds, as well as operating assistance to the T. These funds are provided through a local property tax levy. It is expected that the City will continue to provide matching funds in the future, at levels similar to the current contributions adjusted for inflation. 188 Transportation 2030

Financial Plan Revenue Sources Several federal, state, and local funding sources provide revenues to fund the transportation system in the Lawrence/Douglas County region. Although the funding process may be very confusing to some and seamless to others, the distinction of funding sources is important in estimating expected revenues and allocation of funds to selected projects within the region. State and federal funding programs are generally administered by KDOT either through allocation to local jurisdictions or by directly implementing projects on the State Highway System. In some limited cases, the Lawrence/Douglas County MPO selects projects for funding through these state and federal sources. More often than not, however, KDOT programs projects for state and federal funding; but some flexibility exists to change modal allocations of funding or project selection through the cooperative process between the MPO and KDOT. Federal Highway Programs National Highway System (NHS) funds are available for use on designated NHS routes. These tend to be high-type freeways, expressways, and principal arterials. KDOT receives an annual formula apportionment of NHS funds. KDOT currently programs NHS projects. Interstate Maintenance (IM) funds are apportioned annually to the states for use on the interstate highway system. These funds cannot be used for capacity improvements and are intended for substantial maintenance and reconstruction projects. KDOT programs projects in this funding category. Bridge (BR) funds are annually apportioned by formula to the states for bridge replacement and rehabilitation projects. A portion of these funds are then sub-allocated by KDOT to cities and counties for local bridge projects using a formula that considers the ratio of the square footage of deficient bridges in a county to the total deficient square footage in the state. Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) funds are intended for projects that improve air quality through congestion relief and other measures. While the minimum allocation portion of these funds are eligible for use anywhere in the state, KDOT has elected to allocate them to Kansas City and Wichita to help these areas maintain their air quality status. Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds are apportioned annually to the states. Metropolitan areas with over 200,000 population receive a minimum amount that must be used within the region. In addition, there is a requirement that a certain percentage must be obligated in rural portions of the states. Current KDOT practice is to allocate STP funds to all counties in the state using the allocation formula for the Special City/County Highway Fund. Small urban areas in Kansas (population 5,000 50,000) receive STP allocations on a revolving basis within population groups. KDOT also maintains a statewide flexible category of STP funds that it uses for state system projects. KDOT programs projects for the statewide flexible STP funds; city and county projects are selected by local governments and programmed through KDOT. The STP-Safety Program (STP-S), formerly known as Hazard Elimination Safety, is a discretionary program available to all jurisdictions regardless of MPO status. The KDOT Bureau of Traffic Engineering manages this program wherein highaccident locations are identified and prioritized across the state. Accident information is solicited from cities every two years to identify the most qualified projects. KDOT programs these funds using this accident information. Transportation 2030 189

Financial Plan The Rail-Highway Grade Crossing Program (STP-RR) is a statewide program administered through KDOT. Grade crossings are selected for improvement based on ratings from a grade crossing index. The Transportation Enhancement Program (TE) is administered as a statewide discretionary program in which funding applications are submitted by local jurisdictions on an annual basis. The program includes three main categories: Historic, Scenic and Environmental, and Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. Project recipients provide at least 20 percent of the project cost to match the federal funds. Congressional Priority Program funds are placed in the federal transportation legislation for projects that might not normally receive funding because of the project scope or cost. While Lawrence received Congressional funding in the past for the South Lawrence Trafficway, no assumptions were made in T2030 concerning future earmarks. However, this could be a potential source of funding for major projects such as the South Lawrence Trafficway, 23 rd Street Corridor Access Management Plan, or an Eastern Connector. Congressional Priority projects are administered through KDOT. State Road Improvement Programs The Connecting Link Surfacing Program (KLINK 1R) provides funds for roadway surfacing on state highway connecting links within local jurisdictions. It is available to all jurisdictions. In Kansas, the state highway system does not extend into a city s corporate limits. Instead, KDOT executes a Connecting Link Agreement that allows a state highway to pass into or through a city, and the city is paid to maintain the route. Economic Development (ED) is a discretionary program for projects that will provide or enhance economic development opportunities for communities throughout the state. Projects must be on routes that are on or eligible to be added to the State Highway System. It is available to all jurisdictions. The Geometric Improvement Program (KLINK Geometric) provides funds for geometric improvements to city streets that carry state highway designations (City Connecting Links). This is a statewide annual discretionary program available to all jurisdictions. The System Enhancement Program is a statewide discretionary funding program made available to all local governments on a one-time basis. Projects must be on or eligible to be added to the State Highway System. There are separate categories for interchanges/grade separations, bypasses, and corridors. The Kansas Comprehensive Transportation Program, enacted in 1999, increased funding to the Special City/County Highway Fund (SCCHF), which is distributed annually by formula to all cities and counties in the state. In addition, City Connecting Link payments were increased from $2,000 to $3,000 per lane mile for the maintenance of state highways within local jurisdictions. An additional program available to KDOT is the use of toll credits for project financing. Federal law states that if a state has interstate highways that were constructed and are maintained without the use of federal funds (e.g., the Kansas Turnpike), the state can receive credit for this spending. Since almost all federal transportation programs have matching requirements ranging from 10 to 50 percent, toll credits can be used in lieu of local or state matching funds. KDOT has shared toll credits with local governments on occasion. 190 Transportation 2030

Financial Plan Federal Transit Programs The Section 5307 Program provides funding to urban areas for transit capital, operating, and planning assistance. These funds are formulaallocated by FTA to metropolitan area recipients. The Section 5309 Program provides transit capital discretionary grants awarded by FTA, often with Congressional input. They are available to all jurisdictions. The Section 5310 Program supplies capital assistance for elderly and disabled transportation programs. These funds are administered by KDOT as a statewide discretionary program. The Section 5311 Program provides capital and operating assistance for rural public transportation programs. These funds cannot be used in urbanized areas. The FTA Job Access & Reverse Commute Grant Program (also referred to as welfare-to-work) is a federal discretionary grant program. It requires regional job access or reversecommute plans to be developed through a coordinated transportation/social service planning process. State Transit Programs The State Transit Program provides funding for urban and rural public transportation at approximately a 60/40 split, respectively. Funding has been increased to $6 million annually beginning in FY2000, up from the previous $1 million annual amount. Local Transportation Funding Sources The Operating Budget for the City of Lawrence includes an adopted Capital Improvement Budget (CIB), which contains funding for transportation improvements through the issuance of general obligation bonds. Generally, these funds are used for major thoroughfare improvements, local match obligations for state highway projects within the urban area, and traffic signal improvements. In addition to general funds, the City of Lawrence has a 3-mil dedicated property tax to fund the Lawrence Transit System (state legislation allows up to 5 mils). There is no local dedicated funding source for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, although some general fund revenues are typically used for projects related to the nonmotorized transportation modes. Douglas County funds roadway improvements with general fund revenues. In addition, a portion of the county s one mil property tax goes to nonprofit transportation providers for rural transit services. In summary, local funding sources are typically general fund revenues but also include some bonds. Some of these funds are dedicated for transit, transportation enhancement, and roadway matching. The remainder is generally available for all modes, although roadway improvements have historically dominated their use. Other Transportation Funding Sources The Kansas Airport Improvement Program was created in 1999 and funded at $3 million annually to provide assistance to maintain and upgrade local airports. Transportation 2030 191

Financial Plan Table 14.1 Projected Revenues for T2030 Source: Lawrence/Douglas County MPO, KDOT, Lawrence Transit Anticipated Revenues Funding Programs/Sources Local State Dedicated Transit Programs $42,489,000 $12,086,000 Transportation Enhancements $1,485,000 0 Special City/County Highway Fund 0 $109,779,000 KLINK Connecting Links Program 0 $3,404,000 Bridge Programs $90,243,000 $8,232,000 KTA Program Road Programs $156,496,000 $281,005,000 Local Operations and Maintenance $248,026,000 0 Through the cooperative process carried out among the MPO, KDOT, Lawrence Transit, and other agencies, it is anticipated there will be about $1.3 billion dollars available ove r the life of T2030 for roadway, bridge, bicycle facility, and pedestrian facility improvements; system maintenance; and transit services. The estimated funding projections are based on current dollars adjusted for inflation. Federal SAFETEA-LU legislation requires the transportation projects and services recommended in T2030 to be financially constrained to available revenues. This means that expected financial resources must be sufficient to cover the projected costs of the total transportation system, including both existing and planned facilities and services, through the year 2030. Federal Total $542,402,000 $409,657,000 $187,691,000 Total $41,652,000 $96,227,000 $5,938,000 $7,423,000 0 $109,779,000 0 $3,404,000 $11,500,000 $109,975,000 $170,000,000 $129,870,000 $567,371,000 0 $248,026,000 $1,309,750,000 Reasonably expected revenue s include existing local, state, and federal funding sources described in previous sections o f this chapter. They also include local revenues for maintaining the system. The T2030 revenue forecast is shown in Table 14.1. The procedure for determining the anticipated revenues is detailed in the Technical Appendix. Discretionary programs or new local programs, such as those described on the following pages, could provide significan t revenues over and above the formula programs represented in Table 14.1. This may allow one or more of the unfunded projects to be selected for funding. 192 Transportation 2030

Financial Plan Funding Sources and Financing Mechanisms There are a number of financing mechanisms for transportation improvements authorized under Kansas law. A number of state statutes authorize various approaches for funding public projects. Some of these sources and mechanisms are already used by jurisdictions in the region. Others are provided herein for reference to potential funding sources that may be pursued in the future to reduce the gap between transportation needs and revenues. Development Exactions Pursuant to approval of subdivisions, rezoning of property, issuance of conditional use permits, or other development approvals, cities have the authority to impose development exactions that reimburse the costs of providing public facilities and services to the new development. The development can be charged its pro rata share of the costs associated with the construction of public facilities or provision of the public service necessary to serve the development. This development exaction can take the shape of a dedication of land to the city, the payment of fees into escrow for future road improvements, the payment of impact fees, or the requirement that the developer construct street improvements. Excise Tax An excise tax is a method of raising revenue by levying a tax on a particular activity, as opposed to a property tax, which is a tax on the assessed value of property. There need not be a rational relationship between the tax imposed and the demand for public services created by the activity upon which the tax is imposed. An excise tax's purpose is to raise revenue, not to pay for costs created by the activity upon which the tax is imposed. Unlike an impact fee, the funds collected from an excise tax need not, but can be, earmarked for a particular purpose, such as transportation improvements. General Obligation Bonds Although not a source of funds, but rather a financing mechanism, the city has the authority to raise funds for street construction and improvements by the issuance of general obligation bonds. General obligation bonds are long-term obligations backed by the full faith and credit of the city. General obligation bonds may be issued without an election and by a simple approval of the governing body (city or county commission) through passage of an ordinance or resolution. Impact Fees An impact fee is a monetary exaction on new development imposed as a part of the development approval process. All impact fees must bear a reasonable relationship between the required fee and the impact of the development that is required to pay the fee. For a program designed to fund streets (the most common use), all impact fees collected by the city must be spent for improvements to streets that benefit those who paid the fee. The amount of the fee collected with respect to each development cannot exceed an amount that reflects the cost of constructing streets or making street improvements, the need for which is generated by the development. Improvement (Special Benefit) Districts State statutes authorize the creation of improvement districts to fund infrastructure, including street improvements which confer a special benefit on property within a particular area of the city. Under the statutes, an improvement district may be established by petition from property owners who will benefit from the improvement or by resolution adopted by the city commission creating the district. In order to generate funds for the street improvements, the city levies special assessments on the property in the improvement district and issues general obligation bonds payable from the assessments. The city may also choose to pay a portion of the general obligation bonds from its general revenues Transportation 2030 193

Financial Plan or other sources of funds to the extent the improvement benefits the city-atlarge. Local Sales Tax Kansas statutes authorize the city to impose a sales tax on all retail sales in the municipality. The sales tax rate may be governed by statute or adjusted by the city pursuant to its home rule authority. The Kansas Court of Appeals ruled in 1996 that the Local Retailers' Sales Tax Act is subject to home rule action by cities but the effect of 1998 amendments to the act has not been judicially determined. If the sales tax is enacted pursuant to statute, the sales tax must be authorized by the city commission or by a petition of 10 percent of the electors. It must also be approved by a simple majority of the voters in an election. If the sales tax is enacted pursuant to home rule authority, the tax is approved by the city commission and also may be subject to a referendum vote. The city may also issue bonds to be retired from revenues derived from the sales tax. Neighborhood Revitalization Act This act authorizes a municipality to provide an economic incentive to redevelop areas of a city through a rebate mechanism. The city may designate as a neighborhood revitalization area an area of the city that is deteriorating or that has architectural, historic, or other significance. The city is required to adopt a plan to guide redevelopment in the designated area, and this plan may include improvements to transportation facilities. Although no initial financing is provided for improvements in the revitalization area, the city is authorized to subsequently rebate taxpayers in a revitalization area all or a portion of the excess property tax increment that is generated from the area after it was established. The neighborhood revitalization statutes specifically provide that this rebate mechanism may be used in combination with other financing mechanisms that are not in conflict. Revenue Bonds State statutes authorize the issuance of revenue bonds for infrastructure improvements, including road improvements. The bonds are obligations that are secured by the revenues received by the city from a particular source, such as the local options sales tax or special assessments imposed as a road improvement district. Revenue bonds are exempt from the city s statutory aggregate debt limitations, and are not a source of funds but rather a financing mechanism. Property Tax Kansas statutes authorize cities to impose an ad valorem property tax within the city. This tax applies to real property and to tangible personal property. The Kansas Constitution requires that the application of property taxes must be uniform and equal. The statutes authorize property tax mill levies to be established for general fund purposes or for a particular purpose in limited amounts, such as for funding operations and improvements associated with road districts. 194 Transportation 2030

Financial Plan Redevelopment Districts State statutes provide the city with several methods to fund infrastructure improvements in order to redevelop or revitalize specific and limited areas of the city. These methods include tax increment financing districts, urban renewal areas, and neighborhood revitalization areas. Each approach shares a common purpose of redeveloping areas to accomplish a specific purpose, such as clearing slums or blighted areas or encouraging major tourism. These methods rely on the additional taxes and revenues generated in the designated areas to fund infrastructure improvements, including street improvements. Other methods, such as a self-supported municipal improvement district, are limited geographically to a minimum four-block area in the city s central business district. Self-Supported Municipal Improvement Districts On its own initiative, or upon a petition by citizens within the area, the city may establish a self-supported municipal improvement district. The city may issue municipal improvement district bonds to fund improvements in the district, including street improvements. The bonds are not general obligations of the city, but rather are repaid with taxes assessed in the district, including the local option sales tax or property taxes. Transportation 2030 195

Financial Plan Costs of the Region s Transportation Needs While individual project costs are relatively easy to estimate at the system planning level, the list of needed projects is much more difficult to define for each of the modal systems. For example, transit buses, sidewalks, trails, and bicycle lanes are rarely if ever congested, so the concept of need must differ by mode. Roadways in the region are experiencing congestion, especially in the peak period, and are becoming more congested every day. Since reducing traffic congestion is a goal of T2030, the concept of congestion-based need generally applies to roadways. In many communities, the concept of balance has been used to address the discrepancies associated with the definition of need. Again, sidewalks, trails, and buses are not congested, but additional alternative mode facilities and services are clearly needed to help Baldwin City, Eudora, Lawrence, Lecompton, and Douglas County become balanced, multimodal communities. The approach taken in T2030 stretches the definition of need beyond that of traffic congestion relief. The region needs a balance of modes to provide travel options for its citizens. The public needs alternative mode options to contribute to their desire for cheap, efficient, healthy, and environmentally friendly transportation solutions. The community needs alternative transportation modes to reduce the land consumption, environmental consequences, and stress associated with automobile travel and roadway construction. Cost of Roadway and Congestion Management Needs The Lawrence/Douglas County MPO, in consultation with KDOT, estimated future capital revenues for roadways in the MPO area based on recent funding levels that were increased for inflation. Project costs were estimated in current dollars, and then inflated at 4% per year to the year-of-expenditure. A summary of planned improvements to roads, which includes roadway widening and new roads, transportation system management, intelligent transportation systems (ITS), and intersection and safety improvements are presented in Table 14.2. The total budget for these planned improvements is $723 million with a surplus of over $4,000,000. 196 Transportation 2030

Financial Plan Table 14.2 Recommended T2030 Roadway System Plan Source: T2030 Roadway Scenario Evaluation and Selection Process Route/Project Location Improvement Estimated Cost I-70/ Kansas Douglas County Widen to 6 Lanes $170,000,00 0 Turnpike K-10 (SLT) 32 nd Street Alignment New 4-Lane Freeway, New Interchanges at Haskell $202,760,00 0 and 23 rd Street/K-10 K-10 (SLT) I-70 to Iowa Street (US-59) Widen to 4-Lane Freeway, New Interchanges at 15 th $38,360,00 0 and Wakarusa, No Connection at Kasold US-59 South Douglas County Line to N. 1000 Road New 4-Lane Freeway $68,000,00 0 US-40 (6 th Street) Stull Road to K-10 (SLT) Widen to 4 Lanes $24,240,00 0 Church Street K-10 Interchange Improvements $10,960,00 0 County Road K-10 South for 1.0 Mile Widen to 4 Lanes $8,220,00 0 1061 15 th Street E. 800 Road to Bob Billings Parkway New 4-Lane Road $9,864,00 0 Wakarusa 23 rd Street to County Road 458 (N. 1200 Widen to 4 Lanes $18,180,00 0 Road) Haskell Avenue 23 rd Street to N. 1100 Road Widen to 4 Lanes $24,660,00 0 31 st Street E. 1600 Road to E. 1750 Road Urban 2-Lane Street $6,165,00 0 N. 1100 Road US-59 to Haskell Widen to 4 Lanes $16,440,00 0 N 1200 Road Wakarusa to US-59 Widen to 4 Lanes $36,360,00 0 Peterson Road K-10 (SLT) to West of Monterey Way Urban 2-Lane Street $18,180,00 0 Franklin Road/ 15 th Street to 23 rd Street and 19 th Street Urban 2-Lane Streets $7,850,000 19 th Street Extension to Franklin Road 23 rd Street Kasold, Louisiana, Haskell, Harper Median, Intersection Improvements, Access $6,780,00 0 Management Iowa Street 6 th, 9 th, Harvard, 15 th, 23 rd, 25 th, 27 th, 33 rd, K-10 Median, Intersection Improvements $18,250,00 0 MacDonald Princeton Boulevard Intersection Improvements $2,020,00 0 ITS Projects Various Locations ITS Deployment $10,000,00 0 County Road Various Roadways in Douglas County Pavement and/or Shoulder Rehabilitation $35,400,00 0 Projects Improvements Estimated Road Project Costs for T2030 $732,689,000 Estimated Revenues Available for T2030 $737,371,000 Balance $4,682,000 Transportation 2030 197

Financial Plan Bridges Table 14.3 reflects a continued commitment to bridge replacement, rehabilitation, and maintenance. Bridge improvements will be determined based on KDOT, City and County monitoring and normal rehabilitation and replacement schedule. Table 14.3 Recommended T2030 Bridge Improvements Source: Lawrence/Douglas County MPO, KDOT Bridge Programs Estimated Bridge Project Cost s $109,975,00 0 Estimated Revenues Available for T2030 $109,975,000 Balance $ 0 Roadway Maintenance Table 14.4 reflects a continued commitment to maintaining existing city streets and county roads by Douglas County and the cities in the region. The estimated revenues are a summation of the Klink, Local Operations, and Special City County Highway Fund programs in Table 14.1. Table 14.4 Recommended T2030 Road Maintenance Source: Lawrence/Douglas County MPO, KDOT Road Maintenance Programs Estimated Maintenance Cost s $361,209,000 Estimated Revenues Available for T2030 $361,209,000 Balance $ 0 198 Transportation 2030

Financial Plan Cost of Transit Needs Transit needs are defined in terms of relative ridership and service characteristics. A more robust transit system with higher frequency bus service covering more of the city and serving more activity centers would result in more ridership. Better service would attract choice riders in addition to serving the transit-dependant population. This in turn would reduce vehicular travel, which could be realized in terms of reduced or delayed roadway capacity improvements. The current bus transit system in Lawrence represents a minimum service for a community of the size and character of Lawrence. As shown in Table 14.5 maintaining this service over the life of T2030 will consume the estimated available funding. Additional funding would be necessary to provide a higher level of transit service. Table 14.5 Recommended T2030 Transit System Plan Source: Lawrence Transit Estimated 2007 Expenses Projected T2030 Expenses Operations Contract $2,808,649 $81,026,000 Capital Outlay $309,426 $8,913,000 Personnel $206, 890 $5,971, 000 Commodities $10,954 $317,000 Total Transit Costs $3,335,918 $96,227,000 Estimated Revenues Available for T2030 $96,227, 000 Balance $0 Transportation 2030 199

Financial Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Needs The Bicycle Work Program prepared by the City of Lawrence s Bicycle Advisory Committee identifies several million dollars worth of improvements to complete the City s bicycle system through a combination of recreational trails, on-street bike lanes, and bike routes along arteria l corridors. Other cities in Douglas County and the County itself also have recognized needs fo r similar bicycle facilities. In addition, the Cities in the region have a significant amount of missing or deteriorated sidewalks in critical locations along arterial corridors, within neighborhoods, and in and around activity centers. Although not fully documented, the cost of addressing these pedestrian needs is expected to total in the millions of dollars. Additional funding is needed to provide significantly improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Table 14.6 shows the available revenues for bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements. Funding is primarily provided by the federal Transportation Enhancement Program and local match. Table 14.6 Recommended T2030 Bicycle & Pedestrian System Plan Source: Lawrence/Douglas County MPO, KDOT Improvement Location Estimated T203 0 Costs Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Various City & County Locations $7,423,000 Estimated Revenues Available for T2030 $7,423,000 Balance $0 This funding level does not address the needs of the region. A more balanced, fair share target for pedestrian and bicycle improvements would be relative to the percent of share of total trips traveled by bicyclists and pedestrians. According to the most recent U.S. Census data, bicycle and pedestrian trips make up about 11 percent of the commute trips in the region. Based on the region s 2001 2005 Transportation Improvement Program, only 3 percent of the transportation resources are spent on specific bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Since many of the roadway projects also include bicycle and pedestrian components, the target resource allocation for bicycle and pedestrian specific improvements is recommended to be approximately 6 percent. 200 Transportation 2030

Financial Plan American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) On Tuesday, February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). As a result, Kansas will receive an estimated $348 million for road and bridge projects and an estimated $30 million for transit. The Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) created a pool of $32 million for cities and county projects outside of the Kansas City and Wichita areas. KDOT will also program $10 million for Transportation Enhancements projects statewide. Douglas County, Baldwin City, Eudora, Lawrence, and Lecompton are eligible to submit projects to compete for a portion of that funding. In February 2009 the KDOT staff suggested that the L-DC MPO amend their transportation plan and transportation improvement program (MTP and TIP) as soon as possible to include anticipated ARRA funded projects. This section of text was added to the MTP to describe the ARRA funding programs and to add regionally significant projects planned for ARRA funding to the MTP. This MTP amendment is coordinated with TIP amendments that show projects that the region s local governments are seeking ARRA funding to build. Both MTP and TIP changes for ARRA projects are needed to program the ARRA funds and comply with federal regulations for metropolitan transportation planning. The L-DC MPO and the region s local governments plan to use ARRA funds to build road, bridge, and transportation enhancement projects. In addition, the City of Lawrence plans to purchase transit buses and related facilities with ARRA funds. However, at the time this MTP amendment was drafted the L-DC MPO did not yet know which planned ARRA projects would be selected by KDOT and receive ARRA funds. The following list of ARRA funding projects represents the best candidate ARRA projects that local governments in the region have submitted to KDOT for consideration. Some of those projects are likely to receive ARRA funds and be constructed soon; some of those projects will not receive ARRA funds, but will be programmed soon for construction using other federal, state and/or local funds; and some of those projects will not receive ARRA funds and will likely not be funded within the period covered by the current TIP (2008-2012) but are possible projects for funding within the period covered by the current MTP (2008-2030). This list is considered to be a reasonable list of projects that the region needs and will implement in the foreseeable future with federal, state, and local funds. Transportation 2030 83 201

Project Route & Location Project Description Estimated Cost Requested ARRA Funding Federal Program Carnegie Library/Convention Downtown Lawrence Freedom s Frontier National Heritage Area - 1,500,000 1,400,000 Transportation Enhancement (TE) & Visitors Bureau Lawrence Visitors Center Santa Fe Depot - Downtown roof replacement and 70,000 70,000 TE Lawrence Lawrence ADA upgrades Brick Street Lawrence Ohio Street 8 th to 9 th brick street restoration 300,000 300,000 TE Brick Street Lawrence Brick Street Lawrence Downtown Streetscape Improvements Phase 2 Eudora Eudora Visitors Center North 2 nd Street - Lawrence Kasold Drive - Lawrence Route 438 (Farmers Turnpike) Douglas County Pedestrian Bridge over K-10 - Eudora Route 1057 Douglas County Route 458 Douglas County Massachusetts Street 23 rd to Indiana New York Street 9 th to 12 th Main Street from 10 th to 9 th and 7 th to 6th brick street restoration 900,000 900,000 TE brick street restoration 900,000 900,000 TE sidewalks, retaining walls, landscaping, and street lighting 1,100,000 1,100,000 TE Eudora visitors center 250,000 250,000 TE Locust Street Intersection Clinton Parkway (23 rd ) to 31 st Street Route 1029 to K- 10 Highway reconstruction/ intersection improvements 3,200,000 2,000,000 Surface Transportation Program (STP) reconstruction 6,600,000 1,000,000 STP reconstruction/ geometric improvements 3,129,000 1,629,000 STP Eudora new pedestrian bridge 400,000 400,000 STP or TE Route 442 to K-10 Highway 1,500 feet east of US 59 to E 1500 Road pavement reconstruction/intersecti on improvements 511,000 511,000 STP overlay and shoulders 523,000 523,000 STP 6 th Street Lawrence Monterey Way to mill and overlay with 750,000 750,000 STP Folks Road widening 9 th Street Bridge Eudora 9 th Street bridge replacement 412,000 412,000 Bridge Rehabilitation/ Replacement (BR) Lawrence Transit System Lawrence Fixed Route Bus Replacements purchase of replacement buses 1,930,000 1,930,000 Section 5307 Urban Transit Transportation 2030 202

Financial Plan Illustrative Projects Given the large amount of needs and limited resources to provide transportation facilities and services through 2030, some of the projects, however necessary, will not be implemented unless additional funding sources are identified and secured. Projects are listed Table 14.7 as illustrative or unfunded projects in order to provide a mechanism for their implementation as new funding sources come on line. Additional funding may come from discretionary programs, new user or development fees, taxes, special districts, or other sources. As funding becomes available, these projects will need to be amended into the financially constrained portion of the 2034 Long Range Transportation plan in order to be funded. Table 14.7 Illustrative Projects Project/Improvement Location Improvement Eastern Connection I-70 to K-10 Connection US24/40 to K10 South from new KTA Tonganoxie interchange new 4 lane freeway, new interchanges at US24/40, I70(KTA), 15th & K10 construct new arterial with Kansas River crossing 31st Street Louisiana to E 1900 Road wide n to 4 lanes N 1100 Road Haskell to E 1900 Road wide n to 4 lanes N 1000 Road Iowa to E 1900 Road improve to arterial road standards E 1900 Road (Route 1057) N 1000 Road to K-10 Impro ve to arterial road standards Church Street N. City Limits to 10 th Street street and sidewalk improvements Church Street 10 th Street to K-10 street and sidewalk improvements Main Street Through Eudora street and sidewalk improvements US-56 Across Douglas County shoulder improvements, intersection improvements Transit - Bus Headways Lawrence Reduce Time between Successive Buses Transit Service Hours Lawrence Increase Daily and Weekend Service Hours Transit Facility Lawrence Lease or Construct New Transit Depot, Maintenance Facility Transit Bus Cut Outs Various Cut outs along streets to allow buses to pull out of traffic Bicycle Facilities MPO Area Addit ional Bicycle Facility Improvements Pedestrian Facilities MPO Area Additional Pedestrian Facility Improvements Transportation 2030 203

Financial Plan Recommended Financial Plan As is the case in virtually every community across the nation, there are not sufficient revenues to mee t all of the transportation needs in the Lawrence/Douglas County region. Because financial resource s are limited, it was necessary to pare T2030 s list of transportation projects and services to match the available revenues. The fiscally constrained budget proposed for roadway projects includes: What we ve heard Funding programs should be established to support all modes of transportation. $361 million for operation and maintenance activities $241 million to complete a K-10 freeway connecting I-70 to K-10 east of Lawrence $217 million in major street/road improvements $170 million for widening the Kansas Turnpike (I-70) and improving interchanges and toll plaza s $110 million for bridge improvements $68 million to improve US-59 from the south County Line to the south city limits of Lawrenc e $27 million in intersection, access management, and median improvement s $10 million for ITS projects The fiscally constrained transit budget is estimated at $96 million, which is consistent with the estimate d transit revenues. The pedestrian/bicycle budget is estimated at $7 million. This amount does not include the required bicycle/pedestrian improvements made as part of private developments. The recommended financial plan for T2030 provides a series of action items for consideration and implementation by the Lawrence/Douglas County MPO and the local jurisdictions in the region. 204 Transportation 2030

Financial Plan Financial Action 1: Increased Long-term Alternative Mode Funding Adjust the allocation of transportation funding resources to provide a more equitable share for bicycle and pedestrian modes as well as to increase the current transit share. Financial Action 2: Adjust Short-term Funding Allocations in the TIP The resource allocations recommended in T2030 should be reflected in the region s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to the extent possible. The resource allocation should be reviewed each year as the TIP is prepared. Multi-modal components of roadway projects should be credited to the appropriate modal category - transit, bicycle, or pedestrian. Financial Action 3: Transportation Funding Task Force Form an ad hoc transportation task force to pursue additional public and private funding for transportation to reduce the number of unfunded projects. Developer impact fees, which are used successfully in many areas across the nation, and possibly a local, dedicated transportation sales tax, may be the most promising new sources of funds. Financial Action 4: Pursue Discretionary Funding and Other New Funding Sources Vigorously pursue discretionary state and federal funding. There are a number of federal and state funding categories Lawrence might be eligible to receive. These funds typically require a modest local match. The proposed action item would be to continue to seek these discretionary state and federal funding sources. The Cities and County should explore other new funding sources such as a sales tax dedicated to transportation improvements. Transportation 2030 205

Financial Plan This page intentionally left blank. 206 Transportation 2030

DRAFT Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (L-DC MPO) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Bylaws SECTION 1.0 NAME The name of this advisory committee will be the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). SECTION 2.0 ORGANIZATION 2.1 Authority The Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (L-DC MPO) Policy Board is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) that is defined as the entirety of Douglas County. The L-DC MPO Policy Board is the authorizing body for the TAC. The TAC and its relationship to the L-DC MPO Policy Board is described in the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Organization Re-designation Agreement for Cooperative Transportation Planning executed on December 8, 2008 and the latest approved version of the L-DC MPO Policy Board Bylaws. The L-DC MPO Policy Board is referred to as the L-DC MPO in the remainder of this document. 2.2 Purpose The purpose of the TAC is to provide technical support to the L-DC MPO and to assist it in carrying out the Continuous, Comprehensive and Cooperative (3C) regional transportation planning process throughout Douglas County. TAC activities include but are not limited to: Assist the L-DC MPO and its staff in preparation of the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and amendments as needed, and recommend its adoption by the L-DC MPO Provide technical support in the preparation of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and amendments as needed, and recommend its adoption by the L-DC MPO Review the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and amendments as needed, and recommend adoption by the L-DC MPO Advise the L-DC MPO on technical and policy matters with accompanying recommendations and support information Coordinate in the development of regional transportation planning activities, and review and provide technical critiques of products and processes associated with regional transportation planning for the L-DC MPO metropolitan planning area. Page 1 of 6 TAC Bylaws 3/26/2009

DRAFT SECTION 3.0 MEMBERS 3.1 TAC Composition: The membership of the TAC is as follows: Voting Members: Douglas County - Public Works Director or designee Lawrence - Public Works Director or designee Eudora - City Manager or designee Baldwin City City Manager or designee Lecompton City Manager or designee Lawrence-Douglas County Planning & Development Services Department - Director or designee (not transportation planning/mpo staff) Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) - Urban Planning Manager or designee Lawrence - Transit System Administrator or designee University of Kansas KU on Wheels Manager or designee Lawrence Public Transit Advisory Committee Chair or designee Lawrence Bicycle Advisory Committee Chair or designee Other individuals selected by the voting membership of the TAC and approved by the L-DC MPO Ex-Officio Non-Voting Members Representative from the Federal highway Administration (FHWA) as designated by the Kansas Division Administrator Representative from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as designated by the Region 7 Administrator Other individuals selected by the voting membership of the TAC and approved by the L-DC MPO Ex Officio members shall sit with the same rights and privileges as TAC voting members (request agenda items, participate in discussions, advise the TAC, receive meeting packets, etc.) except that non-voting members shall not have the right to present resolutions, motions or second same, or to vote upon any motions or resolutions of the TAC. 3.2 Alternate Members Alternates will be allowed to replace the designated member maintaining all rights and voting privileges as the designated member. The alternate must be a member of the same body that the TAC member represents. Alternates will advise the Chairperson for the record, at the beginning of each meeting, that they will be replacing the designated member. 3.3 Member Selection and Termination TAC members will be approved by the L-DC MPO. MPO staff will provide recommendations on membership. The represented agencies shall select the member to represent that agency according to their represented agency s own Page 2 of 6 TAC Bylaws 3/26/2009

DRAFT practices and the proposed listing outlined in the TAC bylaws. A person s membership on the TAC shall be terminated upon the member leaving his or her position named for membership on the TAC, or by the group represented by the person choosing a replacement representative. SECTION 4.0 OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES 4.1 Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson Election and Terms of Office The TAC shall elect the Chair and Vice-Chair from among its voting members at a regular meeting. Elections shall take place during the fourth quarter of each year. The term of office shall begin January 1 st. The term of office shall be one year, or until such time that a new officer is elected. In the event of a vacancy in the office of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson, a member shall be elected to serve the remainder of the term of office. Notice of such election shall be placed on the agenda. 4.2 Duties of the Chair The Chair shall preside at TAC meetings, appoint members to sub-committees, and recommend work assignments of TAC members. In the absence of the Chair and Vice-Chair, the TAC shall call for the election of a temporary Chair to preside over the meeting. This temporary Chair shall run the meeting until either the elected Chair or Vice-Chair arrives. Upon the arrival of the Chair, or Vice Chair, the temporary Chair shall relinquish the Chair duties upon conclusion of the business item immediately before the TAC. 4.3 Duties of the Vice-Chair The Vice-Chair shall conduct meetings in the absence of the Chair. 4.4 Secretary The Senior Transportation Planner or Transportation Planner of the MPO staff shall act as TAC Secretary and be responsible for the preparation of agendas, the handling of administrative matters, and the maintenance of records (minutes, agendas, official roster of members, etc.). SECTION 5.0 QUORUM In order for business requiring committee action to be transacted, there must be a recognized quorum of voting members. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the TAC voting members (at least 6 of 11). A quorum is not lost when a member or members abstain from voting. If a quorum is not reached within fifteen minutes of the scheduled meeting time, those members present may, by unanimous agreement, select to continue the meeting as an informational meeting to discuss items on the agenda that do not require approval or action by the TAC voting membership. SECTION 6.0 MEETINGS 6.1 Meetings The TAC shall typically hold regular scheduled meetings on the first Tuesday of each month at 1:30 PM. When the first Tuesday date for a regular meeting falls Page 3 of 6 TAC Bylaws 3/26/2009

DRAFT on a legal holiday, the TAC meeting will be scheduled for the following day (i.e., on that Wednesday), or on another day chosen by the TAC and noticed on the MPO website at least one week in advance of the first Tuesday. The TAC Secretary in consultation with the Chair may cancel a regularly scheduled meeting or call an additional meeting as deemed necessary. Changes to meeting time, place or date and any cancellations of regular meetings shall be made at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to when such meeting was to have taken place or as soon as practicable. Changes to the regular date or time for TAC meetings shall be permitted only after this change has been approved by a majority of the TAC voting members and posted on the web site for at least one week in advance of the meeting time and/or date change. The TAC shall meet in regular meetings not less than four (4) times per calendar year. The location for regular meetings shall be as agreed to by a majority of the voting members. The meeting place for all TAC meetings shall be accessible to individuals with disabilities. The TAC Secretary shall give members notice of regular meetings not less than seven (7) calendar days prior to the meeting. Either the TAC Chair or a majority of the voting members may call special meetings. The TAC Chair shall give members notice of special meetings not less than seven (7) calendar days prior to the meeting. In the event that the caller of the special meeting wishes to cancel or change the meeting time, notice of such cancellation or change shall be made as soon as practical. 6.2 Conduct of Meetings The meetings of the TAC will be held in accordance with the Kansas Open Meetings Act (KOMA). 6.3 Agendas There shall be an official agenda for every regular meeting of the TAC, which shall determine the order of business conducted at the meeting. The TAC Secretary shall create and distribute an agenda for each TAC meeting. Meeting agendas sent to Members shall include appropriate materials (e.g., staff reports, draft documents, etc.). Regular meeting agendas shall be distributed electronically to TAC Members at least one week in advance of the meetings. Upon delivery of the agenda to TAC members the agenda shall be posted on the web site as soon as possible. Special TAC meeting agendas are restricted to the business designated in the call for the meeting. Page 4 of 6 TAC Bylaws 3/26/2009

DRAFT 6.4 Record of Proceedings At all TAC meetings the Secretary shall record a roll of members, minutes of proceedings, and votes. The Secretary shall record the minutes of each meeting as a matter of public record and should present such minutes to the TAC for approval at an upcoming meeting. Minutes shall be reviewed by all TAC members and approved by a majority vote of the voting members present. Approved minutes of the TAC meetings shall be available for public inspection at the L-DC MPO Office and posted on the L-DC MPO web site. Copies of approved TAC Minutes shall also be made available to the L-DC MPO at their next meeting. Since the TAC is an advisory committee of the L-DC MPO, actions by the TAC to approve items will constitute official committee recommendations to the L-DC MPO. All approvals of items by the TAC shall be noted by the TAC Secretary and placed in meeting minutes. The Secretary will prepare TAC-approved items for submission to the L-DC MPO and will present those items to the L-DC MPO. 6.5 Voting at Meetings Each TAC voting member shall have one vote. In the absence of a regular TAC voting member, the designated alternate shall have the voting power. Members wishing to abstain shall inform the Chair prior to the question being called. TAC Members may only abstain from voting due to a conflict of interest of other good reason stated to the other TAC members and accepted by them. Members or their alternates must be physically present at the meeting to vote unless the Chair allows a phone/computer connection to stand in place of their physical attendance. Proxy voting is not allowed at TAC meetings. 6.6 Conflict of Interest No member of the TAC shall participate in, discuss, or vote on a matter in which he or she has a substantial interest as defined by K.S.A.75-4301 et seq. Should any member have such a substantial interest on a matter coming before the TAC or its sub-committees, the Chairperson shall declare an abstention for each affected TAC member for that item on the agenda. SECTION 7.0 AMENDMENTS TO BY-LAWS These bylaws may be amended by a two-thirds majority vote of the TAC voting membership at any regular meeting, provided that the members have been notified in writing of the proposed change at least one week in advance and the proposed bylaws amendment has been placed on the agenda. In order to become final any and all amendments to these bylaws must also be approved by Page 5 of 6 TAC Bylaws 3/26/2009

DRAFT the L-DC MPO. Amendments to these bylaws should be scheduled for approval by the L-DC MPO at their next meeting. After approval by the TAC and L-DC MPO all amendments to these bylaws shall be recorded by date and incorporated into the official master copy of these bylaws filed at the L-DC MPO Office. Copies of new revised TAC Bylaws shall be delivered to TAC members (both voting and non-voting) and L-DC MPO members (both voting and non-voting) as soon as practical after their L-DC MPO approval and before the new revised bylaws are posted on the L-DC MPO web site. SECTION 8.0 EFFECTIVE DATE The above and foregoing bylaws are hereby adopted as the bylaws of the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC). Dated this day of 2009. MPO Chair Page 6 of 6 TAC Bylaws 3/26/2009

Public Participation Plan Lawrence Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Organization 0

Table of Contents Introduction... 2 Importance of Public Participation... 3 The Role of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Organization... 4 Goals and Objectives... 6 MPO Work Products... 8 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)... 8 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)... 9 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP)... 11 Strategies and Techniques... 12 Evaluation of the Public Participation Strategies... 15 Performance Measures... 16 Appendix... 17 Appendix A: Federal Regulations... 17 Appendix B: Advisory Boards and Committees... 20 Appendix C: Outreach and Development Efforts... 21 Appendix D: Public Comments... 38 1

Introduction Public participation is an integral part of the overall transportation planning process. The information and perspectives provided through the public participation process assist decision makers and lead to a more meaningful and comprehensive planning process. The federal transportationn reauthorization legislation, known as the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act A Legacy for Userss (SAFETEA LU) was signed into law in 2005 and requires each metropolitan planning organization (MPO) to create and adopt a Public Participation Plan. This legislation builds on previous efforts designed to encourage participation and provide reasonable opportunities for citizens and other interested groups to be involved with the regional transportation planning process. This Public Participation Plan is intended to fulfill the current federal requirements outlined in SAFETEA LU and further detailed in the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Regulations (23 CFR 450.316). The federal regulations are provided in Appendix A. For the first time, SAFETEA LU called for MPOs, including the Lawrence Planning Organization (L DC MPO), to Douglas County Metropolitan develop a Participation Plan in consultation with interested parties. MPOs must definee a process for providing interested parties with reasonable opportunities to be involved in the regional transportationn planning process. The regulations define these constituenciess as: citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of public transportation employees, freight shippers, providers of freight transportationn services, private providers of transportation, representatives of users of public transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled, and other interested parties. Figure 1: Interested Parties In addition to requiring a Participation Plan and broadening the definition of interested parties, SAFETEA LU expanded earlier versions of federal transportation law to include the following guidelines and requirements related to public participation: Hold all public meetings at convenient and accessible times and locations; 2

Make information available in electronically accessible formats to the maximum extent possible; Seek out and consider the needs of people who are traditionally underserved; Employ visualization techniques to illustrate regional transportation plans; and Periodically review the effectiveness of the procedures and strategies to ensure a full and open participation process. Federal regulations also require this Public Participation Plan to be released for a minimum public comment period of 45 calendar days before it is adopted by the MPO Policy Board. These guidelines and requirements have all been addressed in this Public Participation Plan. The public participation process is a crucial element in the development of transportation planning documents. The following pages outline the participation process and recommended methods to engage the public during the regional transportation planning decision making process. Importance of Public Participation Public and stakeholder participation is the corner stone of any regional transportation plan. Good public participation techniques allow planners to identify issues and understand aspects of the transportation system directly from its users. In other words, effective transportation planning must include the participation of those whose everyday lives are affected by how they are able to get to work, home, school, stores, and services. Public participation affords transportation professionals and decision makers the opportunity to see sides of an issue that may be missed when considering a project from a purely technical or political point of view. Meaningful dialog among technical professionals, local decision makers, and general stakeholders is the key to achieving consensus, which is desired before moving a project forward. Other benefits of public participation include: Fostering a sense of community and ownership; Identifying issues and concerns that matter most to the community; Fostering trust in our decision makers; Promoting accountability; Encouraging cooperation and compromise; and Preventing and/or mitigating future conflicts. The L DC MPO is responsible for developing the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) Public surveys indicate that Douglas County residents overwhelming feel that public participation activities should take place during all stages of development when creating or updating these documents. All comments will be summarized and distributed to the MPO Policy Board and Technical Advisory Committee for their consideration prior to their taking action on these required MPO documents. 3

The Role of the Lawrence Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Organization To carry out the regional transportation planning process, each urbanized area with a population of 50,000 people or more has a MPO which acts as a liaison between local communities, their citizens, and the state departments of transportation. MPOs are important because they direct how and where available state and federal dollars for transportation improvements will be spent. As defined by federal and state transportation regulations, the primary interrelated functions of the MPO are to: Establish the goals, objectives and policies governing transportation planning in the region. Approve an annual Unified Planning Work Program and budget. Direct the preparation of, and adopt, the long range and short range strategies of the Transportation Plan. Recommend projects for implementation through the adoption of the Transportation Improvement Program. Perform the air quality conformity determination for the Transportation Improvement Program. Lecompton Lawrence Eudora Baldwin City Figure 2: L-DC Metropolitan Planning Area 4

The role of transportation planning within the MPO planning area is to also create synergy among many different organizations, groups, and committees by involving them in the planning process in one manner or another. Each one of these groups provides another opportunity for the MPO to solicit feedback from area stakeholders. The L DC MPO is comprised of a Policy Board, Technical Advisory Committee, and several smaller advisory boards and committees. Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Policy Board The MPO Policy Board is charged with maintaining a regional transportation planning process that is continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive. The Policy Board is the final decision maker in the MPO process. It has the authority to approve the regional transportation vision (included in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan) and then prioritizes and chooses projects (included in the Transportation Improvement Program and Unified Planning Work Program) to implement that vision. In 1982, the Lawrence Douglas County Planning Commission, which is comprised of appointed officials, was designated as the MPO for the Lawrence Urbanized Area. In 2008 the MPO was re designated to be primarily composed of elected officials. Today the MPO Policy Board is comprised of seven voting members and serves as the forum for cooperative decision making. These seven voting members include: 2 Lawrence City Commissioners; 1 Douglas County Commissioner ; 2 Lawrence Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission members (one that was appointed by the Lawrence City Commission and one that was appointed by the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners); 1 elected official of one of the small cities in Douglas County (Baldwin City, Eudora, Lecompton); and 1 representative from KDOT. The MPO Policy Board also includes five non voting members listed below: 1 representative from the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) Kansas Division Office 1 representative from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Region 7 Office 1 representative from the University of Kansas 1 elected official from the governing body of each of the small cities in Douglas County not presently represented on the L DC MPO by a voting member. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) The Technical Advisory Committee is the main advisory committee for the L DC MPO Policy Board and is made up of expert personnel from the Board members constituent agencies. These committee members advocate for their own community s interests, provide expert advice to board members, oversee studies, and assist MPO staff. 5

Other Advisory Boards & Committees In addition to the MPO Policy Board and Technical Advisory Committee, there are several other City of Lawrence and Douglas County boards and committees that deal with transportation related issues and whichh on occasion are involved in the MPO process. With these committees acting in an advisory capacity, there is a greater level of assurance that the transportation decisions being made are technically viable, in line with public opinion, financially feasible, and consider all modes of transportation. The number of advisory committees and their composition is determined by the MPO Policy Board and specified in the MPO Bylaws and bylaws for each advisory committee. A list of advisory boards and committees can be found in Appendix B. Figure 3: L-DC MPO Structure Goals and Objectives It is the goal of the L DC MPO to establish a process that is effective and meaningful for citizens in order to engage them in regional transportation planning activities. Regional transportationn planning cannot, and should not, be based simply upon technical analysis. The qualitative informationn derived from public participation is essential to good decision making. The L DC MPO willl ensure that the public is informed and involved early; that their issues and concerns are heard; and that their concerns are considered prior to any final decision. This Public Participation Plan is designed to be a goal oriented document that provides a philosophy around which to build a regional transportation participation program that will accomplish the following objectives: Educate and effectively disseminate information to the public Given the fact that project level planning usually occurs at the state and local levels, the L DC MPO plans and processes are often not the appropriate or most effective venues for public participation. The L DC MPO must work to align expectations for public participation with the actual decision making process. This Public Participation Plan is designedd to tailor the ways in which staff can go 6

further in building public knowledge about the transportation planning process to encourage meaningful public participation at various stages of that process. Encourage effective communication among a diverse group of stakeholders The L DC MPO recognizes that the continuous update cycle for regional plans can make it difficult for members of the public and other stakeholders to understand when public comment is being solicited and for what purposes. To a large degree, public participation tools and activities must encourage citizen participation on an ongoing basis. At the same time, the L DC MPO recognizes that strategies and extent of public participation will vary depending upon the project. Decision makers must be strategic in designing a public participation program that is mindful of the fact that people in the region have varying levels of understanding about and interest in regional transportation planning, and consequently different informational needs. Provide ample opportunity and promote continued participation The demand for public participation and outreach will always be greater than the MPO s available resources. As L DC MPO continues to serve the Douglas County region, standards are set in place so that there is a level of consistency among the different planning efforts. Public review and comment periods shall remain consistent among planning activities and notification shall be made regularly available in the same formats. Early and continuous public participation will be viewed as an important goal that merits consideration in the regional transportation planning process. Incorporate public comments and recommendations into the decision making process It is essential that public comments, suggestions, and questions be responded to and made available to the appropriate decision makers. Public comments should help shape policies and guide the L DC MPO s planning activities. Additional public comment opportunities will also be made available if the final plan differs significantly from what was made available to the public initially. It is important that not only do the members of the public view their participation as meaningful, but the L DC MPO show proof that their contribution had an important effect on the overall transportation planning process. Evaluate the effectiveness of the public participation strategies A public participation strategy can only be declared effective over time and an evaluation component within this plan will ensure sustainability among its best practices. Not only do the tools and techniques need to be monitored and continue to evolve, but the entire Public Participation Plan should be reviewed and updated at least every four years to ensure that appropriate changes are being implemented by the L DC MPO. 7

MPO Work Products According to survey data, citizens believe their participation is valuable at all stages during the regional transportatio on planning process. The L DC MPO also recognizes that any documents where regional goals and objectives are identified are more valuable with the community direction and support. The L DC MPO s core documents are the Metropolitan Transportationn Plan, Transportation Improvement Program, and the Unified Planning Work Program. Each document is described below with each public participation process identified. All core documents are available on the L DC MPO Web page (http://www.lawrenceks.org/pds/transportation planning) and available in hard copy at the L DC MPO offices in City Hall at 6 E 6 th S treet, Lawrence, KS 66044. Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) Updated: Every 5 Years Amended: As Needed Public Comment: 30 Days Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) Minimum Required Strategies & Techniques: Discussions with TAC and MPO Policy Board Neighborhood Meetings in Affected Areas Newspaper Advertisement Announcing Public Comment Period The MTP represents the best attempts by citizens, governing bodies, planners and transportation experts to develop a vision for a healthy, safe, and efficient transportation system which will adequately serve the Lawrence Douglas County area for the next 25 years and be yond. This plan identifi es future transportation needs, investments, and recommendations for all modes of transportation automobile, public transit, and bicycle / pedestrian transportation. Portions of the plan are reviewed annually. At least onc e every five years a critical analysis and update of the plan document and its supporting data and assumptions are made. Amendments to the MTP can and should be made, as needed, to reflect significant changes to regional transportation policies and/or funding conditions. Draft made available at Lawrence City Hall, Lecompton City Hall, Baldwin City Public Library, Eudora Pubic Library, Lawrence Public Library, and the L DC MPO website Open House or Public Meeting Required Only During a Complete Update The MTP shall be developed through an open and deliberative planning process. Development of the plan typically involves a series of public involvement workshops and meeti ngs, involvement with the MPO s Technical Advisory Committee, informational briefings and public hearings at MPO, city commission, and county commission meetings, and website updates. The approval process for the MTP shall include a final round of public hearings, plus review by state and federal agencies, followed by approval by the TAC and finally, the MPO Policy Board. 8

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Updated: Every 4 Years Amended: As Needed Public Comment: 30 Days (Complete Update) 15 Days (Major Amendments) Minimum Required Strategies & Techniques: Complete Update Discussions MPO Policy Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) with TAC and Board The TIP is a multi year to the region s transportation listing of projects or improvements system that are anticipated to receive any federal funds, as well as all other regionally significant transportation projects, whether or not these projects receive federal funding. This document is developed in cooperation with FHWA, FTA, KDOT and affected transit operators. The TIP also serves as the Program of Projects (POP) for the Lawrence Transit System (The T) and is being used to satisfy the public hearing requirements o f 49 U.S.C. 5307. Public notice of public participation activities and time established for public review and comment on the TIP will satisfy the progra m of projects requiremen ts of the Urbanized Area Formula Program. Newspaper Advertisement Announcing Public Comment Period Draft made available at Lawrence City Hall, Lecompton City Hall, Baldwin City Public Library, Eudora Pubic Library, Lawrence Public Library and the L DC MPO website Major Amendments Discussions MPO Policy with TAC and Board Publicly advertised and/or posted on the MPO web site Draft made available at Lawrence City Hall and the L DC MPO website The TIP must be reviewed and updated at least every four years. However, the L DC MPO will typically update this document every two years. All projects to which federal funding is pledgedd must be consistent with the Metropolitan Transportationn Plan (MTP). Projects included in the TIP are typically drawn from the Lawrence and Douglas County Capital Improvements Programs (CIP) and also from KDOT s Comprehensive Transportation Program. CIPs have their own public involvement processes involving publication of public notices initiating the process, public hearings by the Planning Commission, City Commission, and County Commission, as appropriate. Following adoption of the Lawrence and Douglas County CIPs, the MPO typically begins preparation of the TIP, requesting submittal of projects and update of previous projects by the appropriate participating agencies. The draft TIP is then available for public review and commen t for 30 d ays before final approval is made by the MPO Policy Board. 9

UPDATES & REVISIONS TIP Update The TIP is updated at least once every four years to reflect changes in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for Kansas and to add new Federal and State funded projects, as well as regionally significant projects regardless of funding source. Once reviewed by the TAC and the MPO Policy Board, the TIP will be released for public review for 30 days. The public comment period will begin once the MPO Policy Board releases the document for public review and comment and it is posted on the MPO s Web site (http://www.lawrenceks.org/pds/transportation planning); hard copies are made available at Lawrence City Hall and the Lawrence Public Library; and notice has been posted in the Lawrence Journal World. If public comment is being sought on the TIP that includes the program of projects for The T, the public notice must explicitly state that the public participation activities will satisfy the program of projects requirements. Comments received from the public will be reported to the MPO bodies where decisions pertaining to revising the document will be made before the final approval of the document. Final approval comes from the MPO Policy Board and the Governor who delegates this responsibility to the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT). TIP Amendments and Revisions Amendments and revisions to the TIP may occur at any time between its scheduled updates every four years. The TIP amendment process described below details the procedures for amending the existing approved TIP. Administrative Revisions The following actions are eligible as Administrative Amendments to the TIP: Obvious minor data entry errors. Splitting or combining projects. Minor adjustments in expenditure for transit or roadway projects Changes or clarifying elements of a project description (with no change in funding). This change would not alter the original project intent. Roadway project phase cost estimate changes less than 20%. The Administrative Revisions process consists of a letter of notification from the MPO Policy Board to all other involved parties: KDOT, FTA and FHWA. No public notification is required for Administrative Revisions, but they are publicly noticed as an agenda item on the TAC and MPO Policy Board meeting agendas. Agendas for the meeting of the L DC MPO Policy Board are e mailed to all L DC MPO members and posted to the L DC MPO Web site. Major Amendments Major Amendments to the TIP involve a change in scope that alters the original 10

intent of the project by adding or deleting a phase for projects, or adding or deleting a new project to the TIP. Typically, these types of changes present the following: Add or delete a project Shift projects within the TIP period Increase capacity of the transportation network Determined to be regionally significant projects Major ITS projects Increase in funding by more than 20% of original cost. The Major Amendment process consistss of first putting the amendment on the agenda for discussion at the TAC and MPO Policy Board meetings. Next, the amendment must be publicly advertisedd and/or posted on the MPO web site. Following the 15 day required comment period, all comments will receive a response, either individually or in a summary form. The Major Amendment will then be returned to the MPO Policy Board for approval. Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) Updated: Annually Amended: As Needed Public Comment: 15 Days Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) Minimum Required Strategies & Techniques: Discussions with TAC and MPO Policy Board Newspaper Advertisement Announcing Public Comment Period Draft made available at Lawrence City Hall, Lecompton City Hall, Baldwin City Public Library, Eudora Pubic Library, Lawrence Public Library and the L DC MPO website The UPWP is developed by the L DC MPO staff with input from local governments, area transitt providers, and KDOT. The UPWP outlines the status of planning activities, gives details about work done in the previous year and the work that is planned for the upcoming year by either the MPO or KDOT. When comments are being solicited during the public review period, notice will be posted on the L DC MPO Web site. Notice may also be printed in area media, such as The Lawrence Journal World. All public comments received pertaining to the UPWP will be reviewed and considered. An effective means of incorporating public input into the UPWPP is to review comments received the previous year that relate to similar new projects. When developing the work program, decision makers should take this public comment into consideration. 11

UPDATES & REVISIONS A new UPWP is drafted annually in October, and released for public review and comment for a minimum of 15 days. Final approval by the TAC and then the MPO Policy Board is made in November/December. Amendments are made throughout the year and are released for public comment for a minimum of 15 days prior to TAC and MPO Policy Board approval only when projects are either added or deleted, or when significant changes are made to the document. Strategies and Techniques Transportationn planners are responsible for developing a unique public engagement strategy for each project that uses the appropriate techniques. The strategy should include a timeline showing engagement techniques and other relevant activities, and should outline target audiences and expected outcomes. The following techniques and strategies will serve as a guide for expectations of the decision makers to consider when developing the public participation component of their project. Area surveys indicated that a large percentage of the community only becomes involved in th e tra nsportation planning process when the project or issues is of personal interest to them. The community also indicated that they do not have enough free time to participate in planning activities. Overcoming these issues will require finding a balance of various techniques and strategies that will result in a tailored mix of approaches that ensure early, continuous, and accessible public participation. Serving the Needs of the Traditionally Underserved Population As a matter of long standing L DC MPO policy and a requirement of federal law, the regional transportationn planning process must make special efforts to consider the concerns of traditionally underserved population, ncluding low income and minority communities and people with disabilities. Public meetings should be held in locations accessible by transit and in buildings compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Furthermore, technical jargon should be avoided and information should be displayed using visualization techniques. In 2009 the L DC MPO will be drafting a formal Title VI policy to ensure that no person will on the ground of race, religion, age, gender, disability, national origin, or economic status be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any L DC MPO program or activity. The L DC MPO also promotes the full Specific Techniques to help encourage participation among the traditionally underserved population Conduct interviews orally so that low literacy will not be a barrier Divide largerr groups into smaller, more comfortable sizes Utilize local residents to help interview people in their own community Provide food, chairs, and tables Involve local officials and community insiders Hold meetings in "neutral" locations, like schools or community centers, that are accessible by transit Work with existing organizations Attend scheduled and special events Use interpreters and translated materials where appropriate 12

and fair participation of all affected populations in the transportation decision making process. Any information, education and participation opportunities will be equally accessible. This Title VI policy document is expected to reach the MPO Policy Board for review and approval by mid 2009. Once approved, this new Title VI policy will be used in coordination with this Public Participation Plan to encourage public input into the MPO process. Visualization Visualization techniques will be used in all core transportation plans, programs and projects to the maximum extent possible. Visualization techniques promote improved understanding of existing and proposed transportation activities to those who do not have a background in transportation planning. Effective visualization techniques help build consensus and clarify ideas between the public and decision makers. Tailoring visualization techniques for a specific document or population will help interested people better understand regional transportation planning goals and activities. These techniques will include the use of color, diagrams, tables, maps and photos that better illustrate the ideas and concepts represented in transportation plans, projects and programs. E Mail / Contact Lists The Contact List is maintained by L DC MPO staff and any individual, organization, agency or other interested party can request to be added to this list by contacting L DC MPO or joining via the Web site. Information regarding plan updates, transportation planning activities and meeting notices will be sent to all interested parties wishing to be included in the E Mail database. E Mail messages and alerts were recognized as the most preferred method to send out information regarding transportation planning issues. Anyone interested can be added to the database by writing L DC MPO at: Lawrence Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Organization 6 E 6 th Street, Lawrence, KS 66044 0r http://www.lawrenceks.org/pds/transportation planning Brochures / Fact Sheets Brochures and fact sheets are a presentation of data in a format emphasizing brevity, key points of interest or concern, a fairly minimalist design aesthetic, and a general desire to convey the most relevant information in the least amount of space. Fact sheets condense information into an easy to read, straightforward, portable, and modular form of knowledge. They often contain lists, statistics, and answers to common questions. In some cases they may be a summary or abridgement of a longer document. L DC MPO should utilize this tool when disseminating information about major plans and studies. Mailings Mailings are a staple of most public involvement programs. Agencies use mailing lists throughout planning and project development to keep a thumb on the pulse of the community and other key people. Using mailing lists, a transportation agency reaches an audience with announcements of upcoming events, meeting invitations, newsletters, summary reports, and other information about its activities. 13

When asked which method the L DC MPO should use when providing information to the public, the community ranked mailings as the third most effective tool or strategy. Neighborhood Meetings and Newsletters Neighborhood meetings will be held in areas where significant transportation planning recommendations are being made to upgrade or change existing public infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, bridges, bicycle paths, railroad tracks, etc.). At least two weeks in advance of the scheduled public hearing date notices for neighborhood meetings will be posted on the L DC MPO s Web site and through appropriate neighborhood association newsletters if available. Newsletters will also be utilized to keep the community informed about transportation planning activities. Neighborhood newsletter can be targeted and tailored to specific areas, therefore increasing the effectiveness of the outreach efforts. The Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods is a resource the L DC MPO should use when soliciting public participation. Information Kiosks / Booths at Local Events People like special events now and then. These unique occasions are light hearted and intended to be fun for participants. They have a holiday like feeling clearly different from day to day meetings and hearings. They give community people opportunities to meet others in a friendly, non threatening setting and share their ideas. People like the freedom and openness of pleasurable events. This is a great strategy to inform, educate and solicit comment from a diverse and large group of people who are traditionally not involved in the planning process. Public Meetings Public meetings present information to the public and obtain informal input from community residents. Held throughout the planning process, they are tailored to specific issues or comm unity groups and are either informal or formal. Public meetings have been used for many years to disseminate information, provide a setting for public discussion, and get feedback from the community. Public meetings are effective at both gathering questions and comments from stakeholders, but also providing information to all participants. Public meetings should be held at a variety of locations within Douglas County and held at convenient, accessible locations and times. All of the L DC MPO transportation committee and board meetings are open to the public. This provides a great opportunity for the public to stay informed and participate in the planning process. Web Sites On line services provide communication 24 hours a day. The L DC MPO Web site provides comprehensive information on L DC MPO activities and regional transportation planning issues. Also housed on the L DC MPO Web site are necessary reports, core documents and agendas and meeting minutes for all committees and advisory boards. Douglas County residents indicated via an online survey that although the web site is not the most preferred method of retrieving information; it is effective at gathering the questions and comments of the public. The web site is located at http://www.lawrenceks.org/pds/transportationplanning. 14

Local Newspaper Advertisements / Articles Every effort to involve the media should be used when providing information to the public or encouraging participation. Press releases will be sent out whenever notable transportation planning activities are taking place. The Lawrence Journal World is an effective source to disseminate information to the public. Advertisements will also be taken out in the Lawrence Journal World officially notifying the public of public comment periods related to the L DC MPO major documents. Public Interaction There is no replacement for direct human interaction. An effective way to educate people about transportation planning activities and create opportunities for the public to get involved is to meet with them face to face. L DC MPO must take the attitude of meeting the public where they are for the most effective results. Surveys indicated that speaking directly to MPO staff was an effective method when gathering the community s comments and questions. Electronic Surveys Public opinion surveys assess widespread public opinion. An agency administers an electronic survey to a sample group of people via the internet. The limited sample of people is considered representative of a larger group. This is a popular method when gathering feedback on transportation related issues. A web survey was used to help gather public opinion related to participation when developing this Public Participation Plan. Document Availability When transportation plans, maps or programs are proposed to be changed, copies of the existing document and the proposed changes will be made available during the public comment period at the following locations: Baldwin City Public Library, 800 7th Street; Lawrence City Hall, 6 E. Sixth St., 1 st Floor, Information Window; Lawrence Public Library, 707 Vermont Street; Douglas County Court House, 1100 Massachusetts, County Clerks Office; Eudora Public Library, 14 E. 9 th Street; Lecompton City Hall, 333 Elmore, City Clerk. Documents are also published online on the L DC MPO s website at http://www.lawrenceks.org/pds/transportation planning. Evaluation of the Public Participation Strategies The L DC MPO will continuously evaluate the effectiveness of public participation activities. By continuously evaluating the tools and techniques presented in this plan, the L DC MPO will ensure that only the most effective strategies are continued and improved upon, while ineffective strategies are discontinued or replaced. An effective evaluation component will outline the steps to be taken to evaluate those tools 15

and techniques, and identify measures to quantify success rates and outline strategies to improve the MPO's public participation process. It is recommended that the tools and techniques be reviewed annually while the entire Public Participation Plan be reviewed and updated at least every four years to ensure that appropriate changes are being implemented by the MPO. The following table outlines the performance measures that can be used to evaluate each public participation tool or technique and the methods for improving each. Performance Measures Tool Performance Measure Methods for Improvement E Mail / Contact Lists Brochures / Fact Sheets Number of persons included in the database / Number of persons contacted Number of persons reached Mailings Number of letters / Persons contacted Neighborhood Newsletters Neighborhood Meetings Number of persons reached / Number of neighborhood newsletters participating Number of participants / Attendance Increase e mail list by advertising the availability of e mail announcements using other public involvement tools. Increase distribution by making brochures and fact sheets available at more locations Increase/Decrease mailing list to more accurately target affected areas. Use the most up to date information to maintain the mailing list. Increase or decrease distribution to more accurately target an area that may be affected Schedule at convenient times and locations. Hold multiple workshops. Use other tools to increase awareness. nt times and ations. Attend events that are not Information Kiosks Number of persons Schedule at convenie / Booths at Local reached / Attendance loc Events normally targeted. Hold multiple workshops. Use other tools to increase awareness. Public Meetings Number of participants / Schedule hearings at convenient and Attendance accessib le times and locati ons. Hold multiple meetings. Use other public involvement tools to increase awareness of meetings. Web Sites Number of hits / Viewers Use other public involvement tools to increase advertisement of the Web site. Local Newspaper Advertisements No measure / Typically required by regulations No measure / Typically required by regulations Electronic Surveys Number of persons Encourage responses by explaining the contacted / Number of importance of receiving feedback. participants Offer Incentives. 16

Appendix Appendix A: Federal Regulations The L DC MPO will fulfill all of the requirements and criteria provided for public involvement under 23 CFR 450.316 and 450.324 of Subpart C Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming of 23 CFR Part 450 (Federal Highway Administration) published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, February 14, 2007. These Federal regulations are listed below with the L DC MPO actions made to comply with the m indicated in italics. 450.316 Interested p arties, participation, and cons ultation. (a) The MPO shall develop and use a documented participation plan that defines a process for providing citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of public transportation e mployees, freight shi ppers, providers of freight transportation services, private providers of transportation, representatives of users of public transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled, a nd other interested parties with reasonable opportunities to be involved in the metropolitan transportation planning process. (1) The participation plan shall be developed by the MPO in consultation with all interested parties and shall, at a minimum, des cribe explicit procedures, strategies, and desired outcomes for: (i) Providing adequate public notice of public participation activities and time for public review and comment at key decision points, including but not limited to a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed metropolitan transportation plan and the TIP; (ii) Providing timely notice and reasonable access to information about transportation issues and processes; (iii) Employing visualization techn iques to describe metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs; (iv) Making public information (technical information and meeting notices) available in electronically accessible formats and mea ns, such as the World Wide Web; (v) Holding any public meetings at convenient and accessible locations and times; (vi) Demonstrating explicit consideration and response to public input received during the deve lopment of the metropolitan transportation plan and the TIP; (vii) Seeking out and considering the need s of those traditionally underserved by existing transportation systems, such as low income and minority households, who may face challenges accessing employment and other services; (viii) Providing an additional opportunity for public comment, if the final metropolitan transportation plan or TIP differs significantly from the version that was made available for public comment by the MPO and raises new material issues which interested parties could not reasonably have foreseen from the public involvement efforts; (ix) Coordinating with the statewide transpo rtation planning public involvement and consultation pr ocesses under subpart B of this part; and (x) Periodically reviewing the effectivene ss of the procedures and strategies contained in the participation plan to ensure a full and open participation process. 17

(2) When significant written and oral comments are received on the draft metropolitan transportation plan and TIP (including the financial plans) as a result of the participation process in this section or the interagency consultation process required under the EPA transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93), a summary, analysis, and report on the disposition of comments shall be made as part of the final metropolitan transportation plan and TIP. (3) A minimum public comment period of 45 calendar days shall be provided before the initial or revised participation plan is adopted by the MPO. Copies of the approved participation plan shall be provided to the FHWA and the FTA for informational purposes and shall be posted on the World Wide Web, to the maximum extent practicable. Protocol listed under 450.316(a)(3) was followed during the adoption of the L DC MPO s Participation Plan. The 45 day comment period began on February 10, 2009, and ended on March 27, 2009. Copies of the approved Participation Plan were provided to FHWA and FTA following the adoption of the Plan by the L DC MPO on April, 2009, and the Plan was posted on the website on April, 2009. (b) In developing metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs, the MPO should consult with agencies and officials responsible for other planning activities within the MPA that are affected by transportation (including State and local planned growth, economic development, environmental protection, airport operations, or freight movements) or coordinate its planning process (to the maximum extent practicable) with such planning activities. In addition, metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs shall be developed with due consideration of other related planning activities within the metropolitan area, and the process shall provide for the design and delivery of transportation services within the area that are provided by: (1) Recipients of assistance under title 49 U.S.C. Chapte r 53; (2) Governmental agencies and nonprofit organizations (including representatives of the agencies and organizations) that receive Federal assistance from a source other than the U.S. Department of Transportation to provide non emergency transportation services; and (3) Recipients of assistance under 23 U.S.C. 204. (c) When the MPA includes Indian Tribal lands, the MPO shall appropriately involve the Indian Tribal government(s) in the development of the metropolitan transportation plan and the TIP. (d) When the MPA includes Federal public lands, the MPO shall appropriately involve the Federal land management agencies in the development of the metropolitan transportation plan and the TIP. (e) MPOs shall, to the extent practicable, develop a documented process(es) that outlines roles, responsibilities, and key decision points for consulting with other governments and agencies, as defined in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section, which may be included in the agreement(s) developed under 450.314. 450.322 Development and content of the metropolitan transportation plan (MTP). (i) The MPO shall provide citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of public transpo rtation employees, freight shippers, providers of freight transportation services, 18

priv ate providers of transportation, representatives of users of public transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled, and other interested parties with reasonable opportunity to comment on the transportation plan using the participation plan developed under 450.316 (a). 450.324 Development and content of the transportation improvement program (TIP). (b) The MPO shall provide all interested parties with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed TIP as required by 450.316(a). In addition, in nonattainment area TMAs, the MPO shall provide at least one formal public meeting during the TIP development process, which should be addressed through the participation plan described in 450.316(a). In addition, the TIP shall be published or otherwise made readily available by the MPO for public review, including (to the maximum extent practicable) in electronically accessible formats and means, such as the World Wide Web, as described in 450.316(a). (n) Projects in any of the first four years of the TIP may be advanced in place of another pro ject, subject to the project selection requirements of 450.330. In addition, the TIP may be revised at any time under procedures agreed to by the State, MPO(s), and public transportation operator(s) consistent with the TIP development procedures established in this section, as well as the procedures for the MPO participation plan (see 450.316(a)) and FHWA/FTA actions on the TIP (see 450.328). 450.326 TIP revisions and relationship to the STIP. (a) An MPO may revise the TIP at any time under procedures agreed to by the cooperating parties consistent with the procedures established in this part for its development and approval. In nonattainment or maintenance areas for transportation related pollutants, if a TIP amendment involves non exempt projects (per 40 CFR part 93), or is replaced with an updated TIP, the MPO and the FHWA and the FTA must make a new conformity determination. In all areas, changes that affect fiscal constraint must take place by amendment of the TIP. Public participation procedures consistent with 450.316(a) shall be util ized in revising the TIP, except that these procedures are not required for administrative modifications. 19

Appendix B: Advisory Boards and Committees Aviation Advisory Board (AAB) A five to seven member board appointed by the Mayor of the City of Lawrence with the consent of the City Commission, the AAB exists to promote general and commercial aviation activities and interests. AAB also aids the users of aviation facilities in obtaining and improving services, and receives and evaluates reports of poor or improper service by the contractual base operator, and unsafe or dangerous conditions. Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) A seven member joint City/County advisory committee appointed by the Mayor of the City of Lawrence and Chair of the Douglas County Commission, the Bicycle Advisory Committee works to improve bicycle safety and awareness, education of motorists and non motorists, and update of the region s Bike Map. BAC also develops the Bicycle Plan and seeks information on current trends, programs, and facilities outside the local area. BAC makes recommendations to the City Commission concerning issues related to bicycle usage within the community. The BAC is staffed by the MPO Transportation Planner. Coordinated Transit District #1 (CTD) CTD #1 consists of transit service providers representing Leavenworth, Wyandotte, Douglas, and Johnson Counties. The purpose of the CTD is to enhance coordination and management of state and federal programs for public and private not for profit transit providers. Lawrence s Public Transit Administrator holds voting membership on the CTD Board. Public Transit Advisory Committee (PTAC) A nine member body appointed by the Mayor of the City of Lawrence with the consent of the City Commission, the PTAC considers matters relating to policies regarding the provision of public transit services within the city. The PTAC will conduct public hearings on issues pertaining to fare increases, route modifications and service reductions as defined by city policy. PTAC is staffed by Lawrence s Public Transit Administrator. Traffic Safety Commission (TSC) A nine member body appointed by the Mayor of Lawrence with the consent of the City Commission for staggered three year terms. The Traffic Safety Commission considers matters relating to the safe and expeditious flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic within the City of Lawrence. Typically, the TSC reviews and acts on traffic signalization, parking, and pedestrian control requests within the city. The City s traffic engineer staffs this advisory board. University of Kansas Student Senate (KU on Wheels) The University of Kansas Student Senate operates the KU on Wheels fixed route bus service that functions as a commuter service with its primary destination as the University of Kansas campus. The system is funded through student fees with operation contracted to a private transit operator. The Transit Commission, a subcommittee of the Student Senate, makes recommendations and conducts hearings on routes and operational matters. The University of Kansas provides oversight of the system to assure financial accountability. 20

Appendix C: Outreach and Development Efforts To ensure that this plan was developed in consultation with the public, the L DC MPO staff developed a survey intended to give regional transportation planners an understanding of the best ways to inform and engage the citizens of Douglas County in the transportation planning process. The transportation planning community engagement survey identified: obstacles that prevented citizens from participating in the regional transportation planning process; better ways to keep citizens informed about regional transportation planning issues; how their concerns should be addressed and responded to; and how to better incorporate citizen s comments into regional transportation planning activities. The survey was available online and paper copies were accessible at the Lawrence Public Library, 707 Vermont Street, Baldwin City Public Library, 800 Seventh Street, Eudora Public Library, 14 East Ninth Street, Lawrence Community Building, 115 W. 11th Street, East Lawrence Recreation Center, 1245 E. 15th Street, Lawrence Jewish Community Center, 917 Highland Drive, Lecompton City Hall, 327 Elmore Street, and Lawrence City Hall, 6 E Sixth Street. All surveys were accessible between November 18, 2008 and December 19, 2008. To ensure that the public was made aware of the survey and encourage participation the L DC MPO drafted a press release that resulted in an article written for The Lawrence Journal World online edition announcing the Public Participation Plan update and survey. The L DC MPO staff was also interviewed by KLWN 1320 AM news talk radio station during the KLWN Morning News Watch informing the public about the survey. To gather the input from all interested parties identified in SAFETEA LU, MPO staff e mailed individual invitations to complete the survey to all known stakeholders. That list included: Lawrence Transit System (The T) Public Transit Advisory Committee KU on Wheels Ground Transportation Inc. Bert Nash Community Mental Health Center Cottonwood, Inc. Douglas County Senior Services, Inc. Jayhawk Area Agency on Aging Independence, Inc. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Kansas Motor Carriers Association Lawrence Paper Company Lawrence Chamber of Commerce Kansas Department of Transportation Lawrence Convention and Visitor's Bureau 21

Eco 2 Commission Lawrence Municipal Airport Lawrence Aviation Advisory Board FBO Hetrick Air Services, Inc. University of Kansas Haskell University Baker University Lawrence School District (USD 497) Eudora School District (USD 491) Baldwin City School District (USD 348) Perry Lecompton School District (USD 343) Lawrence Historic Resource Commission Lecompton Historical Society Kansas Turnpike Authority Lawrence Bicycle Club Lawrence Mountain Bike Club Lawrence Bicycle Advisory Committee Lawrence Traffic Safety Commission Passenger Rail Kansas Centro Hispano Haskell Wetlands Preservation Organization Jayhawk Audubon Society Wakarusa Group of the Kansas Sierra Club Lawrence Preservation Alliance Kaw Valley Heritage Alliance Downtown Inc. League of Women Voters Small World City of Lawrence City of Eudora City of Baldwin City City of Lecompton Federal Transit Administration Federal Highway Administration Invitations were also sent out to twenty five neighborhood associations, including the Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods. 286 surveys were completed and the results are summarized in Appendix C. The L DC MPO staff interpreted the survey results and used them to compare with what was included in the Public Involvement Plan approved in 2004. A SAFETEA LU compliance analysis was completed that identified areas in the existing plan that needed to be updated, added, or improved to comply with the current governing legislation and updated regulations identified in Appendix A. MPO planners then worked with other MPOs and the FHWA Resource Center to research and incorporate best practices that would address the issues and concerns identified in the survey. A draft Public Participation Plan was presented 22

to the TAC for review and comment. After TAC approval, the plan was released for public review and comment for 45 days. Everyone who asked to be notified when future public transportation activities were available in the survey was notified of the review and comment period. The initial list of stakeholders and neighborhood associations were also indentified and a press release was posted. All public comments and responses to each will be located in Appendix D. The Public Participation Plan will integrate any additional changes resulting from the public review and comment period and then seek TAC approval. The MPO Policy Board will approve and adopt the plan at the end of the process. 23

Appendix D: Survey Results Although this survey was used in the development of the Public Participation Plan, it is in no way intendedd to be a statistical representation of the Lawrence Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Area. Survey results were used only to help garnish a better understanding of some methods that would better inform and engage the citizens of Douglas County in the regional transportation planning process. The L DC MPO received 286 survey responses from a diverse group of stakeholders. All constituenciess identified in SAFETEA LU as interested parties participated in the survey. Other than None of the above most respondents identified themselves as users or representatives of bicycle/ /pedestrian facilities or public transportation which correlated with the main interests among respondents. It is also worth noting that although aviation was unintentionally left offf the list of transportation interests, it still received many write in votes. Whichh of the following best describes you? (Check all that apply) Public Agency Employee 15% Member of the Freight Shipping/Transportation Industry Private Provider of Transportation 2% 3% User / Representative of Public Transportation 26% User / Representative of Bicycle / Pedestrian Transportation n Facilities 32% Representative of the Disabled 8% Transportationn Professional or Planning Partner with the L DC MPO Member of a City of Lawrencee or Douglas County Advisory Board 2% 6% None of the above 37% 24

Which areas of transportation planning are most importatnt to you? (Check up to 3) Public Transportation 166 Bicycle/Pedestrian 130 Safety Environmental Impacts Reducing Traffic Congestion 112 109 106 Maintaining Existing Roads and Bridges 93 Land Use/Zoning Commuting/Ridesharing 50 46 Freight/Rail Other 16 15 Other: airports and aviation Aviation We are an air medical provider from the airport Airport all of the above and intertwined and it is hard to choose just one as most important Assuring that Buses have designatedd Bus bays or Bus turn outs especially for 6th and 23rd street, in order to provide an inset place for buses to "hover" while letting riders on and off. This will avoid blocking traffic. motorcycle safety Moving large trucking traffic off of 23rd/Iowa Street comprehensive land use transportation plan Efficient spending efficient infrastructure for public use: airports, roads, highways, etc. Transportation must be accessible to those with disabilities more sidewalks for pedestrians and bicycle paths (paved)/ bike lanes on busy streets eg: 6th street, Iowa, etc. Sidewalks Use bus when can't use car for some reason repair, icy road, medical. Not Often. Too infrequent, half mile to bus stop, does not run for night events. limiting # private vehicles, and developing regional local transportation system, using renewable energy sources 25

Installing speed cushions at dangerous cross streets such as Chalk Hill Ct & 9th St. Sidewalks school age transportation Most respondents (66%) said that they are either never involved in the transportation planning process or only involved when a project or issues is of interest to them or affects them personally. This is representative of the amount of work that needs to be done by the L DC MPO to ensure that people who are traditionally not involved in the planning process are afforded the opportunity and encouraged to participate. Only 26% of the respondents indicated thatt they are highly involved. The L DC MPO will need to make every effort possible to increase the level of participation. How would you rate your level of involvement with transportation related issues? (Choose One) I am never involved 17% When the project or issue is of interest to me 42% Only when the project or issue affects me personally 7% Only when the project or issue affects me professionall y 1% Highly involved as an interested citizen 19% Highly involved as required by my profession 7% 26

The L DC MPO recognizes that free time among the residents of Douglas County is sometimes rare and difficult to devote to regional transportation planning activities; there are some tools and strategies that can be used to help with other issues that prevent participation. 45% of the respondents indicated that they either don t know how or feel they don t have enough information to participate in the planning process. The L DC MPO should concentrate efforts to educate and provide proficient messaging of information to the public to help reduce this potential obstacle. The community also needs to know and feel that their input and suggestions help shape the regional plans and policies the L DC MPO seeks participation on. Making these comments available to decision makers and the public will help increase transparency and hold the L DC MPO accountable during their public outreach efforts. 83% of respondents indicated that public comments should be posted and available for review on the L DC MPO s Web site. If you are not highly involved, what prevents you from becoming involved in transportation issues? (Choose all that apply) I do not know how to get involved I do not think my input will matter 21% 23% The meeting locations are not convenient for me 7% The meeting times are not convenient for me 15% I do not have enough free time to participate in the planning process I do not have enough information about the issues to feel comfortable becoming involved I do not feel the issues will have an impact on me personally 4% 24% 30% Other 7% Other: I live in Eudora and my input does not seem to be as valid as someonee who lives in town and it effects personally. That danged trafficway in South Lawrence has been on the planning boards for years, we've planned and lawyered and fought, and the danged thing is STILL not built. Whats the excuse this time? I don't feel the public opinions are actually listened to. I feel the decisions are made in the corner office and we are asked out of mandates not actual interest in what we want or need. 27

I am a Baldwin City resident, and rightly or wrongly, I perceive that most of the "action" regarding transportation involves Lawrence. My biggest hot button is aviation. As "merely" a former member of the Lawrence Aviation Advisory Board, it has been a challenge to remain actively involved. City employees no longer working for the city had a bad habit of deleting my name from information distribution lists. However, I salute Chairman Rick "Bear" Bryant, and quickly concede that the current board has done an absolutely outstanding job advising the city. We are tremendously privileged to have his expert and seemingly tireless leadership. Thus, they have done such a good job that it seems they really don't need me at all. Now, on the other hand, the traffic safety board needs me, because they seem to operate under a misguided notion that safety, obstruction of orderly traffic flow, and revenue enhancement all mean exactly the same thing. No one with any common sense ever seems to be allowed to express themselves. Loony leftist types will shout you down or do something to you like graffiti your property. I am not aware of meetings and the process here in Douglas County. I do not drive and have limited transportation to businesses in Lawrence. At present, the bus routes are too far away from the entrances to the south Lawrence stores. As I cannot walk that well, I don't feel comfortable in using the bus to get to them. Also, the downtown transfer areas are too far apart. Why can't you collect input via online forms like this one for any issues that come up? Meetings are never convenient I work in Overland Park (live in Lawrence) and simply don't want to use my non work time to attend meetings like this. Also, clearly there's a disconnect in providing information I did not know that a Lawrence Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Office exists. I know that the city employs planners, but I've never heard of this group. I am unaware of how else I can participate other than: 1) Voting, and 2) Participating in these surveys. I don't ever know when the meetings are or have enough information. Plus, whenever I have gone to public meetings in Lawrence, I'm always disappointed because there's usually not a way for me to have a say or make a difference. I always feel like the public participation is window dressing and my opinions never really make a difference. It gets hard being a citizen trying to work for change in Lawrence when it feels like the Chamber of Commerce and developers have the inside track. Whether the perception is correct or not this is the perception particularly when there are special meetings just for the Chamber and developers and not the same for neighborhood groups or citizens. The people in power (ones with the money and land) never really care about the majority vote. Look at the T. almost everyone knows it is needed,,, BUT so inefficient and poorly managed that the cost per passenger is probably more than private taxi's would cost. Seems the City Planners are only interested in what is "cool" now and not concerned about cost(brick streets in Old West Lawrence and traffic circles or roundabouts). Also those who scream the most will get their way(i.e. Southwest Trafficway). Established interest groups seem to be the only ones expressing organized opinions, dominated by the environmentalists/native American coalition opposed to completing K 10, and bus system advocates. I have not recognized the opportunity to participate in the process. Because operating cost considerations are never considered when providing services to the citizens of Lawrence. Just which neighborhood organization or other special interest group 28

makes the most noise or trouble. I live in another town. Was disappointed in the either/or type of choice. I am somewhat involved because a friend asked for my help. Sometimes the current transportation resources are unreliable or do not run at the time of the meetings. Also, there is not a consistent way to inform the public regarding transportation planning meetings. There is no alternative route to transportation than what is offered for KU, and older people that is convient to them, and not school age children. Dislike the Lawrence Process of Challenging every issue and thus holding up the process 29

The three most effective methods for providing the public with information were indentified as e mail messages (88%), brochures/fact sheets (70%), and mailings (53%). Neighborhood newsletters, public meetings, and information kiosks/booths at local events were also noted as effective. The L DC MPO should incorporate these tools when conducting public outreach activities. The least effective methods were identified as the City's cable channel 25 (85%), local newspaper classifieds (80%), and radio advertisements (58%). How effective are each of the following methods of providing information to you? Effective Not Effective Unsure Email Messages 88% 6% 6% Neighborhood Newsletters 45% 35% 21% City of Lawrence's Web Site 27% 51% 22% Project Specific Web Sites 33% 36% 31% Mailings 53% 33% 14% Local Newspaper Advertisements 37% 47% 16% Local Newspaper Classifieds 8% 80% 12% Television Advertisements 30% 53% 17% Radio Advertisements 28% 58% 14% City's Cable Channel 25 5% 85% 10% Neighborhood Meetings 32% 44% 24% Public Meetings 39% 34% 27% Internet Forums/Blogs 30% 48% 22% Brochures/Fact Sheets 70% 13% 17% Information Kiosks/Booths at Local Events 42% 34% 24% Most Effective Percentage Email Messages 88% Brochures/Fact Sheets 70% Mailings 53% 30

Least Effective Percentage City's Cable Channel 25 85% Local Newspaper Classifieds 80% Radio Advertisements 58% Other: Effective Meetings of the Metropolitan Planning Organization. I see the agendas and sometimes I attend the meetings. Effective Very dependent on the issue. Media to use needs to take into account the target audience. Each situation is different Effective Information reported in local media. Also, word of mouth from friends, etc. Effective Online newspaper articles are effective, as opposed to advertisements in print or online. I do check the city website occasionally, watch television sometimes, but email or newspaper articles are how I learn about transportation issues. Effective the individuals that personally hand out info at the farmers market. Effective I get phone calls from the planning office on occasion. Unsure Again, many elderly and disabled citizens are unable to physically attend meetings but they are still interested in bus transportation issues. I want to note that you needed 'somewhat effective' v. effective or not effective. The City website can be effective if I know to go there regarding some project and if it's easily linked to from either the home page or someplace intuitive in the website. In general I know there's a lot of info there but when I've searched for things in the past I've either not found them or found them in an area that makes sense to City employees but not to community members who don't know the jargon, departments, etc. Unsure I think items such as advertisements, television, radio and brochures are not good use of scarce funds. Effective Email combined with the city website or project specific website is the most effective for myself, and I think it is a growing trend for most people that have reliable access to the internet. A friend forwarded me info about the survey, otherwise I wouldn't have known to check the city website. I would recommend working on expanding a city wide email list serve of interested Lawrence citizens (ideally several thousands strong) that you can stay in contact with and solicit participation and feedback from. Participatory democracy! That's what it's all about. Unsure I do not trust the facts and figures that come from the administrators of public programs. The numbers are tweaked to show positive results. Example. I have riddent the T. Most times it is almost empty and the big buses waste fuel and just wear out the equipment and roads. Smaller buses with more direct routes to various locations should be possible with onboard computers to measure daily use to determine capacity needed and the time needed. I have trouble getting to any meeting place at any time. I have a disabled relative at home. 31

Unsure I live in the west side of Lawrence where we don't have an organized neighborhood organization. I don't participate in any of the local blogs because the opinions offered are so irrational and people quickly resort to name calling and abusive behavior. Effective List serves. Door to door information gathering/speaking. Unsure Some of these communication means are in flux for the present, as a member of the city's traffic safety advisory committee, I'm attending the monthly public meetings of that group, but because of my work schedule, I'm often unable to attend other public hearings. Websites, if they're linked to the city's main site are good if I have specific topics of concern. In the past, I've had little to do with blogs or forums, but that may change. Unsure all of these areas have varying degrees of effectiveness. might be better to ask which are the top three effective methods. Effective News stories in Lawrence Journal World Effective E newsletters Unsure E mails are good, and maybe a mailing with more in depth details. But, e mails are a good way to connect. Effective Work with the school district in more convenient transportation schedules they can not currently offer due to public school cut backs in the transportation area. Unsure My examples of City web info is that the one site I want is not up to date: Lawrence Cultural Arts Commission. Also we need more recycling info about the various deposit sites. Effective LJ World Website Ads 32

When asked to identify the most effective methods to gather the public comments and questions, 69% of the respondents stated that electronic surveys were effective. Web sites (64%), telephone conversations (40%), public hearings (40%), and neighborhood meetings (39%) were also considered effective. Every effort should be made to utilize these methods during the public participation process. The least effective methods were identified as internet forums/blogs (48%), standard mail surveys (40%), and comment cards at public meetings (38%). How effective are each of the following methods at gathering your comments and questions? Effective Not Effective Unsure Phone (Speak di rectly to L DC MPO Staff) 40% 36% 25% Internet Forums/Blogs 32% 48% 20% Web Sites (comments submitted by e mail) Electronic Surveys 64% 69% 16% 13% 20% 18% Standard Mail Surveys Public Hearings 39% 40% 40% 34% 20% 25% Neighborhood Meetings 39% 37% 25% Workshops or Open Houses 32% 31% 37% Comment Cards at Public Meetings 30% 38% 32% Most Effective Percentage Electronic Surveys 69% Web Sites (comments submitted by e mail) 64% Public Hearings 40% Least Effective Percentage Internet Forums/Blogs 48% Standard Mail Surveys 40% Comment Cards at Public Meetings 38% Other: Effective I sometimes submit letters to the MPO on behalf of the League of Women Voters. Effective Planning Commission or City Commission meetings Effective Meetings tend to be very attendee biased, and these can unduly bias the results for both good or bad depending on your viewpoint 33

Effective I hosted planning and traffic officials at my house to look at street development. I invited neighbors and we were able to ask questions and make comments. I was great. Not I couldn't find any where else to make any further comments. We live in the Effective county and I feel that the information that is garned by the survey (which if I am not at work, don't have access to email) should be distributed to the public by a newsletter or some similar mailing so that we have the ability to review (?) the submitted info. I am unsure that I would make it to any hearings, committees or other gathering and thus would miss out on the gathered comments from others. Thank you, Tamara Hagerman Unsure As I am not able to attend transportation meetings, some way should be found for citizens to easily communicate like an address posted in the newspaper to which I could mail my thoughts on the issue. Unsure Just to reiterate that any blogs or forums or websites set up to capture feedback must supply actual information from informed sources about the project. I will not read a list of rants or opinions from other locals. Unsure Most times only a few people come to meetings. Those that do are usually on the extreme ends of the issue and the majority feel that the issue has been already decided by some politically motivated or self interest need. Example, the few people that voted on the recent school tax issue, a very small percent of the voters participated. Unsure on line works for me Unsure I'm using "unsure" to indicate "sometimes" or "possibly" or "it depends". Unsure see above comments re: effectiveness levels. Not I sometimes get the impression that the decision makers minds are already Effective made up prior to public comment. It is very frustrating and almost leads me to not get involved. I hope I'm wrong. Effective email is best Unsure I refrain from committing bcs of other community projects in which I have a leadership responsibility. 34

How should the L DC MPO share comments it receives from the public? Check all that apply Public Comments should be posted on the L DC MPO's Web Site 83% Public Comments should be discussed at working sessions and committee meetings 59% Public Comments should be made available at public meetings 64% Public Comments should be listed in final projects and documents 51% 35

An overwhelming 58% of the survey respondents indicated that all stages of development were equally important with regard for the need of public participation. The L DC MPO is committed to provide ample opportunity and promote continued participation during the regional transportation planning process. Early and continuous participation should be sought during the creation of the L DC MPO s core documents and other planning activities. When do you feel public participation is most important during the transportation planning process? (Choose One) Prior to the development of a plan 21% During the development of a plan 15% After a draft plan has been developed 5% All Stages of development are equally important 58% Please indicate your place of residence Baldwin City 2% Lecompton 1% Lawrence 85% Eudora 1% Unincorporated Douglas County 7% Other 4% 36