Appendix G - City of St. Joseph, MO

Appendix GProjects and Project Evaluation

SJATSO 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan

Appendix G – Project Evaluation 1

Appendix G – Project Evaluation

Introduction This appendix summarizes the project evaluation of the potential 2045 MTP

improvements. As described in Appendix E, Needs and Opportunities, the project list

includes a range of project needs that have been identified as part of the SJATSO 2045

MTP planning process. The evaluation process leads to the identification of priority

projects and strategies that are considered further as part of the cost feasible plan (see

Appendix H).

Overview of the Evaluation Process SJATSO uses a combination of technical evaluation and stakeholder outreach to

identify, screen and prioritize multimodal improvements within the region (see Figure 1).

This appendix summarizes the 2045 MTP screening results. The screening process focuses

on two primary tasks—a technical analysis and public input. Both tasks inform each

other throughout the evaluation process to ultimately determine which improvements:

• Achieve the stated goals and objectives of the MTP

• Address existing and future year needs, deficiencies, and opportunities

Plan and Project Review

The evaluation process starts with a review of the projects included in the 2040 MTP.

SJATSO staff reviewed the 2040 MTP project list to identify projects that had been

completed or may no longer be needed. It also includes a review of recently

completed and on-going studies within the MPA to identify specific projects, strategies,

or other recommendations that might impact the 2045 MTP development.

There are two recent studies that will have a significant impact on the 2045 MTP. The first

is the I-229 EA study, which is currently on-going and expected to be completed by

early 2020. This project will identify a long-term solution for the elevated structure of I-

229, located just west of downtown St. Joseph. Depending on the preferred alternative,

this improvement could have significant impacts on local and regional traffic, including

regional freight movements. The second study is a riverfront development plan which

was recently completed in Spring 2019. This study identified opportunities to better

connect downtown St. Joseph with the riverfront. It includes several non-motorized

improvements that are important to include in the MTP.



Figure 1: Project Evaluation Process

Technical Analysis

The technical analysis includes an evaluation of the respective transportation modes for

the existing and future year (2045) conditions. This analysis considers both the on-going

maintenance needs as well as future year capital improvements to address projected

mobility needs. The following summarizes the key technical components of the

evaluation process.



Travel Demand Forecasting Model

The regional travel demand forecasting model was used to evaluate the potential

impacts of select roadway projects. The travel demand model is a tool to project year

2045 conditions by using socioeconomic forecasts (see Appendix B). The model results

are included later in this appendix.

Environmental Justice

Environmental Justice (EJ) is a federal policy that requires agencies receiving federal

funds to set up processes that consider impacts of plans, projects, and activities on

minority and low-income populations. FHWA and FTA establish policy guidelines that

focus on the following:

• Limited Effects – Avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionally high and adverse

effects on human health and the local environment. This includes social and

economic effects on minority and low-income populations;

• Inclusion – Ensure that all communities that would potentially be affected by the

transportation decision making process have the opportunity to participate and

be represented; and

• Guarantee of Benefits – Prevent the denial, reduction, or significant delay of the

receipt of benefits to minority and low-income population.

The EJ analysis is included in Appendix I.

Land Use Compatibility

The SJATSO area has continued to grow over the past two decades. As this growth

occurs, the planning area experiences changes in land use which have a direct impact

on transportation patterns and infrastructure decisions. Land use changes, such as new

housing developments and employment centers, often increase travel demand,

creating the need for additional transportation accommodations for all modes. As the

area responds with new supply (new roadways, additional travel lanes, new or expanded

bus routes, new non-motorized facilities, etc.), the demand is addressed and there is

improved accessibility to land. This accessibility results in new land uses, leading to new

transportation demand and so on. This cycle of improvements and demand is known as

the Land Use/Transportation Cycle. Potential land use impacts are considered in the

evaluation process.

Performance Measures

MAP-21, and continuing with FAST Act, placed an emphasis on establishing national

performance standards. DOTs and MPOs must address these performance measures as

part of the MTP process. These measures have been incorporated into the planning

evaluation process. A system performance report is provided in Appendix F.

Operations and Maintenance

The on-going preservation of existing transportation infrastructure is a critical—and

costly—component of maintaining a safe, efficient, and reliable transportation system. A

primary focus of the region, at least for the foreseeable future, is on maintaining the

existing infrastructure and other transportation assets in a state of good repair. As



previously documented, addressing the short-term and long-term needs of the elevated

segment of I-229 is critical to addressing the overall operations and maintenance (O&M)

needs of the region. Projects that help preserve existing transportation assets are

considered in the evaluation process.

Public Input

Public input is another critical aspect of the planning process that informs the project

identification and screening. The following summarizes key public outreach efforts during

the 2045 MTP update.

Online Surveys

Two online surveys were conducted as part of the 2045 MTP update. The first survey was

conducted between April 29, 2018, and June 16, 2018, and was designed to help confirm

the MTP goals and priorities, as well as assess public support for potential new funding

sources and spatially identify multimodal issues and concerns. The survey had nearly 400

visitors and 255 participants, logging over 1,000 priorities.

Results from this online survey indicate that safety was the highest priority among

participants by quite a large margin (Figure 2). Other important priorities, as measured by

the number of times it was ranked in the top 5 of 8, included community development,

and economic prosperity, among others.

Figure 2. Project Evaluation Process



On the topic of growing revenues to best address these priorities, various potential

funding sources were put forward and participants selected the ones they would support

for an increase to fund transportation improvements. By a large margin, a state gas tax

garnered the most support, followed by new local road and bridge taxes and state motor

vehicles sales tax. It is notable that participants support “user taxes”—i.e., transportation-

related tax revenues—to support transportation projects. Sales tax and property taxes

received much less support.

Finally, participants were invited to mark on a map the location and type of

transportation-related issues or concerns they experience. By mode, driving-related

concerns were the most numerous, followed by walking and biking. Driving-related issues

focused on intersection/roadway design, pavement maintenance, and ITS operational

improvements. Figure 3 provides a summary of the number of markers and comments.

Figure 3. Types of Concerns

A second online survey, which replaced what was previously the Workplace survey in

prior MTPs, was conducted in Spring 2019 and asked residents to provide input on specific

projects—be they roadway, freight, transit, or bicycle/pedestrian. The survey included a

budget slider exercise that gave approximately 260 respondents the opportunity to

indicate what percentage of funding they would allocate to the following investment

categories:

❖ Build the Economy

❖ Healthy Communities

❖ Move Fast & Efficiently

❖ Reduce Injures & Crashes

❖ Support Great Places

Figure 4 summarizes the allocation results. Each topic is presented separately with the

other topics grayed out for comparison purposes. Perhaps the most notable result is that

Move Fast & Efficiently was generally rated lower than top investment areas including

Build the Economy and Reduce Injuries & Crashes.



Figure 4. Budget Slider Allocation (by Investment Category)

Survey respondents also had the opportunity to rate their preference for specific

projects (see Figure 5). The top roadway/freight project identified was addressing the I-

229 elevated structure. This priority is clearly a hot issue within the St. Joseph region, as

demonstrated by nearly 200 residents attending a public open house for the I-229 EA in

April 2019. Improving the Belt Highway was the second highest rated project, supporting

a focus on improving traffic operations and enhancing safety for the traveling public.

The bicycle and pedestrian improvements focused on implementing the Riverfront

Development plan, as well as enhancing University connections (Mitchell Avenue

concept). Introducing a north-south transit route on the Belt Highway, and regional

transit service to Kansas City also rated high.



Figure 5. Project Priorities, and Non-Priorities

Source: AECOM, MetroQuest Survey #2; Spring 2019.

Statistically Valid Community Survey

With every MTP update, the SJATSO conducts a statically valid public opinion survey to

help inform the process and identify priority issues. The SJATSO has been conducting this

survey as part of the past four MTP updates. As such, the survey results begin to reflect

trends that further inform the planning process.

Conducted between September 2018 and October 2018, this survey asked 400 randomly

selected participants questions related to the respective transportation modes within the

MPA. In administering the survey, all zip codes within the three-county MPA were

covered, and results had a 95% level of confidence. Survey questions were developed in

part from the results of the first online survey, and major findings emerged in the areas of

system maintenance, public transportation, bicycling, pedestrian transportation, and

funding.

In terms of maintenance—including streets, interstates/highways, and bridges—the areas

that respondents were most dissatisfied with were downtown St. Joseph and the south

end of St. Joseph. Other parts of town, such as the Riverside area, Country Club Village,

and the east end of St. Joseph, were more satisfactory.

Among the 10% of respondents who had used public transportation in the past 12

months, 60% thought favorably of the availability, but less than half considered the

frequency, service hours, or bus stop infrastructure to be similarly favorable. Among those

who hadn’t used public transportation, the most common reason was their general

preference for driving, followed by lack of service near their home and the longer travel

times required by transit. Even among non-transit users, 86% support the bus system for

other members of the community.



Nearly a quarter of respondents had ridden a bike in the past 12 months, primarily for

recreation rather than practical purposes. Those who rode on roadways felt safe in many

parts of the MPA, but less safe in the east and south ends of St. Joseph. The main wishes

for biking were an expanded network (e.g., in south and east ends of St. Joseph and

Country Club Village) and increased focus on safety—features like separated bike lines

on roadways, increased driver education, and additional lighting on trails. Forty-five

percent of these respondents said that they would support a bike-share program, 18%

were unsure, and the remainder in opposition.

About half of respondents reported walking on a roadway or path in the past 12 months

and felt that those areas considered “uncomfortable” would benefit from increased

visibility and the construction of new sidewalks or paths.

Much like the findings from the first survey, the funding sources that garnered the most

support as potential new revenue for transportation projects were transportation-related,

with the state gas tax again receiving the most support, followed by local road and

bridge and local gas taxes.

When asked how best to spend a hypothetical $100 in transportation funding, the major

theme was safety (19% of funding) followed closely by system preservation (18%), e.g.,

repaving roadways, maintaining bridges. Error! Reference source not found. 6

summarizes the allocation.

Figure 6. Hypothetical Funding Allocation Preferences

Sector / Stakeholder Workshops

Sector workshops conducted in April 2019 helped identify current and future year mobility

and infrastructure needs. The workshops provided an opportunity to focus on the specific

issues of subareas within the region. The workshops further provided an opportunity to

confirm that the 2045 MTP goals and objectives are addressing the priority transportation

and growth issues within the region. The SJATSO MPA was divided into four sectors—north,

south, east, and west—and sector maps were marked up to identify transportation, land

use, and growth issues. Error! Reference source not found. summarizes the key themes,

by sector, as they relate to the 2045 MTP goals and objectives.



Public Open House

SJATSO conducted a public open house on July 10, 2019, to present the draft MTP

recommendations. The open house was held at the St. Joseph City Hall and

approximately 25 individuals attended. Participants were given the opportunity to review

the preliminary transportation needs and issues, and could indicate their top

roadway/freight, transit, and bicycle/pedestrian concerns by placing stickers next to

their highest priority projects. Consistent with other outreach efforts, desire to expand

transportation choice was a priority of attendees.

Table 1: Sector Workshop Key Themes

North

• Focus on maintaining/upgrading existing roads

• School district is rapidly growing, which in turn impacts transportation needs

• Safety concerns, specifically the I-29/229/71 interchange (MoDOT is reviewing)

• Focus on expanding alternative transportation:

– Need more sidewalks throughout the area, increase mobility for low-income individuals who rely heavily on walking

– Support for expanding fixed-route bus service to Savannah (focus on connecting people with jobs)

– Support for expanding bicycle facilities, including the rail-to-trails connection to the St. Joseph urbanized area

East

• Focus on improving infrastructure and traffic operations

– I-29 @ US-169 (heavy truck traffic)

– US-36 @ Riverside (bridge, capacity) – I-29 @ US-36 (freight impacts) – I-229 @ Route A (accommodate new

development) – Cook Road Improvements (accommodate

development, important east-west connectivity)

• Create “Gateway” to City at Frederick Avenue interchange area

• Study long-term future of US-36

– Safety, operational improvements – Support development east of I-29

• Belt Highway improvements

– Improve traffic operations/safety – Add transit service, connected sidewalks

• Enhance bicycle connections from WMSU to downtown

South

• Improve circulation, access to industries

– Enhance traffic flow and safety at the intersection of US-59 and Alabama

– Accommodate truck parking – Improve access to US-36 and I-229,

including MO-752 connection

• Study long-term future of US-36 corridor

– Safety, operational improvement – Maintenance of I-229/US-36/US-59

interchange

• Enhance transportation alternatives:

– Later bus service to area – Develop Quad State Trails

West

• Enhance airport access

– Potential new river crossing – Second access (causeway) east of existing

airport access on Kansas side

• Support future airport development – Air National Guard moving creates

business development opportunity

• Address US-36 corridor issues

– Maintenance of I-229/US-36/US-59 interchange

– Safely accommodate traffic through Wathena (during major events)

• Improve bike/pedestrian facilities



Public Review of the Draft MTP

The SJATSO Coordinating Committee makes the draft MTP available for a 45-day public

review and comment period. At the end of the 45-day period, all public comments will

be addressed by the project team and the Coordinating Committee. The public review

of the draft MTP will begin in September 2019 and conclude in early November 2019.

Additional information will be updated here once the public comment period is

completed.

SJATSO Website and Social Media

SJATSO posts current planning documents on the MPO website and utilizes social media

to maximize public outreach efforts. This effort was especially helpful in spreading the

word regarding the surveys conducted as part of the 2045 MTP update.

Evaluation Criteria The process of project prioritization is one tool to inform key investment priorities and

help assess which projects may be most beneficial to SJATSO. The project evaluation

methodology helps SJATSO staff and the Coordinating Committee in determining

investment priorities for the fiscally constrained 2045 MTP. Table 2 displays the evaluation

criteria along with the weighted values assigned by the Coordinating Committee

(adopted February 14, 2019).

It is important to note that the results of the scoring process are intended to inform

investment priorities for further consideration in the planning process. In other words, the

ranking process is designed to support the decision-making process, rather than render

a decision. The scoring results are not intended to be the final ranking; meaning that

projects that do not score highly may still be considered for other reasons beyond those

described in the evaluation criteria. As such, a project that scores highest does not

necessarily reflect the top priority, nor is it necessarily the next project to be

implemented or constructed. The planning process provides an allowance for non-

technical considerations, recognizing that there are other factors that go into the

decision-making process that cannot be captured simply through project scoring.



3 2 1 0

Safety Potential to reduce

crashes, or enhance safety

for the traveling public

20% Targeted safety

project/improvement, or

project enhances geometric

design

Project has potential safety

benefits, to roadway users

or alternative transportation

modes

Project has limited safety

benefits, to roadway users

or alternative transportation

modes

Does not target or address a

safety issue/need

System Management Potential to improve

existing infrastructure, or

more efficient operations

20% High pavement or bridge

priority, or specifically

targets other infrastructure

need

Identified pavement or

bridge need, or other

infrastructure need

Routine treatment to

improve pavement, or other

infrastructure need

No effect on pavement or

bridge condition, or other

infrastructure

Funding Project readiness,

including overall project

cost and potential for

available funding

20% Project ready to build, or in

design. Project funding (full

or partial) has been

identified.

Some analysis/design

completed, project requires

further study. Project

funding has been partially

addressed/identified.

Limited analysis/design,

project is mostly in the

planning stage. Project

funding is mostly

conceptual, or needs to be

addressed.

Project is mostly conceptual,

does not address an

immediate concern. No

funding available, or funding

has not been identified.

Economic Vitality Potential Economic

Benefits 15% Potential to enhance

regional economic

development and

competitiveness

Potential to enhance local

economic development

within the MPA

Limited or speculative

economic benefits within

the MPA

Does not directly support

economic development

within the MPA

Accessibility, Regionalism Congestion reduction,

reduce VHT, reduce VMT,

Connectivity

15% Targets roadway with ‘over

capacity’ v/c ratio and/or a

freight corridor

Targets roadway with ‘at

capacity’ v/c ratio and/or a

freight corridor or emerging

freight corridor

Targets roadway with

‘approaching capacity’ v/c

ratio and/or an emerging

freight corridor

Does not target congested

roadway and/or no

discernable freight benefit

Environmental Protection,

Natural Environment,

Transportation / Land Use

Consistency with

growth/land use patterns,

supports environmental

protection

5% Supports targeted

development areas, avoids

negative environmental

impacts

Supports development in

existing or planned

infrastructure service areas,

minimizes negative

environmental impacts

Potential land use

compatibility /

environmental concerns

Is not consistent with

desired growth patterns,

and/or could have

significant environmental

impacts

Public Involvement General support from the

public5% High priority support for

existing or proposed

regionally significant

investments

Complements existing or

proposed regionally

significant investments

Minimal existing or

proposed support for

transportation investment

No support or significant

opposition to proposed

transportation improvement

Rating

MTP Goals Evaluation Criteria

Weighted

Value

Table 2. Evaluation Criteria NOTE: 0 (little, or no impact) to 3 (highest, or most significant impact)

Weight values adopted by SJATSO Coordinating Committee – February 14, 2019


Appendix G – Projects and Evaluation 12

Evaluation Process Following is a brief summary of the evaluation process used for the SJATSO 2045 MTP

planning process:

1. Develop evaluation criteria that reflect the MTP goals and objectives.

2. Develop weighted evaluation criteria, with input from the SJATSO Technical and

Coordinating Committee. The committees ultimately approve the weights

considering feedback from of the public surveys.

3. For each criterion, a rating scale from 3 (highest) to 0 (lowest) is used to assess

how well a project would perform. These ratings are applied to each

roadway/freight project contained in the potential project list.

4. When a project is scored, the numeric ratings are multiplied by their respective

criterion’s weight and then summed to create a weighted score that reflects the

relative importance of each criterion.

5. SJATSO committee members had one month to review the initial scoring of the

potential projects. No comments or edits were provided.

Highways and roadways facilitate the highest percentage of travel within the region,

and providing an efficient and effective roadway system is critical to support the

region’s economy, quality of life, mobility, and social equity. While primarily serving

vehicular traffic, roadways also accommodate public transit, bicycling, pedestrians,

and freight movements. As such, it is critical to consider the secondary impacts and

benefits that roadway improvements can have on improving other travel modes and

the regional multimodal transportation system—essentially looking at the roadway

system from a complete streets perspective.

Evaluation Results Figure 7 displays the potential or planned projects within the SJATSO MPA. Some of the

projects are proposed studies as there may not be enough information to identify a

specific improvement. Table 3 (pages 14 to 18) summarizes the results of the project

ratings. Table 4 (pages 19 to 23) summarizes the results of the project scoring with the

weighted factors taken into consideration. Table 5 (page 24) summarizes the projects

that scored with 2.00 or greater and represent the projects that are first to be

considered in the cost feasible analysis (see Appendix H).



Figure 7. Planned/Potential Projects



ID Roadway

Project Sponsor /

Jurisdiction Location Improvements Safe

ty

Syst

em M

anag

emen

t

Fun

din

g

Eco

no

mic

Vit

alit

y

Acc

essi

bili

ty, R

egio

nal

ism

Envi

ron

men

tal P

rote

ctio

n,

Nat

ura

l En

viro

nm

ent,

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n /

Lan

d U

se

Pu

blic

Invo

lvem

ent

Co

mb

ined

Rat

ing

1 US 36 MoDOT28th Street to I-229 / US

36 / US 59 (interchange)Mainline and ramp improvements 3 3 0 3 2 2 2 15

2 US 36 MoDOT I-29 to 28th Street Ramp and safety improvements 3 2 0 3 2 2 2 14

3 Cook Road City of St. Joseph Woodbine to Riverside

Improve capacity/reconstruct from 2

lane to 3 lane; improve vertical

alignment2 2 1 3 2 2 3 15

4 Cook Road (Bridge) MoDOT @ I-29; east to WoodbineImprove capacity/reconstruct from 2

lane to 3 lane2 3 2 2 3 3 2 17

5 Cook Road City of St. Joseph US 169 to I-29 BridgeImprove capacity/reconstruct from 2

lane to 3 lane3 2 2 3 3 2 3 18

6 Cook Road City of St. Joseph US 59 to US 169Improve capacity/reconstruct from 2

lane to 3 lane3 3 2 3 3 2 3 19

7 Cook Road City of St. JosephSt. Joseph Avenue / US 59

to Waterworks RdConstruct new roadway 0 1 0 3 3 2 3 12

8 I-229 MoDOT Cook Road Construct new interchange 0 2 0 2 3 2 1 10

9 Gene Field Road City of St. Joseph Woodbine to RiversideImprove capacity from (3 lane

section)2 2 1 2 2 2 2 13

10 Gene Field Road (Bridge) MoDOT @ I-29 Improve bridge capacity 3 2 0 3 2 2 2 14

11 Gene Field Road City of St. Joseph Belt Hwy to Woodbine Improve capacity (3 lane section) 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 14

12I-29/I-229 and US 71

interchangeMoDOT System interchange

Improve geometrics; enhance safety

and traffic flow3 3 1 2 2 2 1 14

13New Airport River

Crossing

Buchanan / City of

St. Joseph / MoDOT

/ KDOT

To Be DeterminedConstruct secondary access to the

airport via Kansas.1 2 1 3 3 2 2 14

14Riverside Road (Route

AC)MoDOT US 36 to Pickett Rd


lane to 3 lane1 2 1 2 3 2 3 14


AC)MoDOT US 36 to Route 6 Improve capacity 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 17

Projects 1 to 15

Table 3. Roadway/Freight Project Ratings



ID Roadway

Project Sponsor /


ty

Syst

em

Man

age

me

nt

Fun

din

g

Eco

no

mic

Vit

alit

y

Acc

ess

ibili

ty, R

egi

on

alis

m

Envi

ron

me

nta

l Pro

tect

ion

,

Nat

ura

l En

viro

nm

en

t,

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n /

Lan

d U

se

Pu

blic

Invo

lve

me

nt

Co

mb

ined

Rat

ing

16 Riverside Road City of St. Joseph Gene Field to CookImprove roadway; urban cross

section2 2 0 1 1 1 1 8

17 11th Street (Bridge) City of St. Joseph @ Parkway Drive Reconstruct Precast Concreate Arch 3 3 0 0 0 2 1 9

18 13th Street (Bridge) City of St. Joseph @ Parkway Drive Reconstruct Precast Concreate Arch 3 3 0 0 0 2 1 9

19 Huntoon Road (Bridge) City of St. Joseph @ Roys Branch Reconstruct Steel Stringer 3 3 0 0 0 2 1 9

20 Easton Road (Bridge) City of St. Joseph @ BNSF RRReconstruct Concrete Double Box

Culvert3 3 0 0 0 2 1 9


AC)MoDOT US 36 Interchange Reconstruct, add capacity 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 17

22 I-29 MoDOT US 36 Improve interchange 3 3 1 2 3 2 2 16

23 Pickett Road City of St. Joseph Belt Highway to Riverside Improve capacity from 2 to 3 lanes 2 2 0 1 2 2 1 10

24 Mitchell Avenue (YY) MoDOTUS 169 (Belt Highway) to I-

29Widen to 3-lanes 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 11

25 Mitchell Avenue (Bridge) MoDOT @ I-29 Improve/Widen bridge to 3-lanes 0 2 0 2 2 1 1 8

26 Mitchell Avenue (YY) MoDOT 50th to Riverside Improve/Widen 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 14

27 Mitchell Avenue (YY) MoDOT Riverside to 59th Improve/Widen 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 13

28 Corporate Drive City of St. Joseph Mitchell Avenue to US 36Improve Corporate Drive; construct

connection to US 36 interchange1 2 1 3 3 3 1 14

29 Karnes Road City of St. JosephUS 169 (Bus. 29) to St.

Joseph Avenue (US 59)

Improve roadway cross section; add

shoulders; improve intersection

locations2 1 0 1 2 1 1 8

30 Frederick Avenue City of St. Joseph 36th St. and Leonard Streetscape improvements 2 2 1 3 2 2 3 15

Table 3. Roadway/Freight Project Ratings (continued, table 2 of 5)

Projects 16 to 30



ID Roadway

Project Sponsor /


ty

Syst

em

Man

age

me

nt

Fun

din

g

Eco

no

mic

Vit

alit

y

Acc

ess

ibili

ty, R

egi

on

alis

m

Envi

ron

me

nta

l Pro

tect

ion

,

Nat

ura

l En

viro

nm

en

t,

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n /

Lan

d U

se

Pu

blic

Invo

lve

me

nt

Co

mb

ined

Rat

ing

31 I-29 MoDOT US 169 Reconstruct interchange 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 19

32 Easton Road City of St. JosephLeonard to east of

Riverside

Improve (rebuild horizontal/vertical

alignment as standard urban section)2 2 0 1 1 2 1 9

33 I-229 (Interchange) MoDOT @ Route AAdd ramps at interchange to

accommodate all travel movements2 2 0 3 3 2 3 15

34 I-229 (Interchange) MoDOT @ MO 752 Construct new interchange 0 2 0 2 2 1 1 8

35I-229 / US 36 / US 59

(interchange)MoDOT System interchange


and traffic flow3 3 0 2 2 1 1 12

36 MO 752 MoDOT I-229 to Highway 169 New arterial road connection 1 1 0 2 3 1 1 9

37 Lovers Lane (Bridge) City of St. Joseph @ NW Parkway Reconstruct Precast Concreate Arch 3 3 0 0 0 2 1 9

38 Alabama Street MoDOT near US 59

Improve intersection safety and

functionality; explore at-grade rail

crossing options3 3 1 3 2 2 1 15

39 Lower Lake Road City of St. Joseph @ railroad crossing Construct grade-separation 1 2 0 2 2 2 1 10

40 New Airport Causeway

Buchanan /

Doniphan County /

Elwood

Location TBDConstruct secondary access point

to/from airport3 2 0 2 2 1 1 11

41 Rosecrans Airport Access KDOT US 36 to airport entrance Improve roadway 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 12

42 15th Street (Elwood, KS) City of Elwood 15th St RR crossingIntersection / At-Grade Rail Crossing

Improvements2 1 1 2 2 2 2 12



44Vermont Street (Elwood,

KS)City of Elwood Vermont St RR crossing

Intersection / At-Grade Rail Crossing


45 King Hill Avenue (Bridge) City of St. Joseph @ South 2nd Street Reconstruct Steel Stringer 3 3 0 0 0 2 1 9


Projects 31 to 45



ID Roadway

Project Sponsor /


ty

Syst

em M

anag

emen

t

Fun

din

g

Eco

no

mic

Vit

alit

y

Acc

essi

bili

ty, R

egio

nal

ism

Envi

ron

men

tal P

rote

ctio

n,

Nat

ura

l En

viro

nm

ent,

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n /

Lan

d U

se

Pu

blic

Invo

lvem

ent

Co

mb

ined

Rat

ing

46 I-29 MoDOT Route O New interchange 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 5

47Develop supporting

roadway network

City of St. Joseph /

BuchananTBD

Develop new roadways to support

future development0 1 0 1 1 2 0 5

48 US 59 MoDOTCounty Line Road to Belt

Highway

Improve roadway geometrics;

resurface2 2 1 2 2 2 2 13

49 US 59 MoDOT Route DD Intersection improvements 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 12

50 McArthur Drive (Bridge) City of St. Joseph @ BNSF RR Reconstruct 4' Span Steel Stringer 3 3 0 0 0 2 1 9

51 Woodbine Road City of St. Joseph Gene Field and 169 Increase capacity 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 13

52 Karnes Road City of St. Joseph Leonard to WoodbineImprove (rebuild to 2-lane standard

section)1 2 1 1 2 2 1 10

53 Leonard Road City of St. Joseph Gene Field to KarnesImprove (rebuild to 2-lane standard

section)1 2 1 1 2 2 1 10

54 Bishop Road City of St. Joseph Gene Field Road to CookImprove (rebuild to 2-lane standard

section)1 2 1 1 2 2 1 10

55 US 169 MoDOT I-29 and D Improve capacity 0 1 0 1 2 2 0 6

56 CR 360 Andrew CountyOne Hundred and Two

River

Bridge to make through route to

connect 71 and 169/D2 3 0 2 2 1 2 12


roadway networkAndrew County TBD


future development1 2 0 2 2 2 2 11

58 Highway DD Andrew CountyBetween US 59 and T

(near Savannah)Upgrade segment 1 3 0 1 2 2 0 9

59 US 71 MoDOT US 59 Upgrade roadway 1 2 0 1 2 1 0 7

60 Highway T Andrew County Roadway segment Improve capacity; add shoulders 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 9


Projects 46 to 60



ID Roadway

Project Sponsor /


ty

Syst

em

Man

age

me

nt

Fun

din

g

Eco

no

mic

Vit

alit

y

Acc

ess

ibili

ty, R

egi

on

alis

m

Envi

ron

me

nta

l Pro

tect

ion

,

Nat

ura

l En

viro

nm

en

t,

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n /

Lan

d U

se

Pu

blic

Invo

lve

me

nt

Co

mb

ined

Rat

ing

61 Route T / (CR 428) Andrew County CR 424 and CR 427 Extend roadway 0 1 0 1 2 2 1 7

62 E. Swenson Drive Savannah 7th Street to Route T Extend Roadway 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 12

63 Duncan Dr City of Savannah North side of Savannah Extend to connect west 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 12

64 Business 71 (Savannah) MoDOT 5th, 7th, and 10th Streets Add turning lanes, sidewalks 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 13

65 Business 71 (Savannah) MoDOTNorth from approximately

Market Street to Route E

Extend existing four-lane section;

include non-motorized facilities in

design and construction2 2 1 2 2 2 1 12

66 Highway C Andrew County Roadway segment Improve capacity, resurface & install

shoulders2 2 1 1 2 2 1 11

67 CR 366 Andrew County Business 71Connect segment between DD and

Business 711 1 0 3 2 2 2 11

68 CR 366 Andrew CountyBusiness 71 east to Route

332 Extend CR 366 eastward to connect 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 11

69 I-29 MoDOT Route DDConstruct new interchange to

accommodate future development0 0 0 1 2 1 0 4

70 US 169 MoDOT Cook Road to I-29Improve (increase capacity from 2 to

4 lanes) and modify interchange2 2 1 2 3 2 2 14

71 22nd Street (Bridge) City of St. Joseph @ Corby ParkwayReconstruct Prestressed Concreate

Arch3 3 0 0 0 2 1 9

72 US 169 MoDOT I-29 to Route FFIncrease capacity; 4-lane section

with access management3 2 1 2 2 2 1 13

73 US 169 MoDOTRoute FF to MPO

boundary


turn-lanes1 2 0 1 2 1 0 7

74 I-229 (Elevated Segment) MoDOT 4th Street to US 59 Implement recommendations from I-

229 Corridor Study2 3 3 3 3 2 3 19

75 6th Avenue (Bridge) City of St. Joseph @ King Hill Avenue Reconstruct Concreate Stringer 3 3 0 0 0 2 1 9

76 5th Avenue (Bridge) City of St. Joseph @ just west of 12th Reconstruct Reinforced Box Culvert 3 3 0 0 0 2 1 9


Projects 61 to 76



ID Roadway

Project Sponsor /


ty

Syst

em M

anag

emen

t

Fun

din

g

Eco

no

mic

Vit

alit

y

Acc

essi

bili

ty, R

egio

nal

ism

Envi

ron

men

tal P

rote

ctio

n,

Nat

ura

l En

viro

nm

ent,

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n /

Lan

d U

se

Pu

blic

Invo

lvem

ent

Wei

ghte

d S

core

1 US 36 MoDOT28th Street to I-229 / US

36 / US 59 (interchange)Mainline and ramp improvements 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.45 0.30 0.10 0.10 2.15

2 US 36 MoDOT I-29 to 28th Street Ramp and safety improvements 0.60 0.40 0.00 0.45 0.30 0.10 0.10 1.95

3 Cook Road City of St. Joseph Woodbine to Riverside


lane to 3 lane; improve vertical

alignment

0.40 0.40 0.20 0.45 0.30 0.10 0.15 2.00

4 Cook Road (Bridge) MoDOT @ I-29; east to WoodbineImprove capacity/reconstruct from 2

lane to 3 lane0.40 0.60 0.40 0.30 0.45 0.15 0.10 2.40

5 Cook Road City of St. Joseph US 169 to I-29 BridgeImprove capacity/reconstruct from 2

lane to 3 lane0.60 0.40 0.40 0.45 0.45 0.10 0.15 2.55

6 Cook Road City of St. Joseph US 59 to US 169Improve capacity/reconstruct from 2

lane to 3 lane0.60 0.60 0.40 0.45 0.45 0.10 0.15 2.75

7 Cook Road City of St. JosephSt. Joseph Avenue / US 59

to Waterworks RdConstruct new roadway 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.45 0.45 0.10 0.15 1.35

8 I-229 MoDOT Cook Road Construct new interchange 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.30 0.45 0.10 0.05 1.30

9 Gene Field Road City of St. Joseph Woodbine to RiversideImprove capacity from (3 lane

section)0.40 0.40 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.10 1.80

10 Gene Field Road (Bridge) MoDOT @ I-29 Improve bridge capacity 0.60 0.40 0.00 0.45 0.30 0.10 0.10 1.95

11 Gene Field Road City of St. Joseph Belt Hwy to Woodbine Improve capacity (3 lane section) 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.45 0.30 0.10 0.10 1.95

12I-29/I-229 and US 71

interchangeMoDOT System interchange


and traffic flow0.60 0.60 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.05 2.15

13New Airport River

Crossing

Buchanan / City of

St. Joseph / MoDOT

/ KDOT

To Be DeterminedConstruct secondary access to the

airport via Kansas.0.20 0.40 0.20 0.45 0.45 0.10 0.10 1.90


AC)MoDOT US 36 to Pickett Rd


lane to 3 lane0.20 0.40 0.20 0.30 0.45 0.10 0.15 1.80


AC)MoDOT US 36 to Route 6 Improve capacity 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.45 0.45 0.10 0.15 2.35

Projects 1 to 15

Table 4. Roadway/Freight Project Scoring (Weighted Scores)



ID Roadway

Project Sponsor /


ty

Syst

em

Man

age

me

nt

Fun

din

g

Eco

no

mic

Vit

alit

y

Acc

ess

ibili

ty, R

egi

on

alis

m

Envi

ron

me

nta

l Pro

tect

ion

,

Nat

ura

l En

viro

nm

en

t,

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n /

Lan

d U

se

Pu

blic

Invo

lve

me

nt

Wei

ghte

d S

core

16 Riverside Road City of St. Joseph Gene Field to CookImprove roadway; urban cross

section0.40 0.40 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.05 0.05 1.20

17 11th Street (Bridge) City of St. Joseph @ Parkway Drive Reconstruct Precast Concreate Arch 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.05 1.35

18 13th Street (Bridge) City of St. Joseph @ Parkway Drive Reconstruct Precast Concreate Arch 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.05 1.35

19 Huntoon Road (Bridge) City of St. Joseph @ Roys Branch Reconstruct Steel Stringer 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.05 1.35

20 Easton Road (Bridge) City of St. Joseph @ BNSF RRReconstruct Concrete Double Box

Culvert0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.05 1.35


AC)MoDOT US 36 Interchange Reconstruct, add capacity 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.45 0.30 0.10 0.10 2.55

22 I-29 MoDOT US 36 Improve interchange 0.60 0.60 0.20 0.30 0.45 0.10 0.10 2.35

23 Pickett Road City of St. Joseph Belt Highway to Riverside Improve capacity from 2 to 3 lanes 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.15 0.30 0.10 0.05 1.40

24 Mitchell Avenue (YY) MoDOTUS 169 (Belt Highway) to I-

29Widen to 3-lanes 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.10 1.40

25 Mitchell Avenue (Bridge) MoDOT @ I-29 Improve/Widen bridge to 3-lanes 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.05 0.05 1.10

26 Mitchell Avenue (YY) MoDOT 50th to Riverside Improve/Widen 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.45 0.30 0.10 0.10 1.95

27 Mitchell Avenue (YY) MoDOT Riverside to 59th Improve/Widen 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.45 0.30 0.10 0.05 1.90

28 Corporate Drive City of St. Joseph Mitchell Avenue to US 36Improve Corporate Drive; construct

connection to US 36 interchange0.20 0.40 0.20 0.45 0.45 0.15 0.05 1.90

29 Karnes Road City of St. JosephUS 169 (Bus. 29) to St.

Joseph Avenue (US 59)


shoulders; improve intersection

locations

0.40 0.20 0.00 0.15 0.30 0.05 0.05 1.15

30 Frederick Avenue City of St. Joseph 36th St. and Leonard Streetscape improvements 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.45 0.30 0.10 0.15 2.00


(continued, table 2 of 5)

Projects 16 to 30



ID Roadway

Project Sponsor /


ty

Syst

em

Man

age

me

nt

Fun

din

g

Eco

no

mic

Vit

alit

y

Acc

ess

ibili

ty, R

egi

on

alis

m

Envi

ron

me

nta

l Pro

tect

ion

,

Nat

ura

l En

viro

nm

en

t,

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n /

Lan

d U

se

Pu

blic

Invo

lve

me

nt

Wei

ghte

d S

core

31 I-29 MoDOT US 169 Reconstruct interchange 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.45 0.30 0.10 0.15 2.80

32 Easton Road City of St. JosephLeonard to east of

Riverside

Improve (rebuild horizontal/vertical

alignment as standard urban section)0.40 0.40 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.05 1.25

33 I-229 (Interchange) MoDOT @ Route AAdd ramps at interchange to

accommodate all travel movements0.40 0.40 0.00 0.45 0.45 0.10 0.15 1.95

34 I-229 (Interchange) MoDOT @ MO 752 Construct new interchange 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.05 0.05 1.10

35I-229 / US 36 / US 59

(interchange)MoDOT System interchange


and traffic flow0.60 0.60 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.05 0.05 1.90

36 MO 752 MoDOT I-229 to Highway 169 New arterial road connection 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.30 0.45 0.05 0.05 1.25

37 Lovers Lane (Bridge) City of St. Joseph @ NW Parkway Reconstruct Precast Concreate Arch 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.05 1.35

38 Alabama Street MoDOT near US 59

Improve intersection safety and

functionality; explore at-grade rail

crossing options

0.60 0.60 0.20 0.45 0.30 0.10 0.05 2.30

39 Lower Lake Road City of St. Joseph @ railroad crossing Construct grade-separation 0.20 0.40 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.05 1.35

40 New Airport Causeway

Buchanan /

Doniphan County /

Elwood

Location TBDConstruct secondary access point

to/from airport0.60 0.40 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.05 0.05 1.70

41 Rosecrans Airport Access KDOT US 36 to airport entrance Improve roadway 0.40 0.20 0.20 0.45 0.45 0.05 0.05 1.80


Improvements0.40 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.10 1.60


Improvements0.40 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.10 1.60

44Vermont Street (Elwood,

KS)City of Elwood Vermont St RR crossing

Intersection / At-Grade Rail Crossing

Improvements0.40 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.10 1.60

45 King Hill Avenue (Bridge) City of St. Joseph @ South 2nd Street Reconstruct Steel Stringer 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.05 1.35



Projects 31 to 45



ID Roadway

Project Sponsor /


ty

Syst

em M

anag

emen

t

Fun

din

g

Eco

no

mic

Vit

alit

y

Acc

essi

bili

ty, R

egio

nal

ism

Envi

ron

men

tal P

rote

ctio

n,

Nat

ura

l En

viro

nm

ent,

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n /

Lan

d U

se

Pu

blic

Invo

lvem

ent

Wei

ghte

d S

core

46 I-29 MoDOT Route O New interchange 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.15 0.30 0.05 0.00 0.70


roadway network

City of St. Joseph /

BuchananTBD


future development0.00 0.20 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.00 0.60

48 US 59 MoDOTCounty Line Road to Belt

Highway

Improve roadway geometrics;

resurface0.40 0.40 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.10 1.80

49 US 59 MoDOT Route DD Intersection improvements 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.15 0.30 0.10 0.10 1.65

50 McArthur Drive (Bridge) City of St. Joseph @ BNSF RR Reconstruct 4' Span Steel Stringer 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.05 1.35

51 Woodbine Road City of St. Joseph Gene Field and 169 Increase capacity 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.10 1.80

52 Karnes Road City of St. Joseph Leonard to WoodbineImprove (rebuild to 2-lane standard

section)0.20 0.40 0.20 0.15 0.30 0.10 0.05 1.40

53 Leonard Road City of St. Joseph Gene Field to KarnesImprove (rebuild to 2-lane standard

section)0.20 0.40 0.20 0.15 0.30 0.10 0.05 1.40

54 Bishop Road City of St. Joseph Gene Field Road to CookImprove (rebuild to 2-lane standard

section)0.20 0.40 0.20 0.15 0.30 0.10 0.05 1.40

55 US 169 MoDOT I-29 and D Improve capacity 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.15 0.30 0.10 0.00 0.75

56 CR 360 Andrew CountyOne Hundred and Two

River

Bridge to make through route to

connect 71 and 169/D0.40 0.60 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.05 0.10 1.75


roadway networkAndrew County TBD


future development0.20 0.40 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.10 1.40

58 Highway DD Andrew CountyBetween US 59 and T

(near Savannah)Upgrade segment 0.20 0.60 0.00 0.15 0.30 0.10 0.00 1.35

59 US 71 MoDOT US 59 Upgrade roadway 0.20 0.40 0.00 0.15 0.30 0.05 0.00 1.10

60 Highway T Andrew County Roadway segment Improve capacity; add shoulders 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.15 0.30 0.05 0.05 1.35



Projects 46 to 60



ID Roadway

Project Sponsor /


ty

Syst

em

Man

age

me

nt

Fun

din

g

Eco

no

mic

Vit

alit

y

Acc

ess

ibili

ty, R

egi

on

alis

m

Envi

ron

me

nta

l Pro

tect

ion

,

Nat

ura

l En

viro

nm

en

t,

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n /

Lan

d U

se

Pu

blic

Invo

lve

me

nt

Wei

ghte

d S

core

61 Route T / (CR 428) Andrew County CR 424 and CR 427 Extend roadway 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.15 0.30 0.10 0.05 0.80

62 E. Swenson Drive Savannah 7th Street to Route T Extend Roadway 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.05 1.75

63 Duncan Dr City of Savannah North side of Savannah Extend to connect west 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.15 0.30 0.10 0.10 1.65

64 Business 71 (Savannah) MoDOT 5th, 7th, and 10th Streets Add turning lanes, sidewalks 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.10 1.80

65 Business 71 (Savannah) MoDOTNorth from approximately

Market Street to Route E

Extend existing four-lane section;

include non-motorized facilities in

design and construction

0.40 0.40 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.05 1.75

66 Highway C Andrew County Roadway segment Improve capacity, resurface & install

shoulders0.40 0.40 0.20 0.15 0.30 0.10 0.05 1.60

67 CR 366 Andrew County Business 71Connect segment between DD and

Business 710.20 0.20 0.00 0.45 0.30 0.10 0.10 1.35

68 CR 366 Andrew CountyBusiness 71 east to Route

332 Extend CR 366 eastward to connect 0.20 0.40 0.20 0.15 0.30 0.10 0.10 1.45

69 I-29 MoDOT Route DDConstruct new interchange to

accommodate future development0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.30 0.05 0.00 0.50

70 US 169 MoDOT Cook Road to I-29Improve (increase capacity from 2 to

4 lanes) and modify interchange0.40 0.40 0.20 0.30 0.45 0.10 0.10 1.95

71 22nd Street (Bridge) City of St. Joseph @ Corby ParkwayReconstruct Prestressed Concreate

Arch0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.05 1.35

72 US 169 MoDOT I-29 to Route FFIncrease capacity; 4-lane section

with access management0.60 0.40 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.05 1.95

73 US 169 MoDOTRoute FF to MPO

boundary


turn-lanes0.20 0.40 0.00 0.15 0.30 0.05 0.00 1.10

74 I-229 (Elevated Segment) MoDOT 4th Street to US 59 Implement recommendations from I-

229 Corridor Study0.40 0.60 0.60 0.45 0.45 0.10 0.15 2.75

75 6th Avenue (Bridge) City of St. Joseph @ King Hill Avenue Reconstruct Concreate Stringer 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.05 1.35

76 5th Avenue (Bridge) City of St. Joseph @ just west of 12th Reconstruct Reinforced Box Culvert 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.05 1.35



Projects 61 to 76



Table 5. Project Scoring Results (Project Scoring 2.00 or Greater)



Travel Demand Modeling The travel demand model is one tool used to evaluate potential roadway/freight

improvements. The model uses future year socioeconomic data for the year 2045 as

described in Appendix D. For the purpose of the 2045 MTP update, the 2040

socioeconomic data was used (with no changes except network refinement). SJATSO

plans to update the travel model as part of the next MTP update, at which time 2020

U.S. Census data should be available to also update base year socioeconomic data.

For the most part, the travel demand model is used to evaluate the impact of more

significant regional roadway investments. For the 2045 MTP update, three projects were

evaluated:

• Cook Road improvement/extension

• New Missouri River crossing

• Removal of the I-229 elevated structure (tested in conjunction with the two previous

scenarios)

These scenarios are also compared to a 2045 base year model run. The following

summarizes the modeling process and results. These results help inform the project

evaluation process, which was summarized earlier in this appendix.

Defining Roadway Capacity Roadway capacity is generally determined by the amount of traffic that a roadway

segment can accommodate, its functional classification, and the number of lanes

(through-lanes and turn-lanes). The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) defines the

capacity of a road segment as:

“… the maximum hourly rate of flow at which persons or vehicles can

reasonably be expected to traverse a point or uniform segment of a lane or

roadway during a specific time period under prevailing roadway, traffic and

control conditions.”

Factors such as access control (or lack thereof) and on-street parking impact roadway

capacity but are generally not major factors in analyzing daily capacity—or level of

service (LOS)—at the regional level. LOS is a qualitative analysis that compares the

vehicle flow of traffic on a roadway with the capacity of the roadway. The resulting ratio,

referred to as the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio, is used to classify the LOS from “A” to

“F”, or from free-flow traffic operations to heavy congestion. General LOS definitions are

displayed in Figure 8.



Figure 8. General Level of Service Definitions

SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board.

Table 6 summarizes general roadway conditions as they correspond to V/C ratio and

LOS. For the purpose of this MTP, acceptable congestion levels correspond to LOS D,

which is generally considered approaching-capacity. In some cases, even when the

model is showing capacity concerns (LOS E or F), these issues could be the result of poor

intersection operations, and not necessarily an entire roadway segment. Stated another

way, just because some roadway segments show LOS E or F does not mean that they

necessarily require an improvement. Additional factors need to be considered to

adequately assess the appropriate action.

Table 6. Description of General Roadway Conditions

General Roadway Condition

V/C Ratio

Level of Service

No deficiency < 0.80 A, B, or C

Approaching-Capacity 0.81-0.99 D

At-Capacity 1.00-1.19 E

Over-Capacity >1.20 F

2045 Model Results The regional travel demand forecasting model produces daily traffic volumes for the

horizon year 2045. These volumes along with the roadway capacity are used to calculate

the V/C ratio, which in turn is used to identify the LOS. Figures 9 through 13 display the

potential LOS for the 2045 future year scenarios. Table 7 summarizes the LOS for five future

year scenarios. These scenarios include:

A

B

C

D

E

FREE FLOW. Low volumes and no delays.

Level of Service Description

STABLE FLOW. Speeds restricted by travel

conditions, minor delays.

STABLE FLOW. Speeds and maneuverability closely

controlled due to higher volumes.

STABLE FLOW. Speeds considerably affected by

change in operating conditions. High density traffic

restricts maneuverability, volume near capacity.

UNSTABLE FLOW. Low speeds, considerable

delay, volume at or slightly over capacity.

FORCED FLOW. Very low speeds, volumes exceed

capacity, long delays with stop-and-go traffic.F

Level of Service Description



• 2045 Base Year Scenario – existing network with 2045 socioeconomic data.

• 2045 Improvement Scenario 1 – Improved Cook Road connection, with next

roadway connecting west to tie in at a new I-229 interchange.

• 2045 Improvement Scenario 2 – Same as Scenario 1, but the I-229 elevated

structure just west of downtown St. Joseph is removed.

• 2045 Improvement Scenario 3 – Same as Scenario 1, but also includes a new

Missouri River crossing that would tie into the new I-229/Cook Road interchange.

• 2045 Improvement Scenario 4 – Same as Scenario 3, but the I-229 elevated

structure just west of downtown St. Joseph is removed.

Generally speaking, the travel model does not highlight any significant capacity

deficiencies in the SJATSO MPA. The one main area of concern is the US 36/Riverside Road

interchange area. This area along Riverside Road is currently experiencing congestion,

especially during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. As such, this location is on MoDOT’s radar

screen and is being monitored for potential capacity improvements. Furthermore, this is a

priority area identified for improvement in the MTP.

The 2045 traffic projections indicate the largest increases in traffic are expected along

regional corridors including I-29 and US 36. Based on the model projections, the I-29 corridor

could see traffic volumes approaching 50,000 vpd, with the highest volumes observed

between Mitchell Avenue and Faraon Street, which currently can reach 40,000 vpd. Traffic

along the I-29 corridor is also expected to increase in the northern portion of the study area

just north of the Andrew-Buchanan County line.

The US 36 corridor is also likely to see volumes increase. A review of recent traffic volumes

has shown increasing volumes, including increasing truck volumes as this becomes a more

important freight corridor. In all likelihood, the US 36 corridor will continue to be an

important regional corridor and the MTP highlights a long-term concept of a possible

upgrade to interstate standards. SJATSO should continue to monitor future traffic levels

along US 36 to identify potential improvements to accommodate future volumes.

In addition to the regional corridors, arterial roadways will see traffic growth over the next 25

years. The Riverside Road corridor could see increasing volumes, and roadways in the near

the County line could also see increases related to continued growth and development.

The Cook Road corridor has been identified as an important east-west connection to help

facilitate travel movement in the area. The model scenarios show this corridor potentially

carrying between 15,000 vpd to 20,000 vpd (depending on model scenario).

Potential River Crossing

As part of the Cook Road improvement, a new Missouri River crossing was coded in the

model as part of scenario 3. This scenario was developed through the MTP planning process

as a potential option to increase access to the airport and surrounding land that could be

available for redevelopment once the Air National Guard completes a move of their

facilities to the north. To reflect development near the airport, 500 employees were added

to this traffic analysis zone.



The river crossing attracted approximately 6,000 vpd. This volume is relatively encouraging,

given that no additional employment impacts beyond the airport area were considered.

Prior to the next MTP update, it might be helpful for SJATSO to conduct a more detailed

study to identify potential employment impacts a river crossing could have on the region,

and in particular in the airport area and Kansas portion of the MPA.

Table 7 shows the model results, highlighting that the potential river crossing with connection

to a new I-229/Cook Road interchange (Scenario 3) is expected to have the greatest

impact on enhancing LOS throughout the region, while the river crossing combined with

removal of the elevated I-229 structure (scenario 4) shows the greatest impact to reduce

vehicle hours of travel. As such, the new river crossing is a potential long-term improvement

worth exploring in more detail.

I-229 Elevated Structure Impacts

As documented throughout the 2045 MTP update, addressing the I-229 elevated structure is

a critical issue for the SJATSO region. Scenarios 2 and 4 include a model run that looked at

the potential impacts of removing the I-229 structure. From a high-level perspective, the

“removal” of the I-229 elevated structure could represent a concept that would replace

the structure with an at-grade facility, or could potentially use local streets to provide a

north-south connection. Regardless of the recommended I-229 action, there are regional

impacts observed on I-29 and US-36, which would see increased traffic volumes as a result

of some travel patterns shifting away from I-229. Scenario 4, which includes a new river

crossing connecting to Cook Road, would also see an increase of approximately 800 vpd to

1,000 vpd on the bridge crossing (bringing the total to approximately 7,000 vpd). The I-229

EA is currently studying traffic impacts associated with a select number of concepts. The

results of the EA should be incorporated into future MTP updates.



Table 7. Miles of Congestion

Table 8. Vehicle Hours of Travel and Vehicle Miles of Travel

2015 Base Year 7.3 1.1 0.8 9.2 - - - -

2045 (E+C) Base Year 19.6 4.6 3.4 27.6 - - - -

2045 Scenario 1 17.8 4.4 3.1 25.3 -1.8 -0.2 -0.3 -2.3

2045 Scenario 2 19.5 4.9 3.6 28.0 -0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4

2045 Scenario 3 15.3 3.7 3.0 22.0 -4.3 -0.9 -0.4 -5.6

2045 Scenario 4 17.3 3.7 3.1 24.1 -2.3 -0.9 -0.3 -3.5

SOURCE: SJATSO Travel Demand Model

Total

Miles of Level of Service Change (compared to 2045 Base)

LOS D LOS E LOS F TotalScenario LOS D LOS E LOS F

2015 Base Year 2,352,546 45,366 - -

2045 (E+C) Base Year 2,779,811 55,926 - -

2045 Scenario 1 2,780,405 55,865 594 (61)

2045 Scenario 2 2,767,878 56,173 (11,933) 247

2045 Scenario 3 2,772,028 55,732 (7,783) (194)

2045 Scenario 4 2,761,815 55,996 (17,996) 70

SOURCE: SJATSO Travel Demand Model

ScenarioVehicle Miles

of Travel

Vehicle Hours

of Travel

Total Network Change (compared to 2045 Base)Vehicle Miles of

Travel

Vehicle Hours of

Travel



Figure 9. 2045 Base Year Level of Service



Figure 10. 2045 Scenario 1 Level of Service

Cook Road

Improvement,

with I-229

Interchange

Roadway Improvement




Cook Road

Improvement,

with I-229

Interchange

(I-229 Elevated

Structure

Removed)

X

Roadway Improvement




Cook Road

Improvement,

with I-229

Interchange,

and New River

Crossing

Roadway Improvement




Cook Road

Improvement,

with I-229

Interchange,

and New River

Crossing

(I-229 Elevated

Structure

Removed)

X

Roadway Improvement

Documents

Appendix G - City of St. Joseph, MO